17:03:02 #startmeeting 17:03:02 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 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 17:03:07 #meetingname board 17:03:07 The meeting name has been set to 'board' 17:03:15 #meetingtopic Fedora Board 17:03:19 #topic init 17:03:24 hi all. who's around today? 17:04:12 hi 17:04:15 .hellomynameis hguemar 17:04:16 number80: hguemar 'Haïkel Guémar' 17:04:36 so mjg59, cwickert, and mattdm all send regrets 17:05:52 anyone heard from sparks? 17:06:03 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 nope 17:06:46 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 #addchair number80 inode0 17:07:26 hm 17:07:29 #chair number80 17:07:30 Current chairs: jwb number80 17:07:34 #chair inode0 17:07:34 Current chairs: inode0 jwb number80 17:08:26 anybody else present that isn't a board member? 17:08:40 #topic Open Floor 17:09:23 anyone who wants to ask question about the current topic of governance ? 17:09:40 (or anything else) 17:10:10 inode0, anything you'd like to talk about? 17:10:44 I've been talking on list and can take time to think more and listen as well as talk :) 17:10:55 *nods* 17:10:57 sure 17:11:20 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 hey yn1v 17:11:33 #chair yn1v 17:11:33 Current chairs: inode0 jwb number80 yn1v 17:11:35 maybe, the next irc meeting should be a "state of fedora" one 17:11:51 number80, possibly, yeah 17:12:10 i think that's going to depend on where the current governance thread is 17:12:44 At the moment, I have no idea, but I think we won't be done within 2 weeks 17:13:33 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 I'll likely be unavailable next week so that might be a good time to wrap it up ... 17:14:05 ok 17:14:20 inode0, a _good_ time? 17:14:37 as in next week is a good time, or the next irc meeting in 2 weeks? 17:14:43 sorry, slightly confused 17:15:00 I said that with tongue in cheek 17:15:11 was guessing so, but wanted to be sure 17:15:19 :) 17:15:34 fwiw, i'd rather have a full board vote even if it means we're split. 17:16:04 *nods* 17:16:29 *nods too* 17:16:41 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 yeah, we might have to call for a vote on the list 17:17:07 with a time deadline 17:17:17 I hope by then, we get alternate proposals, so it won't be juste a yes/no vote 17:17:47 you have at least one now, maybe two once Greg reads more carefully 17:18:10 greg's is essentially what i proposed last year 17:18:18 so it's kind of like 1.5 :) 17:18:30 it is complicated to do that I think 17:18:33 yeah, and it converged from his initial vision of board :) 17:18:43 s/from/to/ 17:18:53 inode0, it is. which is why we deviated from it during the flock discussion, but not massively so 17:18:53 most groups aren't so well defined and self-governed and merged groups certainly aren't 17:19:00 inode0, yes, exactly 17:19:15 so them electing anyone is very problematic 17:19:24 correct. 17:19:48 my POV would be a negotiations between the FPL and the groups 17:20:05 and then there is the "which groups" debate 17:20:13 +1 17:20:38 * Sparks is here 17:20:46 Sparks: hi 17:21:09 #chair Sparks 17:21:10 Current chairs: Sparks inode0 jwb number80 yn1v 17:21:29 Appologizes for my tardiness; I'm currently taking care of a "sick" kid who stayed home today. 17:21:33 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 I'm also thinking about what Ralf said because I'm afraid there is some truth in it 17:22:53 my major concern with that is it's yet-another-committee that adds to the confusion we already have 17:23:02 but i haven't really thought about it in detail yet 17:23:04 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 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 about Ralf, I share some of his concerns, but that's why I want a stronger community leadership 17:24:12 inode0, i don't see a point in the board then. 17:24:24 again, i haven't thought about it in depth 17:24:31 so this is off the top of the head thinking 17:24:53 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 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 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 inode0, i don't see how the council couldn't do that. 17:25:44 it could but so could fesco - why distract them? 17:25:53 yn1v: having a list of weaknesses would help to focus the discussion indeed 17:26:25 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 it's a technical committee and it's very clear they don't want to be the arbiter of values 17:26:45 which is why they punt up to the board 17:27:16 I doubt the council will either and from reading it seems it is intended to facilitate vision implementation 17:27:53 which I really think is a good idea - but it is a governance board with one non-governance role when merged 17:28:10 The trick is to engage the doers 17:28:12 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 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 my POV is we don't have anywhere a consolidated view of the whole project 17:32:41 that's what I really like in a representative council, having that overview will help making better decisions 17:33:32 did you know for instance, that there are people accepting money on the behalf of the project without telling anyone ? 