13:00:26 <mattdm> #startmeeting Council (2017-04-12)
13:00:26 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Apr 12 13:00:26 2017 UTC.  The chair is mattdm. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
13:00:26 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
13:00:26 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'council_(2017-04-12)'
13:00:27 <mattdm> #meetingname council
13:00:27 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'council'
13:00:30 <mattdm> #chair mattdm jkurik jwb langdon robyduck bexelbie
13:00:30 <zodbot> Current chairs: bexelbie jkurik jwb langdon mattdm robyduck
13:00:31 <mattdm> #topic Introductions, Welcomes
13:00:41 <jkurik> .hello jkurik
13:00:41 <zodbot> jkurik: jkurik 'Jan Kurik' <jkurik@redhat.com>
13:00:47 <mattdm> hi jkurik!
13:00:53 <jkurik> hi mattdm
13:01:09 <mattdm> let's see who else is around :)
13:01:27 <robyduck> .hello robyduck
13:01:28 <zodbot> robyduck: robyduck 'Robert Mayr' <robyduck@gmail.com>
13:01:51 <robyduck> hi jkurik mattdm
13:02:14 <jkurik> good afternoon robyduck
13:02:17 <mattdm> hi robyduck!
13:02:20 <mattdm> ooh afternoon
13:03:25 <mattdm> ... waiting on langdon and josh and brian
13:03:46 <langdon> .hello langdon
13:03:47 <zodbot> langdon: langdon 'Langdon White' <langdon@fishjump.com>
13:03:47 <langdon> thought i was connected.. but wasn't :/
13:04:29 <mattdm> okay, so, two more to go :)
13:05:02 <bexelbie> .hello bex
13:05:03 <zodbot> bexelbie: bex 'Brian (bex) Exelbierd' <bex@pobox.com>
13:05:07 * bexelbie was doing battle on the phone
13:05:36 <robyduck> hey langdon
13:05:39 <robyduck> hi bex
13:05:41 <mattdm> okay, no jwb yet but let's get started
13:05:46 <mattdm> #topic Agenda
13:06:01 <mattdm> this is an open floor meeting but we didn't do tickets last week so we should go through those
13:06:39 * mattdm looks
13:07:08 <mattdm> there are a *bunch* of code-of-conduct related tickets, some specific and some general
13:07:19 <jwb> finishing meeting.  here soon
13:07:35 <mattdm> do we want to tackle those now?
13:07:39 <langdon> ok.. actually paying attention now
13:07:40 <langdon> sorry
13:07:46 <mattdm> on a more mundane front, there's stuff like
13:07:50 <mattdm> Authorization for counting GUI upgrades
13:07:53 <bexelbie> I believe with those we should prioritize working 105 and then the others
13:08:31 <mattdm> bexelbie: 105 is currently a private ticket
13:08:48 <mattdm> do we want to keep it that way?
13:09:24 * bexelbie reads
13:09:59 <bexelbie> I believe yes until we have a plan we want to present, but I am not 100% on that
13:10:19 <langdon> what is "counting gui upgrades"?
13:10:26 <mattdm> langdon: https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/80
13:10:42 <mattdm> I'm marking that approved right now though since there are no objections and we got the legal review
13:11:13 <jwb> good
13:11:13 <mattdm> bexelbie: I think we should make it public unless there's a specific problem
13:11:39 <langdon> mattdm, ahh .. missed that one
13:11:47 <jkurik> I also do not see a reason why we should keep it private
13:11:50 <mattdm> There are also a bunch of trademark issues that are mostly in the "pending legal" state
13:12:13 <mattdm> marking #105 public in 60 seconds unless someone objects :)
13:12:22 <bexelbie> 105 public is fine with me
13:12:25 <robyduck> +1
13:12:39 * langdon thinks some people in fedora have noticed the council exists..
13:12:41 <bexelbie> we should copy some of the relevant information from 106 which needs to stay private into 105 if we want to keep those things in consideration
13:12:45 <langdon> whats with all these tickets!
13:12:50 <mattdm> bexelbie++
13:13:12 <mattdm> #topic Code of Conduct Tickets
13:13:40 <mattdm> Okay, so, here's my proposal. Close all existing open tickets except #105 and say we are working on the process there
13:13:45 <mattdm> #link https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/105
13:13:50 <jkurik> ack
13:14:05 <mattdm> And #105 is blocked on bexelbie doing a bunch of legwork, so that's nice for the rest of us :)
13:14:16 <langdon> mattdm goes for the scorched earth option ;)
13:14:20 * Amita reading
13:14:38 <mattdm> ^ I'm kidding btw because there's plenty for the rest of us to do.
