18:00:16 <mattdm> #startmeeting Council (2017-01-09)
18:00:18 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon Jan  9 18:00:16 2017 UTC.  The chair is mattdm. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
18:00:18 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
18:00:18 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'council_(2017-01-09)'
18:00:19 <mattdm> #meetingname council
18:00:19 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'council'
18:00:21 <mattdm> #chair mattdm jkurik jwb langdon robyduck tatica bexelbie
18:00:21 <zodbot> Current chairs: bexelbie jkurik jwb langdon mattdm robyduck tatica
18:00:23 <mattdm> #topic Introductions, Welcomes
18:00:37 <langdon> .hello langdon
18:00:38 <zodbot> langdon: langdon 'Langdon White' <langdon@fishjump.com>
18:00:39 <jkurik> .hello jkurik
18:00:41 <zodbot> jkurik: jkurik 'Jan Kurik' <jkurik@redhat.com>
18:00:54 <bexelbie> umm ... I thought this meeting was in one hour
18:00:58 <bexelbie> .hello bex
18:00:59 <zodbot> bexelbie: bex 'Brian (bex) Exelbierd' <bex@pobox.com>
18:01:24 <mattdm> bexelbie: 18:00 UTC.
18:01:33 <mattdm> which I'm 95% sure it is now :)
18:01:36 * bexelbie goes to kick his calendar
18:02:25 <langdon> i thought it was 18h Reykjavík time :)
18:02:42 <bexelbie> me too langdon
18:02:45 <mattdm> #info after council election, we'll see about changing the time for better convenience
18:02:48 <bexelbie> and my calendar insists that is in one hour
18:02:48 <bexelbie> weird
18:02:51 <langdon> although i alternate between that and morocco
18:04:01 <bexelbie> so gcal is lieing to me about this meeting :P
18:04:44 <mattdm> itmarjp, jflory7, giannisk, cprofitt, robyduck — any of you around to talk about Coucil candidacy?
18:04:52 <langdon> bexelbie, you just need to set it as a meeting originating in iceland
18:05:05 <bexelbie> langdon, it is
18:05:12 <bexelbie> langdon, that is the weird part
18:05:13 <langdon> bexelbie, ohh.. weird
18:05:22 <robyduck> .hello robyduck
18:05:23 <zodbot> robyduck: robyduck 'Robert Mayr' <robyduck@gmail.com>
18:05:27 <mattdm> hi robyduck!
18:05:32 <mattdm> #topic Agenda
18:05:40 * jwb is here now
18:05:46 <mattdm> This is basically an open floor meeting.
18:05:53 <mattdm> jwb you said you can make the first half?
18:05:59 <jwb> yes
18:06:01 <mattdm> Let's take that for discussing flock and conferences
18:06:10 <jwb> ok
18:06:22 <mattdm> and then the rest for robyduck and other council candidates (if others show up)
18:06:56 <mattdm> #topic Fedora's Overall Conference Strategy — Flock, FUDCons, FADs, and beyond
18:07:10 <mattdm> bexelbie: want to start? :)
18:07:13 * langdon looking for the tl;dr ;)
18:07:21 <robyduck> hi all, am late..
18:07:23 <bexelbie> tl;dr - read the email :)
18:07:37 <bexelbie> I was going to say, I hope everyone waded through the walls of text
18:07:37 <mattdm> that email says there is no tl;dr :)
18:07:54 <bexelbie> I guess the short version is that I think we should consider aspects of Flock to make it more "do" as some have suggested
18:07:56 <mattdm> #link https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/council-discuss@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/HXJVPYCBDOPWARFE777QDAUMTSSYZTRC/
18:08:03 <mattdm> #link https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/council-discuss@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/3JMQLKYGXVPNSHF7Y6VR3OMMBKEL3YI4/
18:08:18 <bexelbie> I also think we should shift FUDCons from being a single event in a region to being a push to improve our presence in a larger/splashier way
18:08:20 <mattdm> #info above links are bexelbie's overall thoughts/plans
18:08:41 <robyduck> bexelbie: yeah, "do" is fine
18:09:16 <jwb> i have not had a chance to read through the FUDCon email
18:09:30 <mattdm> So, I think there's basically no controversy on the Flock part
18:09:34 <jwb> i'm curious how much more of a "do" we need to make Flock though
18:09:37 <jkurik> what does the "do" mean ? is it like hackaton, or we would like to work on some strategic decisions during FLOCK ?
