17:00:48 <mattdm> #startmeeting Board (2014-10-13)
17:00:48 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon Oct 13 17:00:48 2014 UTC.  The chair is mattdm. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:00:48 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
17:00:49 <mattdm> #meetingname board
17:00:50 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'board'
17:00:54 <mattdm> #chair mattdm gholms cwickert inode0 mjg59 Sparks jwb number80 yn1v
17:00:54 <zodbot> Current chairs: Sparks cwickert gholms inode0 jwb mattdm mjg59 number80 yn1v
17:00:56 <mattdm> #topic Hello everybody, so glad to see you!
17:01:17 <mattdm> hello! who is around?
17:01:19 <yn1v> .fas yn1v
17:01:20 <zodbot> yn1v: yn1v 'Neville A. Cross' <yn1v@taygon.com>
17:02:28 <mattdm> hi yn1v!
17:02:31 <mattdm> just the two of us?
17:02:31 <inode0> hey
17:02:36 <mattdm> :)
17:02:38 <mattdm> hi inode0!
17:02:51 <yn1v> hello mattdm inode0
17:02:55 <mattdm> I went through the open tickets this morning...
17:02:55 <number80> heya
17:02:59 <mattdm> hi number80!
17:03:14 <mattdm> a few of them were open pending me doing something, so I did those things and closed them
17:04:21 <mattdm> #topic agenda
17:04:39 <mattdm> I don't think we have any urgent action items at this point
17:04:55 <mattdm> The main thing is coordinating the upcoming election
17:05:10 <mattdm> and supporting fesco/famsco in their representative process
17:05:12 <jwb> hi, i'm here now
17:05:16 <mattdm> hi jwb!
17:05:32 <mattdm> does anyone have any other agenda items?
17:05:54 <yn1v> nope
17:06:07 <inode0> maybe some election process discussion
17:06:31 <mattdm> yeah, let's start with that, and then move to open floor after
17:06:37 <mattdm> #topic Election process discussion
17:07:09 <mattdm> I think Josh's point that we should wait until after the representative positions are chosen is a good one
17:07:49 <number80> *nods*
17:08:14 <inode0> That is fine with me although not a big deal either way - either someone has to wait if you want to avoid conflicts (which I think would be rare)
17:08:17 <number80> goal champions could be chosen later
17:08:30 <mattdm> number80: yes, they should be chosen by the new council
17:08:42 <mattdm> but I am going to start a discussion about those goals in the meantime
17:08:56 <mattdm> (I have a message in draft form that I'm working on)
17:09:56 <inode0> I mean we could schedule the election - and if fesco/famsco can't choose before it they could wait until after it too
17:10:12 <mattdm> We had some discussion about moving the wiki-based questionnaire to being something we do by email and then publish on the fedora magazine
17:10:24 <inode0> who waits is what doesn't matter to me if that wasn't clear
17:10:36 <mattdm> inode0: yes sounds clear :)
17:11:32 <mattdm> i think the current course as it's set up right now (with the requests I made to fesco/famsco)..
17:11:34 <number80> mattdm: if we're moving questionnaire to the magazine, could it also be featured into the landing page slideshow ?
17:12:00 <mattdm> ...is for the representative roles to come first. Does anyone have an objection to that?
17:12:19 <mattdm> number80: you mean on http://fedoraproject.org/?
17:12:20 <inode0> So I do have some thoughts about the questionnaire/townhalls which I want to put on the record even though I don't expect anyone else to agree with me.
17:12:24 <number80> mattdm: yup
17:12:26 <mattdm> inode0: go for it
17:12:38 * mattdm hold on afk for a few minutes brb
17:13:10 <inode0> I think both have proven to be a complete failure for many elections now and should be dropped entirely at this point.
17:13:24 <jwb> inode0, yes.  i agree completely
17:13:32 <inode0> People don't come to the townhalls, people don't read either the townhall logs or the questionnaires.