13:14:52 <langdon> is it legitimate to close them (not sure of details off the top of my head)? or do they need "blocked on 105"?
13:14:56 <bexelbie> mattdm, hmmm
13:15:03 <langdon> like are there really no actions after bex does all the work
13:15:16 <bexelbie> mattdm, I'd like to re-read the others before closing
13:15:18 <bexelbie> and not speed read
13:15:34 <langdon> bexelbie, there is another kind of reading?
13:15:36 <bexelbie> I am thinking that blocked on 105 may be the best
13:15:45 <mattdm> bexelbie: Okay, I can respect that.
13:16:02 * mattdm will mark these as blocking on 105, not closed
13:16:53 <robyduck> I am fine with closign the others, as we need to have a unique place where to discuss and move forward on this topic. Otherwise we will not get out of that anymore
13:17:05 <robyduck> or blocking, also good
13:17:16 <mattdm> robyduck: *nod*
13:17:24 <bexelbie> Let's keep the process discussion in 105
13:17:25 <mattdm> anything else on this we want to handle right now?
13:17:45 <bexelbie> but there are specfics, iirc, to situations in the others that may need application of the output of 105
13:18:09 <mattdm> bexelbie: yeah.
13:18:59 <bexelbie> 106 may be able to be closed once relevant data is transferred to 105 as that specific is resolved, aiui
13:19:24 <mattdm> bexelbie: can you handle transferring that as you are doing the non-speed reading?
13:20:08 <robyduck> mattdm: switching to the "bex does it all" mode?
13:20:25 <mattdm> robyduck: ha. Nonoonono I'm doing some too
13:20:26 <bexelbie> mattdm, yes - but I am not promising a delivery date at the moment as I am all up in FLOCK
13:20:28 <bexelbie> :D
13:20:46 <mattdm> Okay, I'm  calling "next thing"
13:20:50 <mattdm> #topic Bunch of trademark stuff
13:21:14 <mattdm> #info I'm going to go through these and close, refer to legal, or demand council action as appropriate
13:21:21 <mattdm> see, not everything is for bex
13:21:26 <robyduck> :D
13:21:39 <mattdm> #topic FUDCon proposal
13:21:52 <mattdm> #link https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/88
13:22:28 <mattdm> This is a proposal to co-locate with Latinoware
13:23:04 <mattdm> Proposed cost is $10,000
13:24:03 <robyduck> should we freeze this until we get out all our FAD posts?
13:24:03 <bexelbie> I'd like to see this addressed in terms of the mission in mattdm's pending post
13:24:17 <bexelbie> also, I'd draw attention to the attendees being mostly students
13:24:46 <bexelbie> I was part of an unrelated conversation yesterday about conferences in LATAM and there is no clear strategy in a lot of communities - we should do this with a strategy
13:24:56 <bexelbie> unrelated == not Fedora
13:25:13 <mattdm> Yeah. From the "budget planning" section, "we can focus on bringing MORE Fedora volunteers from different countries."
13:25:23 <mattdm> So, there's at least a start of a plan
13:26:41 <mattdm> I guess the question for us is: do we want to tell them "come back with a strategy", or do we want to say "here is the strategy we want to follow; can your conference plan do this?"
13:26:47 <mattdm> (or something else)
13:27:57 <robyduck> I would reply in the ticket, we want to have a more mission focused proposal, which was not available at the moment you filed this ticket. That said, also in a budget perspective POV the main LATAM event could differ from a normal FUDCon.
13:28:03 <bexelbie> I think we should ask them to come back with a strategy and how this conference aligns with our mission, or something like that
13:28:21 <bexelbie> robyduck +1
13:28:32 <robyduck> yeah, more or less the same thoughts
13:28:35 <mattdm> okay. so, that means "need to finish up mission post"
13:28:40 <mattdm> which I plan to do this afternoon
13:28:41 <bexelbie> I also would like clarity on what kind of volunteers they plan to attract which is also the same thought :)
13:28:44 <robyduck> yup
13:28:44 * bexelbie violently agrees :)
13:29:31 <mattdm> okay, so, plan here is: matthew finishes mission post, rest of you review it, then we update the ticket with the above comments
13:29:35 <mattdm> yes?
