18:04:55 <mattdm> #startmeeting Council (2016-10-17) 18:04:55 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon Oct 17 18:04:55 2016 UTC. The chair is mattdm. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 18:04:55 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 18:04:55 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'council_(2016-10-17)' 18:04:57 <mattdm> #meetingname council 18:04:57 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'council' 18:04:58 <striker> .hello strikerttd 18:04:59 <mattdm> #chair mattdm jkurik jwb cwickert langdon robyduck tatica bexelbie 18:04:59 <zodbot> Current chairs: bexelbie cwickert jkurik jwb langdon mattdm robyduck tatica 18:04:59 <zodbot> striker: strikerttd 'Striker Leggette' <striker@terranforge.com> 18:05:01 <mattdm> #topic Introductions, Welcomes 18:05:08 <striker> .hello strikerttd 18:05:09 <mattdm> sorry, lost track of walltime :) 18:05:09 <zodbot> striker: strikerttd 'Striker Leggette' <striker@terranforge.com> 18:05:11 <striker> too soon >.> 18:05:19 <jkurik> .hello jkurik 18:05:21 <zodbot> jkurik: jkurik 'Jan Kurik' <jkurik@redhat.com> 18:05:27 <jwb> Hi 18:05:35 <bexelbie> .hello bex 18:05:36 <zodbot> bexelbie: bex 'Brian (bex) Exelbierd' <bex@pobox.com> 18:05:45 <robyduck> .hello robyduck 18:05:46 <zodbot> robyduck: robyduck 'Robert Mayr' <robyduck@gmail.com> 18:05:51 <mattdm> hi everyone! 18:05:56 <striker> hi 18:06:29 <mattdm> langdon I know you're here somewhere :) 18:06:53 <mattdm> off making jokes about me in another channel, I see :) 18:06:59 <mattdm> #topic Agenda 18:07:07 <mattdm> Okay, so, I suggested three things 18:07:12 <mattdm> 1. Diversity Team FAD 2017 request 18:07:14 <mattdm> 2. Weak Deps on 3rd Party Repos 18:07:17 <mattdm> 3. Fedora Friendliness in Support Channels 18:07:25 <mattdm> is there anything else we should add? 18:07:54 <langdon> .hello langdon 18:07:54 <zodbot> langdon: langdon 'Langdon White' <langdon@fishjump.com> 18:08:10 <langdon> actually.. no beeping cause headphones plugged in but not on head 18:08:20 <mattdm> ha. excuses 18:08:57 <mattdm> okay, so, nothing else? we can do an open floor at the end in the unlikely event that there is time left over :) 18:09:19 <langdon> i just replied to meeting schedule 18:09:23 <langdon> but i think it can stay on ML 18:09:30 <mattdm> #topic Diversity Team FAD 2017 request 18:09:36 <mattdm> https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/73 18:09:39 * langdon actually replied an hour ago but from the wrong email :/ 18:09:45 <mattdm> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FAD_Diversity_2017 18:09:53 <mattdm> #info look at that lovely logic model diagram! 18:10:27 <mattdm> So, proposal 1 is in FY17, and proposal 2 is in FY18 18:10:38 <mattdm> thus bringing us into Fun With Budgets again 18:11:15 <jwb> :/ 18:11:29 <bexelbie> we probably have the money - I haven't gotten the final analysis finished - it will be soon though 18:11:46 <bexelbie> proposal 1 concerns me because I am not sure that they will have the productivity time needed in the middle of devconf.cz 18:12:05 <bexelbie> if it was before or after it might make more sense, but then it costs more if we include attendance at devconf.cz 18:12:15 <bexelbie> #2 may have the same challenge 18:12:27 <jonatoni_> We plan to do it after devconf 18:12:38 <langdon> that is before devconf, no? 18:12:49 <robyduck> #1 seems better to reach, transpprtation I mean 18:12:54 <bexelbie> devconf is 27-29 18:12:56 <langdon> ohh.. nvm' 18:13:07 <langdon> poor reading.. i saw 26th.. not that it was a travel day 18:13:23 <bexelbie> jonatoni_, what are the actual dates then? 18:14:00 <jonatoni_> 30-31 January 18:14:08 <mattdm> I think coloctating with devconf can make sense even with overlapping days 18:14:17 <jwb> Yes 18:14:37 <mattdm> the Fedora-focused talks are generally concentrated in one day 18:14:38 <bexelbie> 30-31 january could lead to a space problem as I think all RH conference rooms are booked then 18:14:52 <jwb> I'd be hesitant to push it to FY18 because that is a complete unknown 18:15:36 <bexelbie> so sticking with the proposed 26-30 total with 27-29 == two days of f2f during devconf? 