17:00:47 #startmeeting Board (2014-09-29) 17:00:47 Meeting started Mon Sep 29 17:00:47 2014 UTC. The chair is mattdm. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 17:00:47 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 17:00:49 #meetingname board 17:00:49 The meeting name has been set to 'board' 17:00:51 #chair mattdm gholms cwickert inode0 mjg59 Sparks jwb number80 yn1v 17:00:51 Current chairs: Sparks cwickert gholms inode0 jwb mattdm mjg59 number80 yn1v 17:00:57 :D 17:01:00 hi 17:01:07 * cwickert is here 17:01:08 #topic welcomes and stuff 17:01:13 hi all! 17:01:19 Morning 17:01:34 good morning! (or, corresponding whatever) 17:01:45 * number80 waves 17:02:03 whoo lookat that quorum :) 17:02:39 I'm going to wait another couple of minutes, switch topic to the agenda (as posted on the list) and then go from there... 17:02:43 well, now it only takes me to switch between terminal tabs between office and fedora :) 17:02:47 hi everyone 17:02:55 The _overall_ topic, of course, is reorg plans 17:02:57 hi inode0! 17:03:15 * yn1v is here 17:03:52 okay so just waiting on Sparks 17:03:58 any non-board lurkers around? 17:04:12 * nirik is lurking in the back, but also in another meeting 17:04:27 :) 17:04:34 i sent a ping to Sparks 17:04:36 * stickster lurking 17:04:52 well, I'm lurking also at nirik meeting too so we're now even :) 17:04:58 hah 17:05:07 okay, so I guess we'll get started 17:05:12 #topic Agenda 17:05:28 1. link goal-focused positions to Flock? 17:05:43 2. concerns about overlap and workload 17:06:13 3. (maybe partly related) encouraging/rewarding/allowing community participation 17:06:18 4. size of board 17:06:25 anything else? 17:06:38 it pretty sums up everything 17:06:44 okay then I'll leave 17:06:47 5. open discussion 17:06:47 I have a suggestion that might help me (and possibly others)... 17:06:53 6. next steps 17:06:56 nirik: go! 17:07:37 Would it be possible to make a draft wiki page or something that explains all the plan... it still seems kind of abstract on the list. Things like how people are chosen, what powers, how long they serve, basically the current Board page but for the council? 17:07:53 nirik: yes. you are jumping to #6 :) 17:08:28 ok, fair. 17:08:35 * nirik goes back to the background. 17:08:44 also, an open question is whether we should use council for the new name or keep the name board. switching names makes a lot of work for _you_. :) 17:08:54 but let's leave that for later :) 17:09:05 #topic Link goal-focused positions to Flock? 17:09:24 was some discussion on list 17:09:29 number80: anything more on this? 17:10:19 mattdm: if we agree that goals will be discussed and reevaluated there (not exclusively there, I mean), I'm fine 17:10:25 * gholms is reluctant to lock this into specific, yearly events 17:10:38 * inode0 is against direct linkage but would expect regular annual Flock sessions on governance/leadership issues to evaluate progress 17:10:46 inode0, yes, exactly 17:11:17 okay, yeah. so I think we all agree on that, and it's down to writing it up. 17:11:23 which I will do in nextsteps. :) 17:11:33 *nods* 17:12:02 #action mattdm to include language about evaluating goals (progress and issues) reguluarly at Flock and elsewhere 17:12:10 #topic concerns about overlap and workload 17:12:13 yn1v: ? 17:12:20 that summary isn't very good :) 17:12:22 * cwickert has problems to follow. What do you mean by linking positions to Flock and what do we (seem to) agree on? 17:12:30 #undo 17:12:31 Removing item from minutes: 17:13:08 cwickert, we seem to agree that using flock as a high-bandwidth forum to discuss current goals and seats is a good idea 17:13:18 cwickert: number80 had the initial suggestion of linking the goal-oriented positions I'd proposed to be selected at flock every year 17:13:30 I did read that 17:13:40 however I don't really agree :) 17:13:52 I had written 18 months in the proposal, but I didn't mean it to be a firm number 17:13:54 and from the start, I meant that it will be discussion, I'm perfectly in sync with no decision at flock 17:14:31 cwickert: okay can you explain the don't really agree part? 17:14:56 first of all, I don't think that Flock attendance should be a requirement to any position 17:15:10 at least as long as we cannot bring all the people there who like to attend 17:15:16 * gholms nods 17:15:36 Okay that sounds like agreeing with what we're saying above :) 17:15:49 we currently sponsor only speakers, so it is in fact: give a talk, be a potential candidate, get eleced eventually 17:15:50 oh, I understand, nobody wants to link positions to flock attendance :) 17:15:55 ok, sorry 17:16:10 but you're totally right 17:16:38 Right, you just want to use it for high-bandwidth goal discussions when not everyone in those positions would be in attendance. 