18:09:47 <bexelbie> jkurik, I can see both
18:09:54 <jwb> like... fewer talks?
18:09:58 * langdon has only read the original email, not the thread
18:10:02 <bexelbie> I had someone share via PM with me today that we may also have a cultural question to ask
18:10:06 <jwb> because 1/2 the conference is already workshops
18:10:19 <bexelbie> Is Flock for doing or for socializing or are we trying to do both or neither
18:10:31 <bexelbie> basically if we have a large group that see it as a way to connect they may not be focused on do
18:10:33 <bexelbie> and vice versa
18:10:47 <langdon> personally i am dice-y on the "do" .. cause FAD.. or FAD@Flock might be cool.. but i liked some of the other points about "discussions" and "sharing"
18:10:49 <mattdm> bexelbie: Connect through doing!
18:10:56 <bexelbie> jwb, the do-people who talked to me would like to see more progress, ideas, decisions, movement
18:11:03 <bexelbie> less talk, information broadcast
18:11:04 * langdon notes not just cause he mostly just waves his hands
18:11:15 <robyduck> jwb: I would like to see more talks with a "practical" part inside? To get eople in "touch" with some concrete examples or stuff. Maybe that.
18:11:17 <bexelbie> langdon, I see discuss as "do"
18:11:18 <jwb> bexelbie: that's... a lot of disjoint things
18:11:22 <bexelbie> jwb, yep
18:11:38 <jwb> bexelbie: also, we largely AVOID decisions at conferences
18:11:44 <jwb> at best we come up with proposals
18:11:51 <mattdm> We have previously agreed to not *make* major decisions at conferences
18:11:52 <langdon> jwb, +1
18:11:56 <mattdm> (ooh, too slow)
18:12:10 <jwb> the last time we made a decision at a conference it did not go well, despite it being basically an in-person FESCo meeting
18:12:11 <mattdm> Because it's impossible for us to get all stakeholders there.
18:12:15 <langdon> you can't really.. you need to share the proposal.. but i think they are great for making the proposal
18:12:20 <mattdm> langdon++
18:12:34 <bexelbie> I understand the need to not make decisions at conferences
18:12:46 <jwb> bexelbie: i guess i would prefer these people PMing you to chime in on the thread.  because i have no idea what they're after
18:12:50 <bexelbie> but I am hearing people say that we should use the f2f time for moving things forward
18:12:54 <jwb> playing games of telephone isn't going to work
18:13:10 <bexelbie> jwb, this person is a non-Fedora person who was relating what happened in their community
18:13:17 <jwb> so?
18:13:18 <langdon> my problem w/ it being like full on workshop is people like me who need/want to be in all the places at once.. and talks are better for that.. especially if the talks could be 1/2 talk 1/2 discussion (maybe the talk slot could be longer)
18:13:18 <bexelbie> jwb, no one who is invested in Fedora has pm'ed me
18:13:58 <jwb> have this person chime in on the thread
18:14:02 <robyduck> langdon++
18:14:08 <jwb> there's no such think as a "non-Fedora" person
18:14:12 <langdon> lol
18:14:26 <bexelbie> jwb, point taken
18:14:28 <mattdm> jwb: Except for someone who doesn't chime in :)
18:14:42 <jwb> mattdm: that's just a shy fedora person
18:14:52 <langdon> or a distracted one
18:14:53 <mattdm> jwb: I like it :)
18:15:04 <jwb> langdon: yes!
18:15:44 <langdon> so.. i do like one aspect of bex's email.. i would like to see much stronger theming associated with objectives..
