17:00:15 #startmeeting Council (2015-03-09) 17:00:15 Meeting started Mon Mar 9 17:00:15 2015 UTC. The chair is mattdm. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 17:00:15 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 17:00:16 #chair mattdm jreznik jwb cwickert rdieter langdon sgallagh decause 17:00:17 Current chairs: cwickert decause jreznik jwb langdon mattdm rdieter sgallagh 17:00:19 #topic introductions, welcome 17:00:27 Good $TIMEOFDAY, everyone! 17:00:32 hola 17:00:33 hello mattdm! 17:00:36 .hello mattdm 17:00:37 Ciao 17:00:38 mattdm: mattdm 'Matthew Miller' 17:00:40 hallo mattdm 17:00:46 hola mattdm 17:00:49 .hellomynameis kushal 17:00:50 kushal: kushal 'Kushal Das' 17:01:16 So, in the past, we've had a system of hand-raising (!, ?, etc) for board meetings... 17:01:19 .hellomynameis langdon 17:01:20 langdon: langdon 'Langdon White' 17:01:22 .hello rdieter 17:01:23 rdieter: rdieter 'Rex Dieter' 17:01:35 I don't think we necessarily need to be formal for this meeting unless attendance is especially high 17:01:39 hi 17:01:43 we can change that if need be. 17:01:46 mattdm, Okay. 17:01:47 agreed 17:01:48 mattdm: I was looking on what we want for Council meetings compared to Board... not sure it is what we want 17:01:54 also hello everone 17:02:19 jreznik: elaborate, please? 17:02:51 mattdm: as you said - Board meetings were probably too formal... 17:02:58 for this meeting... we have basically four suggested agenda items, so my thought was to give about ten minutes to each of those, plus ten minutes for open floor if we manange to keep to the schedule 17:02:59 * cwickert is here 17:03:10 plus 5 minutes on each end for administrivia 17:03:11 * randomuser pops in 17:03:15 .fas cwickert 17:03:16 cwickert: cwickert 'Christoph Wickert' 17:03:30 do we have remy? 17:03:44 mattdm: agreed, not sure I'll stay till the end, I'm not feeling very well today... 17:04:03 i think i saw the rest of the council 17:04:48 hmmm. in any case... 17:04:55 #topic agenda 17:04:57 - 5 minutes: intros and welcomes and agenda and stuff 17:04:58 - 10 minutes: outreach steering committee 17:05:00 - 10 minutes: objectives update 17:05:03 - 10 minutes: diversity advisor search 17:05:04 - 10 minutes: third-party repos 17:05:06 - 10 minutes: open floor, time permitting 17:05:08 - 5 minutes: next meeting, action plans 17:05:21 ... ambitious 17:05:42 I pinged remy, and hopefully he'll be able to join in. I know he's getting adjusted to a new schedule and stuff 17:05:43 sgallagh very 17:05:51 okay so let's get started :) 17:05:57 #topic outreach steering committee 17:06:30 Do we have a bug tracker to keep track of agenda items and history? 17:06:36 (and decisions) 17:06:39 So, this is the idea from a while ago (flock, maybe?) that it'd be nice to have a parallel to fesco 17:06:49 sgallagh, aside from the council trac instance? 17:06:52 what more do we need? 17:07:00 sgallagh: https://fedorahosted.org/council/ 17:07:05 #link https://fedorahosted.org/council/ 17:07:11 we can put things there if need be. 17:07:16 jwb: I didn't know if one had been put up or if we were using the old Board trac, etc. 17:07:33 old one was migrated. 17:07:33 it is, in fact, the old Board trac renamed 17:07:39 anyway, towards the topic 17:07:50 There has been some discussion on the mailing list recently. 17:07:51 mattdm, fyi, meetbot gives you #link for free 17:08:07 generally, I like the idea to make all outreach teams to talk together and work together 17:08:10 cwickert, do you have any comments on that from the famsco perspective? 17:08:14 sure 17:08:22 so, we are facing two major problems 17:08:27 mattdm, cwickert: it seems some in ambassadors either didn't understand or didn't like the idea 17:08:41 one is regional representation 17:09:00 we have been working hard on giving the local communities more power e.g. when it comes to budget 17:09:10 * mattdm nods 17:09:13 and we want to make sure it stays the same 17:09:20 i don't see a problem with that 17:09:26 so we would have to find a way to represent all regions 17:09:40 and in the past, this was a problem, especially for NA 17:09:52 so, idea of region-based seats rather than all general-election as fesco? 17:10:02 even though they had an active community, they had nobody in FAMSCO for some time 17:10:06 in my head, outreach isn't about money. at all. it's about messaging and positioning of the same consisten message about Fedora and it's community 17:10:16 sorry, the outreach committee 17:10:18 jwb: but money are part of it 17:10:22 jwb, +1 17:10:27 so we would have some reginal seats I thinl 17:10:33 think* 17:10:40 ppl agree? 