17:00:43 <mattdm> #startmeeting Board Discuss (2014-09-15)
17:00:44 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon Sep 15 17:00:43 2014 UTC.  The chair is mattdm. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:00:44 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
17:00:48 <mattdm> #meetingname board
17:00:48 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'board'
17:00:59 <mattdm> #topic hello and stuff
17:01:06 <number80> .hellomyname is hguemar
17:01:08 <mattdm> hi everyone! who do we have around?
17:01:12 * Sparks_too 
17:01:12 <jwb> hello
17:01:31 <mattdm> #chair number80 Sparks_too jwb
17:01:31 <zodbot> Current chairs: Sparks_too jwb mattdm number80
17:02:19 <mattdm> anyone else around?
17:02:20 <kushal> I am here to listen :)
17:02:42 <mattdm> board members or not :)
17:03:36 <mattdm> okay, so, a small handful....
17:03:39 <aeperezt> Here to read
17:03:50 <mattdm> #topic discussion on governance/leadership
17:04:46 <mattdm> I'm working on writing some things up for a draft plan
17:05:39 <mattdm> mostly focused around the consensus model and what that means for certain kinds of decisions
17:06:13 <mjg59> Oh hey
17:06:21 <jwb> so you're focusing on how we make decisions before we focus on who makes the decisions?
17:06:25 * mjg59 here
17:06:27 <mattdm> And I hope that in connection with the ongoing discussion about representative council will make it easier to figure out who should be making what decisions
17:06:48 * yn1v here
17:06:55 <mattdm> jwb kind of approaching it from both directions to see how that helps?
17:07:08 <mattdm> chair mjg59 yn1v
17:07:10 <mattdm> #chair mjg59 yn1v
17:07:10 <zodbot> Current chairs: Sparks_too jwb mattdm mjg59 number80 yn1v
17:07:18 <number80> sounds fair to me
17:07:27 <jwb> sure.  i don't think that's bad, just that most of the current discussions have been more around the membership
17:07:41 <jwb> so starting on decision model seems... like a distraction
17:08:39 <yn1v> maybe looking at desicions, we can shape better memebershio
17:09:11 <jwb> i'm skeptical.  i'd think the consensus model would map well to whatever membership we come up with
17:09:21 <mattdm> I think the big tension overall is: large body which feels inclusively representative is not likely to be very much of a change in terms of activity
17:09:55 <mattdm> jwb what are your thoughts for membership?
17:10:34 <jwb> i've agreed mostly with cwickert on that.  membership from the larger committees, perhaps with a few set aside for ad-hoc seats
17:11:08 <jwb> i understand there are concerns about smaller SIGs, but i don't think we'll get a membership settled that 1) works and 2) includes everyone
17:11:34 <kushal> jwb, +1
17:12:11 <number80> I'm more in favor of rotating seats between groups
17:12:13 <stickster> jwb: +1.
17:12:30 <Sparks_too> jwb: If we don't have representation from the smaller SIGs then we are likely to not have the ability to change and are likely to stagnate.
17:12:53 <mattdm> I'm concerned with the smaller SIGs when it comes to big decisions that reflect the long-term goals of the project, and similar fundamentals -- but it's also completely possible that a group which doesn't explicitly include them _can_ fairly represent them
17:13:04 <jwb> Sparks_too, i disagree.  there needs to be _communication_ from the smaller SIGs, and we need to take that into account.  but they do not need permanent seats.
17:13:10 <stickster> Sparks_too: How so? What leads you to that conclusion?
17:13:31 <mattdm> (Has more but will hold onto thoughts for a minute...)
17:14:07 <mjg59> Which smaller SIGs are driving innovation?
17:14:15 <Sparks_too> stickster: Why would anything change from what the projects think if no one is allowed to get into those projects?  It's becomes very much a no-change issue.
17:14:25 <jwb> mattdm, i think optimizing for the smaller groups is not going to be the best long term solution.
17:15:01 <number80> QA is a small group in term of size
17:15:16 <number80> we don't want to focus on size, but on how they impact the project
17:15:18 * stickster is not getting it, maybe density issue.
17:15:39 <Sparks_too> stickster: It is likely my inability to type my actual thoughts.
17:15:49 <jwb> number80, sure that's a good way to look at it
17:16:09 <mjg59> Well, I can see the point that "Impact on the project" can be conflated with "The status quo"
17:16:42 <number80> mjg59: that's why I suggested that 2/3 of the council should not be tied to particular group
17:16:46 <mjg59> But I agree that size doesn't necessarily represent that
17:16:59 <jwb> i think cloud is a good example of a "small" SIG that actually wound up having a fairly large impact on the direction of aspects of the distro
17:17:22 <mattdm> (yeah I think maybe "size" is a red herring here)
17:17:31 <jwb> and i don't think their ability to become that had anything to do with them being small or not having seats
17:17:35 <mjg59> The alternative is for the FPL to have responsibility for identifying projects that have the potential for strong influence on the overall project
17:17:42 <number80> mjg59: +1
17:17:52 <mattdm> mjg59: yes, I very much see that as part of my responsibility
17:18:01 <Sparks_too> mjg59: Except the given plan already minimizes their work.
