22:00:40 #startmeeting FAmSCo 2012-04-11 22:00:40 Meeting started Wed Apr 11 22:00:40 2012 UTC. The chair is cwickert. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 22:00:40 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 22:00:49 #meetingname famsco 22:00:49 The meeting name has been set to 'famsco' 22:02:45 any famsco members here? 22:02:47 .fas herlo 22:02:48 herlo: herlo 'Clint Savage' 22:03:14 * nb is lurking (but is not member) 22:03:25 kaio is not here 22:03:32 y1nv is not either 22:03:41 so is igor 22:04:04 gbraad doesn't want to surpise us 22:04:25 and Zoltan is at work 22:04:31 this is disappointing 22:05:25 cwickert: I know that some did send regrets 22:06:35 It was zoltan and igor for sure. Other's may have as well. 22:07:01 though it seemed like they may just be late 22:07:25 herlo: it was only Zoltan and Igor 22:07:32 Igor said he'll come later 22:07:40 chair herlo kaio cwickert 22:07:43 #chair herlo kaio cwickert 22:07:43 Current chairs: cwickert herlo kaio 22:07:46 hi 22:07:56 .fas me@kaio 22:07:56 kaio: kaio 'Caius Chance (かいお)' 22:08:12 hi kaio 22:08:30 3 people is not a quorum 22:09:10 we can wait a little while 22:09:52 well, for me it is past midnight and I have to work tomorrow 22:10:15 therefor I don't like waiting 22:10:22 I just came back from work and will be zombie mode soon 22:11:11 cwickert: I was only meaning for those who sent that they would be late. I don't mind waiting, but I'm happy to do whatever you guys would like to do. 22:11:58 maybe rethink the quorum requirement while you wait :) 22:12:49 maybe have more active people on FAmSCo, then we don't need to think about a quorum 22:12:50 cwickert: one thing we can do without a quorum is hear what inode0 has to say about the election rules. He and I had a long discussion about this the other day. 22:13:19 speaking about the election rules 22:13:29 all we need there is for people to reply to cwickert's email - it is completely your decision 22:14:03 we don't even need that at this point since no one did I'm ready to throw in the towel 22:14:14 kaio: why didn't you reply to my email? 22:14:22 cwickert: which email 22:14:32 the one to famsco list 22:14:51 kaio: "New FAmSCo election rules - please confirm" 22:15:20 maybe I was not explicit enough 22:16:18 oh I haven't seen a question mark so I didn't expect I have to reply 22:17:13 kaio: to be blunt do you understand the seat you were elected to for 2 releases last November will expire after only 1 release under these rules? 22:17:32 That is all I want to be sure everyone understood, especially those directly affected. 22:18:09 after I read cwickert 's email, I understand. then I felt bizarre 22:18:56 * cwickert wonders what is so hard to understand about it 22:19:46 well, it is almost incomprehensible to be as it nullifies the results of the last election but that is a difference in political perspective I suppose 22:19:53 replacing half of famsco committee may be reasonable to me, but why the vote results from the last election can be brought over to decide whose seat should be reelected? 22:20:47 why it doesn't just begin with the next regularly scheduled election with new rules is what I don't understand - then there is no nullification of past results 22:20:49 so who was elected in last election have been marked "you are 2nd grade committee"? 22:20:56 * cwickert cannot parse the second half of the kaio's sentence 22:21:22 kaio: it has nothing to do with 2nd grade 22:21:37 we need to find a way to make the transition 22:21:48 and this requires that some people only serve half time 22:21:48 the vote amounts were done in the end of last year, and IMO it should not be re-used for this election. 22:22:07 sorry, I don't understand 22:22:12 nothing is reused 22:22:26 I don't understand also. 22:22:26 * herlo thinks he might get what kaio is trying to say. 22:22:51 Eseentially, kiao may have meant 'second class citizen' with regard to the shortening of his term. 22:22:57 if this is a special case for transition, let's re-elect for all seats 22:23:00 kaio: is that close to what you meant? 22:23:03 herlo: I got that part 22:23:09 k 22:23:29 kaio: where is the benefit? 22:23:36 fairness 22:23:50 it's a similar argument to what inode0 has stated above 22:23:52 what does it have to do with fairness? 