17:16:56 I think we *should* look at making sure board members are able to attend Flock. It's a reasonable use of our money. 17:17:04 At least, if we have a small, active board. 17:17:05 If we can make absence from that not cripple things then that might be okay. 17:17:42 Assuming people can actually take the time away from work to do it, mattdm. 17:17:44 but as we've discussed, flock is good for discussion and brainstorming but not for deciding. 17:18:09 gholms yes, absolutely a consideration 17:18:57 But I don't think anyone wants to make Flock attendence mandatory. cwickert, did you have a second thing to follow "first of all"? :) 17:19:11 it's just that afk discussions could help refining the discussion and coming up with proposals that can be discussed without dispersing too much 17:19:31 and without closing the discussion though 17:19:34 mattdm: not if we all disagree 17:19:49 or agree, depending on how you look at it :) 17:19:51 I mean, to the initial idea of making attendance mandatory 17:20:00 * mattdm nods cheerfully 17:20:04 #topic concerns about overlap and workload 17:20:22 I think that this should be the next board problem :) 17:20:31 yn1v had two concerns related to these things. I have not summarized them well. :) 17:20:45 okey 17:20:52 I only voice my concern about overlaping, I am not against that. Just think about something to keep an eye on. 17:21:25 I agree with yn1v proposal that the next board reevaluate regularly its efficiency and this particular issue 17:21:26 1/4 people from rel eng, qa fesco 17:21:55 excatly, review later how actually works 17:22:28 yeah maybe there is something in general to formally say we'll review effectiveness overall and tweak as necessary after we've given it some time to work 17:22:28 the other concern is ... We have to figure out how to avoid burn out of very time intensive positions. People not being able to keep up with the role on the new_board and hies/her daily dutties. 17:23:04 new plan is to burn out 12 people instead of just one fpl! 17:23:31 :-) 17:23:33 orrrr, hopefully, spread out the heat to the degree that we have less burning _and_ more getting done. 17:23:34 I think that for positions tied to a group, the FPL could agree that another member from that group switches ;) 17:24:17 I don't think that burnout is a problem, because with the new 'goal' seats only Red Hatters will be able to fulfill this role anyway because they are the only ones who can spend that amount of time anyway. So I am more worried about community participation. 17:24:34 yeah, maybe we should move to that topic? 17:24:45 cwickert: this is why I want to keep few elected seats 17:24:51 #topic meaningful community participation? 17:24:54 number80: understood 17:25:12 yes, that's the other side of roles demanding too much time 17:25:20 ftr my proposal incorporates that with two elected seats 17:25:32 *nods* 17:25:40 With how much time commitment attached to them? 17:26:07 gholms: variable. those are the seats with the least-predefined duties 17:26:14 so that may actually be _correct_ 17:26:19 and I expect that the FPL keeps the implicit tradition to balance out the board between people with red fedora and white caps as much as possible 17:26:29 mattdm: how many 'goal' people would we usually have? would the number be constant or may it vary over time? 17:26:30 Makes sense 17:26:51 I don't know if everyone had a chance to read the message I just posted to board-discuss about this -- I'm going to drop this link just in case 17:26:52 https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/board-discuss/2014-September/012875.html 17:27:06 cwickert variable. 2-4. 