17:18:06 <mjg59> And assume that the FPL is (a) paying attention and (b) cares more about the project than any specific agenda
17:18:34 <mjg59> Which I would hope is true!
17:18:46 <mjg59> But isn't really something we can explicitly document
17:19:07 <mattdm> My concern with the makeup overall is that I'd like to have a group which can focus on key strategic areas for a (say 18 month timeframe), and it'd be nice to have the makeup reflect that.
17:19:44 <mjg59> It's probably worth remembering that not being on the board doesn't mean other groups can't be part of the decision making process
17:19:46 <jwb> mattdm, you can't create a governing body to focus on "shiny new thing" for 18 months and leave the groups doing the daily work out of it
17:19:57 <jwb> mattdm, which is why i have repeatedly said we need ad-hoc and advisory roles
17:20:05 <mattdm> no, absolutely they need to be there.
17:20:07 <mjg59> But yeah, also what josh said
17:20:31 <number80> jwb: +1
17:21:07 <mattdm> jwb so, council as christoph suggests, but with advisory roles not necessarily taking "seats"?
17:21:33 <mattdm> (sheesh IRC is hard for this kind of conversation)
17:21:48 <Sparks_too> Why not give them a voice and a vote?
17:22:12 <jwb> mattdm, sure.  or to address your shiny new 18mo plan, appointed advisory seats
17:22:30 <jwb> and yes, IRC is difficult for this :)
17:22:44 <number80> I think the council should be small enough to be operational
17:23:04 <mjg59> Sparks_too: Can you give examples of the groups you're worried about being marginalised, and decisions where you think they'd make a meaningful difference to the conversation?
17:23:09 <Sparks_too> number80: It also has to be large enough to representative.
17:23:11 <number80> and bring more folks and when needed
17:23:12 <mattdm> So this is where it gets to the decision-making structure :)
17:23:17 <number80> Sparks_too: sure
17:24:20 <stickster> mjg59: I think advsiory vs. voting isn't making a difference to the conversation, only to the decision making process. And frankly more votes doesn't mean better decisions. If a council is ignoring all advisors the idea of it being a leadership body is greatly diminished or eliminated anyway.
17:24:33 <jwb> stickster, yes.
17:24:50 <kushal> stickster, +1
17:25:20 <mjg59> stickster: That would be my feeling, yes - sparks seems to disagree, and I'm trying to understand why
17:25:29 <Sparks_too> stickster: But when you get to appoint your own advisors then you really aren't hearing anything other than what you wanted in the first place.
17:25:37 <stickster> mjg59: Sure. I don't want to get in the way of that :-)
17:25:56 <stickster> Sparks_too: I think you just made an assumption about the advisors, though, right?
17:26:06 <jwb> Sparks_too, i love how you assume we're just going to be utterly shit at this.
17:26:16 <jwb> inspires confidence.
17:26:26 <Sparks_too> jwb: Just as your language does
17:26:39 <mjg59> Sparks_too: Really, it would help a great deal if you could give actual examples here
17:26:41 <jwb> ok.  i'm done today.
17:26:43 <number80> :/
17:26:49 <mjg59> I'm genuinely unsure what your concerns are
17:27:27 <mattdm> hey guys -- remember the IRC-is-hard-to-communicate thing
17:27:36 <Sparks_too> mjg59: I'd be better to try to write it for an email as I appear to be sucking at IRC today
17:28:14 <mattdm> Sparks_too thanks, I'd appreciate that.
17:29:18 * stickster disappointed that there can't be better real time communication here. I guess if the goal today is not to decide anything, then nothing really lost.
17:29:28 * stickster just an interested onlooker anyway.
17:29:47 <mattdm> Okay, so, is there a different direction we'd like to take the conversation at this point?
17:29:55 <mjg59> I think we've got a reasoanble idea of the concerns people have
17:30:11 <mjg59> But not a strong idea as to how those should shape the proposal
17:30:26 <number80> we also need to make sure that the council is regarded inclusive by the community too
17:30:31 <mjg59> Am I right in saying that we have these (potentially conlicting) concerns:
17:30:44 <mjg59> 1) The body not adequately representing the Fedora community
17:30:54 <mjg59> 2) The body not having sufficient focus to make decisions
17:31:09 <mjg59> ?
17:31:22 <number80> yup
17:31:35 <mjg59> What are the failure modes of (1)?
