18:01:40 <mattdm> #startmeeting Board (2014-11-10)
18:01:40 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon Nov 10 18:01:40 2014 UTC.  The chair is mattdm. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
18:01:40 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
18:01:45 <mattdm> #meetingname board
18:01:45 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'board'
18:02:27 <mattdm> #chair mattdm cwickert gholms inode0 mjg59 Sparks jwb number80 yn1v
18:02:27 <zodbot> Current chairs: Sparks cwickert gholms inode0 jwb mattdm mjg59 number80 yn1v
18:02:34 <mattdm> #topic welcome
18:02:40 <mattdm> okay, so... who do we have around?
18:02:43 <cwickert> .fas cwickert
18:02:45 <zodbot> cwickert: cwickert 'Christoph Wickert' <christoph.wickert@gmail.com>
18:02:46 <mattdm> sorry for the DST confusion
18:02:55 <inode0> here but not entirely
18:03:00 * randomuser is following along
18:03:01 <mjg59> Hi
18:03:25 <number80> .hellomynameis hguemar
18:03:26 * cwickert is sorry he missed the last meeting while he was on training in Switzerland
18:03:26 <zodbot> number80: hguemar 'Haïkel Guémar' <karlthered@gmail.com>
18:03:29 <mattdm> hi cwickert, mjg59, inode0, number80 !
18:03:31 <jwb> hi
18:03:35 <mattdm> and jwb :)
18:03:56 <mattdm> nice -- we have a quorum even
18:04:18 <mattdm> #topic meeting time
18:04:24 <mattdm> so, dst is a big pain :)
18:04:36 <jwb> now seems to work
18:05:25 <mattdm> yeah. I suppose we should wait until after the council elections and see if a new time is necessary for the council
18:05:35 <mattdm> although I hope not because this fits nicely into my schedule
18:06:30 <mattdm> unless anyone has any strong feelings on that I'll move on :)
18:06:36 <mattdm> #topic openshift commons
18:06:49 <mattdm> https://fedorahosted.org/board/ticket/15
18:07:16 <mattdm> I talked more to the cloud sig / cloud wg, and there was general interest
18:07:30 <mattdm> although I think the whole thing is a bit vague so people are vague in turn
18:07:55 <number80> I'm only worried on our "active participation" but doesn't harm
18:08:51 <mattdm> okay, so, unless there is any objection, I'm going to move ahead with getting our name and logo included
18:08:53 <number80> but on the other hand, we're already an upstream for openshift so +1
18:09:11 <jwb> i'm ok with this if the cloud sig is going to pitch in
18:09:34 <number80> jwb: the SIG had no opposition :)
18:09:50 <jwb> that's not the same as "is going to pitch in"
18:09:53 <mattdm> jwb: yeah. kushal is going to talk to diane from openshift, except he has a new baby, so probably not for a little while :)
18:09:58 * yn1v is lunching and reading
18:11:37 <jwb> tbh, i'm not really wild about this
18:11:51 <mattdm> jwb I can tell. what's the downside?
18:11:53 <number80> I spoke to pythondj briefly and through Fedora Atomic, we're already in
18:11:57 <jwb> not because it isn't a good thing to do, but because it feels more like "hey, this is a good thing to do.  who wants to do it?"
18:12:09 <jwb> it's a push action from top down
18:12:21 <jwb> not something someone was wild about doing and is asking for full project backing for
18:12:32 <mattdm> jwb: okay, that's fair enough.
18:13:26 <mattdm> jwb: do you want us to hold off on putting our name there until/if we have meaningful active participation?
18:13:56 <jwb> not necessarily.  i just worry we'll do it, and then the cloud sig will get swamped with work for f22 and atomic and it'll fall by the wayside
18:14:10 <jwb> if someone (kushal?) is going to take point on participation, then fine
18:15:46 <mattdm> jwb: okay, I will go back to the cloud sig with that.
18:16:49 <mattdm> anything else on this?
18:17:31 <mattdm> okay then :)
18:17:39 <mattdm> #topic osas council position
18:18:11 <mattdm> hmm I sent a message
18:18:16 <mattdm> did that not get to the mailing list?
18:18:18 <jwb> the write up seems fine
18:18:20 <jwb> i saw it
18:18:28 <inode0> I saw it too
18:18:30 <number80> the same goes for me
18:18:34 <mattdm> it went to the private list last week and then I sent it to the public one today
18:18:48 <number80> I feel it will be tough to find someone in the community to fill it
18:19:13 * cwickert saw it
18:19:23 <mattdm> cwickert: good :)
18:20:38 * mattdm is trying to figure out where the public  list post went
18:20:51 <mattdm> as I don't see it in the archive
18:20:51 <cwickert> did that already go public?
18:20:51 * cwickert didn't see it public yet
18:20:56 <inode0> board-discuss
18:20:59 <cwickert> ah
18:21:59 <mattdm> inode0: do you see it in the archives https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/board-discuss/?
