17:00:07 #startmeeting cwg -- http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Community_Working_Group 17:00:07 Meeting started Tue Apr 26 17:00:07 2011 UTC. The chair is bpepple. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 17:00:07 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 17:00:10 #meetingname cwg 17:00:10 The meeting name has been set to 'cwg' 17:00:19 ping nirik mjg59 rbergeron red_alert 17:00:28 #topic roll call 17:00:39 * red_alert 17:01:22 * nirik is around. 17:02:44 * jsmith lurks 17:03:02 rbergeron will be here shortly, I'm sure 17:03:12 * bpepple waits another few minutes to see if rbergeron & mjg59 show up. 17:04:27 i'll brt 17:04:32 * rbergeron is on her way 17:04:34 sorry 17:04:44 rbergeron: no worries. 17:04:50 #info red_alert nirik bpepple rbergeron present 17:05:16 #topic Feedback to Enforcement guidelines 17:05:35 * rbergeron still has this meeting showing up at the wrong time and fixes it now 17:05:47 ok, it looks like there were a couple of replies to rbergeron's e-mail. 17:06:12 and looks like the Board just discussed it too. 17:06:18 bpepple: For what it's worth, the Board just made some recommendations in their public IRC meeting (just wrapping up in #fedodra-board-meeting) 17:07:08 jsmith: cool. is there a public log somewhere that I could glance at real quick? 17:07:48 bpepple: There will be very shortly.... 17:07:55 * rbergeron can't remember how to look at logs in progress offhand 17:07:55 Hi 17:07:56 * jsmith is trying to wrap up the meeting 17:07:56 it's basically s/CWG/Board/ and also throw out the long term delegate part - if I understood correctly 17:08:04 red_alert: That's a great summary 17:08:09 Sorry, still screwy with the timing 17:08:15 (that applies to the enforcement, the coc itself was accepted as-is) 17:08:17 mjg59: no worries. 17:08:22 s/CWG/Board/ on the last paragraph of the Enforcement section 17:08:55 jsmith: that pretty much makes the CWG a finite term group then, right? 17:09:25 bpepple: Yes :-/ 17:09:37 And to be honest, I'm torn 17:09:38 well, it could mean CWG is a policy/advisory group more than a mediation/enforcement one. 17:09:53 I love the idea of the policy and advisory role 17:10:05 but the enforcement (especially for serious offenses) needs to come from FPL/Board 17:10:13 hmmm. mixed feelings about that. if that was going to be the case, the board should have probably written the coc/enforcement stuff, imo. 17:10:28 And we're really talking about so few cases, it's really probably a moot point anyway 17:11:25 I think it was decided that the board will decide whether the CWG is to be dissolved anytime soon or not during their next meeting - so let's wait for that before speculating too much here ;) 17:11:30 I've got no problem with the board choosing to take that responsibility 17:11:44 * rbergeron nods 17:11:51 so, since the board has already decided on the one point that was discussed on the list, is there anything we need to discuss here? 17:12:16 The Board would like you to update the text, and then we'll take our formal vote on May 10th 17:12:27 (this will give folks a little while to comment on the updated text) 17:12:33 Sounds fair 17:12:41 The board will forward their version? 17:13:26 bpepple: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-board-meeting/2011-04-26/fedora_board.2011-04-26-16.00.html 17:15:07 so we s/CWG/Board/, resubmit it to the board and meet again in 2 weeks to see whether the board approved the hopefully final version? 17:15:53 frankly, it sounds like its already been decided to dissolve the cwg, and I question the need for another meeting. 17:16:47 bpepple: I guess we should formally submit the wording to the board 17:16:59 If we can do that without another meeting then that works for me 17:17:55 mjg59: agreed, but I think doing another meeting will be a waste of everyone's time. 17:18:05 Fair enough 17:18:21 anyone disagree? 17:18:27 * nirik has nothing. 17:18:40 * rbergeron nods 17:19:03 I think we can arrange one, and if there is no need, cancel. 17:19:04 how about we wait for the board to actually dissolve the cwg before we consider it dissolved? 17:19:17 I think that sounds reasonable. 17:19:54 that's fine. 17:20:07 like let's resubmit the changed text and ask the board to decide on the cwg's future together with approving the coc/enforcement 17:20:44 who wants to submitt the changed text to the board? 17:20:46 of course, no need to meet next week, if the board will only just decide anything in two weeks time :) 17:21:40 bpepple: the ticket is private, so only rbergeron actually can :) if rbergeron is short in time, I can make the changes to the text, though...they're rather small anyway AFAICS 17:22:59 ok. 17:23:04 ;) 17:23:15 i'll update the ticket, if someone else wants to make the changes. 17:23:22 i am like heinously short on time. 17:23:56 ok 17:24:14 * bpepple thinks it would have been nice if the board would have told us that this was on there agenda since I might have actually attended the meeting, but oh well. 17:24:38 anyway, that's all I've got and we can probably end the meeting. 17:25:06 bpepple: I should have reached out and given you a bigger heads-up 17:25:57 bpepple: I've been under the gun trying to get things ready for RH Summit, so I apologize for dropping the ball 17:26:30 jsmith: yeah, I'm a little perturbed since the Board seemed to have undercut the CWG role without even informing us, and frankly if I had know that was how it would have been handled I wouldn't have wasted my time the last few months working on this group. 17:26:47 bpepple: That wasn't an intentional decision 17:26:52 anyway, enough venting from me. ;) 17:27:16 bpepple: We've talked about it several times in Board meetings, and decided that we'd hold off until the CWG was done with their current work 17:27:17 I know. 17:27:41 anyway, I don't want to take my frustrations out on you. 17:27:48 bpepple: It only came up in today's meeting that if we replace CWG with Board in the last section of the enforcement draft, that the CWG would have little to work on moving forward 17:28:10 bpepple: Like I said earlier, I'm torn on it -- I think the CWG is valuable and worthwhile to have 17:28:48 bpepple: But I also feel strongly that the enforcement side of things (at a minimum, for serious infractions) needs to remain with the FPL and Board 17:30:58 jsmith: I disagree, since I think the Board does a good job of big issue/idea stuff, but when it comes to the smaller/detail decisions it tends to handle them poorly, imo. 17:31:40 I think that's a pretty fair statement 17:31:53 I'd love more input (offline, of course) on how we can improve 17:32:18 anyway, I don't really want to rehash the discussion you guys had at the board meeting. I'm not happy with the decision, but I can live with it. ;) 17:33:03 Please feel free to bring it up on the advisory-board list for discussion 17:33:10 will do. 17:33:13 My intent is not to rush anything :-) 17:33:22 ok, I'll really end the meeting now. 17:33:45 #endmeeting