18:15:44 <mattdm> if bexelbie is confident that we will have the budget remaining in FY17 i'm in favor of that 18:15:59 <bexelbie> my confidence is strong, my data is not but soon :) 18:16:09 <mattdm> bexelbie: no pressure :) when do you think "soon" is? 18:16:19 <bexelbie> really close :) 18:16:26 <mattdm> specifically, should we defer further discussion until that? 18:16:33 <jwb> Yes 18:16:34 <bexelbie> goal is to hav esomething to show by the time I leave the USA on 1 November 18:16:49 <bexelbie> I think we should put a decision deadline in so they aren't in limbo 18:16:54 <langdon> or.. tack another day on before devconf.. likely to be some meeting space.. say 25-29.. and you are talking one night in a hotel in brno.. which is probably, for everyone, $200 total.. or something 18:16:57 <bexelbie> how about we will make a decision by the first meeting in november? 18:17:15 <bexelbie> langdon, if we want to fund their devconf.cz attendance then yes +1 18:17:16 <mattdm> that *should* leave enough time for travel plans. 18:17:51 <bexelbie> I also like adding an extra day for this as I'd like to be able to attend as F-CAKE to help with resourcing and monkeying :P 18:18:02 <mattdm> bexelbie++ 18:18:17 <jflory7> (If possible, we'd love to have FPL + FCAIC in attendance) 18:18:31 * langdon wonders how come bexelbie gets cake.. is that where the budget goes? 18:18:49 * bexelbie spends it on cookies - less expenses 18:18:51 <bexelbie> expensive 18:18:56 <langdon> lol 18:18:57 <mattdm> jflory7: Yeah, that's another consideration. I'm unlikely to be able to make Albania in May but I'll be in Brno anyway. 18:19:10 <mattdm> Okay, so: 18:19:28 <bexelbie> Proposal: Defer decision on Diversity FAD until budget data is available or 1st meeting in November. Suggest 25-30 with day before Devconf.cz being first day of FAD 18:19:43 <mattdm> bexelbie: I was just writing that but you did it better 18:19:47 <mattdm> +1 to proposal 18:20:01 <mattdm> anyone opposed? 18:20:16 <langdon> makes sense to me +1 18:20:28 * bexelbie wants to know why he didn't get a cookie from mattdm :( 18:20:32 <jkurik> I am happy with Brno as I do not need to travel 18:20:37 <mattdm> bexelbie: only one cookie per cycle 18:20:38 <langdon> ha 18:20:47 <bexelbie> then I want cake 18:20:48 * langdon withholds cookies 18:20:52 <bexelbie> and I +1 this proposal 18:20:56 <mattdm> feature requests to apps team :) 18:21:02 <jflory7> F-chocochip 18:21:20 <mattdm> ok unless jwb or robyduck jumps in with objections, bexelbie can you repeat that with #agreed? 18:21:34 <robyduck> no, I'm ok with Brno and waiting till november 18:21:37 <bexelbie> jflory7, can you modify your proposal with updated numbers for the suggested dates? 18:21:45 <bexelbie> #agreed Defer decision on Diversity FAD until budget data is available or 1st meeting in November. Suggest 25-30 with day before Devconf.cz being first day of FAD 18:22:02 <jwb> Sounds good 18:22:03 <bexelbie> jonatoni_, you can also do the mod :) 18:22:12 <mattdm> #info seriously not kidding about the logic model diagram 18:22:26 <langdon> mattdm, kidding? 18:22:33 <jflory7> jonatoni_ would probably be faster at it than me today :) 18:22:35 <bexelbie> #KiddingNotKidding 18:22:43 <mattdm> not kidding. it's awesome! 18:23:06 <langdon> ohh.. did you (mattdm) not do it? it is awesome... 18:23:24 <mattdm> I did not do it. Whoo! 18:23:25 <jonatoni_> bexelbie: yes sure :) 18:23:32 <jflory7> mattdm: Left a (very minor) PR on the Logic Model template repo :) 18:23:40 <mattdm> jflory7: I'll look :) 18:23:42 <langdon> mattdm, nice job on the infestation 18:23:49 <mattdm> i know right :) 18:23:51 <mattdm> okay, so... 18:23:52 <jflory7> jonatoni++ 18:23:59 <mattdm> #topic Weak deps on 3rd party repos 18:24:35 <mattdm> status is: this was in my court to check with legal. I did not hear back from lawyers but just now pinged the legal@fpo address which is lawyers + spot and maybe that'll get something 18:25:14 <mattdm> but in the meantime... if we go with my proposal (and dgilmore just weighed in with support for that)... 