18:22:06 <inode0> not yet
18:22:10 <mattdm> because I'm totally not, and it doesn't seem to have hit the moderation queue
18:22:13 * randomuser has it in his mailbox
18:22:15 <mattdm> i'm going to resent
18:22:18 <mattdm> resend
18:22:21 <mattdm> weird.
18:22:36 <jwb> huh.  odd.
18:22:38 <cwickert> but I do see the mail
18:22:43 <cwickert> I mean, I got it
18:23:10 <mattdm> not in the spam filter either
18:23:30 <cwickert> it definitely did go out
18:23:43 <mattdm> okay resent. if that doesn't come through, I'll check with infrastructure
18:23:48 * nirik notes there's a list lag right now due to some mass orphaning... it will catch up soon.
18:23:55 <mattdm> nirik: ahah
18:23:58 <mattdm> that's probably it
18:24:43 <number80> what did we expect from a component called FMN ? :)
18:24:54 <mattdm> okay, so, other things :)
18:25:06 <mattdm> #topic other council things
18:25:24 <mattdm> we have more nominations than slots for the elected positions at least
18:25:36 <mattdm> and I have heard from at least two other people who were considering
18:25:47 <inode0> twice as many and counting!
18:26:21 <mattdm> I guess everyone wanted to wait until the last day so as to not tip their hand :)
18:26:22 <number80> great \o/
18:27:20 <mattdm> So, I was talking to cwickert some about concerns that this is all moving too fast for many non-full-time contributors
18:27:25 <mattdm> do we want to talk about that?
18:27:47 <cwickert> I would like to
18:27:54 <mattdm> cwickert: okay go :)
18:28:08 <cwickert> I don't remember what it was but while I was at LinuxCon, you called for a vote on something
18:28:20 <cwickert> people were supposed to add their 2 cents to a trac ticket
18:28:24 <cwickert> within 24 hours
18:28:36 <cwickert> and frankly speaking I think this is just too short
18:29:21 <cwickert> even for somebody who is actively following the changes, or at least trying to
18:30:01 <number80> it was 72h in my remembrance
18:30:09 <cwickert> and I am afraid that with the council, this will become worse, as all seats have roles that are quite time consuming
18:31:33 <mattdm> cwickert I'm not sure which thing that might have been ... possibly that was the council approval vote itself?
18:31:45 <cwickert> probably
18:32:40 <jwb> it was 72 hours and we had discussed it on the private list several times before then
18:33:04 <jwb> the concern is valid, but 72 hours seems reasonable in a consensus driven model
18:33:25 <cwickert> well, if you are on a 3 days event, there go your 72 hours
18:33:28 <jwb> if you need more time, you say "0 please give me more time"
18:33:58 <number80> *nods* I think that nobody would refuse giving more time to a fellow member
18:34:01 <mattdm> In this particular case, we actually decided on that timeframe in the board meeting that monday
18:34:32 <mattdm> #link http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2014-10-06/board.2014-10-06-17.00.log.html#l-300
18:35:13 <mattdm> I agree that in general we don't want to rush things, _especially_ big decisions
18:36:00 <cwickert> I don't remember the details, but my point is: we are making huge changes and there are long time contributors who are absolutely not involved in this discussion, even if they built parts of the Fedora governance
18:36:09 <cwickert> I am afraid we are loosing these people
18:36:41 <jwb> are they still active participants?
18:36:45 <cwickert> and I am afraid that the new council might turn into something that limits participation from the community because it is so time-consuming
18:36:48 <cwickert> jwb: yes
18:37:04 <jwb> i've not heard a single one of them chime in and ask for more time to review/comment
18:37:10 <number80> cwickert: I shared this particular concern but having discussed with some of them, it ended up in a wall
18:37:43 <mattdm> number80: can you elaborate?
18:37:56 <jwb> aside from the council itself, we aren't making any huge changes at the moment
18:38:06 <number80> they feel that wether they chime in or not, their voice won't reach
18:38:31 <jwb> number80, hm.  that's unfortunate.  they should not be afraid to speak up
18:38:36 <cwickert> jwb: I think it depends on the definition of "active". I define active as still around, still do their duties, still show up at the events that matter and care about Fedora. if you define active as "only the people who speak" up, then they are not necessarily active
18:38:40 <mattdm> number80: well, if they don't chime in, they certainly _can't_
18:38:45 <jwb> the council requires participation from non-members to actually work well
18:38:48 <inode0> cwickert: you just need to be very careful as a council to expose the issues to the community long before you spend 24 hours deciding it :)
18:39:02 <cwickert> inode0: totally agreed
18:39:05 <jwb> 72hours
18:39:08 <jwb> not 24
18:39:10 <jwb> but yes
18:39:15 <inode0> we don't know at this point
18:39:27 <mattdm> and so ... that's part of _why_ the council role needs to be a time commitment
18:39:59 <cwickert> mattdm: do we really think that time commitment was the (primary) problem with the board?
18:40:01 <mattdm> If the council is out of touch except when decisions need to be made, then every decision is a delay
18:40:47 <number80> time commitment a prerequisite for a more active governance body, not the problem of the original board per se
18:41:21 <mattdm> And a time commitment is necessary for getting more voices heard
18:41:22 <number80> the problem was to get the right people to get shit done in the governance body
18:41:29 <mattdm> because listening and discussion _do_ take time
18:41:40 <cwickert> number80: granted, but still it means we exclude people from governance. and not only from governance but also from giving us input.