17:10:43 jreznik, how much money one has or doesn't have is secondary to whether people are talking about the same thing in the same terms... 17:10:47 outreach costs money... as it means events, travelling, marketing materials, swag 17:11:01 cwickert: Like, one per continent (disregarding Antarctica)? 17:11:11 so it's going to be big part of fosco... has to be... 17:11:12 jreznik, sure. but until we get consistency in messaging why would we even be talking about spending money? 17:11:18 sgallagh: per regain (NA, EMEA, LATAM, APAC) 17:11:18 one thing is we seem to be fixating on ambassadors here 17:11:23 and not the other components. 17:11:24 remind me again the purpose of outreach steering committee, why it's needed, and possibly compare/contrast to FAMSCo/Abassadors? 17:11:32 jzb, i'm trying not to. that's kind of my point 17:11:32 cwickert, I personally think having people involved who wants to work on outreach is more important than choosing one per continent. 17:11:39 (i think regional seats can make sense. maybe other ways to address problem, but if that's the main one people want okay) 17:11:48 jwb: it's not that easy part, ambassadors already spent a lot of time on it (and it was worth spending the time to do it correctly) 17:11:54 rdieter, in my head, to get the ambassadors, the marketing people, the websites people, etc all takling together more than they do 17:12:08 jwb: +1 17:12:11 jwb: ah, excellent, thx 17:12:26 we have a serious disconnect right now and the right and left hands don't know what each other are doing. 17:12:31 yes, that 17:12:33 and the next thing from my perspective is size 17:12:35 moreover, I think it's very confusing for people who are new to Fedora 17:12:37 the question is - is it really needed all ambassadors for all regions has to be on famsco? 17:12:50 so I don't "regional representation" being important here 17:12:51 to figure out where to jump in on an idea and carry it to conclusion. 17:12:59 I don't see... that is 17:13:05 (before we solve that problem, can we hear cwickert's other major area of concern?) 17:13:05 * cwickert things we are having two different conversations at the same time 17:13:15 thanks mattdm 17:13:25 or one representative from each team not to make it big... as there are local ambassadors groups... so I don't see any need to have more than one ambassador representative in fosco 17:13:33 well, i think we're trying to solve two different problems with the same "outreach committee" 17:13:39 and it's confusing 17:13:55 let cwickert finish, then we can discuss more 17:14:05 go on cwickert, sorry for shouting here :) 17:14:46 so, the ambassadors are just way bigger than marketing or design. we need to find a way to fairly represent everybody, but on the other hand we need to make sure the ambassadors cannot just overpower everybody else 17:14:54 we have seen this with board elections before 17:15:08 +1 17:15:09 usually the candidates with an ambassadors background have good chances of making it 17:15:20 just because the group of ambassadors is huge 17:15:39 assuming membership is done via elections, not sure that is a given (yet) 17:15:39 currently we are collecting ideas, if anybody has one, I am open for it 17:16:01 rdieter: I think we want a mixed approach, some appointed seats e.g. for the regions and some elected 17:16:10 I don' 17:16:13 wait, what? 17:16:14 similar to the council 17:16:19 but ambassadors are well structured into local region teams... so I still do believe it should be one representative for each area (ambassadors, marketing, websites, design) and then delegate to teams 17:16:28 sorry, I don't see regional representation or elections being important here at all 17:17:00 famsco is the fesco of ambassadors, correct? 17:17:04 what *I* think, pull in representatives from those already-existing groups (ambassadors, marketing, design, etc...) 17:17:07 jwb: yep, it is 17:17:08 jwb, yes. 17:17:16 rdieter: exactly 17:17:21 * mattdm notes clock and ambitious keep-meeting-short goal :) 17:17:28 so why wouldn't we have a seat for famsco, one for marketing, one for design, one for docs, and one for the council and/or engineering? 17:17:43 outreach != ambassadors 17:17:45 jwb: +1 17:17:45 jwb: that's what I and rdieter said above 17:17:51 wait 17:17:55 jwb, +1 17:18:01 jwb, +1 17:18:09 jwb +1 17:18:19 I don't think that flies 17:18:32 cwickert, which one? 17:18:44 kushal: the "one for every team" 17:18:49 cwickert: why not? ambassadors has a great structure bellow, other teams are smaller but there are still teams 17:19:32 if the purpose is to get various related teams all on the same page, that approach seems reasonable to me. Is my perception of the purpose/objective wrong? 