18:25:22 <mattdm> then we don't really need to wait for legal 18:25:47 <langdon> mattdm, refresh? or link? 18:26:00 <mattdm> https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/61 18:26:02 <mattdm> sorry :) 18:26:13 <mattdm> and my proposal was: 18:26:17 <mattdm> "My inclination is to say that we should not use these, and instead suggest that third party repos which offer packages which add to those in Fedora proper use the "backwards" weak deps, Supplements or Enhances (which are the partners to Recommends and Suggests, respectively). This accomplishes the same thing from a user perspective without Fedora needing to mediate or recommend specific 18:26:19 <mattdm> repositories." 18:27:49 <mattdm> any opinions anyone? :) 18:28:23 <langdon> i think i agreed before.. i still think the legal q needs answering though.. 18:28:34 <langdon> but not to be able to "support" your proposal 18:29:04 <langdon> and then consider the "real" request when we hear back 18:29:18 <mattdm> ok. I'll continue to follow up on that. 18:29:32 <mattdm> okay. half an hour to go and the topic striker is here for :) 18:29:40 <mattdm> #topic Fedora Friendliness and Support Channels 18:29:42 <striker> just here to observe 18:29:45 <jwb> mattdm: i agree fwiw 18:29:47 <striker> and record 18:29:59 <mattdm> jwb drop that in the ticket? 18:30:02 <mattdm> striker: :) 18:30:07 <jwb> mattdm: sure 18:30:44 * robyduck is with langdon here 18:30:47 <mattdm> Okay, so... actually, striker, let me ask you... how do you think things have been in the IRC channel since the latest incident? 18:31:26 <striker> I am not sure, tbh - I left the channel and -ops channel soon after 18:31:43 <mattdm> for reasons related to this or other? 18:31:52 <striker> for reasons related to this 18:32:04 <mattdm> *noted* 18:33:23 <striker> I would like to see friendliness abound in that channel, but I think it's just the nature of the beast on irc 18:33:40 <mattdm> I guess, first: do we feel like we want to take specific action on the request to "reform" the SIG as in this ticket? 18:33:44 <mattdm> https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/71 18:34:56 <robyduck> I think we should at least make some OPs coc, or whatever. We need to be friendly when a new user is facing the most popular channel, don't we? 18:35:02 <striker> I am +1 for making OPs a temporary position, but the problem there is that there are not too many folks left in the channle to choose from for ops nominations 18:35:32 <robyduck> Also about having OPs, who might be burned out also, replaced after 2-3-4 release cycles 18:35:51 <misc> then force op to take turn where they are not ops ? 18:35:55 <robyduck> striker: also true 18:35:58 <langdon> maybea stupid suggestion.. but what if the ambassadors just took over #fedora as "their" channel? 18:36:07 <striker> +1 to langdon 18:36:19 <bexelbie> langdon, in the long term I like that, in the short term I am not sure it is practical 18:36:29 <striker> atm, being an op does not require being an ambassador, which I think is a mistake 18:36:30 <bexelbie> Could we split the mechanics of ops from COC issues 18:36:50 <mattdm> How would we get from where we are to that? 18:36:53 <mattdm> and +1 to bexelbie 18:37:07 <robyduck> bexelbie: sure, was a wrong word 18:37:23 <langdon> sorry.. my acronym deconstructor is broken today.. CoC? 18:37:38 <bexelbie> Code of Conduct 18:37:52 <bexelbie> mattdm, which version of "that"? 18:37:59 <striker> We could enact someone from the council or make a new position that governs the irc channel and other aspects - just like it is decided not to allow someone to attend a public conference when they have been a previous disturbance, this seat would have the same authority over irc 18:38:02 <mattdm> bexelbie: that was "ambassadors own the channel" 18:38:05 <robyduck> -1 to let take over the channel by ambassadors, I think this would not solve it 18:38:11 <striker> or I might be asking too much 18:38:17 <langdon> ohh gotcha.. all i could think of was some technical interpretation 18:38:34 <mattdm> striker: we certainly have the authority; I just want to make sure we use it carefully 18:38:40 <mattdm> for the record, current code of conduct is 18:38:46 <mattdm> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/IRC_operators_code_of_conduct 18:38:54 <mattdm> which includes by reference https://freenode.net/catalysts 18:39:11 <bexelbie> I believe we should look at diversity, commops, and amby for "monitoring" and let ops focus on mechanical issues and doing what "monitors" feel is needed 18:39:22 <bexelbie> that way it isn't all born by the folks working IRC 18:39:29 <jkurik> will it make sense to elect ops as part of the overal elections after every fedora release ? 