13:04:25 <mattdm> #startmeeting Council (2017-08-09)
13:04:25 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Aug  9 13:04:25 2017 UTC.  The chair is mattdm. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
13:04:25 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
13:04:25 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'council_(2017-08-09)'
13:04:25 <Amita> thanks mattdm
13:04:26 <mattdm> #meetingname council
13:04:26 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'council'
13:04:28 <mattdm> #chair mattdm jkurik jwb langdon robyduck bexelbie
13:04:28 <zodbot> Current chairs: bexelbie jkurik jwb langdon mattdm robyduck
13:04:30 <mattdm> #topic Introductions, Welcomes
13:04:34 <jkurik> .hello2
13:04:34 <bexelbie> .hello bex
13:04:34 <zodbot> jkurik: jkurik 'Jan Kurik' <jkurik@redhat.com>
13:04:37 <zodbot> bexelbie: bex 'Brian (bex) Exelbierd' <bex@pobox.com>
13:04:42 <jwb> kinda here
13:04:47 <robyduck> .hello robyduck
13:04:48 <zodbot> robyduck: robyduck 'Robert Mayr' <robyduck@gmail.com>
13:05:18 <langdon> .hello2
13:05:19 <zodbot> langdon: langdon 'Langdon White' <langdon@redhat.com>
13:05:20 <langdon> :( zodbot is ignoring me
13:05:22 <langdon> ha
13:05:25 <mattdm> this is nominally a subproject report day
13:05:29 <mattdm> but there isn't one lined up
13:05:34 <mattdm> so let's do open floor
13:05:40 <mattdm> #topic Today's Open Floor Agenda
13:05:48 <mattdm> process here is for people to propose agenda items
13:06:29 <mattdm> i'll rank them in order of popularity / my random assessment
13:06:40 <mattdm> and we'll go through them one by one with a max of ten minutes.
13:06:42 <mattdm> so, topics?
13:06:45 <bexelbie> should we do a ticket run if we have no other topics? To at least triage and move forward?
13:06:58 <bexelbie> and should we set a date/time for a CoC meeting for those tickets?
13:07:01 <bexelbie> probably by video?
13:07:06 <mattdm> I have two which happen to be tickets
13:07:36 <mattdm> schedule meeting for coc tickets is a topic :)
13:07:43 * robyduck would like to repropose the diversity seat, as we are in the middle of elections. Would be nice to announce it together with the winner of the elections.
13:07:54 <mattdm> robyduck: good
13:08:01 <mattdm> i have two which happen to be tickets as well
13:08:13 <mattdm> i finished the gaps in the Playground draft
13:08:18 <mattdm> and also we have this new Objective proposal
13:08:30 <bexelbie> I think it might be useful to talk about the Diversity seat at the CoC meeting too
13:09:05 * langdon needs to update the modularity objective too
13:09:29 <mattdm> langdon: yes please. you want that a topic now or is that just a reminder? :)
13:10:09 <langdon> mattdm, just a reminder.. ill try and have something by next council meeting.. been a crazy few weeks.. and it doesn't seem to be slowing down
13:10:42 <mattdm> any flock business or anything?
13:10:50 <mattdm> langdon: sounds good
13:10:51 <bexelbie> it is getting closer
13:10:52 <jkurik> I do not want to make any predictions, but just to know - what will happen with the Modularity predictions in case langdon will not re-elected ?
13:10:57 <bexelbie> I am trying to nail down the final issues
13:11:14 <jkurik> s/Modularity predictions/Modularity objective/
13:11:17 <bexelbie> I also think we need to discuss #126 and the related meta issues
13:11:26 <bexelbie> unless @robyduck wants a hold
13:11:27 <mattdm> jkurik: The existing objective is reaching its conclusion so we should do a wrap-up meeting on it
13:11:34 * langdon makes sad face at jkurik ;)
13:11:44 <mattdm> if we renew it (and I think we should) langdon stays on in an auxilary seat
13:11:53 <mattdm> this seat only has veto power on things related to the objective
13:11:56 <jkurik> langdon: I am sorry, it is just a hypothetical question
13:12:01 <robyduck> which is 126?
