14:06:20 <giannisk> #startmeeting FAmSCo 2016-03-16
14:06:20 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Mar 16 14:06:20 2016 UTC.  The chair is giannisk. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
14:06:20 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
14:06:20 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'famsco_2016-03-16'
14:06:24 <giannisk> #meetingname famsco
14:06:24 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'famsco'
14:06:30 <giannisk> #chair giannisk cwickert potty
14:06:30 <zodbot> Current chairs: cwickert giannisk potty
14:06:35 <giannisk> #topic Roll Call
14:06:38 <giannisk> .fas giannisk
14:06:38 <zodbot> giannisk: giannisk 'Giannis Konstantinidis' <giannis@konstantinidis.cc>
14:06:40 <cwickert> .fas cwickert
14:06:44 <zodbot> cwickert: cwickert 'Christoph Wickert' <christoph.wickert@gmail.com>
14:06:49 <potty> .fas potty
14:06:50 <zodbot> potty: potty 'Abdel G. Martínez L.' <abdel.g.martinez.l@gmail.com> - radhakrishnanpotty 'S.Radhakrishnan' <radhakrishnanpotty@hotmail.com>
14:07:06 <giannisk> #info gnokii, mailga, lbazan, tuanta send regrets
14:07:19 <giannisk> #info no quorum reached
14:07:43 <cwickert> #info cwickert just released some mails from gnokii from the moderation queue, please read them on famsco list
14:07:48 <cwickert> #action gnokii to change his famsco list subscription to his desired address so mails don't end up in moderation all the time
14:08:18 <decause> .hello decause
14:08:18 <zodbot> decause: decause 'Remy DeCausemaker' <decause@redhat.com>
14:08:25 * giannisk waves at decause
14:08:47 * decause waves
14:08:55 <giannisk> Anything in particular to be discussed for today?
14:09:03 <cwickert> how about 390?
14:09:13 <giannisk> Seeing as most of the "issues" have already been mentioned on the ML
14:09:22 * giannisk is having a look on 390.
14:09:37 <giannisk> oh yes
14:09:48 <cwickert> .famsco 390
14:09:48 <zodbot> https://fedorahosted.org/famsco/ticket/390
14:10:01 <giannisk> #info Ticket #390 - [Proposal] Change decision making policy to lazy consensus
14:10:40 <giannisk> I do agree that the 72hr timeframe might be too short, as you guys have already suggested.
14:10:45 <cwickert> +1
14:11:00 <potty> +1
14:11:05 <giannisk> On the other hand, I believe that 1w might be too long.
14:11:14 <giannisk> We could go for something in between.
14:11:19 <potty> 5 days?
14:11:24 <giannisk> Like 4 or 5 days, yes.
14:11:29 <cwickert> giannisk: is anything that urgent that it cannot wait a week?
14:11:43 <giannisk> cwickert: that's relative, it depends
14:11:44 <cwickert> I mean, if we all agree, we can even have it quicker
14:12:21 <giannisk> some issues, like budget requests for example, might require a shorter timeframe to respond
14:12:27 <decause> if it is a week, isnt that the same as the meeting?
14:12:35 <potty> Thats my point
14:12:47 <cwickert> decause: that was my rationale behind it
14:12:48 <giannisk> ^what decause said
14:12:48 <potty> Having a week is like have the frame to decide in two meetings
14:12:55 <cwickert> make sure there is at least one meeting in the meantime
14:13:06 <cwickert> because at the moment we are having a split-brain situation
14:13:12 <giannisk> but on the other hand, we are not be able to vote during most of the meetings, as we fail to reach quorum
14:13:31 <cwickert> on the one hand there is the meeting, on the other hand trac and the ml, but there is not much interaction between both hands
14:13:52 <decause> i will support any strategy that helps break gridlock
14:14:16 <cwickert> so I want to make sure that both sides, means the people in the meeting and those who cannot make it and communicate via trac/list, have enough time
14:15:12 <giannisk> I think that 4d or 5d is a good timeframe that should work for all people. 1w might be too long, as we are already supposed to have meetings every week.
14:15:31 <giannisk> And hopefully, we're going to find a better time and day for our meetings, so that more people will be able to join.