18:39:42 <mattdm> jkurik: that's a really interesting idea. 18:39:48 <robyduck> mattdm: what we probably need, and erroneausly call CoC is a sort of OPs code of friendliness 18:40:37 <mattdm> robyduck: in other words, standards beyond "don't cross this horrible line"? 18:40:38 <robyduck> means, we have rules for OPs, but it's up to them to put them into the right context 18:40:54 <langdon> my suggestion fwiw .. was to "accidentally" increase the friendliness in the channel by ensuring that all operations by the friendliest fedora members were taking place in that channel.. 18:40:55 <langdon> not so much about "ops" 18:41:08 <langdon> bexelbie++ 18:41:08 <zodbot> langdon: Karma for bex changed to 12 (for the f24 release cycle): https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any 18:41:15 <mattdm> there's your cookie! 18:41:21 * langdon winks 18:41:27 <bexelbie> heh (re: cookie) 18:41:47 <langdon> i also think item 6 in "guidelines" should be also "raise a council ticket" or some such 18:42:11 <robyduck> +1 18:42:49 <mattdm> I think that those guidelines are for how operators should respond in a standarized way 18:42:51 <bexelbie> +1 on council or other group ticket - should we make CoC issues the responsibility of someone other than the council? 18:43:04 <mattdm> not rules for what happens to operators, right? 18:43:30 <mattdm> bexelbie: we might want to look at reinvigorating the CWG at some point, but since it isn't vigourous, Council seems right 18:43:34 <robyduck> would IRC OPs elections be something we want to take in consideration? New blood sometimes is a good thing. 18:43:50 <mattdm> robyduck: I like that proposal quite a lot 18:44:06 <mattdm> But on the other hand, I haven't been involved with the channel at all 18:44:27 <Rhea> How to increase friendliness... give free cookies. 18:44:27 <mattdm> robyduck: Who would vote? Ambassadors? All Fedora? 18:44:33 <mattdm> Rhea++ 18:44:33 <zodbot> mattdm: Karma for rhea changed to 9 (for the f24 release cycle): https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any 18:44:40 <mattdm> there you go! 18:44:42 <Rhea> :D 18:44:56 <robyduck> mattdm: cla +2? 18:45:07 <Rhea> See, I already like you and think that this is very friendly place. 18:45:11 * Rhea nods seriously 18:45:57 <robyduck> we should make sure people with some experience vote on this topic, it's not an easy one 18:46:11 <bexelbie> I have heard it said that ops requires some technical skills - will an election really ensure this? 18:46:24 <robyduck> no 18:46:25 <bexelbie> s/some/some not easily acquirable/ 18:46:44 <robyduck> bexelbie: it will ensure we won't have OPs who are burned out 18:46:47 <mattdm> Candidates should list their skills in the election campaign 18:46:57 <striker> ^ 18:47:01 <striker> mattdm++ 18:47:06 <robyduck> I think if you are burned out you are not replying the same way as before 18:47:08 <mattdm> And if we don't get enough interest.... well, that says something too. 18:47:23 <robyduck> mattdm: +1 18:47:24 <Rhea> On topic of ops: In my experience I always rotated my moderators, everyone is active for a while, usually between three months to half a year... Then their activity rapidly decreases and even their actions may sometimes be in the spirit of "give me a break already" 18:47:38 <mattdm> Elected candidates would be expected to keep to high standards too, of course. 18:47:55 <mattdm> Rhea: that fits decently well with "once per release". 18:48:05 <Rhea> yup 18:48:08 <bexelbie> elections for ops just doesn't feel right 18:48:19 <mattdm> ok. robyduck, want to put this proposal in the ticket? 18:48:25 <mattdm> bexelbie: is that a -1 or more of a 0? 