19:05:13 <misc> #startmeeting Ansible Diversity Working Group | Agenda: https://github.com/ansible/community/issues/577
19:05:13 <zodbot> Meeting started Thu Sep 16 19:05:13 2021 UTC.
19:05:13 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location.
19:05:13 <zodbot> The chair is misc. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
19:05:13 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
19:05:13 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'ansible_diversity_working_group_|_agenda:_https://github.com/ansible/community/issues/577'
19:05:22 <misc> #chair thedoubl3j
19:05:22 <zodbot> Current chairs: misc thedoubl3j
19:06:11 <misc> #topic Discuss new CoC
19:06:24 <misc> https://github.com/ansible/community/issues/577#issuecomment-913212722
19:06:51 <thedoubl3j> _reading_
19:06:56 <misc> tadeboro proposed to discuss on this CoC, to know if that can be included
19:07:00 * misc also reading
19:08:06 <jillr> ah sorry I'm on a call that's running over and I didn't realize the time
19:10:14 <tadeboro> o/
19:10:49 <misc> so reading the document, I see nothing egregious
19:11:20 <thedoubl3j> yeah, same for me
19:12:06 <tadeboro> I also read it through and found no issues. The sources/inspiration also look solid.
19:12:50 <tadeboro> But I di add it to the agenda because the inclusion rules say D&I should give a thumbs up on each non-standard CoC.
19:12:58 <misc> there is the part about slurs who is IMHO maybe risky against bad faith actors, but that's not like it is specific to that CoC
19:13:46 * jillr is actually present now
19:14:00 <misc> the part about "we are not here to do your job for you", while I understand the sentiment, is also a bit odd in that document
19:15:27 <misc> I would also say that the process wrt meetup could be improved
19:15:45 <misc> 1) no obligation to report to a central group/authority/something
19:15:52 <thedoubl3j> that feels odd as well to me, almost kind of like "don't ask to many questions"
19:16:02 <misc> 2) "Meetup
19:16:04 <misc> organizers are encouraged to prominently display points of contact"
19:16:35 <misc> I think this should be move from SHOULD to MUST (per RFC 2119)
19:17:28 <misc> thedoubl3j: yeah, even if I can see that the goal is maybe preventing volunteers exhaustion
19:18:01 <misc> (but then, maybe say so to the people)
19:18:07 <jillr> eh, I can think of examples of meetups I've run or attended where the space might make that awkward or prohibitive
19:19:02 <misc> to display point of contact ?
19:19:07 <jillr> yes, sorry
19:19:42 <jillr> Generally I think this CoC is ok
19:19:48 <misc> yeah
19:20:02 <jillr> I agree the "not do your job for you" is odd but it's suepr not a blocker to me
19:21:11 <jillr> should we do formal a vote?
19:21:16 <thedoubl3j> sure
19:21:19 <jillr> *a formal
19:21:28 <misc> do we have to decide on the voting syste first ?
19:21:32 <jillr> hehe
19:21:45 <jillr> I think +1, 0, -1 from all present is good
19:22:03 * misc stop his playbook to deploy a condorcet voting software
19:22:22 <jillr> VOTE: should we accept the nautabot CoC for inclusion requests in ansible
19:22:27 <jillr> +1
19:22:32 <misc> +1
19:22:36 <tadeboro> +1
19:22:40 <thedoubl3j> +1
19:23:00 <jillr> vote passes unanimously  \o/
19:23:15 <misc> #info nautabot CoC accepted with 4 votes in favor, 0 against
19:23:22 <misc> #chair jillr tadeboro
19:23:22 <zodbot> Current chairs: jillr misc tadeboro thedoubl3j
19:23:30 <thedoubl3j> nautobot correct?
19:23:37 <thedoubl3j> not "nautabot"
19:23:40 <misc> mhh
19:23:42 <misc> #undo
19:23:42 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: INFO by misc at 19:23:15 : nautabot CoC accepted with 4 votes in favor, 0 against
19:23:53 <misc> #info nautobot CoC accepted with 4 votes in favor, 0 against
19:24:40 <tadeboro> Should I add a comment with the observations that were brought up during the discussion to the inclusion review? That comment will not block the inclusion, of course.
19:25:09 <jillr> +1, thanks
19:25:37 <misc> yeah, i guess that's a good idea
19:26:05 <misc> but the part about central reporting is IMHO something to clarify
19:26:16 <misc> cause I think that's something we want for ansible meetup
19:27:11 <misc> but then, a meetup on nautobot-ansible would be a nautobot one, or a ansible one ?
19:27:32 <misc> I guess it depend who organize, and maybe I just find edge cases that do not exist :/
19:28:02 <jillr> yeah probably whoever organizes/hosts
19:29:03 <jillr> but then, if "Red Hat" organizes an Ansible meetup is it a RH or Ansible meetup?  :)
19:29:17 <misc> mhhh, yeah
19:29:50 <jillr> a problem for another day
19:30:02 <misc> or if we have a booth at a event, what is the radius around the booth where the CoC apply ?
19:30:34 <misc> anyway, no others topic, open floor ?
19:31:18 <thedoubl3j> nada from me, hopefully will have a new attendeee at the next meeting. got the word spread a little bit and got some interest shown
19:31:32 <misc> #topic open floor
19:31:32 <jillr> yay new people!
19:32:05 <misc> so, maybe I changed the topic too fast, now the CoC is accepted, do we have a list somewhere to update ?
19:32:45 <jillr> we should probably put one on the wiki
19:32:51 <jillr> but I dont think we have one today
19:33:08 <gwmngilfen-work> I need to remember about this meeting
19:34:23 <misc> oh, we can ping you :)
19:34:58 <gwmngilfen-work> Heh
19:35:28 * jillr updating the wiki real quick
19:37:10 <misc> ok so closing, cause... I am hungry
19:37:35 <misc> #endmeeting