17:19:39 jreznik, may be because finding that one person from each team who wants to work on outreach is difficult. 17:19:50 jreznik: because FOSCO will replace FAmSCO. We still need a place to coordinate the ambassadors activities, which are highly regional 17:19:51 cwickert, I think the ambassadors have done such a good job of handling their business internally that it's hard to see (for me, at least) what they need from the outreach committee, or even what they're doing outside of general terms 17:19:56 what? 17:20:02 nobody said FOSCO is replacing FAMSCO 17:20:18 jwb: well, one idea was to replace famsco 17:20:19 jwb: that has certainly been said 17:20:20 * rdieter doesn't see any replacement of FAMSCo either 17:20:23 jwb: that was the assumption in all previous discussions 17:20:26 it's not the _only_ possibility 17:20:26 that's why we didn't have elections last time 17:20:27 jwb: that seems to be my understanding 17:20:39 that the plan was to replace FAMSCO 17:20:42 I think the main idea there was to avoid introducing yet more committees 17:20:46 minor side note: i think it is important to the proposal that eng and council be separate seats 17:20:52 mattdm: +1 17:20:59 with a larger body that coordinated outreach altogether, ambassadors being a piece of that. 17:21:11 ah, found https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/marketing/2014-October/016636.html 17:21:16 mattdm, +1 17:21:20 Proposal: consider tranforming FAmSCo into "FOSCo" — Fedora Outreach Steering Committee 17:21:21 i don't even care if we have an outreach committee. the problem that needs to be solved is to have consistency about the messaging around Fedora, it's Editions, and it's community 17:21:28 that's precisely what it said 17:21:31 but in the end, I don't have a big problem with having four ambassadors in FAMSCo 17:21:31 * mattdm seems to have written that :) 17:21:49 which means we need to have people that produce the messaging and people that deliver the messaging using the SAME messaging 17:21:51 sorry FOSCo 17:21:51 jreznik, FAMSCo or FOSCo? 17:22:34 jwb: "ppl to produce the message" seems like a misconception of the ambassadors 17:22:36 so, again, I think we need to get more specific about exactly what we're talking about here 17:22:45 yep 17:22:47 cwickert, no, ambassadors DELIVER 17:22:58 marketing, websites, etc PRODUCE 17:23:10 okay, so: there is action on the Outreach mailing list 17:23:10 jwb: tell that to the ambassadors and most of them will resign 17:23:12 https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/outreach/ 17:23:18 Question: this is mostly effort by white folks? 17:23:25 jwb the humans may wear multiple hats but the ambasadors hat is deliver 17:23:25 cwickert: really? I don't think so. 17:23:30 We still need other voices for this appeal 17:23:48 langdon, right. and why cwickert says they'll resign is lost on me 17:23:50 cwickert, ? 17:23:55 * MarkDude will follow up with email- sorry for interu[pting 17:23:56 MarkDude: I fail to see how that is relevant 17:24:09 that's a big derail 17:24:12 in addition to the mailing list, there are plans to set up a meeting specifically for interested people to discuss this in full 17:24:13 And therein lies the perceptionm issue 17:24:18 Trust me 17:24:23 if the model says marketing produces strategies, and ambassadors implement them, and the ambassadors are encouraged to participate in other groups anyway... they can jump in on marketing efforts 17:24:31 randomuser: ++ 17:24:35 randomuser +1 17:24:42 The message that ambassadors deliver someone else's message diminishes what they have been doing for years. It likely would leave a lot of ambassadors feeling insulted. 17:24:43 FranciscoD|Uni, jwb: if ambassadors just deliver what somebody else produces, and have no say in it, this is not interesting at all 17:24:45 randomuser +1 17:25:00 cwickert, HENCE THE NEED FOR DISCUSSION BETWEEN THE GROUPS 17:25:00 randomuser, we used to ask all ambassadors to become part of marketing team. 17:25:00 cwickert: that's not what anyone said - that ambassadors have no say in it :) 17:25:18 I think we can agree we all want a shared message 17:25:24 no need for shouting, jwb 17:25:25 rdieter, +1 17:25:37 role wise, ambassadors deliver what the community produces and passes down, and the ambassadors are mostly part of quite a few teams in the community. 