18:48:28 <robyduck> yes, will add it 18:48:33 <bexelbie> 0 trending to -1 18:48:42 * mattdm notes that Stack Exchange has moderator elections and it Works Pretty Well 18:48:44 <bexelbie> so 0 for the purposes of not blocking 18:48:53 <bexelbie> I am concerned amongst other things about election turnout 18:49:03 <mattdm> bexelbie: consensus process at work :) 18:49:07 <bexelbie> I also think we have multiple groups trying to engage contributors and users who are essentially bypassed with this 18:49:24 <mattdm> Can you elaborate on that? 18:49:29 <striker> bexelbie: what do you mean? 18:49:43 <bexelbie> Ambassadors, CommOps, and Diversity all have a hand in friendliness and approachability 18:49:44 <langdon> i still strongly think we need ops for "execution" and "other people" for the actual "moderation".. 18:49:54 <bexelbie> we are adding a new group to do the same thing only in IRC 18:49:56 * jonatoni_ needs go, please can you review also this ticket https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/69? 18:50:08 <bexelbie> I believe moderation is a non-technical skill and execution is an ops skill 18:50:10 <bexelbie> as langdon said 18:50:27 <mattdm> jonatoni_: ooh. missed that -- thanks for bringing it up 18:50:45 <langdon> also.. (my network seem to have dropped so i didn't say this earlier).. when I said "raise a ticket" i mean more like "cause something public to happen to raise accountability for taking drastic action".. 18:51:00 <jonatoni_> mattdm: thanks 18:51:02 <bexelbie> I believe that should filter through one of the groups I mentioned 18:51:12 <bexelbie> they should also have the personnel to prevent burn out 18:51:13 <mattdm> langdon: So, ops are not moderators, basically? 18:51:15 <Rhea> I don't quite understand what are "other people" for "moderation" if not ops? Maybe we need to clarify the term moderation? 18:51:16 <bexelbie> and to expand to other channels 18:51:20 <langdon> bexelbie, sure.. i think thats fine.. arguably.. it could be automated.. 18:51:24 <langdon> mattdm, right.. 18:51:40 <mattdm> hmmm. I don't know how that works in a practical sense 18:51:41 <bexelbie> basically ops does anything that requires privs at the direction/request of a mod 18:51:49 <langdon> kinda like fidelity does, the cust-serv who can change an address can't issue a check, and vice-versa 18:52:00 <bexelbie> so we have two people available at any time, a mod with no privs and a priv'ed op doing tech stuff and usre issues as needed 18:52:03 <Rhea> that would be called admin 18:52:14 <Rhea> moderator moderates, admin provides moderation tools.. 18:52:15 <langdon> basically then you need two people to take an action... 18:52:33 <bexelbie> that also lets ops serve as a reality check to also chime in, if we want that 18:52:34 <langdon> it could also be "starting at guideline level 3" or something 18:52:40 <bexelbie> they shouldn't necessarily be ministerial 18:52:43 <mattdm> Rhea++ (now you deserve that cookie!) 18:52:53 <langdon> i can help 18:52:55 <Rhea> yey :] 18:52:58 <langdon> Rhea++ 18:52:58 <zodbot> langdon: Karma for rhea changed to 10 (for the f24 release cycle): https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any 18:52:58 <mattdm> I like this too. Someone put it in the ticket :) 18:52:59 <langdon> :) 18:53:33 * langdon has a question but knows better than to ask mattdm when he is in "work giving mode" :) 18:53:40 <mattdm> okay, so, a few minutes left, and we actually did generate some concrete ideas 18:53:41 <Rhea> I also liked the idea of logging op/mod-actions 18:53:49 <bexelbie> I'll write up the split role idea in the ticket 18:53:52 <mattdm> lol langdon 18:53:54 <mattdm> bexelbie: thanks! 18:54:13 <robyduck> bexelbie++ 18:54:13 <zodbot> robyduck: Karma for bex changed to 13 (for the f24 release cycle): https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any 18:54:17 <mattdm> should we quick address jonatoni_'s ticket? 18:54:17 <langdon> should we #info the ideas we like? or do we "like" them all and vote later? 