17:00:51 <mattdm> #startmeeting Board (2014-07-21)
17:00:51 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon Jul 21 17:00:51 2014 UTC.  The chair is mattdm. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:00:51 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
17:00:59 <mattdm> #meetingname board
17:00:59 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'board'
17:01:03 <mattdm> #chair mattdm cwickert gholms inode0 mjg59 Sparks jwb number80 yn1v
17:01:03 <zodbot> Current chairs: Sparks cwickert gholms inode0 jwb mattdm mjg59 number80 yn1v
17:01:14 <mattdm> #topic hellos and stuff
17:01:18 <mattdm> hello!
17:01:35 <mattdm> who do we have around? i know mjg59 and jwb send regrets.
17:01:40 <cctrieloff> here
17:01:56 <mattdm> hi cctrieloff!
17:02:09 <inode0> hi
17:02:13 <mattdm> (cctrieloff = Carl from Red Hat's Open Source and Standards, btw)
17:02:23 <mattdm> good afternoon inode0!
17:02:44 * Sparks is here
17:02:50 <mattdm> hi Sparks
17:03:04 <mattdm> looks like we've got three board members plus Carl so far. :)
17:03:18 * gholms looks around
17:03:23 <mattdm> four :)
17:03:39 <number80> hi
17:03:47 <mattdm> five. :)
17:03:51 <mattdm> okay then :)
17:03:54 <mattdm> #topic Flock plans
17:04:28 * number80 on walking home (should arrive in 2 min)
17:04:30 <mattdm> There is a session on Fedora governance on Saturday, and that's obviously important from the board perspective
17:04:41 <mattdm> It would be nice to have a meeting earlier in the week too
17:05:02 <mattdm> Carl would like to talk about Fedora and OSAS and etc., and suggested that Thursday works well for him
17:05:08 <cctrieloff> I will be able to do working sessions with board on Thursday, if we can make that work on schedule.
17:05:15 <mattdm> right, that :)
17:05:40 * inode0 won't be at flock
17:05:48 <mattdm> sorry, inode0 :(
17:06:21 <mattdm> maybe we can find some way of conferencing you in? would thursday on central european time work for you at all?
17:06:27 <cctrieloff> Saturday got killed for me to be there based on other travel commitments, when be there from Wednesday afternoon through Friday Morning. Then I go onto some other meetings
17:06:47 * Sparks will not be at flock
17:06:54 <misc> Sparks: :(
17:07:33 <inode0> depends mostly what time of day that would be my time :)
17:08:04 <mattdm> inode0: probably kind of early in the morning, unless we do it late :)
17:08:12 <mattdm> Sparks same for you :)
17:08:49 * gholms sends his regrets about that as well
17:08:53 <Sparks> mattdm: Depends on the time and day
17:09:12 <number80> :(
17:09:26 <mattdm> I'm looking at the Thursday schedule now, and there's a big Intro to Docker block at 15:00.... that might be the best time
17:09:51 <mattdm> I already know the intro to docker :)
17:10:20 <number80> the same
17:10:21 <mattdm> Unless anyone has a better suggestion, I am going to pencil in a meeting then for whoever we can make available.
17:10:31 <mattdm> and we'll work from there.
17:10:35 <Sparks> 15:00 UTC?
17:10:42 <number80> CET
17:10:44 <mattdm> Sparks: I assume that it's CET
17:11:03 <Sparks> what is that compared to UTC?
17:11:09 <mattdm> Sparks two hours earlier
17:11:15 <mattdm> or later
17:11:21 <misc> Sparks: 13h UTC
17:11:46 <mattdm> that :)
17:11:52 <Sparks> I'll probably a little late but I can probably make that.
17:11:56 <mattdm> cool.
17:12:23 <mattdm> #info board will have meeting at flock on thursday at 15:00 local time (13:00 UTC)
17:12:36 <mattdm> #info will try to conference in board members who cannot make it
17:12:44 <number80> the meeting will be just board + carl or anyone could jump in ?
