17:03:02 <jwb> #startmeeting
17:03:02 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon Aug 18 17:03:02 2014 UTC.  The chair is jwb. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:03:02 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
17:03:07 <jwb> #meetingname board
17:03:07 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'board'
17:03:15 <jwb> #meetingtopic Fedora Board
17:03:19 <jwb> #topic init
17:03:24 <jwb> hi all.  who's around today?
17:04:12 <inode0> hi
17:04:15 <number80> .hellomynameis hguemar
17:04:16 <zodbot> number80: hguemar 'Haïkel Guémar' <karlthered@gmail.com>
17:04:36 <jwb> so mjg59, cwickert, and mattdm all send regrets
17:05:52 <jwb> anyone heard from sparks?
17:06:03 <jwb> yn1v, around for the meeting today?
17:06:08 * inode0 has a hard stop today at the top of the next hour but doesn't expect that to be a problem
17:06:39 <number80> nope
17:06:46 <jwb> inode0, ok.  i doubt we'll have quorum at this point, but i think we'll just keep it to the hour and discuss whatever people would like.  that can include the current thread
17:07:09 <jwb> #addchair number80 inode0
17:07:26 <jwb> hm
17:07:29 <jwb> #chair number80
17:07:30 <zodbot> Current chairs: jwb number80
17:07:34 <jwb> #chair inode0
17:07:34 <zodbot> Current chairs: inode0 jwb number80
17:08:26 <jwb> anybody else present that isn't a board member?
17:08:40 <jwb> #topic Open Floor
17:09:23 <number80> anyone who wants to ask question about the current topic of governance ?
17:09:40 <jwb> (or anything else)
17:10:10 <jwb> inode0, anything you'd like to talk about?
17:10:44 <inode0> I've been talking on list and can take time to think more and listen as well as talk :)
17:10:55 <number80> *nods*
17:10:57 <jwb> sure
17:11:20 <jwb> ok, let's do this.  we'll camp out and leave the meeting going for another 10-15min.  if nobody shows up, i'll close it out
17:11:24 * yn1v was out his desk but it is back now
17:11:29 <jwb> hey yn1v
17:11:33 <jwb> #chair yn1v
17:11:33 <zodbot> Current chairs: inode0 jwb number80 yn1v
17:11:35 <number80> maybe, the next irc meeting should be a "state of fedora" one
17:11:51 <jwb> number80, possibly, yeah
17:12:10 <jwb> i think that's going to depend on where the current governance thread is
17:12:44 <number80> At the moment, I have no idea, but I think we won't be done within 2 weeks
17:13:33 <number80> and it will mostly be facilitating discussions after alpha, so I guess that doesn't really matter if there's still a board or not :)
17:13:45 <inode0> I'll likely be unavailable next week so that might be a good time to wrap it up ...
17:14:05 <number80> ok
17:14:20 <jwb> inode0, a _good_ time?
17:14:37 <jwb> as in next week is a good time, or the next irc meeting in 2 weeks?
17:14:43 <jwb> sorry, slightly confused
17:15:00 <inode0> I said that with tongue in cheek
17:15:11 <jwb> was guessing so, but wanted to be sure
17:15:19 <number80> :)
17:15:34 <jwb> fwiw, i'd rather have a full board vote even if it means we're split.
17:16:04 <number80> *nods*
17:16:29 <yn1v> *nods too*
17:16:41 <inode0> I'd like to have a full board but that isn't going to happen - I'm happy to vote though either way
17:17:00 <jwb> yeah, we might have to call for a vote on the list
17:17:07 <jwb> with a time deadline
17:17:17 <number80> I hope by then, we get alternate proposals, so it won't be juste a yes/no vote
17:17:47 <inode0> you have at least one now, maybe two once Greg reads more carefully
17:18:10 <jwb> greg's is essentially what i proposed last year
17:18:18 <jwb> so it's kind of like 1.5 :)
17:18:30 <inode0> it is complicated to do that I think
17:18:33 <number80> yeah, and it converged from his initial vision of board :)
17:18:43 <number80> s/from/to/
17:18:53 <jwb> inode0, it is.  which is why we deviated from it during the flock discussion, but not massively so
17:18:53 <inode0> most groups aren't so well defined and self-governed and merged groups certainly aren't
17:19:00 <jwb> inode0, yes, exactly
17:19:15 <inode0> so them electing anyone is very problematic
17:19:24 <jwb> correct.