18:16:03 <langdon> and we could even formalize the fad@flock (which i just made up and am patting myself on the back for)
18:16:22 <jwb> langdon: how is that different from a workshop
18:16:34 <mattdm> Sounds like branding for workshops?
18:16:40 <langdon> it isn't per se.. but it clearly delineates two different "events"
18:16:56 <langdon> as in .. flock is two days followed by 3 days of fad@flock or something
18:17:09 <mattdm> ah, which gets to bexelbie's secret whisperer's concern, really
18:17:11 <langdon> mattdm, yeah.. basically
18:17:23 <mattdm> because  FADs are *definitely* "do" oriented.
18:17:24 * langdon notes .. the bex whisperer?
18:17:25 <bexelbie> but it also makes me ask, why is there a flock (playing devils advocate)
18:17:42 <mattdm> we could also ask for workshop submitters to use the FAD template
18:17:44 <bexelbie> is it just an NA/EMEA conversation and party?
18:17:55 <langdon> bexelbie, kinda, yes..
18:18:02 <langdon> or a na/emea sharing
18:18:05 <bexelbie> langdon, is that right?
18:18:05 <jwb> i've never felt like Flock was a party
18:18:10 <bexelbie> we are a global community
18:18:19 <langdon> the regional fudcons were supposed to be the not-na/emea-flocks
18:18:23 <bexelbie> and one thing I have heard directly is htat people feel like Flock is a party that is hard to get invited too
18:18:23 <mattdm> Yeah, Flock is fun and energizing, but not a party
18:18:33 <jwb> bexelbie: look, this is an old conversation.  you can't talk about Flock without talking about FUDCons
18:18:34 <langdon> thats why no fudcons in na or emea
18:18:42 <mattdm> langdon maybe sorta. That wasn't robyn's original conception.
18:18:45 <bexelbie> jwb, that is why I addressed both in my emails
18:18:46 <jwb> they are intertwined because of history
18:19:00 <bexelbie> langdon, that may be the case, but we certainly don't resource them the same way
18:19:04 <langdon> mattdm, really? i thought she told me that :)
18:19:07 <bexelbie> we also focus this in very different ways
18:19:12 <bexelbie> s/this/them/
18:19:19 <mattdm> langdon: that's kind of how it came out in practice
18:19:30 <jwb> if we want a global Flock we need 3 things: 1) more money, 2) better (outsourced) coordianting of event logistics, 3) no FUDCons
18:19:48 <bexelbie> jwb, I don't think a global flock requires cancelling fudcons
18:19:54 <bexelbie> money is something we always need more of :)
18:19:59 <bexelbie> and we have a lot of event help we can tap
18:20:03 <robyduck> jwb: that summarizes it up very well
18:20:03 <mattdm> bexelbie: here's a question. If we make Flock a global event, is it okay if in practice it still is usually held in EU/NA?
18:20:17 <jwb> bexelbie: if not cancelling, then addition of them in NA and EMEA
18:20:18 <robyduck> bexelbie: or you have fudcons or you have flock
18:20:21 <langdon> i think "cancel fudcons" is a way to "get more money" .. not a principle thing.. right jwb?
18:20:28 <jwb> langdon: in part
18:20:31 <bexelbie> mattdm, my answer is that we should hold where it makes sense
18:20:32 <robyduck> there isn't even enough budget to make them both
18:20:39 <jwb> the other part is parity among the regions, which is what people complain about
18:20:40 <langdon> jwb, yeah.. i agree with your "latter"
18:20:46 <bexelbie> the converse then is, why do we have fudcons?
18:20:55 <bexelbie> and why brand them differently if they have the supposed same goal?
18:21:01 <jwb> they don't have the same goal...