17:27:21 4 seems like a lot, really, but it's a big project 17:27:32 with 1, we can definitely be doing more :) 17:27:38 cwickert: just guessing I think much more than 4 would be too many big goals at once to juggle 17:28:02 inode0: yeah that's my intuition too 17:28:04 inode0, agreed 17:28:29 * gholms nods 17:28:29 * cwickert wonders how this impacts decision making 17:28:41 one could think of small but effective goals (fixing our wiki organization) 17:29:03 cwickert: in my proposal, those positions only have binding votes in their own area, so, hopefully, not too much 17:29:15 number80: and that would give you a seat on the council? 17:29:19 there will be lots of goals, just not at the level of needing a dedicated contributor on this body to get done 17:29:41 cwickert: only for their own area, that also means that you're in touch with *every* group in fedora 17:29:52 that's just an example 17:30:09 Fixing wiki, probably too small. But "fixing our information architecture" could easily be an 18 month goal. 17:30:31 This is why I put that number there -- it kind of gives a sense of the appropriate intended scope 17:31:31 anyway -- is there a connection to community participation here? 17:33:16 * mattdm hears crickets 17:33:30 possibly everyone is reading the mail I linked... 17:33:49 or possibly there's a netsplit and I am all alone here 17:33:56 * cwickert is still here 17:34:14 i'm here. i have nothing to add at the moment :) 17:34:16 I'm just confused 17:34:30 I get the weird feeling that at some extend people want to be on the luxury of being paid to work in fedora the full time, but at the same time does not want to fedora be full of red hats. Which makes some people going back and forth. 17:34:35 * MarkDude is also concerened that RH folks will be the ones that can attend FLOCK 17:34:37 mattdm: I don't get you last comment before it got quiet 17:35:06 "is there a connection to community participation here?" <-- where? 17:35:12 +1 17:35:38 yn1v: my concern is to keep the initial social contract that started from the old times of fedora.us 17:35:53 cwickert: well the nominal topic is meaningful community involvement; that seemed to be a sidetrack on the goal-focused roles (or back to the earlier topic?) 17:35:57 MarkDude, fwiw, speaker funding is normally given to non-RHT employees first 17:36:11 MarkDude, and all RHT employees are asked to talk to their mgmt for travel funds to flock first 17:36:36 If its a council/biard must attend, then it just seems easier local folks can attend. as well as RH 17:36:59 Funding speakers was definitely the priority this year, but -- we can decide to spend the money to get non-speaker participants there too 17:37:02 MarkDude: the "must attend" think is already off the table 17:37:26 Thats good. that worried me 17:37:28 eof 17:37:55 mattdm, yes 17:38:00 The concern is more about spending money for people to just attend (and in some cases possibly with the goal of a free vacation really more than Fedora) — speaker made a simple threshold 17:38:01 Can we guarantee subsidy for the Board for any non-RHT folks at least? I think there's real value in getting them all there if possible. 17:38:18 +1 17:38:18 mattdm: so are you asking about community involvement in the project or in the council? 17:38:22 :) 17:38:27 sgallagh, i think we can possibly talk about that once we have the reorg done 17:38:51 sgallagh: but the matter is not only funding but being able to travel to Flock at that time too 17:38:54 inode0: good question. In the project, but in the sense of how council structure impacts that (not general brainstorming on the topic) 17:39:05 sgallagh, +1 17:39:10 guys, i don't want to derail good ideas, but you're still focused on Flock and not the overall reorg 17:39:11 number80: Sure, but that's going to be an issue no matter what with this many people. 17:39:21 Flock is a bonus. it's a nicety where we eval stuff we can eval. it's not a solution 17:39:22 ditto jwb 17:39:29 +1 17:39:32 + jwb 17:39:39 lets move on 17:39:40 It might be worth trying to push for earlier bids (as in having two year lead-times instead of 9-10 months) 17:39:47 But I'm bikeshedding and will stop 17:39:48 sgallagh, NO MORE FLOCK 17:39:49 We can also do non-Flock board FADs, where we plan around the schedule of the board members 17:39:57 mattdm, yes. 17:40:01 me gets the /kick ready 17:40:07 :) 17:40:10 mattdm: are we allowed to speak of FADs ? 