17:19:48 <number80> my POV would be a negotiations between the FPL and the groups
17:20:05 <inode0> and then there is the "which groups" debate
17:20:13 <number80> +1
17:20:38 * Sparks is here
17:20:46 <number80> Sparks: hi
17:21:09 <jwb> #chair Sparks
17:21:10 <zodbot> Current chairs: Sparks inode0 jwb number80 yn1v
17:21:29 <Sparks> Appologizes for my tardiness; I'm currently taking care of a "sick" kid who stayed home today.
17:21:33 <inode0> which is why I'm still sort of leaning to maybe sticking the council between the board and fesco and letting it more or less self-form - but still thinking
17:22:40 <inode0> I'm also thinking about what Ralf said because I'm afraid there is some truth in it
17:22:53 <jwb> my major concern with that is it's yet-another-committee that adds to the confusion we already have
17:23:02 <jwb> but i haven't really thought about it in detail yet
17:23:04 <number80> inode0: if I were to think ahead, I think that part of the board current mission would be delegated to a "supreme court of values"
17:23:54 <inode0> jwb: could but I would expect the board to let it run itself as it lets fesco run itself - only meddle when asked
17:24:12 <number80> about Ralf, I share some of his concerns, but that's why I want a stronger community leadership
17:24:12 <jwb> inode0, i don't see a point in the board then.
17:24:24 <jwb> again, i haven't thought about it in depth
17:24:31 <jwb> so this is off the top of the head thinking
17:24:53 <yn1v> we should have a place with list of weakness about the proposal, so we can have then in mind. As opposed that "it was said and it wasn't taken until became a problem"
17:25:00 <jwb> it just seems fedora's answer to hard problems seems to be "create another committee", which i don't think is working
17:25:04 <inode0> The board can do the crap work it always has done and before the court of last resort - the important part of that to me is making decisions regarding the project's values.
17:25:19 <jwb> inode0, i don't see how the council couldn't do that.
17:25:44 <inode0> it could but so could fesco - why distract them?
17:25:53 <number80> yn1v: having a list of weaknesses would help to focus the discussion indeed
17:26:25 <jwb> inode0, fesco is laser focused on the technical aspects of getting the current release out the door, and later planning for the next one
17:26:39 <jwb> it's a technical committee and it's very clear they don't want to be the arbiter of values
17:26:45 <jwb> which is why they punt up to the board
17:27:16 <inode0> I doubt the council will either and from reading it seems it is intended to facilitate vision implementation
17:27:53 <inode0> which I really think is a good idea - but it is a governance board with one non-governance role when merged
17:28:10 <number80> The trick is to engage the doers
17:28:12 <jwb> eh, i disagree.  if the council is formed, it should be very clear that it is taking over the current board's duties
17:31:03 <inode0> well, it either will or it won't - there isn't any middle ground but I really don't see why it would want them.
17:32:06 <number80> my POV is we don't have anywhere a consolidated view of the whole project
17:32:41 <number80> that's what I really like in a representative council, having that overview will help making better decisions
17:33:32 <number80> did you know for instance, that there are people accepting money on the behalf of the project without telling anyone ?
17:33:44 <inode0> let's not talk about that here
17:33:51 <number80> yup
17:34:30 <number80> my point was there are many shadows in the project and it's hard without having a communication hub
17:34:39 <number80> *to fix them
17:34:41 <inode0> and really, that is not the board's fault if true
17:35:15 <jwb> fault, no.  the fact that we have no awareness of what's going on with GSoC... maybe
17:35:49 <number80> and who knows what's happening
17:35:56 <inode0> I had awareness - I really don't feel comfortable discussing this here though.
17:36:21 <inode0> but fine
17:36:23 <number80> someone just raised my attention that during flock, we discovered the existence of l10n QA group
17:36:38 <number80> very little people even knew that existed !
17:36:55 * inode0 had no awareness of it
17:37:13 <inode0> I don't expect that I should know everything though
17:37:40 <number80> having representatives from said groups will help to bring the spotlight, and maybe even help them
17:37:51 <number80> (if the need too)
17:37:58 <inode0> you can't unless you have 200 representatives
17:38:00 <jwb> we need to be outreaching
17:38:06 <jwb> which is a problem
17:38:31 <inode0> I agree with that
17:38:42 <number80> I expected that is the job the super-group of l10n representative (if we ever define that group)
17:40:11 <inode0> How many new groups will we end up with by merging existing groups to whittle down the number of representatives?