13:12:03 <mattdm> but auxilary members are invited to participate fully in discussion
13:12:06 <langdon> jkurik, no worries.. was kidding
13:12:23 <mattdm> right now, langdon has two hats on the council
13:12:33 * langdon likes hats
13:12:57 <mattdm> #126 is "direction of ambassador program"
13:13:47 <mattdm> okay, let's go with these:
13:13:48 <mattdm> 1. Filling diversity seat
13:13:50 <mattdm> 2. Closed meeting for CoC discussion
13:13:52 <mattdm> 3. CI objective
13:13:54 <mattdm> 4. Direction of ambassador program
13:13:56 <mattdm> 5. Playground proposal
13:13:59 <mattdm> sound good?
13:14:05 <robyduck> +
13:14:08 <robyduck> 1
13:14:17 <jkurik> +1
13:14:18 <bexelbie> +1
13:14:26 <langdon> wfm
13:14:29 <mattdm> #topic Filling diversity seat
13:14:42 <mattdm> I agree with jkurik -- it'd be nice to announce this with election results
13:14:50 <mattdm> on the other hand, it's not an elected position
13:15:15 <mattdm> I know several of us had planned to talk to some people we thought would be good for the role
13:15:48 <mattdm> I agree that combining this with a CoC discussion makes sense
13:15:53 <bexelbie> I am concerned by the feedback I've heard about how the position is larger thaan we may realize
13:16:17 <mattdm> It seems like a large position to me. bexelbie can you elaborate?
13:16:44 <bexelbie> iirc all of the people we've contacted have indicated they couldn't do it in a volunteer capacity
13:17:08 <bexelbie> but I am happy to recanvas and ensure I didn't forget to contact anyone
13:17:09 <mattdm> yeah, that's a hard position
13:17:31 <mattdm> one answer is to go back to a red hat's internal diversity team and ask one of those people
13:18:04 <mattdm> but I really like the idea of having an external person supported as needed
13:18:25 <mattdm> I know we got pushback the first time around on not putting money behind this
13:18:32 <bexelbie> I am struggling between those two as well
13:18:38 <mattdm> but I think a lot of people just didn't realize that Fedora is not Red Hat.
13:19:15 <mattdm> This time around, we've put *discretionary budget* behind the position; it is definitely not a sinecure
13:19:30 <mattdm> but that has the effect of making the position *more* work
13:20:16 <bexelbie> What do you mean by discretionary budget behind the position?
13:20:24 <mattdm> we put $9000 aside for diversity
13:21:16 <bexelbie> ahh, I misread your statement - yes that agreed and understood
13:21:44 <bexelbie> There was $6K before but it got allocated only to Outreachy
13:21:58 <mattdm> yeah.
13:22:14 <mattdm> anyway, I think the next step is definitely another high-bandwidth council conversation
13:22:26 <bexelbie> +1 to bandwidth
13:22:31 <mattdm> and I think since we may talk about individual people and things they have told us in confidence that needs to be a closed meeting
13:22:40 <bexelbie> Will the whole council be at Flock?
13:22:46 <jwb> no
13:22:51 <mattdm> that was going to be my question
13:23:04 <mattdm> jwb: you're not making it?
13:23:08 <jwb> correct
13:23:13 <mattdm> sorry to hear that
13:23:17 <bexelbie> Anyone other than jwb saying no? jkurik will we know the election results before or after Flock?
13:23:21 <mattdm> well we're not moving flock to grand rapids
13:23:29 <jwb> also correct :)
13:23:35 <langdon> mattdm, i was just gonna make that joke
13:23:36 * bexelbie wonders if we should have a Monday meeting and dial jwb in
13:23:39 <jkurik> The election result will be announced the next Tuesday
13:23:51 * langdon better book his way to and fro or is gonna be walking to flock
13:24:00 <mattdm> jkurik: I don't think we'll have this decided by then.
13:24:15 <mattdm> langdon: want to drive me?
13:24:18 <bexelbie> I was wondering about some high bandwidth council time at Flock
13:24:26 <mattdm> bexelbie: I think that's a good idea
13:24:31 <langdon> mattdm, god no.. walking might be faster and less painful
13:24:36 <mattdm> langdon: ha
13:24:38 <langdon> i want bus down, train back
13:24:53 <langdon> but i might try to do sunday and train both ways
13:25:12 <mattdm> is everyone who can make it going to be there on Monday?
13:25:22 <mattdm> robyduck, in particular
13:25:22 <robyduck> why not, except jwb we should all be there right? Diversity game evening?
13:25:36 <robyduck> no, I'll arrive monday evening
13:25:44 * mattdm wants to play games game evening
13:25:51 <robyduck> :)
13:26:11 <bexelbie> Thursday has no evening activity - but might be an important night for other things ...