17:40:17 not right now :) 17:40:20 can we not pleasE? 17:40:45 jwb: it wasn't flock or alike related but sure 17:41:20 well, I suggest that one of our first goal would be: community participation :) 17:41:24 The question is: how can we best structure the board/council to enable/empower community participation in the project, while also enabling and empowering the _board_ to a more active role? 17:41:29 number80, i would love to talk about what we want to do at FADs or flock or wherever as a group, but we need to decide what that group is first 17:41:54 agreed 17:42:55 I think the Community part- of almost all events- can be balanced- OSCONC and FOSSETCON, we had RH/Fedora folks- as well as plain old Fedora community people. A mix is great. Stating this a Project wide goal makes sense- as in attending events. The board is not yet formed- and I tend to trust it- as in people that care will be a part- no matter their paycheck surce 17:43:02 :) 17:43:14 mattdm: I think with the mostly passive board was more it's role, not necessarily the time members can spend 17:43:34 One possibility would be to make one or both of the elected positions specifically tasked with representing individual contributors 17:44:00 mattdm, +1 17:44:10 cwickert: can you expand? 17:44:12 mattdm: I submitted a suggestion to the mailing list a few minutes ago recommending that the Diversity Coordinator should have that responsibility as well 17:44:43 or more generally elected seat can be tasked with specific goals that their skills be suited plus those goals that he/she brings to the board 17:44:59 I should note that it is also DEFINITELY an FPL responsibilty, in my mind. 17:45:23 whether or not I'm getting a paycheck for it 17:45:32 mattdm: I could, but now I completely lost you. 17:45:37 the more individual contributors we get on the board, the better even if it means that excellent contributors should cede their seats 17:45:48 (best effort though) 17:46:04 s/cede/relinquish/ 17:46:05 mattdm: representing individual contributors? huh? Who else could represent say MarkDude but MarkDude himself? 17:46:18 who isn't an individual contributor in this discussion? 17:46:21 cwickert, I trsut you 17:46:31 cwickert: Perhaps "special interests" would be a better term 17:46:48 trust- to rep for my views- even if you disagree on it 17:47:03 cwickert: it's more about having more people with a different mindset. Though everyone is of good faith, you can't dismiss corporate bias 17:47:06 cwickert I can. MarkDude can talk to me, I can understand him, and I can advocate for him. For example. 17:47:14 As well as many other fair people- 17:47:16 +1 17:47:36 And unless we're going to direct democracy, there is really no other way. 17:47:44 Many meetings- my peers have brought up my points- even if they are opposed to them- its egalitarian 17:47:51 We _definitely_ need people who are good at that in all of these roles. 17:48:00 mattdm: So I guess you're talking a bit about a member-at-large whose job it is not to represent their own opinions, but those of groups that are less represented by other members. 17:48:04 number80: or group think, without even corporate being involved 17:48:28 misc: yes -- that's sgallagh's mailing list post about this being a diversity issue 17:48:30 * cwickert really has a hard time understanding 17:48:59 misc: that's what I expect from the next council, being inclusive and act as liaison between the head of the rest of the body :) 17:49:09 cwickert: Maybe think of it sort of (very roughly) like a Human Resources representative. Their job is to take your concerns to the right people. 17:49:53 sgallagh: but that is not representing "individual contributors" at all but representing a certain group or having a certain role 17:49:56 (Or maybe even better would be a faculty advisor at university, arguing on your behalf when needed) 17:50:10 How many of use can be a diversity person? /me think its a small list of us 17:50:43 Its a great goal- one I have done as long as I have been in FOSS 17:50:45 sgallagh: why would we represent certain people? 17:51:17 cwickert: That may have been a language barrier issue. I didn't mean "specific" people, I meant "underrepresented people" in the abstract. 