18:54:19 <striker> I feel like this went better than expected 18:54:36 <mattdm> langdon: go for infoing some. never hurts :) 18:54:42 <langdon> striker++ 18:54:42 <zodbot> langdon: Karma for strikerttd changed to 4 (for the f24 release cycle): https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any 18:54:48 * langdon is in a cookie giving mood :) 18:54:52 <striker> ty 18:54:54 <striker> langdon++ 18:54:54 <zodbot> striker: Karma for langdon changed to 8 (for the f24 release cycle): https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any 18:54:56 * mattdm waits for some infos and then will change the topic 18:55:02 <langdon> ughh.. me types 18:55:16 <robyduck> langdon++ 18:55:16 <zodbot> robyduck: Karma for langdon changed to 9 (for the f24 release cycle): https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any 18:55:25 <bexelbie> #info proposal: Split moderation duties from ops duties. Ops does technical work and enacts mod decisons as needed. Mods should be drawn from ambassadors, diversity and commops to help with friendliness and accessability 18:55:27 <Rhea> Since i'm no longer lurking around i might as well say hello eh.. 18:55:30 <Rhea> .hello rhea 18:55:31 <zodbot> Rhea: rhea 'None' <radka.janek@redhat.com> 18:55:44 <Rhea> I do have a name Zodbot.. mean.. 18:55:48 <langdon> #info consider "publicizing" when major "coc violations are enforced" (not nec. on the 'who' violated but on the enforcer) 18:55:59 <langdon> Rhea, lol 18:56:10 <mattdm> Rhea: :) 18:56:14 <langdon> #info consider elections for ops roles in irc channels 18:56:26 <bexelbie> langdon, I'll fold the publicizing into my ticket edit if you want 18:56:38 <langdon> #info consider 2 phase commit model of enforcing coc violations 18:57:00 * langdon was trying to capture all the ideas we had so they would all go in your write up 18:57:08 <langdon> s/your/bex 18:57:12 <mattdm> #topic budget approval for F24 and F25 Translation sprint participants 18:57:17 <mattdm> https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/69 18:57:27 <bexelbie> i'll need a bit more detail on 2 phase commit 18:57:33 <mattdm> ^ so, I think this is another one of 18:57:48 <mattdm> #info we need to wait until budget update (no later than Nov 1st) from bexelbie 18:58:10 <mattdm> I'll add that info to the ticket... unless there is something urgent here I'm missing? 18:58:14 <bexelbie> I think this should just be approved 18:58:19 <bexelbie> we definitely have 500 EUR 18:58:27 <langdon> bexelbie a semi-joking way of saying "you need an op and a moderator to agree on a irc 'enforcement'" 18:58:37 <bexelbie> the shipping is an unknown, but hopefully we can figure it out 18:58:38 <mattdm> #undo 18:58:38 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: INFO by mattdm at 18:57:48 : we need to wait until budget update (no later than Nov 1st) from bexelbie 18:58:39 <bexelbie> langdon, ok 18:59:06 <bexelbie> my bigger concern is that we are potentially shipping a crazy number of packages - but the world will still turn :) 18:59:06 <mattdm> ok, then let's vote in ticket. I'll start the conversation. 18:59:13 <langdon> bexelbie, some light reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-phase_commit_protocol ;) 18:59:32 <bexelbie> "2PC" redirects here. For the play in American and Canadian football, see Two-point conversion. For the cryptographic protocol, see Commitment scheme. 18:59:55 <langdon> bexelbie, umm.. i bet dgilmore thinks we already ship a crazy number of packages ;) 19:00:06 <langdon> bexelbie, and lol 19:00:14 <bexelbie> I am looking at him right now langdon, I'll ask him to instrument deliveyr of t-shirts 19:00:36 <langdon> bexelbie, i think that is in factory-3.0 19:00:42 <mattdm> lolz 19:00:56 <robyduck> is this for people who only did the translations sprint, right? 19:01:03 <mattdm> robyduck: yeah 19:01:26 <robyduck> many of them did it to get a badge, I feel we should award people who costantly work on something 19:01:31 <mattdm> #info council will vote in ticket 19:01:51 <mattdm> robyduck: that is, longer-term contributors get expensive swag, not people just getting one badge? 19:02:02 <robyduck> not really, no 19:02:21 * mattdm has to go. 19:02:24 <robyduck> I get something more expensive if I do something constantly, not one shot 19:02:34 <robyduck> ok let's vote in the ticket 19:02:40 <mattdm> robyduck: I can definitely see that argument. put it in the ticket please :) 19:02:50 <mattdm> sorry for starting meeting late and then demanding it end on time 19:02:56 <langdon> lol 19:02:58 <robyduck> sure, my fancy watch rings 19:03:04 * mattdm waits for that Ringly to show up from langdon's crowdsourced fundraiser 19:03:06 <langdon> robyduck, !! 19:03:20 <langdon> mattdm, hold your breath 19:03:25 * mattdm holds breath 19:03:29 <mattdm> #endmeeting