16:00:39 <mattdm> #startmeeting Council (2018-05-23)
16:00:39 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed May 23 16:00:39 2018 UTC.
16:00:39 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location.
16:00:39 <zodbot> The chair is mattdm. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:00:39 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
16:00:39 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'council_(2018-05-23)'
16:00:40 <mattdm> #meetingname council
16:00:40 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'council'
16:00:42 <mattdm> #chair mattdm jkurik jwb langdon robyduck bexelbie dperpeet Amita nb dgilmore pbrobinson
16:00:42 <zodbot> Current chairs: Amita bexelbie dgilmore dperpeet jkurik jwb langdon mattdm nb pbrobinson robyduck
16:00:44 <mattdm> #topic Introductions, Welcomes
16:00:46 <bexelbie> .hello bex
16:00:47 <zodbot> bexelbie: bex 'Brian (bex) Exelbierd' <bexelbie@redhat.com>
16:00:52 * bexelbie will disappear for 2 min
16:00:58 <dgilmore> hi mattdm
16:00:58 <mattdm> hello!
16:01:04 <mattdm> hi dennis!
16:01:49 <mattdm> anyone else around, this fine $SEASONOFYEAR $TIMEOFDAY?
16:02:16 * pbrobinson is here, sort of, half dying with manflu/hay fever
16:03:05 * bexelbie is back
16:03:10 <jwb> hello
16:03:24 <mattdm> hi pbrobinson jwb
16:03:26 <mattdm> don't die please
16:03:32 <langdon> .hello2
16:03:34 <zodbot> langdon: langdon 'Langdon White' <langdon@redhat.com>
16:03:47 <langdon> I'm here but on mobile for another 5-10
16:03:53 <mattdm> okay, no we've got something quorum-ish
16:04:00 <mattdm> #topic Today's Agenda
16:04:31 <mattdm> This is an open floor meeting. You know the drill ...
16:04:49 <mattdm> ... suggest things now that you'd like to talk about, and I'll make an ad-hoc agenda from that.
16:04:52 <langdon> did you get enough of an update on modularity? sorry for the snafu
16:05:02 <jwb> response time on CoC violation reports
16:05:07 <mattdm> langdon: yeah, sgallagh filled us in.
16:05:10 <mattdm> jwb: +1
16:05:12 <langdon> k
16:05:30 <mattdm> how about "where to put policy stuff like that"
16:05:41 <langdon> flock status? gdpr?
16:05:45 <mattdm> that can be a sub topic
16:05:49 <mattdm> langdon: yes, and yes.
16:05:54 <mattdm> stickster: you around?
16:06:15 <mattdm> or Evolution?
16:06:53 <mattdm> or Spot?
16:07:07 <mattdm> let's put GDPR last and see if one of those people shows up. Anything else?
16:07:34 <mattdm> if we have time I wouldn't mind a mini-update on the state of dnf and modularity, and on the iot nightlies
16:07:40 <mattdm> but let's do that after the other stuff
16:08:29 <mattdm> okay, not hearing anything. so, let's start.
16:08:40 <mattdm> #topic Response time for CoC violation reports
16:08:59 * bexelbie has an idea that might help here
16:09:11 <mattdm> The summary here is that hard stuff is hard and not fun, which makes us slow at dealing with it, which makes us ineffective
16:09:12 <jwb> shoot
16:09:32 <bexelbie> Today we rely on Consensus and decision making of the full council to move forward
16:09:58 <bexelbie> An idea that is being tossed around in the draft proposal (which, at 20 pages is still not ready yet :( ) is having a group of people who can be more nimble
16:10:11 <bexelbie> and then they send big decisions up to the group for consensus but they handle small decisions
16:10:26 <mattdm> are you serious about twenty pages?
16:10:40 <bexelbie> maybe we could get a small group of us to commit to rapid response and then only refer back to all of us if it is a big consequence and just report back the rest
16:10:47 <mattdm> That sounds fine in theory.
16:10:51 <bexelbie> if they do that then council has enough time to change the decision before the consequence is long lived
16:10:56 * sgallagh hopes that "20 pages is still not ready yet" means that it is being trimmed down, not enlarged
16:10:57 <mattdm> who decides "big consequence?"