17:25:38 it's just a matter of find the best way to achieve that 17:25:40 not just a shared message but some collaboration in creating the message 17:25:56 jzb, yep 17:26:14 like a common pipleline that everyone can send and receive from - at least that's what I understood from the outreach initiative 17:26:37 I still think about outreach committee as high level bodies and there still be needed that internal communication within the team 17:26:43 okay, so, 15 minutes on this so far -- do we want to continue with this topic, or should we go back to the list and specific meeting and then come back with some of these questions better answered? 17:26:58 so it's not going to replace internal communication of ambassadors, not design, not websites 17:27:02 though, saying that out loud now... is that precisely what 'marketing' is? 17:27:17 let's not forget the ambassadors are also a channel for feedback. They are the ones to go out and meet real users. yes, users, the kind of people many developers and marketing people rarely meet 17:27:19 and we already have that 17:27:27 anyway 17:27:32 nobody is forgetting that 17:27:34 cwickert, yes, that part is often lost too 17:27:40 because I'd say half of what FAMSCo does now would be not interesting for design guys, half of what design would be boring for marketing... 17:27:45 in fact, we're trying to encourage more of that feedback here 17:27:45 so that's part of the connection 17:27:48 so it's still requires some structure 17:28:01 jreznik: good point 17:28:03 cwickert: er... I'm pretty sure that our devs and marketing people do meet "real users" ;-) 17:28:14 cwickert: let's not forget that a lot of folks do double or triple duty 17:28:20 jzb: I often doubt that :) 17:28:36 * jwb hangs head 17:28:54 so maybe it's not going to replace famsco, but reduce it? yes, some part of it will be still needed 17:29:01 outreach is meant to keep stuff flowing between the teams, isn't that the basic point? 17:29:06 yes 17:29:12 yes 17:29:22 okay good we have at least that agreement :) 17:29:24 i would propose that a FAMSCo rep presents to the council meeting on current feedback on some regular basis.. as a complete aside to this convo 17:29:27 increase the flow, the amount of interaction, and the EQUITY all of the parties have in it 17:29:54 jreznik: i wouldn't want to replace famsco - i think the top level work that they do is quite important for ambassadors - lots of coordination there 17:29:56 * jreznik thinks there's nothing better than arguing over internetz while struggling with terrible migraine :) 17:30:03 i'm gonna bang the gavel at this point, though.... clearly a lot of interest, so let's keep it going on the lists 17:30:11 * mattdm bangs gavel 17:30:12 langdon: that is why I am here 17:30:14 and I know we don't want another body, but that's sort of what it points at :/ 17:30:57 mattdm: may I make a suggestion? 17:31:00 jzb: sure 17:31:04 cwickert, i guess i read it more as participation.. rather than "reporting feedback" .. 17:31:16 I don't want to kill good conversation but I did want to get to the other things too 17:31:18 mattdm: It seems to me the council planning went pretty well and swiftly b/c it came to the lists pretty well formed. 17:31:34 mattdm: it'd probably go better if we came at this with a better defined plan. 17:31:40 jzb, it took over a year. we don't have a yar. 17:31:42 year 17:31:56 jzb, but i do agree in principle 17:31:56 no we don't. 17:31:57 * FranciscoD|Uni wonders if the answer could be a tool rather than a body of people? 17:32:13 jwb: and outreach is already like half year in the process? 17:32:19 but people will have to use the tool, so, yeah, back to people 17:32:21 FranciscoD|Uni: good idea 17:32:23 FransciscoD|Uni: A "tool"? 17:32:28 jreznik, mmm... i'd politely disagree 17:32:42 2011 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Markdude/Dont_Exclude_Yourself 17:32:47 well, the entire issue is that the bodies don't speak to each other 17:32:59 Women, and minority folks created that 17:33:10 And me 17:33:13 jwb: the first time folks really start talking about it was half year ago... and actually started planning bits... 17:33:19 and the one way is to have liasons - like we were supposed to have in the WGs - ambassadors in the WGs, marketing folks in the WGs and so on. 17:33:34 * jreznik is going to move on phone and goes home, his head is about to explode... 17:33:45 jreznik, calendar time i guess, yes 17:33:53 so people in different teams each pick one other team that they will laison with - that could be one way, which is what the outreach committee would do? 17:34:05 mattdm, did you break your gavel? 