22:23:59 * inode0 thought was fesco did and what famsco planned to do was at the next election have all 7 seats open, with the 4 highest vote getters having 2 release terms and the others only 1 22:24:24 take the results of last election = wipe performance of the half term everyone served 22:24:45 again I don't understand kaio 22:24:49 kaio: or move the election to the normal term and do it during F17 instead 22:25:17 cwickert: he's saying just have everyone end their term at the end of this release and do the vote for everyone. Some for 1 release terms and some for 2 release terms 22:25:19 F17 was the last election 22:25:30 at least that was my interpretation 22:25:38 inode0: do you mean 'through' F17? 22:25:56 no, I mean the "F17 elections" were last November 22:26:22 We are about to have the F18 elections 22:26:29 inode0: is that based upon when the codename was determined or something? I would think the F17 elections haven't happened yet 22:26:33 herlo: but if we let everybody finish his term and then again have all seats subject to the election, we are not making a switch either 22:26:59 cwickert: you can if you do what fesco did as I just explained 22:27:19 cwickert: I'm with you as long as the others who are affected are on board with it 22:27:29 the bottom half in that election get 1 release terms for the transition 22:27:34 cwickert: I'm only explaining kaio's point. 22:27:37 inode0: ????? 22:27:46 IMO everyone should have a term of 2 releases, but with half of them start and end in even release num, and half of them start and end in odd release num. 22:28:05 the main point here is this only is going to happen once. 22:28:13 So everyone runs again for famsco in the F19 election as normal except there is a new rule for the transition 22:28:13 kaio: yes, that is the plan 22:28:26 kaio: in the future everybody will serve a year. you understood that, right? 22:28:30 the 4 high vote getters are seated for 2 releases, the bottom 3 for only 1 release 22:28:43 then beginning with the F20 elections half is up each release 22:28:48 but this transition still need to be fair 22:29:17 inode0: where is the difference from the voters POV? 22:29:31 kaio: fairness is in the eye of the beholder. If you don't like the terms we set forth, please speak up. These guidelines have been discussed several times before. 22:29:32 between that and what is suggested now? 22:29:49 inode0: yes 22:30:01 for one thing it honors the result of the election rather than throwing half of it out 22:30:03 inode0: for them it's just that the shift happens later 22:30:20 inode0: you could say the very same thing about the next election 22:30:34 at some point we need to "throw half of the people out" 22:30:34 no, because the new rules would apply to all who ran 22:30:57 cwickert: not quite true. If we wait until the later election, it would be defined as such and not be changed as we are trying to now. This is inode0's point. 22:31:04 are we quorum now? 22:31:09 no 22:31:09 kaio: no 22:31:20 we are only discussing things, no voting 22:31:25 and we will never reach a quorum if we don't change the election guidelines 22:31:37 this is why I want to change sooner than later 22:32:07 you can change the definition of a quorum so you can do business as soon as you get a quorum I think 22:32:18 why the election guidelines changed, there will be a quorum? 22:32:34 inode0: no, according to your logic we cannot 22:32:51 kaio: because it includes new rules about filling vacant seats 22:33:12 the quorum has nothing to do with respecting my vote in an election 22:33:50 inode0: as I understood you you were complaining about changing the guidelines after the election, right? 22:33:55 that is just an administrative detail and you can change it without offending me at all :) 22:34:36 inode0: was that an answer to my question? 22:34:41 you can change the election rules all you want - they just should take effect after the following election and should not nullify the last election 22:34:44 cwickert: I think if there had been a communication happening, better results can be achieved even. 22:35:15 inode0: ++ 22:35:52 all changes may be applied on next term 22:35:53 inode0: ok, but the very same could be said for the quorum. if we change the rules for achieving a quorum, we cannot do it in this term but rather in the next term. 22:36:19 kaio: all changes applied next term means we will not be able to fill vacant seats in this term 22:36:22 I didn't vote about a quorum - it is unrelated to me 22:36:49 * kaio still reckon a communication is better than fixing the a running term. 22:36:54 you can fill vacant seats under the current rules 22:37:06 inode0: no 22:37:09 yes 22:37:18 just call an election 22:37:20 that would not be fair to somebody who was removed 22:37:41 ok, you might choose not to do it but the rules allow you to do it 22:37:46 because he was elected under other guidelines that don't had the removal clause 22:37:49 cutting a term in the mid way is the true unfair more IMO 22:37:55 there is a removal cluse 22:38:03 hold on everybody 22:38:20 please let me explain and don't interrupt me for a moment, ok? 22:39:02 1. We agreed on shifting from a yearly election of all members to half-yearly of half of the members for more consistency 22:39:20 2. This means *at some point* we need to "throw people out" 22:39:56 throw out the people who don't show up and stuff 22:40:21 don't throw out people that do, like kaio 22:40:32 pleaaaseee 22:40:45 nb: pls let cwickert explain 22:41:01 we do not really throw people out but they need to re-run for the elections 22:41:14 and if they did god work they will get re-elected 22:41:20 but back to what I wanted to say 22:41:55 3. If people need to run for re-election, then it is the best to keep the people who got the most votes in the elections, because these are the people who most ambassadors wanted to have in FAmSCo 22:42:25 this being said I see no difference if we do the switch now or later, at least not from the perspective of the voters 22:42:50 from the perspective of a member that has to re-run for election one can say it is unfair 22:43:07 but if all people affected by this agree, then I don't see a problem 22:43:22 and if they did good work, they will be re-elected 22:43:31 and even server longer than the others 22:43:38 EOF 22:43:55 1. is all I agree with in all of that 22:44:10 http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FESCo_election_policy#Digest 22:44:19 inode0: how would you make the switch then? 22:44:22 think about how fesco did it, it is explained there 22:44:43 I would do it just like fesco did it as I have said about 10 times now 22:44:55 inode0: they did the same, the only thing is that the change was before the elections 22:45:13 and the people were aware that they might need to step down after 6 months 22:45:14 no, you aren't seeing the difference 22:45:26 we copied the sentence literally 22:45:34 how can there be a difference? 22:45:42 they began with a full election where everyone knew the transition rules 22:45:47 1. there is always a way can be done before using the past results as the base 22:46:09 inode0: yes, that's what I just said 22:46:22 but you haven't proposed that for famsco 22:46:42 such as asking "who wants to go now?" if there are 2-3 member want to go, there is no need to waste time for re-election 22:46:45 inode0: in fact I did, but we talked about this so long 22:47:12 kaio: we need a re-election anyway because we *want* to have it 22:47:43 point 3 also doesn't follow from range voting 22:48:00 but I can't imagine any other basis to use 22:48:11 kaio: and do you think that "who wants to go" is fair for the people who votes? They voted who not should go by giving them the most votes 22:48:17 2. so the ones who are elected in this re-election, they will serve next 2 releases, and the members didn't need to be in re-election, will be gone by end of this year? 22:48:21 s/vote/voted 22:49:02 kaio: unless the next version of famsco changes the rules so something else applies before that happens 22:49:12 kaio: 1. everybody can run for re-election. 22:49:43 whether or not you are *re*elected does not depend on the timing of the elections but on the fact if you have run already or not 22:50:06 kaio: all run this election top vote getters are elected for 2 releases lower half run for 2 releases 22:50:22 next electiion 22:50:31 kk4ewt: Uh 22:50:46 still the same question: why the past results should be re-used? 22:50:48 that's actually not what I understood, but we could do this, too 22:51:03 kaio: why should they 22:51:12 kaio: if we do as kk4ewt proposed we cont re-use anything 22:51:28 all seats this election puts everyone on the same ground 22:51:38 inode0: were you trying to say the same as kk4ewt? 22:51:48 not quite 22:51:55 cwickert: which is the exact samething fesco did 22:52:06 kk4ewt: yes, I think so 22:52:06 if you have any regular election in F18 you nullify the results of the F17 election 22:52:15 but inode0 said fesco did something different 22:52:25 if you wait until F19 and do it as fesco did I am happy 22:52:54 inode0: this basically renders FAmSCo useless