16:11:06 <langdon> 20 pages on what exactly?
16:11:10 <bexelbie> I'll address the 20 pages after this conversatoin
16:11:10 <jwb> that sounds like the CwG
16:11:14 <jwb> which failed
16:11:21 <bexelbie> I think we should just pick 2-3 of us for now
16:12:04 <langdon> i would be careful of the "rapid response" as the council is now not "all elected".. so you need to have at least one elected member in that group IMO
16:12:20 <bexelbie> langdon, there is nothing preventing us from doing that
16:12:27 <bexelbie> unless we are saying that doing tha tprevents us from being nimble
16:12:35 <bexelbie> which then is circular with our problem
16:13:01 <jwb> this is already over complicating the topic
16:13:05 <dgilmore> maybe we are each empowered to respond to first offences, second offences go to the full council?
16:13:15 <bexelbie> ok, then I withdraw the solution and look for others
16:13:18 <jwb> let's start simple, which a response time
16:13:20 <bexelbie> s/solution/suggestion/
16:13:20 <langdon> i am really saying that the council is now organized around "seat per viewpoint".. and if those views should be = in coc response, then you have a problem with using  a subset.. elected member being an example
16:13:33 <mattdm> yeah, I agree with langdon on that
16:13:52 <mattdm> jwb: can you put your proposal of one week in the form of a proposal? :)
16:13:55 <stickster> mattdm: I'm here now, but I only have a few minutes, sorry
16:15:00 <jwb> proposal: CoC violation reports must reply to the ticket and initiating contact with individual in question within one week of being reported
16:15:16 <langdon> i also think "response time" is vague.. as in .. you have the same problem in "support" .. is respons time = "time to respond to issue" or "time to resolve issue"
16:15:18 <bexelbie> How do we ensure we have council consensus?
16:15:24 <bexelbie> in that time period
16:15:37 <bexelbie> that seems to be our current sticking point, not a deliberate policy of responding late
16:16:06 <jwb> no, our current sticking point is we lack such a deadline, which means we reply slowly and drag this out to the point of being ineffective
16:16:09 <langdon> sorry "time to respond to issue" should be "time to ack issue"
16:16:32 <mattdm> jwb: what would that "initiating contact" look like?
16:16:32 <jwb> langdon, i proposed something more concrete above
16:16:57 <mattdm> Would it be, say, me or another council member commenting in the place the problem occured with somethin glike "hey, that's not acceptable"?
16:17:02 <langdon> jwb: ahh i see.. missed it.. i agree
16:17:31 <jwb> mattdm, initial email saying they violated the CoC and we're formally notifying them of it.  give them time to reply.  any form of further action should come within another week, and we should say that in the initial email
16:18:08 <langdon> i know i have been a little out of it lately.. but could the slow to respond be also that there is no "coc response run book" (which has a real name i can't think of atm)
16:18:34 <mattdm> jwb I'm +1 to your proposal with that expansion. basically one week and then another week.
16:19:00 <bexelbie> I feel like a lot of our delay has been around figuring out hte response action
16:19:07 <bexelbie> langdon, yes that is actually what hte bulk of those 20 pages are :D
16:19:40 <dgilmore> bexelbie: right
16:19:56 <dgilmore> bexelbie: not sure if we should codify responses
16:20:10 <dgilmore> and only discuss when something new comes up and we codify that
16:20:23 <bexelbie> it's a decision making process, not a codification - gives us guidelines to get to a decision quicker
16:20:30 <pbrobinson> I like jwb's proposal, and we could have basically an email template as the first reponse
16:20:33 <bexelbie> this is not an X=Y it allows for nuance and intereptation
16:20:43 <dgilmore> I do think we need to start the conversation that a violation has occured quickly
16:23:21 <mattdm> ok, so: CoC that bexelbie is working on will include some canned response actions?
16:23:25 <mattdm> that should significantly help.
16:23:42 <langdon> and a "workflow" .. a la jwb's proposal above
16:23:53 <mattdm> Wording proposal: "Once a ticket notifying us of a code of conduct issue has been filed, the Council will respond with an initial contact message within one week. That will come with a request for response, and any further action will come within a week of that initial message."