17:13:46 <inode0> Both are a hassle for organizers and candidates.
17:13:53 <number80> though I agree, I'd like to keep the questionnaires
17:14:01 <inode0> Both discourage participation when they were intended to encourage it.
17:14:42 <jwb> i'd rather just have people email candidates with their questions
17:15:18 <inode0> I see no real reason now not to revert to a simpler and shorter election process.
17:15:34 <number80> it would be nice to have questions & answers public
17:15:55 * mattdm is back -- sorry, kids off school today!
17:16:02 <inode0> It would be nice if someone would read them but that doesn't happen so it is a waste of energy.
17:16:24 <mattdm> inode0: yes, I tend to agree
17:16:46 <number80> I do read them but I'm a special case :)
17:16:56 <mattdm> The magazine proposal is an attempt to address that
17:17:03 <inode0> Well, there is a fair amount of agreement so maybe we should think about this some
17:17:32 <number80> at least, nobody complained about dropping townhalls at this point
17:17:32 <mattdm> I _would_ like people to have an opportunity to meaningfully present their ideas and plans
17:17:34 <inode0> number80: you and 25 other people who read them but probably don't learn much new from them read them :)
17:17:44 <mattdm> It shouldn't be a name-recognition contest
17:18:01 <number80> inode0: I found surprising things at least twice :)
17:18:18 <yn1v> I do read wiki summar when I don't know the person
17:18:45 <inode0> mattdm: I hear that a lot and while intuitively I can believe there is some of that having a recognized name doesn't mean that is why *anyone* voted for you.
17:19:36 <inode0> We used to have candidates express all that in their nomination page.
17:19:38 <mattdm> inode0: I definitely hope it is never the only factor
17:19:49 <gholms> Sorry, all.  Internet problems.  :(
17:20:02 <mattdm> hi gholms! talking about election process and town halls
17:20:18 <mattdm> inode0: Are there active things you would replace the townhalls with?
17:20:24 <gholms> Wiki pages, Q&A and all that?
17:20:29 <mattdm> gholms yeah.
17:20:44 * number80 in favour of trying the fedora magazine path
17:21:11 <inode0> mattdm: I really like the townhalls but they I don't feel they are worth the effort to continue for my pleasure - I think someone needs to convince the community to care first.
17:22:06 <inode0> So, no, I don't have any plan to replace it now. I think a simpler election has benefits and the same result.
17:22:47 * gholms finds them useful, but another "Q&A with the community" mechanism should work just as well
17:22:52 <mattdm> So... the natural question is "how can we convince the community to care". But I guess a better one is "What does the community care about and how can we connect that to the elction process?"
17:23:20 <inode0> Piss them off somehow is the usual way to get any group to care. :)
17:23:23 <number80> gholms: something like ask fedora ?
17:24:10 <mattdm> inode0 Or to put that another way, people care when the decision seems like it might affect what they do
17:24:31 <gholms> Assuming it can take multiple answers equally, sure.  Talk pages might work, too.
17:25:22 <number80> it can and people could vote their favorite answer, could an useful tool
17:25:31 <mattdm> number80: it might be interesting to use the askbot engine. anyone could ask questions, and we'd restrict answers to declared candidates
17:25:43 <mattdm> but I don't think that mixes well with the existing ask fedora
17:25:54 <gholms> No!  Favorite answers is antithetical to what we'd need here.
17:25:57 <inode0> mattdm: maybe, fesco definitely affects people and the same rough small number of votes is cast each election
17:26:20 <jwb> could have each candidate do one of those ask-me-anything things
17:26:30 <gholms> Ooh, there's an idea.
17:26:32 <mattdm> jwb: on reddit?
17:26:41 <jwb> mattdm, *shrug*
17:26:53 <mattdm> Do we have another platform for it?
17:27:02 <jwb> not particularly
17:27:12 <jwb> though not every candidate is going to be on reddit either
17:27:40 <inode0> Why will that draw people to it that won't come to a townhall or read a wiki page or ask the candidate something directly?