18:21:11 * langdon was apparently wrong
18:21:17 <jwb> Fedora User and Developer conference.  User oriented
18:21:27 <bexelbie> jwb, I don't think they do either, but we keep playing them against each other
18:21:28 <jwb> Flock is "do-con" in spirit and mostly in implementation
18:21:31 <bexelbie> including in dividing up the world
18:21:43 <jwb> bexelbie: because we don't have budget for both in all parts of the world
18:21:48 <jwb> welcome to reality?
18:21:50 <mattdm> althought the "Developer" in FUDCon was "the people who develop fudcon" in its initial conception, it can also be read as "developers who use fedora"
18:22:02 <bexelbie> jwb, in that case then is this best way to spend the money?
18:22:08 <langdon> mattdm, s/fudcon/fedora ?
18:22:19 <mattdm> langdon: "FedoraCon"?
18:22:39 <langdon> "the people who develop fudcon" was what the d was for?
18:22:55 <mattdm> oh. no. develop fedora :)
18:23:06 <langdon> hence  mattdm, s/fudcon/fedora ? ;)
18:23:13 <mattdm> langdon: yes got it now
18:23:20 <jwb> bexelbie: i've yet to see arguments that lead me to believe we are spending the money incorrectly today
18:23:26 <mattdm> but I *do* wonder if rebranding FUDCon might be helpful as part of it
18:23:42 <jwb> bexelbie: we get contributors from all over the world to Flock as best we can.  NA/EMEA have no user focused conference as a result
18:23:49 <langdon> well.. fundamentally.. is flock a global or a regional conf?
18:24:06 <bexelbie> jwb, so why did we sacrifice user focus in NA/EMEA? Also we prioritize NA/EMEA attendees
18:24:18 <jwb> because we sort out the lack of user conferences in those regions by attending other conferences with a fedora presence
18:24:29 <mattdm> jwb: at least, in theory.
18:24:36 <robyduck> bexelbie: this is not prioritize
18:24:56 <langdon> bexelbie, do we actually prioritize *funding* for na/emea? or is just rht has a lot of flock attendees from na/emea that rht pays for?
18:24:58 <bexelbie> jwb, and NA and EMEA also have higher budgets for that - not all of this COL economics driven and some of it is logical for non-COL reasons
18:25:00 <robyduck> NA/EMEA had their FUDCons and they got replaced by FLOCK, that's why
18:25:06 <jwb> langdon: both
18:25:22 <jwb> bexelbie: COL?
18:25:35 <mattdm> I would like to see Flock as a global contributor conference, and replace FUDCons with meetups and particupation in existing regional events
18:25:38 <bexelbie> in the FUDCon email I touch on the questoin whether our events are even good user events in their current form
18:25:43 <bexelbie> COL = Cost of Liviing
18:25:49 <robyduck> but I agree with bex when he says, we lost user focus in NA/EMEA
18:25:51 <bexelbie> Living even
18:26:08 <bexelbie> mattdm, that is what I am thinking about too
18:26:17 <jwb> ....
18:26:18 <jwb> wtf
18:26:25 <jwb> that is literally what i just said up there in my 1, 2, 3
18:26:35 <jwb> why the hell are you arguing with me about it if you both agree?
18:26:35 <mattdm> jwb I know. I am answering your 1 2 3
18:26:55 <bexelbie> jwb, I don't agree with your 1 2 and 3 but I agree with the principal we are all talking about
18:27:02 * jwb sighs
18:27:08 <jwb> i have to drop.  i'll follow up later
18:27:11 <mattdm> everyone agrees! fight! :)
18:27:22 <mattdm> jwb: bye, and thanks!
18:27:36 <mattdm> okay, now that THAT GUY is gone....
18:27:39 <mattdm> :)
18:27:41 <mattdm> ^ kidding
18:27:47 <bexelbie> cau jwb
18:28:11 <langdon> isn't he *management* now??!?!