14:15:36 <cwickert> giannisk: we will have a hard time finding a meeting slow that works for anybody
14:15:48 <potty> I think 5 days and members con vote on the meeting or in trac
14:15:50 <cwickert> every single FAmSCo I served on had this problem
14:16:04 <giannisk> cwickert: we have to try harder
14:16:05 <cwickert> s/slow/slot
14:16:12 <cwickert> giannisk: I cannot try harder
14:16:30 <cwickert> I am already getting up earlier in the morning in order to do mail
14:16:40 <cwickert> I already have to take off-time to make it to this meeting
14:16:50 <cwickert> btw: I have to leave soon as I have another meeting
14:17:12 <cwickert> "try harder" is easy to say for some people, but hard to make for others
14:17:52 <decause> this is why ticket voting is so important
14:18:12 <decause> we must be able to make decisions
14:18:14 <potty> decause: +1
14:18:16 <cwickert> jflory7 suggested 3 days and we all agree this is too short. This might work for him as a student, but I doubt it will work for him once he has a full-time job and a family
14:18:36 <potty> Perhaps decisions will not be taken on meetings but on trac
14:18:58 <cwickert> decause: well, you are on Red Hat's payroll, but please don't forget that everybody else here is a volunteer
14:19:00 <decause> 72 hours is what is used by the council and the WGs, afaik
14:19:20 <decause> those are not "all students"
14:19:29 <giannisk> potty: based on the current situation, they definitely need to be taken to the trac
14:19:32 <cwickert> decause: and how many none-RH people are in the WGs? is any WG lead by a community member?
14:19:35 <decause> i hear you though
14:19:45 <decause> more than 0
14:19:49 <giannisk> meetings, for the time being, serve merely as places to conduct discussions, but not to make decisions
14:20:44 <cwickert> +1
14:20:57 <cwickert> I think we have improved quite a lot with trac recently
14:21:08 <potty> +1
14:21:10 <cwickert> #390 has comments from most members
14:21:11 <giannisk> Do the three of us agree here that all votings from now on have to take place on trac?
14:21:14 <giannisk> cwickert: true
14:21:18 <cwickert> I think we should continue this road
14:21:22 <potty> +1
14:21:24 <cwickert> +1
14:21:34 <cwickert> (that was for "in trac")
14:21:36 <decause> redhatters who work on fedora also have other fulltime responsibilities too, for the record, and its not fair to assume they dont have other committments
14:21:45 <giannisk> #action giannisk to reach out to the rest of FAmSCo, ask for all votings to take place on trac
14:22:13 <giannisk> decause: that's totally true
14:22:14 <cwickert> giannisk: we want to make sure we have all votes recorded, and I think this only works in trac
14:22:32 <decause> everyone in FOSS does this balancing act
14:22:46 <potty> Action could be update the ticket 390 with the conclusion we reached here
14:22:50 <potty> Also with our votes
14:22:56 <potty> And ask other members to vote
14:23:19 <potty> Not to discuss... Just vote
14:23:24 <giannisk> #action giannisk to update ticket #390 w/ the conclusion that has been reached during this meeting
14:23:29 <jflory7> potty++
14:23:35 <giannisk> I cannot #agree, as no agreement has been made yet
14:23:53 <jflory7> There's enough votes in the ticket where the votes from the meeting could reach quorum, right?
14:23:59 <potty> Understood
14:24:29 <giannisk> jflory7: most of us agree w/ your proposal, we just need to settle on a timeframe
14:24:49 <jflory7> The idea behind my ticket wasn't just that voting has to happen in Trac, but that it can happen in the official channels listed, even if there is not a technical quorum. If the time limit is reached and there's, say, only two votes, it would still be a valid vote. That's what my thoughts were.
14:25:02 <jflory7> giannisk: Right, acknowledged. Best to get everyone on board for an agreed time limit
14:25:08 <cwickert> jflory7: first of all thanks for your propsal
14:25:26 <cwickert> jflory7: most of us seem to agree, but we want a longer timeframe
14:25:43 <cwickert> and I still think it is a horrible idea to vote in mail
14:25:53 <cwickert> because it is really hard to find the vote in a thread
14:25:54 <jflory7> I can understand that with things like FAmSCo, such as with a FAD / FUDcon vote where a lot of money is being discussed
14:25:58 <giannisk> jflory7: yeap, I get that; the three of us here agree that, given the current situation, the best place to conduct votings should be the trac, as it's easier to have an overview of votes
14:26:11 <cwickert> so having all votes in one place is crucial I think
14:26:12 <giannisk> ^what cwickert said above
14:26:17 <jflory7> Having it in the Trac would definitely be the easiest way in my opinion
14:26:37 <jflory7> Meetings can also be a valid place as long as the meeting happenings are transcribed to tickets in some form.