13:29:43 <bexelbie> +1
13:29:50 <bexelbie> s/we update/mattdm updates/ :P
13:30:09 <robyduck> +1
13:30:21 <langdon> uggh.. dropped hook again with no notification.. /me reads scrollback
13:30:29 <jwb> hm
13:30:40 <mattdm> bexelbie: I want you guys to put in your own comments please :)
13:30:45 <langdon> also ... did anyone follow up on the outcome of the latam amabassadors meeting re: "the plan"?
13:30:56 * mattdm waits on jwb's hm
13:31:26 <bexelbie> langdon, can you provide context on that q?
13:31:40 <jwb> i agree with that plan, but it feels kind of sneaky to ignore a ticket for a long time and then answer it with "we changed this entire thing out from under you, go redo your request".  maybe we can be a bit more apologetic in the request when we point them to it.
13:31:58 <mattdm> jwb: good call
13:32:22 <langdon> bexelbie, https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/88#comment-71779
13:32:29 <mattdm> I will keep that at the front of my mind while writing
13:32:50 <mattdm> #topic FAmNA budget increase request
13:32:54 <mattdm> #link https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/108
13:33:01 <mattdm> so this is the one bexelbie has been waiting for
13:33:15 <langdon> mattdm, see my question and the comment related as well please (re: latam fudcon)
13:34:01 <mattdm> #topic wait back to latam for a second
13:34:26 <mattdm> langdon I don't understand your question :)
13:34:29 <bexelbie> langdon, I don't believe we ever heard back - but the new information requests will prompt a rediscussion in LATAM, I think
13:35:08 <mattdm> As I understood it, the move to latinoware was basically in response to that
13:35:35 <langdon> bexelbie, sure.. ok.. mattdm, I was asking if anybody had heard output of the latam ambassadors meeting referenced in the ticket.. it certainly sounded like they were gonna come up with more of a strategy
13:35:39 <langdon> based on your comment
13:35:52 <mattdm> langdon: yeah, I did not follow up directly :-/
13:36:30 <langdon> mattdm, ok.. well.. likely.. based on "please give strat" q.. it will be moot
13:37:07 <langdon> btw.. i do lean towards "providing strategy" or at least "guide rails" .. but.. so much to do so little time
13:37:20 <robyduck> also true
13:37:27 <mattdm> and I guess the other thing I'd like to give a sense of... assuming that a mission-focused plan is put forward, are we generally in favor of trying this, or are we leading them on?
13:37:54 <langdon> mattdm, can you elaborate? trying what?
13:37:58 <bexelbie> I am sure some of us will be happy to help with the strategy in the the region - I know I am happy to make myself available
13:38:33 <mattdm> Sorry, "trying a fudcon latam linked with latinoware"
13:39:00 <langdon> mattdm, ohh that part.. i thought it might be a great idea.. but I haven't quite figured out, is it in parallel? or "near by"?
13:39:26 <mattdm> langdon: it's a dedicated room within that conference
13:39:29 <langdon> i think the fosdem-fringe does a lot of benefit (more so in years past) for conf-mgmt-camp and devconf.cz
13:39:56 <langdon> mattdm, that I am shakier on.. because.. people have to miss the "main conf" .. but i don't know that conf at all
13:40:14 <langdon> ok.. i say "let's table this" and have a council meeting / attend the latam meeting and discuss strategy..
13:40:19 <langdon> maybe we can all go?
13:40:21 <bexelbie> I think that we should ask those closest to the situation to help elaborate on this
13:40:30 <bexelbie> as in help LATAM do a proposal
13:40:49 <langdon> bexelbie, yeah.. but maybe a kickoff with all/most council members?
13:41:12 <mattdm> I think that's reasonable.
13:41:18 <bexelbie> langdon, yes, but in a regional context - we need them to put together the meeting as they need to be heavily present too
13:41:33 <bexelbie> I'd like to see a LATAM event driven by LATAM
13:41:35 <langdon> bexelbie, mostly them..
13:41:35 <bexelbie> :)
13:41:44 * bexelbie is not trying to make an us vs them statement
13:41:52 <langdon> ha
13:43:51 <mattdm> okay, so, yeah, will add "we will be happy to help work with you" to above-mentioned future comment
13:43:54 <mattdm> And now....
13:44:02 <mattdm> #topic FAmNA budget request
13:44:18 <mattdm> #link https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/108
13:44:45 <mattdm> bexelbie: Do you have anything to say on this right now? :)
13:44:50 <nb> I was surprised to see that last year we had a significant portion of our budget not spent according to the new budget site?