17:51:18 cwickert: can we go back a second to what you were saying about board role vs. time? Doesn't a more active board almost certainly imply a greater time commitment? 17:51:35 But the thing is- I appear white- so nuance is needed. Im not just Italian, but Latino and Native American. Also active with Feminists 17:51:55 unless we have some street cred on it- its a really dicey thing to do 17:52:29 mattdm: It does, and that comes at a cost. 17:52:39 * inode0 feels we are drifting back and forth between about 4 topics and it is not easy to focus 17:52:47 mattdm: yes, we surely want a more active board and this requires active people, however if I look at the board and it's history, it was not the activeness of the individual members that made it become so passive 17:52:52 * mattdm agrees with inode0 17:52:58 * MarkDude respectfully is pointing out- that a very small group of people are capable of being Diversity person AND being looked at as a rep by outside community. eof 17:53:09 * number80 shuts up until the next topic to reduce signal noise 17:53:35 Can we tak the diversity thing- and sorta brainsytorm it more - before its a rathole? 17:53:51 gholms: yes. So... a) is that cost okay with the current plan? b) can we mitigate it? 17:53:57 take it off table- and really think it thru- focus on board? 17:53:59 MarkDude: can we save that for its own topic? 17:54:03 +1 17:54:06 in "board role vs. time" I think that some roles will aling to what people is doing, and some will require start from scratch, some will require much hourly weeks than others 17:55:05 mattdm: The cost is shutting out people who can't commit that much time. From the sound of it we're pretty much in agreement that a more active board is worth that. 17:55:28 I agree with gholms 17:55:38 gholms: not sure 17:55:50 gholms: I know this one kind of hits you directly 17:56:19 mattdm: sure, we all would need to be more active, but in your current proposal it sounds like a lot of people will not be able to be on the board if they cannot dedicate themselves 100% to Fedora 17:56:32 because of the role based approach 17:56:46 mattdm: Hey, if it means progress... ;) 17:57:36 So, we have had trouble even filling the current board's seats at times. 17:57:37 * mattdm is thinking while typing 17:58:00 i'm not sure that's true 17:58:05 Will enough people still step up after this change? 17:58:06 today the board doesn't have roles 17:58:14 we don't have active goals or targets to hit 17:58:16 jwb what, that i'm thinking? i totally am 17:58:27 I think that cwickert is right for several proposed seats, some of those most likely are already full time fedora contrubutors 17:58:37 so people have no incentive or interest in joining a body that apprears to do nothing 17:58:50 I agree with yn1v's assessment: some of the roles will require greater or lesser time. 17:59:17 but if we have goals and targets, and we can rely on people to work on them and be accountable, i don't necessarily think that means 100% 17:59:26 i think it means consistent effort over the defined timeframe 17:59:39 I also do think that a board-level position _needs_ to come with a commitment of time. It _should_ be a big deal. 17:59:43 jwb: Do you believe that will be enough to get sufficient people to make that commitment? 18:00:12 gholms, "enough"? i don't know. but it will go a long way towards helping people understand what they're expected to do 18:00:18 gholms: if it doesn't work, that'll be something we learn really quickly 18:00:21 * gholms nods 18:00:28 and again, i don't think that expectation is necessarily 100% full-time effort 18:00:29 gholms: who are you worried about? 18:00:49 I mean which positions? 18:01:26 1/3 are automatic appointments of full time people, 1/3 are appointments of almost certain to be full time people. 18:01:30 inode0: I'd like to stop having elections with barely enough candidates to fill all the positions. So, the community members at large. 18:01:46 I think it's true that a lot of people will not be able to be on the board with the new structure. It's a cost. But, I think that we can find ways to make the contributions and input and ideas those people have be recognized _without_ giving board seats 18:02:17 If there are only a couple, I suspect it won't be a huge issue. 