17:27:40 <gholms> Heck, a wiki page could work for that.
17:28:17 <mattdm> gholms: although _active_ wiki talk converations can get messy
17:28:30 <mattdm> and I think the voting up or down of responses is part of why AMA works on reddit
17:28:35 <jwb> inode0, it might not.  my biggest gripe about townhalls though were 1) specific time limits participation, 2) it's a jumbled mess to read, and 3) you get a lot of repeat answers because all the candidates are in one place at one time
17:28:41 <Southern_Gentlem> have each candidate put it on their blog and said blog linked to the planet
17:28:52 <gholms> inode0: I want something interactive and public.  The reason I tend to miss townhalls is scheduling, so something with a little more delay and organization may be better.
17:28:54 <jwb> making it a per-candidate thread over a longer time period might help
17:28:56 <jwb> or it might now
17:28:59 <jwb> er not
17:29:04 <jwb> i was literally just throwing out ideas
17:30:01 <inode0> The problem I see with dragging out discussions is most people who are motivated enough to come to read the discussion once probably won't keep coming back to see updates.
17:30:41 <number80> or a moderated mailing list with a script to forbid replies from non-candidates
17:30:45 * inode0 is very pessimistic about anything working short of bribing people
17:30:53 <mattdm> So, imperfect as it may be, I'm leaning towards a one-time interview in magazine, plus keeping the town halls.
17:30:57 <jwb> inode0, lol
17:31:28 <gholms> mattdm: Basically taking the wiki stuff and making it a magazine thing?
17:31:59 <inode0> I'll come at this from one more angle and then drop it ...
17:32:05 <mattdm> gholms: yeah, although we'd solicit questions by email, prepare a standard interview, and then publish responses all at once.
17:32:27 <jwb> mattdm, how is that any different from the current questionaire that nobody bothers to submit questions for?
17:32:35 <jwb> you aren't changing anything other than the place it's published.
17:32:46 <yn1v> I don't like townhalls, in the ones that I have been candidate there are more candidates and organizer than public
17:32:50 <inode0> Think about all this from the candidate perspective too. Each hurdle might seem fairly small to us as non-candidates but each hurdle rules out potential candidates who don't want to do those things.
17:33:43 <mattdm> jwb: I think making collecting community questions the _basis_ is the flaw. We should start with some simple ones, and allow the community input into expanding those.
17:34:03 <gholms> mattdm: Wasn't it a one-time thing?
17:34:09 <mattdm> A couple of times we had "whelp, no questions, so no questionnaire"
17:34:10 <jwb> mattdm, i think you'll wind up with only the simple ones and then it'll still be a pointless exercise
17:34:30 <yn1v> if they don't whant do those things, then they are not motivated to do more things? It is a bad thing to have a small barrier?
17:34:36 <jwb> doing both questionaire and townhall is overkill.
17:34:47 <jwb> particularly given the lack of participation for either one
17:34:48 <mattdm> okay, maybe "simple" is the wrong word.
17:35:06 <number80> Besides, no candidate has ever been ruled out for not participating in townhall or even answering the questionnaire
17:35:24 <mattdm> jwb with that argument I could be convinced to drop the town hall
17:35:26 <gholms> number80: That is absolutely not the case for me.
17:35:28 <inode0> yn1v: my feeling is most great leaders don't want to and are not willing to campaign - they need to be recruited
17:35:43 <number80> gholms: did that happen ? :/
17:35:55 <gholms> number80: Yeah.  I didn't vote for them.
17:36:10 <number80> gholms: but they were still candidate
17:36:20 <gholms> number80: So?
17:36:31 <jwb> guys, terminology difference.  stop it
17:36:39 <number80> *nods*
17:36:47 <gholms> jwb: Not at all.
17:36:50 <yn1v> inode0, has we have any time any sort of recruiting candidates?