13:45:01 <nb> I thought we came pretty close to spending our allotment each quarter?
13:45:07 <bexelbie> I have no details other than what is in the ticket and here: http://209.132.179.16:3000/FY18/na.html
13:45:42 <bexelbie> nb, last year's data is as accurate as could be constructed from the various records that were available
13:45:58 <nb> oh
13:46:07 <bexelbie> it is also the result of a review by the regional card holders and treasurers
13:46:14 <mattdm> bexelbie what's your timeline for that to be not at a suspicious-looking bare IP address? :)
13:46:22 <bexelbie> I would not say it is 100% accurate - but it is as close as possible
13:46:28 <nb> plus, last year we didn't produce F24 media, so that was an expense we would have normally had that we did not have
13:46:36 * langdon notes bexelbie's fast dns resolution is appreciated ;)
13:46:56 <nb> bexelbie, is that hosted on fedorainfracloud? or somewhere else?
13:47:03 <bexelbie> mattdm, here: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/5973 - note that automatic build is still unsolved and will probably remain that way unless pagure changes or loopabull comes in
13:47:12 <bexelbie> nb, see https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/5973
13:47:29 <bexelbie> and before anyone asks - no I have not reacted to the update made 15 hours ago
13:47:50 <mattdm> So, I guess, I want the questions I had in the ticket answered (preferably in the various event wiki pages) before granting the additional budget
13:48:13 <bexelbie> I believe that for this ticket to move forward we need to know what NA wants allocated, has already committed too, and the answers to the questions
13:48:34 <nb> some of those events, like SELF, will be in Q2
13:48:42 <nb> but we currently have 0 budget for Q2-Q4 I think?
13:49:21 <mattdm> Some of this is in the same state as the LATAM FUDCon question
13:49:41 <bexelbie> nb even if they are in Q2 they need to be allocated against and adjusted - there is no NA budget plan on record yet in the budget system
13:49:49 <mattdm> That is, we want to see this clearly linked to a mission-advancing strategy, with clear goals and outcomes
13:50:31 <bexelbie> +1
13:50:34 <mattdm> I want to be able to look at a checklist and say "yes, this was a complete success" (or a 50% success — or, if it comes to it, not a success at all)
13:50:54 <mattdm> nb Does that make sense to you?
13:51:00 <langdon> mattdm, i think 0 success is a fine outcome.. but I want to know what will change next time
13:51:24 <mattdm> langdon++
13:51:26 <nb> so basically you are wanting some metrics of what we hope to accomplish by being at each event?
13:51:27 <mattdm> YES
13:51:40 <mattdm> nb yes
13:51:49 <langdon> this is not meant to be a high stress activity.. more "how are we spending well" .. ."what can we improve" .. "what can we learn from each other" .. not "justify all the things"
13:51:53 <mattdm> my upper-case YES was to langdon, not yelling at you :)
13:51:59 <langdon> YELLING! ;)
13:52:32 <mattdm> I agree with that, but there *is* also some measure of "justify all the things" :)
13:52:36 <nb> I know some of the things we have already more-or-less committed too
13:52:47 <nb> SELF we already paid the $500 sponsorship/booth fee out of Q1
13:52:54 <nb> but the travel expenses will be Q2
13:53:21 <nb> and bitcamp i think is already paid the sponsorship/booth
13:53:40 <mattdm> nb Like I said in the ticket, it's not that I think these activies are valueless.... I hope it's basically *easy* to come up with the above
13:54:05 <robyduck> I agree with mattdm, it's probably wrong to grant anything without having all the informations public and handy for all. This is beside the fact we want events to be mission focused.
13:55:17 * langdon hard stop in ~5m
13:55:55 <mattdm> nb can you take the above back to FAmNA?
13:56:21 <mattdm> Is there anything more that you need from us that would be helpful?
13:57:10 * langdon notes there is no link to the latinoware site in the wiki page proposing the fudcon :/ (assuming i can read)
13:57:11 * mattdm also has hard stop
13:57:20 <nb> I will take this back to our meeting we will have Thursday and discuss it there
13:57:33 <robyduck> nb++
13:57:34 <zodbot> robyduck: Karma for nb changed to 17 (for the f25 release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
13:57:52 <mattdm> nb thanks!
13:58:04 <mattdm> okay, wrapping up so we can all get to our next meetings!
13:58:07 <mattdm> #endmeeting