16:24:27 <langdon> "and any further action " -> "and next action" .. "any" implies "all"
16:24:58 <langdon> like.. what do you expect to happen in 2nd week? full resolution? or next step?
16:25:23 <mattdm> Wording proposal: "Once a ticket notifying us of a code of conduct issue has been filed, the Council will respond with an initial contact message within one week. That will come with a request for response, and further action will come within a week of that initial message."
16:25:38 <mattdm> langdon: how about just strike "any" so it's just "and further action"?
16:26:00 <langdon> yes.. but .. " within a week of that initial message." " within a week of that response."
16:26:29 <mattdm> what if the person doens't respond?
16:26:53 <langdon> ahhh "initial" is just unclear
16:27:07 <langdon> how about "within a week of the council's initial response"
16:27:13 <pbrobinson> indicate in the form letter that they need to respond due to their conduct otherwise there will be further implications?
16:27:23 <mattdm> pbrobinson: yes.
16:27:35 <langdon> "consequences" sounds much more ominous ;)
16:27:40 <mattdm> is anyone opposed to the general wording here?
16:27:45 <mattdm> we can update specific language later
16:28:02 <langdon> and this is a "placeholder" until bex's run book is done?
16:28:22 <mattdm> For lack of a better place to put it, I'm going to commit this to https://docs.fedoraproject.org/fedora-project/council/policies.html
16:28:29 <jwb> sounds fine
16:29:03 <mattdm> we don't have full council here, but since this is a) a new policy and b) not crazy and c) not set in stone, I'm going to go ahead and do that now.
16:29:23 <pbrobinson> yes please
16:29:24 <mattdm> done :)
16:29:31 <mattdm> okay, next, gdpr
16:29:33 <mattdm> #topic GDPR
16:29:39 <mattdm> This is the new EU privacy law.
16:29:46 <mattdm> I have an update from stickster
16:30:10 <mattdm> "edora response is on track, the policy's updated, notices were emailed out to all CLA+1 in addition to announce@ list and legal@ list
16:30:12 <mattdm> "
16:30:18 <mattdm> uh, "edora" = Fedora :)
16:30:29 <mattdm> #info Fedora response is on track, the policy's updated, notices were emailed out to all CLA+1 in addition to announce@ list and legal@ list
16:30:43 <mattdm> #info No feedback (good or bad) to this point
16:30:55 <mattdm> #info Since the changes aren't really overwhelming other than some GDPR addressing language, this is probably to be expected
16:31:07 <mattdm> also
16:31:20 <mattdm> #info kudos to the infra and legal teams for a lot of awesome quick work on this
16:31:24 <dgilmore> I think most people are over recieving a hundred updated privacy policy notices
16:31:28 <dgilmore> indeed
16:31:47 <mattdm> Yeah. At least we're not *specially* annoying :)
16:31:48 <langdon> dgilmore: perhaps you should request more privacy on your notification of privacy policies
16:31:54 <langdon> stickster++
16:31:57 <zodbot> langdon: Karma for pfrields changed to 6 (for the f28 release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
16:32:21 <dgilmore> langdon: :D
16:32:22 <mattdm> okay, anything else here?
16:33:12 <mattdm> #topic Flock
16:33:19 <mattdm> bexelbie: update? :)
16:33:26 <bexelbie> registration has been launched
16:33:29 <bexelbie> site has been launched
16:33:38 <bexelbie> cfp is almost complete, expected out by Monday if not sooner
16:33:48 <bexelbie> funding requests are planned and will be finished after cfp launch
16:34:09 * dgilmore registered
16:34:12 <bexelbie> we have some requests from the D&I team for things to increase inclusion, most are easy the rest are being researched for implementatoin
16:34:35 <bexelbie> evening activities are stalled but I have a plan to unstall them
16:34:42 <mattdm> bexelbie++
16:34:42 <zodbot> mattdm: Karma for bex changed to 4 (for the f28 release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
16:34:48 <bexelbie> the stall is me/budget/etc. NOT those helping do the work
16:35:01 <dgilmore> bexelbie++
16:35:01 <zodbot> dgilmore: Karma for bex changed to 5 (for the f28 release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
16:35:02 <mattdm> When should we publicize the site launch?