17:33:44 let's not talk about that here 17:33:51 yup 17:34:30 my point was there are many shadows in the project and it's hard without having a communication hub 17:34:39 *to fix them 17:34:41 and really, that is not the board's fault if true 17:35:15 fault, no. the fact that we have no awareness of what's going on with GSoC... maybe 17:35:49 and who knows what's happening 17:35:56 I had awareness - I really don't feel comfortable discussing this here though. 17:36:21 but fine 17:36:23 someone just raised my attention that during flock, we discovered the existence of l10n QA group 17:36:38 very little people even knew that existed ! 17:36:55 * inode0 had no awareness of it 17:37:13 I don't expect that I should know everything though 17:37:40 having representatives from said groups will help to bring the spotlight, and maybe even help them 17:37:51 (if the need too) 17:37:58 you can't unless you have 200 representatives 17:38:00 we need to be outreaching 17:38:06 which is a problem 17:38:31 I agree with that 17:38:42 I expected that is the job the super-group of l10n representative (if we ever define that group) 17:40:11 How many new groups will we end up with by merging existing groups to whittle down the number of representatives? 17:40:49 i don't think that needs to happen 17:41:05 Maybe some idea how groups will be joined would help me 17:41:06 it's not like we need a rep from every single committee in every single meeting 17:41:18 we aren't going to have that for sure 17:41:32 and we discussed at flock that we NEED the ability to actively bring in advisors for specific issues or updates 17:41:34 *nods* 17:41:40 which is something we're really bad at right now 17:43:05 it is easy to say we are bad at things we don't do - that is a given 17:44:00 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 +1 17:44:30 i hope, after more than a year of saying it, none of that is surprising coming from me :) 17:44:50 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 and I agree with all that except that isn't the job description of a governance board 17:45:24 which doesn't mean we can't live without a governance board 17:46:00 I only have a few more minutes for now but let me add this 17:46:48 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 could you please reply on-list with the detail you'd like to se? 17:47:12 er, see 17:48:25 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 that is an interesting point 17:49:26 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 -1 17:50:22 inode0: during the workshop, nobody (even mattdm) wanted that 17:50:31 wanted what? 17:50:45 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 i see the concern, but i think it's putting blinders on to think that concern doesn't already exist 17:51:39 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 number80: then we need to work together to restate the proposal I think 17:52:02 veto power over the board is not what I'm talking about at all 17:52:21 that is a very small negative power 17:52:21 inode0: if it's a matter of poor wording, I agree with fixing that :) 17:52:53 inode0, it's not small at all. and it's not over the board. 17:52:59 number80: can we talk more later today or tomorrow --- I would really like to clear that up if possible 17:53:13 inode0: sure :) 17:54:30 jwb: it is small and it is over any decision made by the board 17:54:59 sigh 17:55:31 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 the funny thing about veto power is that nobody likes to logically follow to what extent it can be done 17:56:46 at any rate, i will agree the _concern_ is small and fortunately we haven't had a need for it 17:57:45 ok, I'm sorry but I need to go now - I'll ping you later number80 17:57:58 thanks for coming inode0 17:58:04 inode0: no prob, see you ! 17:58:21 we're at the hour. i suggest we go ahead and close out the meeting. 17:58:28 anything else before we do so? 17:58:50 none 18:00:06 ok, thanks for coming everyone 18:00:09 #endmeeting