18:02:28 inode0: I don't think that the goal-based ones are necessarily all full-time roles. 18:02:29 mattdm: Yeah! 18:02:41 inode0: that is the point. whit this design, it looks like 2/3 of the seats will be filled by full-time people 18:02:44 the two elected seats likely will be viewed as so marginalized that I don't expect much interest to be honest unless it is the novelty of a new organization 18:03:01 inode0, +1 18:03:14 marginalized in what way? 18:03:33 inode0: however, keep in mind that we're _also_ switching to a consensus decision model. unlike majority voting, marginalization is hard 18:03:49 right 18:04:24 that's _really_ crucial to this proposal 18:04:47 the board has used consensus in the past too ... I don't think that is a big differentiation 18:04:59 not in the manner mattdm is suggesting 18:05:11 or if it has, i don't recall it at all 18:05:20 Differences between the two consensus models? 18:05:29 maybe you could explain how decisions will be made in a bit more detail now then to help me understand 18:05:47 mattdm: I missed the detail of the consensus model. Is this the "everyone has a full veto" model, or a "everyone but one" type, etc.? 18:06:09 in short, if you have a -1 vote, the proposal doesn't pass initially at all. the -1 vote needs to come with "these are the things i'm concerned about, or here is what would need to change to be acceptable" 18:06:38 and then if we don't come to consensus? 18:06:55 We work at it. That's part of the time commitment. 18:07:10 1 person filibuster? 18:07:16 does a single stubborn -1 with reasons block? 18:07:30 yes, for some time anyway 18:07:42 it's not a tally 18:08:00 Yeah, we can talk about formalizing a model where a single -1 can only block for a certain amount of time if no one else becomes convinced. 18:08:14 e.g. 5 +1s and 4 -1s means "holy crap, this is really bad. we need to reevaluate" 18:08:20 not "measure passes" 18:08:25 jwb exactly 18:08:37 ok, I'm open to changing my opinion about marginalization depending on the details here 18:09:12 * gholms notes that works better for people-y stuff like this than it does for software dev 18:09:14 I'll definitely put this in the next steps document. 18:09:28 gholms, yes 18:09:29 the odd community member could actually have more power rather than less 18:09:41 IIRC, the way CentOS handles those -1 cases is that in the case of a stubborn -1 with reasons, the measure is blocked until the consensus is reached or a unanimous vote to remove the blocking person happens. 18:09:43 inode0, certainly more "voice" than they've ever had 18:09:45 gholms yes I expect that fesco will stick to voting 18:09:47 It still looks like 2/3 RH 1/3 community to me. Hash out details and its worth trying. it DOES have chance to balance this 18:09:52 i kind of dislike phrasing things in terms of "power" 18:09:52 Which means removing and replacing them on the Board. 18:10:09 "power" sets up struggles. "voice" sets up people to listen and discuss 18:10:10 sgallagh: yeah, I strongly do not want that in Fedora 18:10:23 infinity freedom voice :) 18:10:23 inode0: Sure, I don't think that's a good fit either. 18:10:29 sgallagh, +1 that would freak many folks out 18:10:32 jwb: fair, voice 18:10:41 sgallagh: isn't it a last measure , like FPL voting ? 18:10:48 jwb: Does that mean we should pretend it doesn't exist, or is it just irrelevant? 18:10:59 misc: To the best of my knowledge, it hasn't actually come up yet. 18:11:03 MarkDude: I'm not terribly excited about the RH vs. community distinction you are making there. 18:11:05 * stickster would think someone with a lone -1 would have respect for fellow group members and hold the -1 as long as was reasonable, and not beyond. Otherwise we have different problems. 18:11:18 not me- perceptions of FOSS community 18:11:19 gholms, i said phrasing. people can think whatever they want. i'm just trying to stay positive (which is a new thing!) 