18:28:59 <mattdm> bexelbie: I'm not sure exactly what you and josh disagree with
18:29:16 <bexelbie> I don't agree that we have to cancel FUDCons to make flock global
18:29:17 * langdon tries to find the 1,2,3 referenced
18:29:31 <bexelbie> I also think #1 is a given truth of the world - we always need more money
18:29:40 <bexelbie> and I believe we have access to #2 - event planning
18:30:07 <bexelbie> But we can decide how to reshape hte flock budget to accomplish goals and if one of them is global then we make different choices to increase travel funding
18:30:37 <mattdm> bexelbie: You say that we don't *have* to cancel fudcons, but I basically suggested doing so and you agreed....
18:30:48 <bexelbie> mattdm, I want to replace them
18:30:59 <bexelbie> canceling them in my understanding would be halting the activity and not replacing it
18:31:06 <bexelbie> maybe I misunderstood you
18:31:21 <mattdm> bexelbie: ok, sure. the internet is terrrible for communication :)
18:31:28 <bexelbie> I believe we should have more focus on impactful user events
18:31:34 <bexelbie> and that should be driven on a fudcon like concept
18:31:38 <mattdm> bexelbie: me too
18:31:39 <bexelbie> by the council or centrally
18:31:44 <bexelbie> I don't want to stop that activity
18:31:46 <bexelbie> just change it
18:31:48 <langdon> not a meetup-style?
18:31:54 <langdon> still big conf like fudcon?
18:31:58 <bexelbie> I believe that flock should be global in feel to represent our global community
18:31:59 <mattdm> meetup style might not work for all regions
18:32:15 <bexelbie> langdon, big conf, +1 days, meetups whatever works locally
18:32:18 <bexelbie> but more of it
18:32:31 <bexelbie> instead of spending $x to fly people in one region to one place, have 3 events with fewer flights
18:32:34 <bexelbie> as an example
18:32:47 <bexelbie> goal there is not contributors coming together but user focus
18:32:51 <bexelbie> flock is where contributors come together
18:32:52 <mattdm> bexelbie: with an implied "for the same cost"
18:32:57 <langdon> do we have a budget breakdown? liek where is most money spent? people travel funding?
18:32:59 <bexelbie> mattdm, natch :)
18:33:11 <mattdm> bexelbie: also FADs can bring contributors together too
18:34:06 <bexelbie> langdon, from the best I can tell, we spent the money like this: https://paste.fedoraproject.org/523931/83986831
18:34:13 <bexelbie> Note the above is not guaranteed to be accurate
18:34:36 <bexelbie> mattdm, yes and we need to keep making those able to be done globally and regionally, imho
18:34:41 <langdon> bexelbie, like it is garbage? or are the ratios about right? which is all i care about
18:34:42 <mattdm> bexelbie: lodging cost seems awfully low there
18:34:43 <bexelbie> via council or similar structure
18:34:52 <bexelbie> langdon, ratios should be roughly right
18:35:07 <bexelbie> mattdm, I'll take a look
18:35:33 <langdon> from this it looks like ~1/4-1/3 of the cost is travel funding..
18:35:36 <mattdm> #info Last flock costs look to be about 1/4 airfare, 1/4 entertainment, 1/4 food, and the rest space, supplies, internet, lodging, and other travel
18:35:38 <bexelbie> mattdm, I think that is right
18:35:54 <mattdm> bexelbie: that'll probablhy be different in the us
18:35:56 <bexelbie> we didn't buy a lot of rooms inside of flock
18:35:59 <bexelbie> mattdm, yes
18:36:04 <bexelbie> which is why pinning it to NA is hard
18:36:11 <bexelbie> Poland was low cost
18:36:23 <bexelbie> I am not opposed to that though
18:36:24 <mattdm> yes, thanks :)
18:36:36 <bexelbie> also I suspect we have some costs that got lost in other RH cost centers
18:36:42 <bexelbie> but I suspect this is about right
18:36:48 <mattdm> bexelbie: not lost, *GAINED* :)
18:36:54 <bexelbie> mattdm, :)
18:37:05 <bexelbie> I'll see your cost center .. and raise its expenditures!
18:37:18 <mattdm> so, let's take this back to the mailing list and come back to it later
18:37:31 <mattdm> unless anyone else has anything REally Urgent to say about it.