13:26:17 <mattdm> I'm sure we can find some time during the day
13:26:18 <bexelbie> Friday afternoon?
13:26:24 * langdon wonders what exactly a "diversity game" is
13:26:45 <bexelbie> mattdm, I'm not sure about that ... have you seen the schedule it is very compelling (*queue* commercial :) )
13:27:02 <jwb> i would highly suggest to not plan around me.  i am perfectly OK with reviewing anything discussed after the fact
13:27:07 <langdon> i couldn't get a room for friday night.. so i am likely constrained .. although IIRC the train isn't till like 9pm
13:27:28 <mattdm> robyduck: when are you flying out?
13:27:30 <jwb> and to be 100% honest, in matters of diversity i am likely to defer to more experienced people than myself
13:27:37 * robyduck is also leaving frideay afternoon
13:28:29 <bexelbie> langdon, there should be a room in the hotel - can you check again and email if not
13:28:30 <mattdm> friday wrap up goes through noon.... so, late afternoon or early afternoon?
13:28:48 <langdon> bexelbie, mo said i should call them.. but, i have been busy..
13:29:04 <langdon> mattdm, see robyduck above.. early afternoon might work
13:29:47 <mattdm> let's plan on early friday afternoon -- like, lunch -- unless we end up finding earlier time that works for everyone
13:30:04 <bexelbie> We can also force shift robyduck's flight muahahah (j/k)
13:30:08 <robyduck> my flight is at 7pm, so I should leave at least at 3pm or around
13:30:17 <mattdm> ok, cool.
13:30:20 <robyduck> ahahah, also an option
13:30:28 <langdon> robyduck, how are you getting cape->logan?
13:30:31 <mattdm> #info council to have closed meeting on this at flock
13:30:34 <robyduck> bus
13:30:41 <mattdm> #topic CoC tickets and policies
13:30:50 <mattdm> I propose we use the same meeting for this too
13:30:56 <mattdm> killing two agenda items with one stone
13:30:56 <langdon> robyduck, ok.. thats probably pretty reliable.. if you were driving, it is probably risky
13:31:13 <robyduck> unless you are the driver :D
13:31:29 <bexelbie> +1
13:31:33 <mattdm> langdon: are there dedicated bus lanes?
13:31:45 <langdon> ha.. just cape->logan traffic is completely unpredictable unless you know what you are doing..
13:32:06 <langdon> mattdm, i have no idea.. but my guess is they know what they are doing.. which a regular person probably doesn't
13:32:19 <mattdm> anyway anyone disagree with also using that meeting to work on CoC issues?
13:32:25 <langdon> nope
13:32:31 <jkurik> I am +1
13:32:42 <robyduck> no
13:32:45 <bexelbie> also +1
13:32:50 <mattdm> ok cool. next one then
13:33:09 <mattdm> #topic CI for atomic host objective proposal
13:33:13 <mattdm> #link https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/133
13:33:24 <mattdm> #link http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Objectives/Continuous_Integration_and_Delivery_of_Fedora_Atomic_Host
13:33:40 <mattdm> I'd love to have this official before flock
13:33:50 <mattdm> I give a strong endorsement because:
13:34:02 <mattdm> 1. It's something I think is awesome and important for Fedora
13:34:15 <mattdm> 2. The Objective proposal is well-written and has measurable goals
13:34:36 <mattdm> 3. I know several people are dedicated to making this work, beyond just the objective leads
13:34:46 * robyduck reading
13:34:49 <mattdm> 4. Both of the objective leads are awesome and have high credibility
13:35:17 <mattdm> 5. And I want us to have more approved objectives in general; we have slots for 2-4 and currently only Modularity is active
13:35:31 <langdon> i do agree with bexelbie's caveat re: single rep.. and it is kinda required for council membership
13:36:03 <bexelbie> While it doesn't change my vote, is RCM on board with producing signed shipping bits via this concept (even if the details need work)?