18:11:21 Removing a dissonant voice is not a good thing, we don't want a homogenuous council 18:11:27 jwb: Ah, got it. 18:11:38 * MarkDude is Community person- that trust RH and the Project 18:11:56 stickster, agreed 18:11:58 stickster Yes! That is a key component of consensus. Everyone needs to feel strongly about working together for a common goal 18:12:09 number80: yet, people who block stuff may exist, it happened n a project i know 18:12:10 number80: Well, the idea there is that this would only happen in cases of extreme need to get something through and it *would* carry a negative stigma 18:12:12 * yn1v needs to leave. 18:12:16 at the very least, if someone wants to keep disagreeing => -0 18:12:29 But I am done defending it, because I don't like it either :) 18:12:39 and the flip side of what stickster is saying is that the rest of the group needs to respect a reasonable -1 18:12:53 number80: but exclusion didn't really solve the issue in the end 18:12:53 mattdm++ 18:12:53 mattdm: +1 18:12:54 misc: yup 18:13:00 mattdm, +1 18:13:09 Mhm 18:13:12 mattdm: +1 18:13:16 number80: now, without it, it could have stalled for much longer 18:13:38 misc: you should be able to override a single -1 after a certain amount of time 18:14:01 number80: let's work out the details separately. 18:14:06 *nods* 18:14:22 We *should* have a way to address the worst case on the books. 18:14:22 mjg59: are you still around? 18:14:48 I'd argue that it's not a terrible idea for it to be a bad situation for all involved, so that we're disinclined to allow it to reach that point. 18:14:56 I am 18:14:56 i'm curious to hear what you're thinking. so much quietness :) 18:15:15 (Sorry briefly distracted) 18:15:31 * gholms needs to go AFK in five minutes 18:16:00 Really if we have someone on the body who is -1 for poor reasons then the failure is in how we populated the board 18:16:21 We have to assume good faith 18:16:31 *nods* 18:16:40 And if people are earnestly disagreeing in good faith then that really does indicate that there's a problem we need to solve 18:16:59 Although I can see some cases where this might end up being problematic 18:17:29 eg, certain social issues are going to be difficult to solve in a way that will not result in someone feeling that the solution is actively harmful 18:17:29 I think we minimize that if we require the "reasons" to always include "what would make me change this to +1" 18:18:18 I think we need to leave ourselves open to finding a way to a solution of we end up in a problem situation sometime in the future, but I don't think we need to optimize for it now. 18:18:18 I think that someone could earnestly believe that, for example, Fedora participation in OPW was something they fundamentally objected to 18:19:01 So I do think we need to figure out whether there are cases that the FPL should be empowered to override an otherwise deadlocked consensus process 18:19:48 +1 18:20:07 Practically, I think the FPL should *always* be able to do that 18:20:30 And trust that we have FPLs who will choose not to exercise that power most of the time 18:20:45 mjg59: by asking the person blocking consensus to step down, or through some other means? 18:20:58 mattdm: By simply making the decision themselves 18:21:22 Yup. Same as we have now. 18:21:35 (essentially) 18:22:05 can we do a straw poll of who on the board is in favor of that? +1 if so 18:22:10 I need to go now, but I will read scrollback later. Thanks for the discussion, everyone! 18:22:25 BTW, what happens to the Board makeup when mattdm eventually steps down from FPL? Does the new FPL invest a new Board, or are they required to work with the existing Board, or ? 18:22:33 gholms: i'm counting your Yup as a +1 18:22:49 +1 18:22:50 sgallagh: existing board, sucker. 18:23:19 +1, unsurprisingly 18:23:20 mattdm: I really don't want to vote on that without thinking about it, if I have to vote two seconds after hearing it -1 18:23:29 mattdm: The vote/tiebreak process we have now should be a last-resort deadlock breaker, yes. 18:23:40 sgallagh, existing board. mattdm didn't kick off this discussion, so it's not like he's the one changing the board because he was made FPL 18:23:54 number80, cwickert? 18:23:56 inode0: fair :) 18:24:07 this is a straw poll, not a binding vote 18:24:13 on whatß 18:24:15 ? 18:24:17 * inode0 could easily be persuaded in some form 18:24:36 jwb: Sure, I was mostly looking for that to be unambiguous. 