17:40:49 <jwb> i don't think that needs to happen
17:41:05 <inode0> Maybe some idea how groups will be joined would help me
17:41:06 <jwb> it's not like we need a rep from every single committee in every single meeting
17:41:18 <inode0> we aren't going to have that for sure
17:41:32 <jwb> and we discussed at flock that we NEED the ability to actively bring in advisors for specific issues or updates
17:41:34 <number80> *nods*
17:41:40 <jwb> which is something we're really bad at right now
17:43:05 <inode0> it is easy to say we are bad at things we don't do - that is a given
17:44:00 <jwb> yes.  i'm saying we need to do them.  i think a reworked composition of the board will position the board to be better able to do those things, give it better representation, and improve flexibility
17:44:14 <MarkDude> +1
17:44:30 <jwb> i hope, after more than a year of saying it, none of that is surprising coming from me :)
17:44:50 <jwb> it's also why i've been quiet on the current mailing list thread.  i've said a lot about this already.  time to listen.
17:44:58 <inode0> and I agree with all that except that isn't the job description of a governance board
17:45:24 <inode0> which doesn't mean we can't live without a governance board
17:46:00 <inode0> I only have a few more minutes for now but let me add this
17:46:48 <inode0> If there is no possibility of keeping these governance and leadership roles distinct then I would like a lot more detail to be known in advance of a vote.
17:47:10 <jwb> could you please reply on-list with the detail you'd like to se?
17:47:12 <jwb> er, see
17:48:25 <inode0> sure - I mentioned one obvious point about transitions from one FPL to another, what happens? New vision, new council? But that might become more clear to me as selection of the council becomes more clear.
17:49:26 <number80> that is an interesting point
17:49:26 <inode0> Right now the proposal sounded to be FPL sets vision, selects council, they serve at the pleasure of the FPL ... but some of that may change.
17:49:54 <MarkDude> -1
17:50:22 <number80> inode0: during the workshop, nobody (even mattdm) wanted that
17:50:31 <inode0> wanted what?
17:50:45 <number80> inode0 | Right now the proposal sounded to be FPL sets vision, selects council, they serve at the pleasure of the FPL ... but some of that may change.
17:51:00 <jwb> i see the concern, but i think it's putting blinders on to think that concern doesn't already exist
17:51:39 <jwb> the FPL has veto power.  always has.  thankfully, fedora and Red Hat have worked remarkably well at this for 10 years and it hasn't been needed.  i don't see that suddenly changing
17:51:42 <inode0> number80: then we need to work together to restate the proposal I think
17:52:02 <inode0> veto power over the board is not what I'm talking about at all
17:52:21 <inode0> that is a very small negative power
17:52:21 <number80> inode0: if it's a matter of poor wording, I agree with fixing that :)
17:52:53 <jwb> inode0, it's not small at all.  and it's not over the board.
17:52:59 <inode0> number80: can we talk more later today or tomorrow --- I would really like to clear that up if possible
17:53:13 <number80> inode0: sure :)
17:54:30 <inode0> jwb: it is small and it is over any decision made by the board
17:54:59 <jwb> sigh
17:55:31 <inode0> can you point me to where anything says the FPL has veto power beyond board decisions?
17:55:51 * inode0 has never seen or heard of the FPL veto going beyond that
17:56:19 <jwb> the funny thing about veto power is that nobody likes to logically follow to what extent it can be done
17:56:46 <jwb> at any rate, i will agree the _concern_ is small and fortunately we haven't had a need for it
17:57:45 <inode0> ok, I'm sorry but I need to go now - I'll ping you later number80
17:57:58 <jwb> thanks for coming inode0
17:58:04 <number80> inode0: no prob, see you !
17:58:21 <jwb> we're at the hour.  i suggest we go ahead and close out the meeting.
17:58:28 <jwb> anything else before we do so?
17:58:50 <number80> none
18:00:06 <jwb> ok, thanks for coming everyone
18:00:09 <jwb> #endmeeting