18:37:57 <langdon> IT
18:38:15 <mattdm> #topic Fedora Council Nominees
18:38:43 <mattdm> So, of itamrjp, jflory7, giannisk, robyduck, and cprofitt, I think we just have robyduck here
18:39:10 <mattdm> I didn't really publicize this....
18:39:34 <mattdm> but I guess I had hoped that some of the others would be reading the council-discuss mailing list already and at least say if they could or couldn't make it.
18:39:38 <mattdm> Ah well!
18:39:45 <bexelbie> mattdm, they didn't have long reply windows though
18:39:57 <bexelbie> especially if they have a $dayjob or are out of timezone
18:40:06 <bexelbie> though I think most of them are in the same relative timezones
18:40:10 <mattdm> bexelbie: since jan 3?
18:40:16 <mattdm> that's a *long* timezone :)
18:40:21 <bexelbie> mattdm, I remember reading it this morning
18:40:23 * langdon is fresh out of timezones
18:40:24 <bexelbie> maybe I just read it late :)
18:40:32 * bexelbie thinks langdon is busy moving Iceland
18:40:38 <langdon> :)
18:40:40 <mattdm> bexelbie: Yes, I posted again this morning but *suggested* it last week
18:40:42 <mattdm> Annyway.
18:40:55 <mattdm> robyduck, want to take a few minutes to tell us about your hopes and plans for the next year?
18:41:25 <robyduck> well, I hope I can continue the work we started last year, because their is really much to do
18:41:29 <langdon> if it is "fix flock" say something else :)
18:41:55 <langdon> robyduck, which work?
18:41:55 <mattdm> robyduck: Yeah, there's always an infinite amount :)
18:42:00 <robyduck> one of my hopes is what we discussed today, we should try to find a solution for making our primary events better
18:42:21 <robyduck> and the other is to improve communication between teams inside Fedora
18:42:52 <bexelbie> what would put on the agenda in slots 4 and 5?
18:43:03 <bexelbie> i.e. what is after your big 3?
18:43:10 <robyduck> I feel we need to get more attractive again for end users if we want more contributors. I don't have the golden key here though...
18:43:10 * bexelbie is curious for all the candidates to answer that :)
18:43:14 * bexelbie didn't submit that question though
18:43:49 <robyduck> langdon: lol
18:44:14 <langdon> robyduck, so which work did you mean in your first point?
18:45:06 <robyduck> budgeting and making reporting more smooth, I was with bexelbie in Fudcon APAC and we got some inputs there
18:45:14 <langdon> cool
18:45:24 <robyduck> mostly people are unaware of how things changed with budget.next
18:45:25 * bexelbie can do a bit of a budget update at the end actually
18:45:34 * mattdm nods
18:45:46 <langdon> sorry.. side bar.. did the interviews get published yet?
18:46:00 <jkurik> langdon: not as I am aware of
18:46:01 <mattdm> langdon: does not appear so
18:46:03 <robyduck> this is an important journey we need to communicate better IMHO (not that we didn't that at all)
18:46:17 <robyduck> langdon: no, I didn't see them
18:46:20 * langdon wasn't sure if he just missed them
18:46:29 <mattdm> that should probably happen soon as voting is open rsn
18:46:36 <robyduck> but I didn't see even all candidates did them
18:46:43 <jkurik> langdon: there are I guess 6 pendig reviews in the commblog
18:47:02 <mattdm> jkurik: who all can do review there?
18:47:05 <langdon> cool.. no rush implied (per se) .. just wanted to be sure I didn't miss them
18:47:20 <robyduck> langdon: I had the same thought today :)
18:47:28 <jkurik> mattdm: typically people from comops
18:47:47 <langdon> i think i do.. but they do a much nicer job than i do.. like images and stuff :)
18:47:49 <bexelbie> I think they have had a few people traveling over the holidays and into this week
18:47:52 <langdon> i just do editorial
18:47:55 <bexelbie> lots of college folks who had a week off
18:48:05 <langdon> ha
18:48:13 * bexelbie has a pending article about the 2017 bids for flock in there
18:48:28 <mattdm> yeah, not holding this against anyone :)
18:48:40 <mattdm> okay, so, should we move to bexelbie's quick budget update?