16:35:31 <bexelbie> it can be publicized at any time - I was holding pending some updated art work - but as it is always "in flight" there is no reason to delay
16:35:41 <bexelbie> I did email, iirc, flock-planning
16:35:52 <mattdm> #link https://flocktofedora.org
16:35:58 <mattdm> #info Flock site for 2018 is live!
16:36:05 <mattdm> #info time to tweet about it and stuff
16:36:30 <mattdm> Also, bexelbie and I talked about simply using pagure.io for talk submission.
16:36:35 <mattdm> We think this will be Fine
16:36:47 <jwb> why are we not using what we used last year?
16:37:03 <bexelbie> I was requested not to use that by infra
16:37:05 <dgilmore> jwb: for which bit?
16:37:12 <mattdm> jwb: because it requires a lot of work to set up
16:37:38 <mattdm> specifically, puiterwijk work -- which is in very high demand and short supply.
16:38:22 <langdon> and.. it is getting kind of long in the tooth.. been looking at it for devconf.us.. i may have an alternate to propose in the next couple weeks that we may be able to migrate too
16:38:38 <langdon> suse has an open source event app that is well used and well maintained..
16:38:44 <mattdm> langdon: couple of weeks is too late for us
16:38:50 <bexelbie> langdon, if you're looking at alternates I have some additoinal details we can discuss offline
16:38:51 <langdon> yeah... i hear ya
16:39:02 <langdon> bexelbie: yeah.. let's see if we can make it go
16:39:06 * puiterwijk reads what he is asked to do
16:39:08 <mattdm> also of note: tickets from the US to Dresden are... not looking cheap
16:39:13 <mattdm> puiterwijk: nothing. do nothing, please :)
16:39:16 <langdon> or migrate once the cfps are ini
16:39:20 <bexelbie> alternate airport suggestions are Prague and Berlin
16:39:26 <langdon> mattdm: brutal in fact
16:39:33 <bexelbie> both are easy train rides to Dresden of 2-3 hours (depending routing)
16:39:34 <langdon> berlin is pretty rough too
16:39:35 <bexelbie> as well as buses
16:39:51 <bexelbie> the train from Prague to Dresden passes through particularly beautiful scenery
16:39:54 <langdon> at least from BOS
16:40:12 <langdon> bexelbie: but it is all in czech .. so..
16:40:25 <bexelbie> langdon, actually the scenery crosses the border :D
16:40:50 <mattdm> bexelbie: from what I'm seeing, that doesn't actually help much. it seems US->EU travel at that time is just high
16:40:57 <dgilmore> mattdm: indeed, mine is looking expensive to Prage and more so to Berlin
16:41:12 <dgilmore> Prague
16:41:16 <bexelbie> not sure what is causing that season spike, it wasn't expected
16:41:27 <mattdm> yeah :(
16:41:28 <dgilmore> Berline was nearly $200 more than to Prague
16:41:35 <dgilmore> gahh
16:41:42 * dgilmore learns to spell
16:41:43 <bexelbie> another optoin for those adventurous might be to pick just about any major EU port of entry and swap to an LCC
16:41:45 <dgilmore> and type
16:42:33 <dgilmore> bexelbie: LCC?
16:42:37 <langdon> bexelbie: i looked at many.. and it isn't much cheaper
16:42:43 <mattdm> yeah if you use a site like kayak and select "multiple airlines" it'll give you some of those options
16:42:52 <langdon> local carrier, i assumed
16:42:58 <bexelbie> kiwi.com may also help
16:42:58 <mattdm> low cost carrier
16:43:05 <bexelbie> but watch out some of their fares are hand luggage only
16:43:14 <bexelbie> with no checked option
16:43:18 <bexelbie> not just checked for money
16:43:38 <bexelbie> also, be sure to check skyscanner.net it has a different inventory engine
16:43:45 <bexelbie> from the standard US focused sites
16:43:47 <dgilmore> I assume everyone form the US will have luggage
16:43:56 <bexelbie> these are not endorsements by the Fedora Project!
16:44:01 <mattdm> I think we should also try to do some specific promotion around getting community members who are already in Europe to attend this year
16:44:05 <mattdm> bexelbie++
16:44:16 <bexelbie> dgilmore, I am from the US and may not :D
16:44:17 <bexelbie> :P
16:44:27 <dgilmore> bexelbie: you do not count
16:44:32 <dgilmore> :D
16:45:13 <dgilmore> delta is offering me a deal, $4046 return
16:45:17 <mattdm> anyway. I thought of another topic: Elections!