17:36:54 <gholms> ..but still irrelevant.
17:37:15 <jwb> gholms, you didn't vote for them.  others might have because they were still on the ballot.  it's a terminology difference
17:37:36 * yn1v nods
17:37:41 <jwb> unless you're advocating for removing people from teh ballot in that case.  if so, please be clearer
17:37:48 <inode0> yn1v: yes, people ask others they know and think would be good leaders to run all the time
17:38:10 <gholms> jwb: It sounds like that was his point:  we haven't.
17:38:28 <jwb> what?
17:38:35 * jwb gives up
17:38:37 <mattdm> Okay, so there's a decidable thing. Assuming we have an interview to run in the magazine, should we drop people who don't respond?
17:39:01 <number80> since they can answer asynchronuously (no TZ issue) => yes
17:39:09 <number80> that mean they don't care at all
17:39:18 * inode0 will just note that some groups did reject candidates who did not answer required questions on the nomination page in the past
17:39:31 <gholms> mattdm: Given the level of participation we're asking of council members I'm willing to say yes.
17:39:49 <mattdm> anyone disagree?
17:39:51 <yn1v> sorry inode0, I have asked, and as said yes, I went to all the requisites, because I committed
17:40:28 <inode0> Since I don't think an interview will be seen by anyone then I wouldn't reject a candidate for not giving one
17:40:28 <yn1v> yes, Ithinh as long they have time, who fail to commit to a small task won't do good in bigger tasks
17:41:31 <mattdm> inode0: Is there a way in which interviews _could_ be made more visible?
17:41:57 <mattdm> I mean, we need to assume that we have some way of communicating meaningfully within the project!
17:42:00 <inode0> mattdm: I don't think visibility is the problem - the problem is there is almost no audience for them
17:42:39 <gholms> The point of the council is to change that, no?
17:42:52 <inode0> and again I feel this is a lot of effort be expended when it is only going to apply to 2 of 12 seats
17:43:31 <yn1v> meaninful way to reach ... not sure ... announcement list ? maybe not event sure
17:43:35 <mattdm> inode0: So, since I think it's clear that there was a strong demand for elected positions, I'm not sure I agree about lack of audience, but if we accept that as true now, I think it's part of our job to address that.
17:44:24 <number80> inode0: from a PR point of view, I'd like to see council folks being interviewed in fedora magazine
17:44:31 <number80> or at least featured
17:44:32 <inode0> mattdm: ok, we created townhalls and questionnaires trying to address that! I'm just observing after 5 years I don't think this is the answer.
17:45:32 <mattdm> inode0: I really do partly think that the problem is that the townhalls are buried in irc and the questionnaires on our very over-extended and disorganized wiki
17:45:36 <inode0> But this is much less important to me today. We have only two seats subject to this now.
17:46:37 <inode0> 1 seat per release going forward
17:47:38 <mattdm> inode0: So, do you think we shouldn't require the interview to be completed?
17:48:00 <inode0> and I wonder if the community rejects this in part because it politicizes these elected positions moving them away for meritocratic ideals
17:48:12 * mattdm guesses that we can just leave it and have "_____ did not complete the interview by the deadline."
17:48:51 <inode0> mattdm: some bodies used to just ask for a number of questions to be answered as part of the self-nomination process
17:49:06 <gholms> I'd be okay with that.  If nothing else it would make things easier to find.
17:49:25 * gholms hrms
17:50:34 <inode0> But if 50 IPs view those and 200 people vote and I think we in the end are trusting to 200 people to make a good choice and they don't make it based on answers to questions or townhalls, they make it based on what they know about the candidates already.
17:51:00 <mattdm> In any case, I would like to send a message outlining the importance of these elections and the impact the seated members will have
17:51:18 <mattdm> inode0: I don't entirely disagree
17:51:39 <mattdm> Would anyone else like to write, draft, or help draft that message?
17:51:39 <gholms> That's probably true to an extent, yeah.