18:49:11 <langdon> wfm
18:49:12 <robyduck> why not, we are near to the end of this FY
18:49:43 <langdon> and.. btw.. i think voting starts in 5hs :)
18:49:44 <langdon> tick tock
18:49:49 <mattdm> #topic Bex's Quick Budget Update
18:50:07 <bexelbie> very briefly, the first of the new budget files were committed to the repository today
18:50:14 <bexelbie> only NA's data is there from the regions
18:50:18 <bexelbie> the other three are still in reviews
18:50:27 <bexelbie> I am hoping to get some docs up in the next week to help people use the data
18:50:32 <bexelbie> and to start producing some reports
18:50:37 <mattdm> \o/
18:50:42 <bexelbie> My next goal is to work on the budget website
18:50:48 <bexelbie> to integrate the data
18:50:54 <bexelbie> and to ultimately try to get to a CI/CD situation
18:50:57 <bexelbie> but that is a ways off
18:51:15 <bexelbie> after docs are in and the website is refreshed a blog post to announce it and work towards robyduck's comment on communication
18:51:21 <bexelbie> which I hope he will help with :)
18:51:32 <langdon> did "someone" set aside some money for a council fad?
18:51:54 <bexelbie> langdon, because we can't hold the FAD until at least March - I flagged some but have not submitted for a vote
18:52:10 <bexelbie> I should have data soon on how we are doing financially for the year and will push early expenses as much as possible
18:52:16 <bexelbie> but we also need to the council elections to resolve
18:52:20 <robyduck> bexelbie: cool
18:52:29 <bexelbie> so langdon ... sorta :P
18:52:31 <langdon> bexelbie, i guess i was just thinking should there be a "fedora budget" similar to the regional budgets or what not
18:52:38 <langdon> where this kind of thing would go
18:52:47 <bexelbie> langdon, we haven't done any planning for 2018 yet at the council level
18:52:50 <langdon> maybe there is? i am trying to remember
18:52:51 <mattdm> bexelbie: if the FAD is not to be in boston, I'd like to arrange my airfare in this FY if possible
18:52:51 <bexelbie> and yes, I am 100% in favor of that
18:53:02 <bexelbie> mattdm, agreed!
18:53:09 <bexelbie> langdon, there isn't really
18:53:13 <bexelbie> we have a FAD fund
18:53:20 <bexelbie> but no fund to allocate money to things we didn't think of
18:53:25 <bexelbie> or way of harvesting unspent money back
18:53:31 <bexelbie> we need to consider these in 2018
18:53:45 * robyduck likes this Council FAD we never had in the past
18:54:14 * langdon has had about enough of only meeting mattdm in person..
18:54:17 <mattdm> robyduck: Me too
18:54:22 <mattdm> langdon: ha!
18:54:59 <bexelbie> we can replace him iwth another Matthew Miller
18:55:04 <bexelbie> would that help?
18:55:10 <bexelbie> the Folger's Crystals of people
18:55:12 <mattdm> It would make my job easier
18:55:15 <langdon> bexelbie, good point.. i could cycle through the 4 at rht
18:55:24 <mattdm> (There are *three* Matthew Millers at Red Hat. *sigh*
18:55:31 <langdon> i thought there were 4 now
18:55:32 <bexelbie> everytime someone mentions Matthew Millers there are always one more
18:55:33 <mattdm> wait, 4? aahhhhhghh
18:55:35 <bexelbie> there are four lights!
18:55:50 <mattdm> This sounds like we're done with the meeting :)
18:55:50 <robyduck> :)
18:55:55 <mattdm> Thanks everyone :)
18:56:30 <mattdm> #endmeeting