till F19 22:53:05 cwickert: why 22:53:25 if you say we cannot use the new guidelines until all people are elected again 22:53:29 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FAmSCo_election_rules#Members 22:53:34 we cannot use parts of the new guidelines 22:53:40 assume the 3 seats that are going to be re-elected, it implies that such 3 members are less preferred by FAms before-and-after the half term, regardless their performance in such period 22:53:41 also that explains how to remove famsco members currently 22:53:51 and this means we cannot use the new "filling vacant seats" rules 22:54:14 you call an election at your discretion to fill any vacant seat 22:54:27 but I can only vote for one seat 22:54:31 so? 22:54:40 then vote for the vacant seat only 22:54:42 if there is only one vacant seat yes 22:54:45 that is what we should do in this term 22:55:13 inode0: no, we cannot even declare a seat vacant until somebody officially steps down 22:55:23 you can 22:55:31 BTW, cwickert have you contacted gbraad? 22:55:33 Members can be removed from the committee for misconduct by the Fedora Project Board or by an absolute majority vote of the FAmSCo. 22:55:53 kaio: yes, and you received the mail, too. 22:56:34 inode0: but we are having a hard time to get the absolute majority 22:56:48 I got the email too, but didn't received any further follow up 22:56:51 cwickert: has there been any calls for a vote 22:57:24 kk4ewt: no, because we have not yet had contact with the person in question, at least we received no reply 22:57:40 then thats all you can do 22:57:45 * inode0 can't imagine how this is not misconduct 22:57:46 cwickert: why don't you just ask him a simple question, "Do you still want to be in FAmSCo?" 22:57:57 I did that 22:57:58 say such and such day there will be a vote to remove them 22:58:39 cwickert: i make the motion that someone on FAMSCO makes a motion that the first meeting in 22:58:49 in the email I have received from you? 22:58:50 kk4ewt, i second your motion 22:58:51 MAY there be a vote taken 22:59:03 we can define a deadline for him to reply 22:59:05 kaio: do you read your mails? 22:59:08 if that motion fails, then i shall propose that the board do so 22:59:27 nb if that fails then the board shouldnt get involved 22:59:31 kaio: it was not on the list but to all famsco members, subject was "Contact?" 22:59:47 i mean, if famsco won't vote, then i will propose that the board vote 22:59:49 alright, lets take a break 22:59:56 kaio: your proposal please 23:00:00 inode0: same for you 23:00:06 nb is the board gets involved after that it should disolve FAMSCO and call for a new election 23:00:07 and for everybody 23:00:20 kk4ewt, true 23:00:23 I have read your email, but most of the content was explaining about the new election rules and stating "But if you 23:00:23 cannot even do the minimum work that is required as a FAmSCo member, I 23:00:24 think it's time to think about the situation and make a decision." 23:00:47 kaio: that is a different email 23:01:13 kaio: that was quoted from "New FAmSCo election rules - please confirm" 23:01:16 * nb moves that a FAmSCo member propose that a vote be held at the first meeting in May, as kk4ewt already stated 23:01:27 the mail to gbraad was "Contact?" 23:01:47 I suggest to talk to him by just asking "Do you still want to stay in FAmSCo?" 23:01:56 kaio: that was not the question 23:02:20 I was asking for propsals how to do the transition 23:02:25 kaio: are you a FAMSCO member 23:02:33 kk4ewt: I am. 23:02:52 why can YOU not contact the person in question 23:03:10 kk4ewt: I DID already contact him 23:03:19 and that is not what we are discussing now 23:03:24 cwickert: has tried and no responce 23:03:28 I suggest asking every FAmSCo member who are happy to step down in June. 23:03:50 kaio: but that is not fair for the ambassadors 23:04:05 and that does not solve the problem either 23:04:22 If there are 3 members want to leave, there will be no time waster for re-election; but a true election, in new election rules. 23:04:45 and if not? 23:04:56 cwickert: every FAmSCo member can resign without permission from any ambassadors 23:05:01 happen f19 23:05:13 happens f19 reguardless 23:05:14 if your problem is "it is unfair because people were elected for 12 month", then it is still unfair even if the people stepped down voluntarily 23:05:16 * nb suggests FAmScO dissolve itself and elect everyone again 23:05:22 since it can't seem to decide anything anyway 23:05:30 kaio: let me ask you a question 23:05:48 saying unfairness, putting 3 members who WAS in lower vote numbers are more unfair than my suggestion 23:05:52 who do you care about more: about the ambassadors who voted us or about us as famsco members? 