18:24:37 FPL as overriding stuck consensus as measure of last resort 18:24:42 ah 18:24:44 sure 18:24:49 that is a no-brainer 18:24:57 +0 18:24:59 I mean, didn't we always have that? 18:25:07 okay, so, looks like range is neutral to strongly in favor :) 18:25:13 or did we just have veto-powers for the FPL? 18:25:14 not really, at least not codified 18:25:17 mattdm: Suggestion: that power cannot be used without a minimum of 14 days of active discussion. 18:25:28 veto power was codified 18:25:36 sgallagh: good call; something like that. 18:25:39 (i.e. meaning not 14 days including the week between Christmas and New Year's etc.) 18:25:57 well, as long as the person is blocking decisions and refuse compromise :/ 18:25:58 details :) 18:26:28 sgallagh: I'd extend that to "Or if the board accepts that they have reached deadlock and explicitly asks the FPL for a decision" 18:26:40 mjg59: also good. 18:26:40 I think we can assume good faith that consensus is always the desired outcome for all participants 18:26:47 mjg59: +1 18:28:14 * inode0 can easily agree to "If the board/council accepts that they have reached deadlock and explicitly asks the FPL for a decision" 18:28:20 Anyway, I have faith in our FPL soft powers :) 18:28:46 #info although nominally this was about individual community contributors, there's a lot of discussion in this part of the meeting about consensus process so if that's interesting to you see the full logs 18:28:59 now what happens when the board/council is deadlocked and deciding that? :-) 18:29:11 inode0: ouch yes I was biting my tongue on that question :) 18:29:19 FPL take the decision and pwn them all 18:29:45 that's quite an incentive to encourage people to reach consensus 18:29:50 inode0: but we can find some wording that seems reasonable. 18:29:58 In a consensus situation, that seems to me that it's the responsibility of both sides to try to write a more palatable proposal 18:30:02 And find middle-ground. 18:30:04 * cwickert needs to leave 18:30:06 sgallagh: yes! 18:30:13 How much longer are we planning to go today at this point? At least I am feeling better about this all now. 18:30:16 If it's that split, it's *not* a good decision 18:30:27 inode0: in that case, we're probably done. 18:30:33 quick, quit now :) 18:30:40 * sgallagh snorts 18:30:45 in seriousness.... 18:30:49 #topic next steps 18:31:03 I'm going to take my proposal into a wiki page 18:31:18 as nirik suggested, fleshing out something that would replace the current Board page 18:31:42 it would include both the structure part from my email _and_ the consensus method we've discussed here 18:32:00 personally, I think that we should accept that we can't solve every issue of the new governance and accept "good enough" 18:32:23 when reached, we should leave the new board/council address these issues 18:32:35 "Changes to the consesnsus policy must be made by consensus of the Board" ;-) 18:32:50 then, this week, another round of "+1", or negatives or 0s with specific concerns 18:33:21 And let's aim to actually vote on something next monday? 18:33:42 +1 18:34:19 that is, final on monday -- I'll try to have the draft for first round MUCH before that, and hope y'all can provide feedback. 18:34:34 so that it is in fact an easy unanimous by monday 18:34:39 sound good? 18:34:54 yes 18:35:09 okay then! 18:35:13 yeah, I'd like to have time for further discussion - if that can happen before the weekend then Monday might work 18:35:49 yeah, if I don't hold up my end of the bargain and get further discussion going before monday, then I won't try to force a vote. 18:36:08 I suspect at this point most concerns can be resolved, and would prefer to have them resolved if possible. 18:36:08 and conversely, if I do stay up all night writing, I hope feedback is fast and profuse :) 18:36:15 inode0: awesome. 18:36:29 mattdm: depends on updates 18:36:47 i.e., how many hours I need to spend doing them 18:37:06 mattdm, fast and concise works too 18:37:17 I want git-formatted patches 18:37:21 jwb: true words! 18:37:34 in any case, I'm going to end this meeting in one minute 18:37:39 unless there are objections to that 18:37:51 and probably even if there are objections. 18:37:55 * inode0 expects this to be unanimous 18:38:04 * number80 is hungry 18:38:34 okay! 18:38:36 Thanks everyone for the very helpful to me session today. 18:38:36 #endmeeting