17:13:01 <gholms> mattdm: Well, that answers my next question.  :)
17:13:37 <mattdm> I was thinking board focused but open door
17:13:44 <mattdm> cctrieloff any preference/thoughts?
17:13:48 <gholms> number80: I'd hope it's one where anyone can jump in, like the last one.
17:14:01 <number80> ok
17:15:17 <mattdm> okay then. :)
17:15:51 <mattdm> maybe next year we should have an open board session, like the "meet your fesco"
17:16:00 <mattdm> planned in advance and stuff :)
17:16:20 <misc> planned in advance, that's quite ambitious /o\
17:16:27 <mattdm> misc yeah :)
17:17:05 <mattdm> anything else on flock?
17:17:27 <mattdm> okay :)
17:17:32 <mattdm> #topic Open Floor
17:18:09 <mattdm> I apologize for not having a more focused agenda here today; busy last week and morning today.
17:18:16 <gholms> Anyone have questions/comments/tomatoes for the board today?
17:18:21 <mattdm> but I have the next 40 minutes blocked out to talk about whatever :)
17:18:25 <Sparks> Looks like the translators have embraced Zanata as a replacement for Transifex
17:18:39 <gholms> Indeed.
17:19:14 <Sparks> A win for FOSS
17:19:16 <gholms> #info Translators appear to be moving over to Zanata now
17:21:22 * mattdm is reading some of the messsages on the translation list
17:23:07 <cctrieloff> mattdm: cctrieloff any preference/thoughts?   sorry for delay. Think some time for board and for open would be good.
17:23:43 <cctrieloff> if we only have have for one type of time, I would do open, given it is an easy time for other to join, and private time can also be done on calls.
17:24:02 <cctrieloff> however I would like to get to know those I don't know (that can be done with beer)
17:24:04 * gholms nods
17:24:08 <mattdm> Dimitris Glezos from Transifex makes a request for the board to define a cost/benefit analysis of the risk of using proprietary software like transifex in support roles
17:24:17 <mattdm> cctrieloff: +1 to beer, I'm sure :)
17:24:28 <gholms> mattdm is always +1 to beer.  :)
17:24:48 <mattdm> No one has brought that to us formally (the transifex thing, obviously, not beer)... does anyone want to pursue it?
17:25:32 <mattdm> Dimitris' argument basically seems to be that the L10n project should push to use whatever tools get the job done, and it's the board's job to push back if they want to use something that is dangerous or counter to ideals
17:25:37 <inode0> This isn't something the board needs to decide if the translation folks sort it out as they are doing really.
17:25:51 <mattdm> inode0 yes, that seems to be my thought, exactly.
17:25:53 <Sparks> mattdm: Nope.  Translators are embracing the new solution, the old solution is now locked up behind the proprietary wall.  Docs is working on fixing their workflow.  No complaints from anyone but Dimitris.
17:26:03 <number80> he brought an interesting topic on the table: should we allow or ban proprietary platforms
17:26:10 <number80> and that include stuff like github
17:26:29 <inode0> we already allow them, so there isn't a question there that I see
17:26:47 <inode0> unless he wants us to ban them? :)
17:26:48 <number80> not everyone is happy with it :/
17:26:49 <gholms> I must admit we seem to be self-contradictory on that sort of thing lately.
17:27:16 <inode0> I don't see the contradiction and I disagree with the characterization of our recent decision.
17:27:32 * Sparks feels that using proprietary platforms is bad.
17:27:33 <gholms> We opt to use fedocal and gobby instead of google, while at he same time condone the use of github.
17:27:40 <mattdm> I think there's a lot of gray area that we're trying to balance thoughtfully and carefully -- I don't think that necessarily means contradiction
17:28:01 <mattdm> I think we'd _love_ to have an alternative to github but don't have the resources
17:28:10 <gholms> Now, there is an argument about data portability that one could make to justify it.
17:28:33 <gholms> $random_git_server is a lot easier to move off of at a moment's notice than tx, for instance.