14:26:39 <cwickert> jflory7: so with some small adjustments, your proposal will pass I think
14:26:50 <jflory7> Awesome :)
14:27:00 <jflory7> Looking forward to seeing what comes of it.
14:27:00 <giannisk> jflory7++
14:27:01 <zodbot> giannisk: Karma for jflory7 changed to 37 (for the f23 release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
14:27:18 <cwickert> jflory7: right, but when votes are transferred to trac, we should definitely link the minutes
14:27:25 <jflory7> cwickert: Agreed.
14:27:28 <cwickert> and mention who voted for what
14:27:35 <cwickert> not that people vote twice :)
14:27:48 <giannisk> cwickert: I will be one of the people that will take care of that
14:28:21 <giannisk> Anything else in particular for today?
14:28:35 <cwickert> #info consensus among the present FAmSCo members that would like to switch to lazy consensus but with some adjustments on time frame and recording votes.
14:28:50 <giannisk> We have been good progress recently and I'm extremely happy about that.
14:28:58 <cwickert> #action giannisk to reach out to the list to finalize the discussion on #390
14:29:02 <cwickert> ok, giannisk?
14:29:10 <giannisk> cwickert: yeap, totally
14:29:14 <cwickert> coo, thy
14:29:16 <cwickert> thanks
14:29:23 <giannisk> We have started becoming more active on the ML and on trac.
14:29:28 <potty> :)
14:29:29 <giannisk> cwickert: np
14:29:34 <cwickert> !
14:30:01 <cwickert> 1. I realize that my inactivity has led to some of the problems and I'd like to apologize
14:30:01 <giannisk> cwickert: feel free
14:30:39 <cwickert> 2. as some of you know, I recently joined SUSE. This will however not change my commitment to Fedora. The Fedora Project is and will be my family.
14:30:45 <cwickert> eof
14:31:05 <giannisk> no worries cwickert
14:31:47 <giannisk> Anything else for today?
14:31:57 <potty> No
14:32:27 <cwickert> not from me
14:32:49 <potty> cwickert++
14:32:49 <zodbot> potty: Karma for cwickert changed to 5 (for the f23 release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
14:32:49 <potty> giannisk++
14:32:57 <giannisk> As you have seen, I have posted on the FAmSCo list regarding the current leadership of the committee. And members have already started voting. We have three viable options, as cwickert had already mentioned.
14:33:15 <cwickert> #topic FAmSCo Leadership
14:33:24 <giannisk> We will be awaiting for votes from the rest of the members and see what to do next.
14:33:53 <potty> Lets continue like this
14:34:04 <cwickert> speaking of votes...
14:34:47 <cwickert> #action If you haven't voted yet, please vote for a new meeting time at whenisgood.net/new-famsco-meeting/
14:35:01 <potty> No more leadership breaks
14:35:10 <potty> Jajaja
14:35:59 <giannisk> potty: please submit your vote/thoughts on the mailing list thread as well
14:36:14 <potty> Ok
14:36:26 <giannisk> #action potty to respond to the mailing list thread regarding the famsco leadership
14:36:47 <cwickert> potty: question: would you be willing to become chair?
14:37:06 <potty> cwickert: yes
14:37:09 <cwickert> I mean, if not, the option to reopen the election and let me vote for you is mood
14:37:14 <cwickert> cool, thanks potty
14:37:39 <cwickert> and to make this clear: Being FAmSCo chair is not a cool title but a lot of work
14:38:03 <cwickert> it means sitting on trac, sending out meeting minutes and whatnot
14:38:08 <potty> Indeed
14:38:25 * mailga around... scrolling back the conversation.
14:38:42 <cwickert> when I was chair, I always made sure we had enough information anywhere and everything closely connected, e.g. a discussion about a ticket was linked into that ticket
14:38:52 <cwickert> so this is a lot of paperwork if you will
14:39:34 * giannisk waves at mailga
14:40:01 * mailga waves to all FAmSco here.
14:40:18 <giannisk> mailga: will you be available for the rest of the meeting?
14:40:28 <giannisk> cwickert: will you be also?
14:40:33 <cwickert> as someone who has served on FAmSCo for years, I'd like to stretch how important it is to record all our decisions. finding something in meeting logs is very, very hard (if not impossible). so trac and the wiki ftw
14:40:43 <mailga> giannisk: I came back just for that. Yes I am.