17:52:29 <yn1v> I think that this election will be different as there will be only two representative seats, and probably there will be a expectation of more action
17:53:20 <inode0> I'm not sure I'm confident that very many people who could vote have any idea what is going on.
17:53:43 <number80> not so sure, we have a low voter rate
17:53:57 <jwb> inode0, are you suggesting a minimum voter percentage for the elections to be valid?
17:54:05 <inode0> I don't expect that to change but it will be interesting if it does
17:54:12 <inode0> jwb: not at all
17:54:28 <jwb> inode0, ok.  just confused because it sounds like you think elections are pointless in general at the moment
17:54:34 <mattdm> inode0: or conversely, suggestiong a higher participation threshold for voting?
17:54:48 <yn1v> I don't think we will have 100% voters, I think we will have some increment
17:55:12 <jwb> yn1v, the past several elections, for _any_ election, as never gone above 20%
17:55:22 <inode0> jwb: I think townhalls and other fuss around elections are pointless. Just self-nominate, vote, be done with it. We get the same result I think.
17:55:23 <mattdm> Desire for elections seems pretty strong overall. We should try to make them as effective as we can.
17:55:34 <jwb> inode0, ok, clear enough.
17:55:58 <mattdm> okay, so.. five minutes left in the hour.
17:56:06 <number80> one question: what is 100% for you ? FAS membership based or activity based ?
17:56:14 <number80> the threshold would be quite different
17:57:03 <mattdm> I guess my leaning above has tilted towards doing the magazine interview but dropping the townhalls
17:57:11 <yn1v> <joke>badges based</joke>
17:57:19 <number80> lol
17:57:24 <inode0> mattdm: I have a desire for the community to be able to effect change through the governance process when it feels governance isn't serving them.
17:57:25 <mattdm> (one vote per badge!)
17:57:40 <number80> yn1v: it did work for nuancier, nonetheless ;)
17:58:19 <mattdm> inode0: and, to interpret: if they're not voting, it basically means everything is fine?
17:58:36 <mattdm> (I'm not necessarily disagreeing or agreeing, just want to understand)
17:58:40 <inode0> to me it means they aren't annoyed enough to organize and act
17:59:35 <inode0> I doubt Fedora governance would ever get to that point - but philosophically I like have a mechanism for peaceful rebellions :)
17:59:40 <mattdm> That makes sense, although I really hope for something better than annoyance or anger-based participation
17:59:53 <mattdm> for when we're far, far way from that point.
17:59:59 <number80> yeah
18:00:37 <mattdm> So anyway. I didn't see any other hands go up so I will write a message about upcoming elections and their impact
18:00:39 <jwb> that sounds... bad.  "Fedora!  Such a welcoming place that we're fueled entirely by anger!"
18:01:34 <inode0> If the Council is an exciting place I'm sure there will be more interest in running for these two seats over time.
18:01:41 <stickster> inode0++
18:01:45 <yn1v> jwb, maybe sounds bad, but you make laugh
18:01:45 <mattdm> inode0++
18:02:05 <number80> There is anger, and I hope that one of our goal would be "community happiness"
18:02:17 <jwb> yn1v, never underestimate the power of quiet rage :)
18:02:20 <mattdm> number80++ to that too
18:02:39 <mattdm> okay so ... an hour on this. does anyone have any other topics?
18:02:50 <yn1v> I always wanted to have 5th fundation: FUN
18:02:59 <gholms> jwb: Scratching one's own itches  ;)
18:03:02 <inode0> nope, didn't mean to use up an hour on that
18:03:16 <jwb> inode0, good conversation though
18:03:23 <yn1v> indeed
18:03:31 <number80> inode0: this is part of your job, raising your concerns :)
18:03:36 <mattdm> I agree, yes. :)
18:04:05 <mattdm> okay, so.... ending meeting?
18:04:21 <jwb> please
18:04:24 <mattdm> #endmeeting