17:31:44 <mjg59> * Lack of community acceptance of decisions
17:32:00 <yn1v> as number80 said, I think that somehow the proposal has to show _open_door_policy_ so anybody is encourage to bring issues to the _new_body_
17:32:03 <mjg59> * Failing to maintain agility when new and important projects turn up
17:32:11 <mjg59> Anything else?
17:32:22 <mjg59> Sparks_too: I think this is where you have concerns
17:34:10 <mattdm> Lack of community acceptance is a big one, but also sort of self-correcting: decisions need to be accepted by the community to _work_ in a project like this.
17:35:39 <Sparks_too> mjg59: Yes, that's a big part of it.  If the vested owners are the ones making the decisions about the direction the Project goes then why would they ever change from their own personal vision?
17:35:52 <mattdm> I'm significantly more worried about failing to maintain agility as a failure mode of #2
17:36:49 <mattdm> Sparks_too: But.... what's the _alternative_ there? Make the people who _aren't_ vested in the big work of the project make the decisions?
17:36:56 <mjg59> mattdm: I think it would be self-correcting, but the concern is whether there's any significant community damage in the process
17:37:07 <MarkDude> +1 on concern for #2 some trust *is* there IMHO
17:37:50 <Sparks_too> mattdm: There should be some sort of independence there.  We shouldn't continue doing something just because someone's ego gets in the way.  If there is a better way then we should be able to embrace that.
17:37:53 <kushal> mattdm, that is also not possible.
17:38:28 <Sparks_too> mattdm: But, yes, I agree that it seems silly to leave the ones doing much of the heavy lifting out of the equation simply because they are doing the heavy lifting.
17:38:50 <mattdm> mjg59 agreed; I hope it's also somewhat *self-preventing* for the same reason, but I can also see good reasons to have some sort of assurance in the structure too (whatever that might be)
17:39:30 <MarkDude> But the process "fears" are generally not based in *actual things*. Just perception. Time spent asking the Community vs getting things done. Free the board to do its thing :) eof
17:40:51 <jwb> apologies.  took a deep breath and calmed myself.
17:41:24 <mattdm> welcome back jwb
17:42:44 * mattdm is thinking... sorry :)
17:43:37 <mattdm> I think the general fedora.next plan is *all about* being able to more flexibly address better ways as they come up.
17:43:58 <mattdm> So, that's going to be an important part of this no matter how exactly the group is composed.
17:44:36 <gholms> Sorry, folks.  Things have been rather crazy over here lately.  :-\
17:44:42 <mattdm> oh hi gholms!
17:44:45 <mattdm> #chair gholms
17:44:45 <zodbot> Current chairs: Sparks_too gholms jwb mattdm mjg59 number80 yn1v
17:46:24 <mattdm> I think the idea of having advisory roles in addition to the formal board is interesting, and the reason it connects to the decision making process is that it might be that these roles have "binding" votes in their areas but not necessarily in others
17:46:54 <mattdm> I'm wondering if it's possible to do that in a way that isn't really heavy on worrying about exactly whose area is what.
17:47:32 <mattdm> And if it isn't, if it's better to say "no binding votes on anything for you!" or "really big council with everyone having a binding vote"
17:47:51 <jwb> in a consensus model, isn't the importance of "votes" placed on dissenting opinions?
17:48:14 <jwb> because if so, then it shouldn't matter.  if someone dissents, they'd need to express why and what would need to change to make it accpetable.
17:48:37 <jwb> depending on exactly what you're going for with consensus i guess
17:48:44 <mattdm> jwb: yes, that's one way of looking at it.
17:48:44 <yn1v> I think that people bring trust, vision, passion... but also brings ego, agenda ... is a whole package. A body makes agreements that keep check in individual agendas
17:49:16 <stickster> jwb: That was something a valuable lesson I took from poelcat's work on Board matters long ago... "What would need to change for you to vote +1?"
17:49:21 <stickster> s/something//
17:51:01 <mattdm> (grr typing hard)
17:51:36 <mattdm> jwb Yes, an important concept is that a negative vote without expressing why doesn't count
17:53:25 <mattdm> And there's also the important concept of "I don't agree, but I'm not going to block, either"
17:53:38 <jwb> yes
17:55:07 <mattdm> okay so I'm actually kind of inspired to go to drafting things right now. :)
17:55:21 <mattdm> including both membership and decision making together :)
17:55:40 <jwb> wfm
17:55:47 <number80> *nods*
17:55:53 <mattdm> Anyone else have anything to add right now?
17:56:42 <yn1v> I think that moving from a body with fuzzy individual responsibilities to a body that is representative gives more clear accountability
17:57:22 <mattdm> yn1v: I agree
17:58:24 <mattdm> okay, thanks everyone!
17:58:27 <mattdm> #endmeeting