18:42:02 <cwickert> I am just afraid we might loose some valuable input, that's all.
18:42:09 <inode0> cwickert: what do you see as a solution to avoid this?
18:42:21 <number80> cwickert: I don't want to exclude anyone that's why I insisted in keeping elected seats but apparently not everyone understood that :(
18:42:26 <mattdm> cwickert: I'm not following why this leads to excludiing people from giving us input
18:42:33 <jwb> nor i
18:42:39 <number80> (I mean in the community, not here)
18:42:40 <inode0> although we probably just have to accept that we are limiting participation in the council to a much smaller group
18:42:56 <jwb> inode0, limiting membership maybe?
18:43:07 <cwickert> inode0: I don't have a solution at hand, I just want to raise a concern
18:43:08 <jwb> participation does not require membership or a huge time commitment
18:43:28 <yn1v> I share cwickert concern
18:43:29 <inode0> everyone knows what we mean
18:44:08 <cwickert> number80: elected seat are nice and fair, but require candidates. Let's see how many people we actually get. Did we make the 5h/week time commitment really a prerequisite for the nominations?
18:44:08 <jwb> inode0, perhaps everyone here.  i'm not trying to argue, but reading a meeting log is tedious and words matter
18:44:55 <mattdm> cwickert: I think the elected positions probably have less of a time commitment than the Outreach or Engineering ones, by the nature.
18:45:04 <cwickert> mattdm: if we are to make decisions within 72 hours, we must make sure that the issue has been discussed with the community in advance
18:45:07 <number80> cwickert: when I contacted people about these seats, I insisted that they should focus on listenning and long term participation
18:45:11 <mattdm> Less of a _requirement_ -- full time would of course be great.
18:45:20 <inode0> until we see the council in action I can't know how it will affect participation in the non-member sense
18:45:28 <mattdm> cwickert: absolutely.
18:45:40 <cwickert> ok, lets see how it works out
18:45:46 <mattdm> I feel like a lot of this is covered in the charter
18:45:51 <mattdm> specifically:
18:45:57 <mattdm> "We recognize that most Fedora community members do not have the luxury of working on Fedora full-time or as part of a paid position. The time commitment required for these roles comes simply from what is required to lead a large project like Fedora, and is not intended to be an artificial limit on who can participate. We know that that it can be a pragmatic limit, and for that reason, the Council is
18:46:00 <mattdm> responsible for extra effort to receive, recognize, be responsive to, and meaningfully reward the input of contributors offering their individual time."
18:46:05 <yn1v> I think that there is a lot of things that will be worked out on the go, so there will be a lot of desicions.
18:46:29 <yn1v> requiring a lot of time
18:46:41 <mattdm> additionally, the 72 hour thing is really meant to be for less critical decisions
18:46:45 <mattdm> again, from the charter:
18:46:53 <mattdm> " generally three to seven days, although the timeframe should be stated each time and should be proportionate to the impact of the action. This process is used for decisions with short-term consequences and which can be easily reversed. Any project member can ask for the deadline to be extended or the decision escalated to require full consensus. "
18:47:37 <jwb> mattdm, yes, i agree
18:48:10 * number80 has to go
18:48:22 <number80> sorry, guys
18:48:24 <mattdm> So really, I think this is going to be okay.
18:48:56 <mattdm> anyone who needs their voice heard in fedora should come talk to me or any other council member
18:48:59 <inode0> I am at least assuming the 72hr/7day timeframes generally will follow a long period of deliberation/research on any significant issue
18:49:09 <jwb> yes
18:49:13 <jwb> in public
18:49:20 <mattdm> inode0: yes
18:49:32 <inode0> it is just once we get to where we need a decision let's not drag it out for a month
18:49:44 <jwb> yes
18:49:53 <mattdm> more yes :)
18:51:37 <number80> ok
18:51:59 <mattdm> okay, so, there is a fedora-marketing meeting in a few minutes in #fedora-mktg that I promised to attend
18:52:09 <cwickert> ok, let's hope this works out. I really would like us to evaluate this at some point
18:52:13 <mattdm> cwickert if you have more ideas for making things better here I would like to hear them still
18:52:30 <cwickert> sure, np
18:52:34 <jwb> and if you are talking to people that have concerns, please remind them to voice them on the list so we can understand them
18:52:35 <mattdm> and, yeah, I have a "things to revaluate" list that I will add this to
18:52:52 <mattdm> #info if anyone has concerns, please voice them on the list so we can understand them
18:53:10 <mattdm> any other topics we want to cover in the next 5 minutes? :)
18:53:44 <mattdm> #topic anything else?
18:54:19 * inode0 would just encourage anyone considering to run for the council to make a decision real soon now (and hopes you do it)
18:55:00 <mattdm> inode0++!
18:55:05 <mattdm> thanks everyone
18:55:08 <mattdm> #endmeeting