17:28:51 <number80> maybe we could make it a priority in order to get resources ?
17:29:21 <mattdm> number80 we could, yes.
17:29:44 <Sparks> staying with proprietary solutions means we don't see the need and don't improve FOSS solutions
17:30:01 <gholms> True.
17:30:23 <inode0> not necessarily but most likely it works out that way
17:31:00 <inode0> I mean, we do see the need.
17:31:05 <gholms> Staying with proprietary solutions *while not working on FOSS equivalents* would be cause for concern.
17:31:15 <mattdm> number80: In order to do that most successfully, it needs to be tied to fedora's mission and this "success for fedora" question.
17:31:48 <number80> Having control on our work platform is important for our mission
17:32:47 <mattdm> number80: important, yes. crucial? connect the dots to make a pitch for resources.
17:32:50 <number80> Besides, integrating a Pull-Request mechanism would lower the barrier of entry, and ease peer-reviewing
17:33:25 <number80> eventually, more contributors, more quality (well, it will help to reach that)
17:35:07 <gholms> [Frost gathers on the windows]
17:35:09 <mattdm> I'd also like to have more resources for Ask Fedora (somewhere were we _are_ using open source software even though there is a clearly-better proprietary/hosted solution)
17:35:27 <mattdm> And Hyperkitty, to help improve the mailing lists...
17:35:54 <mattdm> and this whole thing http://blog.linuxgrrl.com/2014/04/01/a-proposal-for-fedoras-website-considering-fedora-next/
17:36:44 <mattdm> So.... github replacement (or, rather, upgraded fedora hosted) is clearly valuable and important, it's hard to know exactly where to put it for the _most good_
17:36:55 <Sparks> isn't someone working on an addon for git?
17:37:09 <mattdm> Sparks?
17:37:28 <Sparks> Like... something that makes git even more better?
17:37:39 * Sparks thought he read something about that somewhere.
17:37:43 <mattdm> I'm sure someone is :)
17:37:49 <number80> we need to upgrade Linus before
17:37:50 <mattdm> we have a number of efforts like https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Axilleas/GitLab
17:37:53 <gholms> Git already has a pull-request mechanism.
17:38:08 <number80> yeah, but not very user friendly :)
17:38:12 <gholms> True.
17:38:12 <mattdm> and https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ktdreyer/Gitorious
17:38:45 <mattdm> and we can always _ask for help_ :)
17:38:50 <number80> https://github.com/pypingou/progit <= from pingou
17:39:26 * randomuser has always thought that absence of a 'send pull request' button to click is a small for participation
17:41:51 <mattdm> randomuser: a small?
17:42:35 <randomuser> heh
17:42:39 <randomuser> a small barrier, sorry
17:43:35 <randomuser> if you've gone through the trouble to write the patch and use git locally, the method of communicating the patch is a relatively trivial detail
17:43:44 <mattdm> as opposed to a big barrier, and people should get over it, or as opposed to smooth sailing with no unnecessary barriers?
17:44:37 <randomuser> i see the benefits, definitely, but I wouldn't categorize it as a major inhibitor
17:45:23 <randomuser> not that anyone is suggesting that deploying this will be the end-all solution for making fedorahosted a popular place for developers
17:45:32 <mattdm> So, I think we do need to advance the success-for-fedora discussion further, and particularly, look at what Mo suggested about looking again at our objectives
17:45:52 * randomuser eof
17:46:08 <mattdm> I think that'll make it more clear which tooling/development we should focus on.
17:47:28 <mattdm> In fact, I'm planning to after this meeting, unplug my phone, turn off my wifi, go sit somewhere quiet and finish up my post on the subject :)
17:47:53 <mattdm> not that it's revolutionary or surprising or anything... it's just been quiet for a little while :)
17:48:11 <mattdm> anyone else have anything for open floor?
17:49:01 <mattdm> okay then. thanks everyone!
17:49:04 <mattdm> #endmeeting