13:36:48 <robyduck> I like this because it finally defines clearly where Atomic's position is now, while we had many discussions during GA release dates
13:36:54 <langdon> bexelbie, i think that should be an "official question" either in the ticket or the objective proposal
13:37:46 <langdon> on a side note, we have been discussing implementing the "gating" in terms of modules.. like the "atomic host module" is the unit that would be gated against
13:38:12 <mattdm> I was thinking about the single rep for council as well. It's our policies so we *could* have two, but having a single PoC seems more straightforward
13:38:39 <langdon> well.. if we have two.. we also set a precedent
13:38:45 <robyduck> +1 for single PoC, not 2
13:39:02 <mattdm> bexelbie: If we approve this objective, I think we're asking RCM to find a way to make it work
13:39:17 <mattdm> ok, so it sounds like everyone is in favor with that caveat
13:39:39 <bexelbie> +1
13:39:46 <bexelbie> and I voted in the ticket :)
13:39:56 <langdon> mattdm, i think that is a fine perspective.. however, I think i would like to know if RCM & fesco have been formally approached..
13:40:33 <robyduck> yes +1 with bex's caveat. Want to have the vote also in the ticket?
13:40:37 <langdon> so.. i would propose +1 from me if, a ticket is filed in the respective groups for a formal review in their "meetings" .. and, single poc
13:40:47 <mattdm> yeah, let's have votes in the ticket please
13:40:52 <mattdm> langdon: I disagree :)
13:41:02 <langdon> mattdm, which part?
13:41:18 <mattdm> I think we should approve the high level concept and ask for changes to be made as Changes through the change process including FESCo (and RCM) review
13:41:26 <langdon> the review bit? that can be "part of the objective work" too
13:42:02 <mattdm> What do you mean by "formal review in their 'meetings'"?
13:42:03 <robyduck> done
13:42:06 <langdon> mattdm, sure... but, i think a request that they talk to them soon
13:42:11 <mattdm> Why meetings scare quotes?
13:42:34 <langdon> i meant fesco has meetings with tickets that they review.. rel-eng? i know they have tickets but I am not sure if they have review meetings
13:42:41 <mattdm> langdon: What is the thing specifically you want to have formally reviewed?
13:42:47 <mattdm> langdon: ah ok :)
13:42:51 <langdon> so.. "meetings" == "meeting or their equiv"
13:43:25 <jwb> so i have a comment
13:43:41 <mattdm> for me, most of that is covered by "Much of the pipeline and testing effort on this Objective will be undertaken by a new "CI Special Interest Group". This group will invite people from the Fedora Engineering team, Fedora Release-Engineering team, Fedora QA, Security Team and more. Work will be coordinated when possible with the Factory 2.0 effort. "
13:43:44 <mattdm> jwb: go!
13:43:45 <langdon> ok.. ill tone the language down a bit and make it a request in the ticket.. but i am generally +1
13:43:45 <jwb> it's orthogonal to this specific objective, but timely i think
13:44:00 <mattdm> langdon: sounds good
13:44:35 <jwb> we seem to gate everything on RCM acceptance.  that's definitely an important group to consult, but in doing so we are essentially asking them to just take on work.  i don't think that's sustainable and it's phrasing the question inappropriately
13:44:54 <mattdm> jwb +1
13:44:59 <mattdm> is there a different way you'd phrase it?
13:45:06 <jwb> instead, i'd suggest we ask the Objective owner if they have someone on the hook to work as part of RCM
13:45:18 <langdon> jwb, oooo sneaky :)
13:45:22 <jwb> it's not sneaky
13:45:26 <jwb> it's common sense
13:45:46 <mattdm> I think this has been considered (see what I just quoted from the proposal)
13:45:50 <langdon> jwb, i was kidding.. but .. i meant "what a brilliant way to get RCM the help they need to do new and cool stuff"
13:45:54 <mattdm> but it doesn't hurt to call it out again
13:46:14 <mattdm> Let's take this to the ticket and move to the next item
13:46:44 <jwb> langdon: correct.  but the phrasing of the question is specifically important because it puts the onus on the Objective owner to do work while ALSO putting onus on RCM to work together
13:46:51 <jwb> anyway, move on
13:46:59 <langdon> jwb, +1
13:47:04 <mattdm> jwb +1
13:47:13 <mattdm> #topic Direction of Ambassador Program
13:47:32 <mattdm> robyduck, can you fill us in on this?
13:47:57 <robyduck> well, most of what has to be said is already in the ticket
13:48:15 <robyduck> the question here was more related to the goals the events should have
13:48:44 <mattdm> robyduck: do you have the ticket number handy?
13:48:54 <robyduck> and we have been very clear for months now, we will fund events which respects the mission statement
13:48:59 <robyduck> 126 IIRC
13:49:05 <robyduck> https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/126
13:49:12 <mattdm> thanks.