16:45:20 <mattdm> dgilmore: WOW
16:45:30 <dgilmore> mattdm: indeed elections
16:45:37 <mattdm> #topic Elections
16:45:40 <dgilmore> mattdm: others are more reasonable
16:45:46 <mattdm> turns out nomination period closes *today*
16:45:59 <mattdm> we have one candidate for Council -- nb running for reelection
16:46:36 <mattdm> oh wait, is it over already?
16:46:53 * langdon opted out so wasn't paying attention
16:46:53 <mattdm> oh hey also we have new nominees since I looked
16:46:55 <mattdm> wheee
16:47:30 <mattdm> okay, so we have three council candidates
16:47:36 <mattdm> for one seat
16:47:42 <mattdm> and there are four candidates for the one mindshare seat
16:48:06 <mattdm> and four candidates for the four fesco seats
16:48:26 <dgilmore> some more FESCo candidates would be good
16:48:26 <pbrobinson> mattdm: do you have a link to these?
16:48:33 <mattdm> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Development/SteeringCommittee/Nominations
16:48:34 <dgilmore> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Council/Nominations
16:48:38 <mattdm> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mindshare/Nominations
16:48:42 <mattdm> thanks dgilmore :)
16:48:47 <puiterwijk> dgilmore: it looks like by now, nomination is all closed
16:48:50 <dgilmore> no problem mattdm
16:49:33 <dgilmore> puiterwijk: indeed
16:49:36 <dgilmore> seems so
16:49:43 <dgilmore> so I guess all 4 get into FESCo
16:49:45 <mattdm> okay, so, I was going to be a little worried with just one nominee (even if a good one). but now I don't really have anything to talk about :)
16:50:06 <mattdm> I'll let fesco worry about that :)
16:50:25 <mattdm> everyone on the council please help promote candidate interviews when they come out
16:50:44 * dgilmore needs to run and make lunch for daughter before class starts in 10 minutes
16:50:53 <mattdm> #topic Super-quick IoT update
16:51:12 <mattdm> pbrobinson: quick, in one minute, how are things? :)
16:51:47 <pbrobinson> I setup and sent out a meeting thingy to the IoT list, should probably have sent it to announce@ too I suppose
16:52:10 <pbrobinson> hoping to announce nightlies tomorrow or Friday as I think we almost have something people can use
16:52:33 <pbrobinson> which will be nice because people can then stop bothering me about that bit and start bothering me about a billion other bits :-P
16:52:39 <mattdm> cool. looking forward to it :)
16:52:48 <mattdm> #topic Super-quick Modularity update
16:52:49 <pbrobinson> and I think that's it ATM
16:52:52 <mattdm> langdon: still here? :)
16:52:59 <langdon> yeah
16:53:13 <langdon> ohh.. sorry.. but was reading poorly
16:53:22 <langdon> modularity: it is going!
16:53:32 <langdon> we are getting some new modules in which is cool
16:53:45 <mattdm> what are the new modules?
16:53:50 <langdon> some of the new build features are landing / being made use of.. (e..g stream expansion)
16:54:04 <mattdm> ooh, where can I find more about that?
16:54:07 <langdon> squid
16:54:11 <langdon> was one
16:54:24 <jwb> neat.
16:54:27 <langdon> i don't remember the others (/me notes you told him he was off the hook)
16:54:33 <mattdm> hahah.
16:54:38 <mattdm> what about the state of dnf?
16:54:51 <langdon> still in progress.. i think we have a few more weeks... iirc
16:55:01 <mattdm> ok. I will keep holding my breath. :)
16:55:08 <langdon> we should probably send an update email to devel@ and/or blog post
16:55:20 <mattdm> langdon: yes please
16:55:37 <mattdm> okay, anything else, anyone?
16:55:41 <langdon> devconf.us and summit have been taking a ridiculous amout of my time
16:56:10 <mattdm> fair :)
16:56:28 <mattdm> okay, that's all for this week then
16:56:32 <mattdm> thanks everyone!
16:56:38 <mattdm> #endmeeting