17:34:17 the other is to set up yet another app - one team drops something in, it gets circulated to the others, kinda? 17:34:20 So, cwickert, others -- can we have a more concrete plan -- can we work on the outreach mailing list to have a more concrete plan and come back? 17:35:12 mattdm: I was about to suggest the same. how about I start with a summary of the current discussion in FAMSCo and the other teams sent to the outreach list? 17:35:25 cwickert: sounds good. 17:35:44 #action cwickert to summarize current discussion, and we will come back with a more concrete plan 17:35:54 and next :) 17:35:55 #topic objectives update 17:36:08 this is actually a two-parter :) 17:36:09 for the record, this is the ticket in FAmSCo's trac: https://fedorahosted.org/famsco/ticket/373 17:36:16 cwickert: thanks 17:36:21 not sure if all of you can read it though 17:36:35 I think people can read it if they're logged in -- non anon, but not private 17:36:49 mattdm, +1 17:36:55 part 1; sgallagh, can you give a brief update on your objective? 17:37:04 part 2; other potential objectives: how to get them. 17:37:16 Hmm, ok 17:37:31 (Formulating thoughts) 17:37:34 sgallagh sorry if that's putting you on the spot :) 17:37:53 * mattdm makes note to suggest this in the pre-sent-out-agenda next time 17:38:03 Yeah, it's a difficult thing to state exactly where we are. 17:38:18 Obviously, we had three distinct editions in F21, so that much at least is public. 17:38:38 We've done a lot of work in F22 in the Alpha timeframe to reduce some of the major pain points of splitting the media 17:39:28 One thing we really need to address going forward is how we present non-Edition media. This is largely a marketing and websites issue, but probably needs direction from the Council in general. 17:39:44 aka Spins? 17:39:55 Spins and secondary architectures 17:39:55 jwb: Yes, Spins. 17:40:07 and secondary arches, as mattdm says 17:40:25 and even primary architectures where the Editions don't put that arch in a visible spot 17:40:25 sgallagh, +1, I encounter waaay too many questions about "I installed this edition but I really wanted something else" 17:40:58 Right, so we need to iterate on that. Maintain our focus while not "hiding" our other offerings. 17:41:16 And sometimes you even don't have a way how to install correct edition, as not everything is on the main site 17:41:20 Some other things I'm working on for the editions: 17:41:29 Clearly, the per-product config approach has not worked. 17:41:47 sgallagh: you mean technically or politically? 17:41:49 Fortunately, thus far only firewalld has implemented it, so I'm planning to back that misfeature out by Beta. 17:41:52 technically 17:42:02 just clarifying :) 17:42:12 It has introduced too many issues that cannot be fixed without significant work at the RPM layet 17:42:13 Why it has not worked? 17:42:15 *layer 17:42:20 Ah that way 17:42:29 sgallagh: how about we do this work instead of backing out? 17:42:42 * cwickert notes opensuse does it 17:42:43 cwickert: We're going to do this work 17:43:01 But I've been told that it's probably a 2016 target in RPM 17:43:09 ...Is it a yes, a no, or a "We'll do the work and then decide"? 17:43:21 sgallagh: ah, I thought you meant in packaging, not rpm itself 17:43:23 And for a feature we're not even using fully yet, I'm okay with backing out the poor implementation for now 17:44:06 cwickert: Sorry, I wasn't clear above. Basically, for it to work properly, we need a dep _language_ "If A then install B", etc. 17:44:31 The mechanism we were using *almost* worked with yum because we were abusing some low-level knowledge about the depsolver. 17:44:50 But it still had holes that we discovered (like the environment groups not being installable in a live system) 17:44:56 * mattdm is okay with not getting too deep in the details here :) 17:44:59 Right 17:45:04 * mattdm tapes gavel back together 17:45:13 Suffice to say, my recommendation here is to back it out for now and solve it correctly before trying again. 17:45:22 wait, i have one question 17:45:26 In the one project that we're doing this, we'll approach it another way. 17:45:32 jwb: Shoot 17:45:43 this objective includes the rings approach, yes? 17:46:08 jwb: possibly some parts of it, but mostly, _no_ 17:46:08 Yes 17:46:11 No? 17:46:14 LOL 17:46:17 hah 17:46:28 /me feels the boulder get lighter 17:46:28 well, it can to some degree, but that's a big thing in itself 17:46:34 right :) 17:46:42 14 minutes left. 17:46:55 #action mattdm to put the write-up for this objective in the wiki like he said he would 17:47:10 that would be nice. thanks. 