17:00:02 #startmeeting IRC Support SIG (2012-02-09) 17:00:02 Meeting started Thu Feb 9 17:00:02 2012 UTC. The chair is nirik. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 17:00:02 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 17:00:03 #meetingname irc-support-sig 17:00:03 The meeting name has been set to 'irc-support-sig' 17:00:03 #topic init process 17:00:10 tatica, hey back 17:00:25 tatica: the irc support sig. ;) 17:00:33 * N3LRX 17:00:34 * DiscordianUK is present 17:00:43 * EvilBob 17:01:01 oka, perfect thx 17:01:42 ok, lets go ahead and start in. Lets look at the past week first... 17:01:45 #topic Week in review 17:01:45 http://fedora.theglaserfamily.org/ircstats/fedora-weekly.html 17:02:13 seemed busier this week for some reason... but nothing stands out. 17:02:54 * Southern_GMan 17:02:58 That#s scary I'm at #1 17:03:09 DiscordianUK: congrats. or something. ;) 17:03:44 something 17:04:01 ok, if nothing on review, moving on... 17:04:03 #topic Tickets 17:04:03 https://fedorahosted.org/irc-support-sig/report/1 17:04:06 no tickets this week. 17:04:25 #topic more formal processes 17:04:54 so, we have a proposal on the list that has gotten some positive feedback... 17:05:11 basically my proposal #3 + a change from N3LRX 17:05:32 The so-called v4? 17:05:35 Things look good but there is room for improvement/clarification 17:05:37 yeah. 17:06:07 I've been quite busy with other things and have not had time to draft things out 17:06:14 I like the look of that 17:06:19 so, how about we do this: accept this for now, get it installed in the wiki... then we can adjust from there using it's own process? 17:06:26 +1 17:06:32 +1 17:06:37 that would also let us start adding people if we want, or changing things. 17:06:48 it's at least a starting point. 17:07:00 +1 17:07:01 The big thing I see is all 4 channels are lumped in to one when really they are not 17:07:05 yeah a good starting point 17:07:20 4? 17:07:30 EvilBob: yeah, I wanted simple... I can agree they are different. 17:07:48 There are the main 2 and this 17:07:59 I don't count -unreg 17:08:01 We have end user channels(#fedora and #fedora-social) and we have administrative channels (#fedora-ops and #fedora-unregistered) 17:08:25 yeah 17:09:04 but if we want to adjust this to split those out somehow we can... 17:09:07 I think putting this in place with out clearing some of this up is a mistake 17:09:18 but I'd like to get something done. ;) 17:09:18 But -ops is also for other Fedora channel ops too 17:09:45 DiscordianUK: but that is questionable 17:09:45 DiscordianUK: how so? 17:09:53 DiscordianUK: that is what 17:10:12 The #fedora-ops channel is for coordinating between operators of the other 3 channels. 17:11:03 well and we have people from #fedora-fr too 17:11:07 or to add the rest of the paragraph: 17:11:09 Operators in those 3 channels are welcome to join and idle in #fedora-ops. Other folks can be 17:11:09 allowed by nomination from an op and a second from any other 17:11:09 operator. Those not in the above 2 groups are welcome to join and 17:11:10 discuss an issue or concern with the other 3 channels, but will be 17:11:10 asked to then depart after their issue or concern is noted. 17:11:25 yeah I read that 17:11:31 I'm +1 17:11:58 so, other people can be added when their input is needed/welcome/desired. 17:12:10 Yes indeed 17:13:25 so, anyhow... I'd like to at least start from here. If we want to adjust it for the other channels, we can down the road. I'd like to think we can get _something_ done in a month. 17:13:46 -1 from me 17:14:02 I don't think that the proposal is clear enough 17:14:22 sorry to hear it. 17:14:46 more things need to be fleshed out before putting it in to place because once it is in place it will be a pain to fix it 17:15:06 it would just be a vote on the changes, no? 17:15:11 "Oh we can fix it later" never works 17:15:44 well, "must fix before we put it in place" hasn't worked to stellar either. ;) 17:15:46 The proposals have been on the table for weeks 17:16:14 There is no reason we can't work on it for another week or 3 and make it better. 17:16:53 the problem is that we lose energy, and in the end things peter off and we don't get anything done. 17:17:10 I'd be ok with working on it more if we have a fricking deadline. 17:17:56 I also think just setting this and changing it if it needs changes would be not so horrible 17:18:11 I can +1 the deadline idea then everyone is on the same page 17:18:20 I think we should adopt v4 now 17:18:36 and set a deadline to revise it within a timeframe 17:18:54 I disagree more with V4 than I do with V3 17:19:05 how about another week? if no changes we adopt. 17:19:26 That seems reasonable 17:19:55 I disagree with anyone nominating people for the sig to deal with, there is no reason that an existing op should not be required to sponsor someone before the SIG as a whole has to deal with them. 17:20:51 * nirik doesn't think it matters much. 17:21:15 if someone nominates who is unknown by the existing voters, they would not vote for them. 17:22:05 anyone else care to weigh in on waiting a week? 17:22:13 How about we work more on this final vot on March 1 17:22:24 I've read on v3 but where was v4? 17:22:33 Khaytsus: Kinda 17:22:47 Khaytsus: amendment to v3 17:22:51 Is v4 a delta on v3 I missed? 17:22:57 Khaytsus: v3 + one change... to allow anyone to nominate 17:23:00 k 17:23:46 I'd really prefer to pass something sooner than march 1st. We should be able to at least have something as a framework that we adjust. Trying to make it perfect and account for everything is going to lead us to never getting anything in place. 17:24:28 Looks fine to me. I assume "we don't need any ops currently" is a valid voting reason. 17:24:33 if we must defer I suggest we set a deadline for next week 17:24:38 I just feel there are a lot of things here that need to be looked at and dealt with line by line not grouped in to a big proposal allowing details to be missed. 17:25:10 EvilBob: please feel free to start threads on specific issues you have with specific parts. 17:25:33 I've said that before and I suggested it in a previous meeting that the items be split apart for discussion' 17:25:48 It shouldn't have to be overly complex. 17:26:02 Does it need to be? I don't think so.. Clearly EvilBob thinks so.. 17:26:36 Khaytsus: Problem is that it is complex and will be even more so if it is not cleared up and simplified now. 17:26:39 if you wish to discuss a small section, start a thread on that? 17:26:46 * nirik doesn't get the issue there. 17:27:11 Yes, split it out, define what's complex and needs more detail. But IMO we don't need Section XXI Paragraph 15 Section B to define who a voter is. 17:28:45 If it would help, I'd be happy to repost a v4 to avoid any confusion... and discussion can take place from there. 17:29:00 The plan for now is frame work. If stated so I don't see a problem with making changes down the road. 17:30:00 I suppose the only wrinkle there is if voting members change... so some people would vote not to change their voting status. 17:30:07 Work on it for another week, see where we are at, absolute deadline of the 1st? 17:30:22 nirik: right 17:30:22 I'm ok with another week, we can revisit then. 17:30:39 but I'm getting impatient to actually have something in place. ;) 17:30:50 Put out v4, EvilBob can take it apart and point out the concerns, we can discuss. 17:31:13 #info will allow another week for comment/changes to the current proposal. Will revisit next week. 17:31:23 #topic Open Floor 17:31:27 anything for open floor? 17:32:27 * nirik will close out in a minute if nothing more comes up 17:32:51 #endmeeting