23:06:08 cwickert: if the current Famsco is torn up they cant do this they need to be replaced 23:06:36 because they cant work together then someone else needs to be in the positions 23:06:50 kk4ewt: ack 23:07:15 hang on a minute here 23:07:21 kaio, yeah, that would solve the problem, but I'm not sure this will work. People might don't want to leave. I'd rather leave it to F19. 23:07:29 I care about the ambassadors - that's why I ask which of the member is less interested, rather than let ambassador more-preferred members who less-interested stay without their personal choice. 23:07:50 let's back up. I think we all want to have a solution. 23:08:17 Can we go to the standard meeting protocol for a bit? 23:08:21 I will go to ask gbraad personally, if he wants to stay. 23:08:24 Things are a bit out of control here 23:09:00 ok, official meeting protocol 23:09:19 And let do ask all members, may be there are 3 members want to step down for a better famsco. 23:09:35 Do we have a quorum? 23:09:39 no 23:09:45 * herlo counts kaio, himself, cwickert and igorps 23:09:55 oh, he's in again 23:10:01 ok, we have a quorum 23:10:07 I'm back 23:10:42 alright 23:10:44 I'd like to propose we discuss each component of these rules individually as famsco, then ask for input from the community who is here. 23:10:58 ? 23:11:06 cwickert: please go ahead 23:11:35 what do you consider "each component"? do we really want to through the whole guidelines again? 23:11:36 EOF 23:12:30 cwickert: no, just the discussion around what we have been discussing. First, we discuss the rules as they are and decide if we can live with them. Technically, we ratified them last week, but clearly there is some discontent there. 23:12:53 Secondly, if we agree that the rule change is either good or bad, what to do about it. 23:13:08 We really need to look at it from this point of view. 23:13:16 cwickert: does that help clarify my statment? 23:13:17 EOF 23:13:29 herlo: not really 23:14:28 cwickert: what is unclear? 23:14:29 "the rules" is what? Can we please limit the discussion to only the "Seats on FAmSCo" section and maybe "Filling vacant seats"? 23:14:34 EOF 23:14:42 cwickert: ahh, I see your point. 23:15:16 First, there are at least two sections we're discussing 23:15:23 and they need to be separated 23:16:34 Seats on FAmSCo - Do we keep it as it is? If not, how to proceed. 23:16:49 Second is the removal process. 23:16:58 Clearly they are two separate issues. 23:17:09 ! 23:17:09 but we were combining them throughout this meeting. 23:17:15 igorps: please go ahead 23:17:21 ! 23:17:28 I see that from another angle 23:17:44 we agreed on the seats on FAmSCo rule last meeting 23:18:22 what we need now is an additional rule on how to make the transition to the new election schedule 23:18:37 just for the transition 23:19:00 eof 23:19:06 cwickert: go ahead please 23:19:08 I think everybody is happy with "Filling vacant seats", but let us not discuss any individuals here. EOF 23:19:30 cwickert: I concur with your statement. 23:20:09 igorps: In my reading of the Seats on FamSCo section, there is already a rule on how to make the transition. I believe this is the point of contention. 23:20:21 eof 23:20:58 ! 23:21:04 please go ahead cwickert 23:21:44 I think igor is right. technically speaking we could block *any* discussion here because we already agreed on that paragraph in the last meeting. EOF 23:22:40 ! 23:22:46 igorps: please go ahead 23:23:17 If we agreed on that before I don't see why we are willing to change it 23:23:30 ! 23:23:50 cwickert: yes 23:23:58 we had quorum and voted for it, it's basically approved. EOF 23:24:08 igorps: oops sorry 23:24:26 I think it's worth discussing since not everybody seemed to have understood the new guidelines. on the other hand one could ask why people who don't read something for months now complain, but anyway 23:24:31 herlo, np 23:25:02 If we discuss it, we should first gather proposals how to make the transition and then discuss there advantages and downsides 23:25:03 EOF 23:26:15 ! 23:26:20 I think the main problem we may have had was that of the three individuals who would be affected by this change, only one was in attendance when we ratified. I'm not saying it's good or bad, just that it is. 23:26:28 igorps: please go ahead 23:26:32 I do believe it's worth to discuss it in order to clarify it, not to change it again. 