13:49:35 <robyduck> np, you told me before it was this :D
13:49:50 <mattdm> robyduck: ha
13:49:54 <robyduck> the problem here was mainly on communication
13:50:26 <robyduck> regions saw less budget and were not aware we still have money aside to fund interesting events for Fedora
13:50:36 <bexelbie> I believe that Mindshare and other activities will resolve this - but we need to figure out if we have a next step for this ticket
13:50:45 <robyduck> exactly
13:50:59 <bexelbie> I think there is also continuing confusion about the mission and whether our audience is children, users, contributors or what
13:51:06 <bexelbie> s/audience/target audience/
13:51:33 <robyduck> one of the main goals of Mindshare is to improve communication, but we are not there yet, so we should solve this ticket in the meanwhile and reach the answer out also to the other regions, not only NA
13:51:52 <mattdm> robyduck: What *kind* of answer would help there?
13:51:53 <robyduck> I am also not aware of the guidelines each regions has (they are hard to find in the wiki...)
13:52:59 <robyduck> I would just make a sort of copy/paste of ou mission statement and clarify the Council has money aside for funding events which might have a good output or which work on people we have as targets in our mission
13:53:19 <mattdm> I think we left the mission broad enough that we need to be more specific
13:53:46 <robyduck> nothign really new to last years, we just want to see what regions are doing with the money and measure the outcome
13:53:55 <bexelbie> I believe a statement on target audience/goals of growth by the council is important
13:54:04 <mattdm> bexelbie: yeah.
13:54:13 <bexelbie> I read our mission as implying that we believe we have a lack of "developer" contributors to round out other areas
13:54:21 <bexelbie> this isn't to say that they are more important
13:54:24 <bexelbie> that is just the hole
13:54:34 <mattdm> We could say something like:
13:54:36 <bexelbie> in the same way that our diversity efforts are trying to round out our contributor base
13:54:40 <bexelbie> on other metrics
13:55:30 <mattdm> Ambassadors should fund events which support one of the target audiences identified by a Fedora Editionn Working Group, or which are directly aligned with a FEdora Council OBjective
13:56:08 <mattdm> I am a little tempted to say just "which are directly aligned with a Fedora Council Objective"
13:56:46 * mattdm looks at clock again....
13:56:50 <robyduck> yes, that's fine, but will be understood only in NA and EMEA. We should at least add some concrete examples, because people in the other two regions will probably not ask for clarification, they will just not organize anything
13:57:17 <bexelbie> robyduck, +1
13:57:28 <bexelbie> mattdm, I want to re-read those before I say +1 to that :)
13:58:03 <mattdm> Then if we want to grow developer base, or attract students, or, for that matter, grow the *ambassadors* from 10 for NA to 1000, let's make new Objectives for those things.
13:58:54 <mattdm> I think it will just confuse things if I say that in the ticket; is there an ambassadors' list discussion I should join in on?
13:59:28 <jwb> i have a different meeting i need to attend now.  apologies :\
13:59:28 <bexelbie> mattdm, I'd like to see the message before it goes to ambassadors@ .. if possible
13:59:29 <robyduck> no idea off hand, I need to look
13:59:34 <mattdm> if not, should I start one, or should I go to the council mailing list?
13:59:35 <bexelbie> but yeah, ambassadors@ is probably the place
13:59:39 <robyduck> bexelbie: +1
14:00:00 <bexelbie> both council-discuss and ambassadors@ since ambassadors@ is a closed list, iirc
14:00:01 <mattdm> I'll draft something. and i'll consult with bexelbie first before burning down the house :)
14:00:13 * bexelbie raises the roof
14:00:13 * langdon needs to lead his next meeting.. so.. will probably be pretty distracted
14:00:25 <mattdm> bexelbie: famsco and famna have closed lists, but ambassadors@fpo is open
14:00:41 <bexelbie> I've been told by several folks they cannot post there
14:00:44 <robyduck> no, ambassadors@ is invite only
14:01:09 <bexelbie> I bribed my way in with cake :P
14:01:12 <mattdm> oh. ok, then, I'll post to both lists I guess?
14:01:26 <mattdm> I got on it by joining 10 years ago before ambassadors were so formalized :)
14:01:47 <mattdm> I guess I will post to both lists, and not cross-post, because cross-posting to a closed list is annoying
14:02:15 <mattdm> robyduck: as mindshare lead I'll share with you before I post too
14:02:24 <mattdm> and ending this meeting now
14:02:28 <robyduck> mattdm: that would be fine, yes, thx
14:02:34 <mattdm> #endmeeting