17:47:34 I have a several drafts of ring-approach objectives (from different directions) that I need to kick out of my drafts folder, too 17:47:39 jwb: What was your follow-up question anyway? 17:48:11 mattdm, should you just send those over to envs&stacks and ask them to run with them? 17:48:34 langdon: that was one, but initial message got crickets. i'll try again :) 17:49:04 mattdm, i meant the "several drafts" bit above 17:49:12 so, this partly answers the issue of other objectives. I was kind of expecting more to show up, but I guess we kind of have to prove the concept first 17:49:12 sgallagh, just curious if you were making progress on the feedback you received on your latest rings proposal 17:49:35 I've let it sit unattended while I was helping wrangle the Alpha release 17:49:43 It's one of many things on my catch-up list right now 17:49:46 ok 17:49:56 * mattdm notes kushal's clock warning :) 17:50:26 Anyone have other quick thoughts on potential other objectives that are more than just brainstorming? 17:50:59 May I? 17:51:04 sgallagh: yes :) 17:51:16 sgallagh, where can I watch what's happening with the firewalld config package thing? 17:51:28 One question: should we consider a non-technical objective such as attacking a potential market segment? 17:51:42 randomuser: #fedora-server 17:51:48 ack 17:52:18 sgallagh: yes. one that's been suggested to me by a number of people is network switch/router / software-defined-networking 17:52:39 Interesting. 17:52:56 I will do the things I said I would, which will keep some momentum going on this topic in general.... 17:53:01 let's go to the next topic 17:53:01 I was thinking more along the lines of my favorite unicorn: University Computer Lab presence. 17:53:14 sgallagh: oh, that's interesting too. yes, write that up :) 17:53:21 "Get 'em while they're young" 17:53:31 sgallagh talk to remy about that too 17:53:35 I have been 17:53:38 spot also 17:53:39 cool 17:53:44 double cool 17:53:46 #topic diversity advisor search 17:53:47 sgallagh, +1, getting new contributors from colleges is very important. 17:54:05 Okay so in the interest of time, I don't think we need a long conversation here. 17:54:08 see 17:54:09 https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/council-discuss/2015-March/013192.html 17:54:16 and please give feedback on the list (or privately) 17:54:38 and unless anyone objects in the next thirty seconds, going to next item 17:55:02 mattdm, isn't this where MarkDude's points come in? 17:55:09 or is that post "hiring" 17:55:11 langdon: yes, absolutely. 17:55:42 it's the starting point on beyond "hiring", I think. 17:56:04 mattdm, righto 17:56:05 scare quotes necessary because there is not money or actual hiring involved 17:56:12 #topic third-party repos 17:56:29 i propose we defer on the grounds that we only have 4 min 17:56:40 seconded 17:56:45 :) 17:56:49 yep, that seems resonable. big topic. 17:56:49 but i'd note that we do need to discuss this 17:57:12 jwb yeah. 17:57:13 And in the immediate future, I think. I expect that Workstation is going to want some part of this at least for F22 Beta 17:57:40 hm 17:57:49 reminds me someone needs to open that fesco ticket that was requested 17:57:57 i thought sgallagh was going to do that :) 17:57:58 s/someone/sgallagh/ 17:58:08 Yeah, I dropped the ball there 17:58:24 * cwickert has to run... 17:59:04 cwickert: okay, bye! I think we should schedule another of these soon. 17:59:28 * MarkDude will make points, in concrete and timely manner. Has learned from Fedora, can promise this will be easier and help in long run. As well as AVOID folks we DONT want to recruit 17:59:30 :) 17:59:42 #info sgallagh is filing fesco ticket re workstation wg requests for third-party repos for f22 18:00:00 * MarkDude is Team player here, not the ass I have been over years. Ty for listening. eof 18:00:02 #topic next meeting, action plans 18:00:10 MarkDude heh 18:00:23 I think in the interest of time, skip open floor.... because we are at 2pm 18:00:38 #info no open floor -- please bring agenda items before meeting next time 18:01:11 do we want to do another meeting like this in two weeks? 18:01:19 yes, please 18:01:30 +1 18:01:34 +1 18:01:42 yes, I think we even have enough to not wait 2, but either is fine 18:01:50 does anyone want to do it next week? 18:02:02 I'm okay with that if it's going to be the most productive. 18:02:03