23:26:44 but anyway I see that we have to proposals 23:26:50 ! 23:27:07 Ask who want to step down 23:27:20 and delay it to F19 23:27:53 igorps: eof? 23:28:00 we can vote on those, although I believe that we should stick to what we agreed upon before 23:28:02 EOF 23:28:11 cwickert: go ahead plz 23:28:18 given that the people in question are not here either I would like to move this to the list for discussion. we should only gather propsals here and discuss them on the list or in the next meeting. EOF 23:28:41 cwickert, +1 23:29:37 who are the individuals affected by this proposal at the moment. I believe that may be relevant to this discussion. It also may be worthwhile to get their input. 23:29:41 I agree "famsco members who are not here, express their thoughts in the mailing list" 23:29:52 which btw, I think cwickert was trying to do.... 23:29:55 herlo: Zoltan, kaio and Gerard 23:30:26 so let's move the discussion to the mailing list, since two of them are not here 23:30:32 +1 23:30:43 the famsco list? 23:30:48 * herlo clarifies 23:30:55 yes, I think so 23:30:58 yes 23:31:32 k, +1 to that. I do think there needs to be an adjustment to the wording on that section, just not sure how to proceed without their input. 23:31:54 ! 23:32:02 cwickert: go ahead 23:32:10 we basically agreed to move this to the list (+3) 23:32:20 here are the proposals I currently see 23:32:27 1. Do what is writen in the wiki: 7 seats were up for the F16 and earlier elections, and the following election will have 3 seats up for vote. The 3 seats that will be up for election will be the bottom 3 vote-getters from the prior election. The 4 seats not up for election in the F17 election, will be up for election in F18 23:32:34 2. The same as in the wiki but delayed by one release: 7 seats were up for the F17 and earlier elections, and the following election will have 3 seats up for vote. The 3 seats that will be up for election will be the bottom 3 vote-getters from the prior election. The 4 seats not up for election in the F17 election, will be up for election in F18 23:33:00 3. Have everybody run in F18. The 3 seats that will be up for election will be the bottom 3 vote-getters from this election. 23:33:06 4. Ask to step down. 23:33:09 more propsals? 23:33:12 ! 23:33:22 EOF 23:33:34 I think the one that inode0 suggested is not up there. 23:33:52 essentially, have an election for 4 seats with 2 releases and 3 seats with one release just for the transition. 23:34:24 * cwickert thinks 23:34:26 do that in F19 election cycle (I think that's the right cycle) 23:34:32 eof 23:34:39 ! 23:34:49 yup, go ahead 23:35:10 Doesn't work. 4 seats in F19 means that 3 people will server 1,5 years as they were elected in F17 23:35:11 EOF 23:35:20 ! 23:35:22 ah, sorry 23:35:27 misunderstood 23:35:44 cwickert: ?? more to say? 23:35:58 herlo: but isn't that option 2? 23:36:09 cwickert: it is not 23:36:26 the difference comes in that *all* seats would be up, rather than just 3 23:36:31 eof 23:36:38 no, that's not the difference 23:37:04 anyway, but it's still the bottom three will only server 6 months, right? 23:37:07 EOF 23:37:11 I understand that half of famsco members have to go to get the transitino proceeded 23:37:13 inode0: go ahead 23:37:18 kaio: please follow the rules 23:37:56 thanks, we are having trouble communicating referring to elections by different release numbers 23:38:21 famsco has elections in odd numbers elections - for F15 and F17 were the last two famsco elections 23:38:46 the current election about to happen is F18 23:39:18 with that understanding I think the guidelines as written really should say F17/F18/F19 rather than what they say now 23:39:48 * cwickert tries to parse that 23:40:05 my proposal is have the next famsco election in F19 as usual and as described above by herlo following the model of the fesco transition 23:40:28 sorry, Fn in the guidelines should be Fn+1 23:40:49 ? 23:41:04 sure 23:41:09 cwickert: ask away 23:41:10 Can you put that into a nice sentence I can quote in my email? EOF 23:41:49 Do you understand? 23:42:16 "7 seats were up for the F16 and earlier elections" -- there was no F16 election - but F17 there is factually correct 23:43:04 you were all elected in the F17 elections last November 23:43:13 ok, that is a typo in the guidelines, but I was more interested in inode0's proposal 23:43:24 ok 23:44:33