18:00:04 #startmeeting cwg -- http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Community_Working_Group 18:00:04 Meeting started Tue Feb 8 18:00:04 2011 UTC. The chair is bpepple. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 18:00:04 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 18:00:11 * nirik waves 18:00:12 #meetingname cwg 18:00:12 The meeting name has been set to 'cwg' 18:00:37 hellloooooooo. 18:00:41 * red_alert is here 18:02:29 #info red_alert nirik bpepple rbergeron present 18:02:45 #topic COC Draft 18:02:57 * nirik looks over whats currently in the wiki again. 18:03:45 here's a link for anyone else wanting to look at it: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Community_working_group/Code_of_Conduct_Draft 18:03:55 that's what i was looking for ;) 18:04:15 * bpepple gives folks a couple of minutes to review it. 18:04:17 * red_alert made some last minute changes...hope that's what we discussed last time 18:06:12 in the last sentence. s/learning/learn/ 18:06:55 feel free to change whatever I wrote into English ;) 18:07:19 red_alert: no worries. I'll change it here in a sec. 18:07:27 anyone else have any suggestions for it? 18:08:12 * nirik isn't sure it will get us too much further than 'be excellent', but otherwise it look ok. 18:09:29 I may have some grammatical nitpicking, but otherwise I agree with nirik's statement ;) 18:10:23 I'd go for adopting KDE COC's, but I understand other folks wish to keep it simple, so I'm fine with the proposed draft. 18:11:36 so, whats the next steps? ask board to take a look? 18:11:38 bpepple: I figure we can make it more complicated if it turns out KISS doesn't work here :) 18:11:45 Is anyone opposed to using this for our COC? Is it time we submit it to the board or community for feedback? 18:12:02 * bpepple sees nirik asked the same thing. 18:12:22 red_alert: agreed. 18:12:49 I think the first thing that everyone is going to ask is "how is it going to be enforced" 18:13:02 so it might be smart of us to anticipate that question and actually have an answer. 18:13:14 * nirik is fine with asking the board for feedback, if it's positive there, I would like to ask for more wide community feedback (perhaps with a 'we will vote on this in x weeks, so let us know') 18:13:29 rbergeron: we discussed this a couple of time, we just need to put it up on the wiki. 18:13:48 yeah, I think I might have said I would make such a thing on the wiki, but didn't get around to it. ;( 18:13:50 nirik: sounds good to me. 18:14:06 My thought would be: 18:14:31 1) enforcement should take place first in whatever management the forum/resource has (mailing list admin, channel operator, etc) 18:15:02 2) if there is disagreement or issues, ask for mediation (from us? from board?) 18:15:23 3) buck stops somewhere, final decision is made, issue ends. 18:16:08 but we could flesh out that before we move more on CoC if folks would prefer. 18:16:14 Would it make sense to add a note to be mindful that people from different countries may have different speaking/writing patterns? 18:17:00 Wait why do I keep thinking this meeting is Thursday 18:17:11 Seems that a lot of small misunderstandings about stuff like that adds up to people being angry with each other 18:17:42 ricky: not a bad suggestion. 18:17:49 ricky: Yes, first step should always be just to ensure it's not miscommunication 18:19:02 yeah, one of the blowups back in December was due to a misunderstanding about a joke. 18:19:45 info mjg59 present 18:19:50 #info mjg59 present 18:19:50 Which should be step 1 in the enforcement procedure 18:22:05 nirik: do you still want to try to put something up on the wiki in regard to the enforcement procedure? 18:22:11 bpepple: sure. 18:22:18 * nirik is writing right now. ;) 18:22:37 i think that reminding people of self-enforcement and taking responsibility upon oneself to resolve conflicts is a very good idea. 18:22:42 #action nirik will start putting the enforcement procedure on the wiki. 18:22:59 rather than going straight to step 1 as nirik listed - look to thyself for figuring out the problem :) 18:23:09 rbergeron: +1 18:24:30 yeah, perhaps you can cut off the problem before it becomes too much of one. 18:26:10 alright, so should we maybe plan on submitting the COC to the board next week sometime (assuming we've got the enforcement procedure draft on the wiki)? 18:26:36 sure. 18:26:49 yeah, how about we work on the enforcement and if it looks good next week, we submit it and CoC after next weeks meeting? 18:26:50 Sounds good 18:26:51 * rbergeron will apply some grammar lovin over the next day or two. 18:27:03 nirik: sounds good to me. 18:27:14 agreed 18:27:41 +1 18:28:22 #action after reviewing the enforcement procedure draft, plan on submitting the COC to the Board after next week's meeting. 18:28:39 so, if someone feels whatever place they tried to get an issue solved didn't work, where do they escalate? 18:28:43 ie, 18:28:53 person to person (try and solve yourself) 18:29:09 person to forum moderator (irc op, mailing list owner, etc) 18:29:22 where can they go from there? to us? or the board ? or ? 18:29:59 * nirik thinks someday of CWG disbanding, so not sure we want to live forever as a moderator panel. 18:30:09 I think us, with us referring to the board if we think there's a problem? 18:30:25 Where "us" is "this group", not inherently us 18:30:26 I would lean to us, rather than the board. 18:30:49 +1 "us" 18:30:58 ok, and if they don't like our decision, they can go to the board? 18:31:09 Yeah 18:32:55 probably...not sure if the board feels like this tho 18:33:19 well, the buck has to stop somewhere. 18:33:36 ok, vuage and needing work outline: 18:33:38 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Community_working_group/CoC_Enforcement 18:33:42 yeah, I'm a little leery of pushing it to the board, since I feel a lot of group push stuff to them that they really should be handling themselves. 18:33:51 s/group/groups/ 18:34:22 I'd expect the board to generally defer except in especially weird cases 18:34:26 well, if we decide that we are the place the buck stops, we should make that clear and also get the Board to bless that. 18:34:46 and if the board is the place where the buck stops, we need to make sure that they want to accept that responsibility :) 18:34:46 because if we don't, anyone who doesn't like something we decide will just default to asking the board. 18:35:27 right. this is something we probably need to discuss with them, possibly when the look at the COC draft. 18:35:41 * nirik nods. 18:35:45 yea 18:36:00 Sure 18:36:50 * bpepple reads nirik's draft for a second. 18:37:37 it needs lots of work. I just wanted to throw something outline like out there. 18:38:08 nirik: cool, I'll give it a more serious read later today. 18:38:25 ok, so is there anything else to discuss this week? Or should we start to wrap it up? 18:38:34 I think we have a plan 18:38:35 I think it might be good if we could add suggestions in all the areas... ie, things to try... 18:39:15 nirik: not a bad idea. 18:39:46 and pointers how to contact forum maintainers, etc. 18:39:47 btw, did everyone get to read Spot's blog entry from today? 18:39:57 yes. An excellent post. 18:40:03 Yes 18:40:08 yes. 18:40:28 not really something actionable per say, but I thought it was worth pointing out, since I think a lot of folks feel the same way. 18:42:01 anyway, I think we can put a fork in this meeting, and plan on tweaking the enforcement policy before next week's meeting. 18:42:32 sounds good. 18:42:35 Thanks, everyone! 18:42:40 #endmeeting