14:41:33 <cwickert> giannisk: tuanta asked me to, but I'm not sure if I have enough time to do all of this. and it depends on the question if we have new elections or not. If the majority of FAmSCo decides to not start all over again, that's fine for me.
14:42:21 <giannisk> cwickert: I meant if you will be available for the rest of the meeting
14:42:46 <giannisk> cwickert: but yes, concerning the elections, I'm totally fine w/ either of these options as long as the majority of FAmSCo reaches an agreement
14:42:53 <cwickert> giannisk: only 10 more minutes or so, we have a meeting here 4
14:43:25 <giannisk> cwickert: alright, so no much time go back to the previous topics and start voting
14:43:49 <cwickert> we don't have a quorum anyway, let's just all vote in trac
14:43:55 <cwickert> as an exercise :)
14:44:00 <giannisk> mailga: when you have the time, please respond to #390 w/ your thoughts. I will update the tickets w/ current views stated here.
14:44:11 <cwickert> thank you giannisk
14:44:25 <giannisk> cwickert: with mailga, we would, but yeah, let's start taking things to the trac
14:44:47 <linuxmodder> .hello corey84
14:44:48 <zodbot> linuxmodder: corey84 'None' <sheldon.corey@gmail.com>
14:45:15 <giannisk> I think we're good for today. mailga, anything in particular you would like us to discuss?
14:45:22 <mailga> giannisk: ok.
14:45:50 <mailga> giannisk: not at all. I'm fine with today. :-D
14:46:25 <giannisk> Alright, if we don't have anything else for today, I will be ending the meeting in three minutes then.
14:48:33 <giannisk> Thanks everyone for being here.
14:48:39 <mailga> giannisk: I replied yet at #390 (comment #3). Is it enough?
14:48:55 <potty> Thank you!
14:49:32 <giannisk> mailga: cwickert, potty and me agreed that 3d will be a very short timeframe; we could settle on something longer
14:49:58 <decause> official proposal here for lazy consensus?
14:50:37 <giannisk> I will update the ticket afterwards, include our thoughts and ask people to follow up w/ the discussion.
14:50:41 <decause> we have 4, lets propose a longer timeframe now and approve it
14:51:02 <cwickert> decause: we haven't agreed on a timeframe yet, but we support the idea
14:51:14 <cwickert> decause: the final bits will be discussed on the mailing list
14:51:28 <decause> ive heard 5 days, and one week. choose one?
14:51:39 <cwickert> and I expect a longer discussion there as gnokii is against lazy consensus
14:51:55 <decause> we need to decide on other tickets that have been waiting
14:52:04 <decause> this is the firat quorum in a month
14:52:09 <decause> take it now
14:52:17 <cwickert> decause: I suggest to start with 7 days, we could still make it shorter if necessary
14:52:29 <cwickert> 7 days is already a great improvement over the gridlock we had
14:52:55 <decause> whatever the limit, lets just make sure we can make progress
14:52:58 * cwickert needs to run, another meeting, see you
14:53:02 <decause> agreed
14:53:04 <potty> Bye
14:53:26 * decause really hoped we could settle this now
14:53:59 <giannisk> decause: we will try our best to improve the responsiveness of the committee, we have already seen progress over the last two weeks or so
14:54:19 <mailga> I'm fine with cwickert_afk comment #5 time frame 1 week). I'm replying in the the ticket.
14:55:17 <decause> in theory, ticket voting will still need a quorumed in person vote... im not confident we'll get one again soon
14:56:46 <decause> proxy voting will help for next meeting to get in person agreement
14:57:18 <giannisk> decause: all of us, except one person, have already agreed on the lazy consensus proposal -> we now just need to settle on a timeframe
14:57:49 <decause> giannisk: yes I'm happy about that.
14:57:52 <decause> however
14:58:19 <decause> getting everyone in the same place to approve it is what im concerned about
14:58:36 <decause> after that, we can move freely
14:59:04 <giannisk> decause: why would we need to do that? Seeing as all votes are "collected" in the ticket.
14:59:07 <decause> lets make aure its settled by next meeting, we almost had it today
14:59:19 <giannisk> decause: I'm sure it will
14:59:49 <decause> giannisk: ok, if ticket voting is bimdimg, then wonderful!
15:00:01 <giannisk> decause: it definitely is :)
15:00:22 <giannisk> I think that would be all for today.
15:00:42 <decause> we still need lazy consensus because ticket voting is not a given
15:01:03 <decause> thanks all for your work to resolve this
15:01:24 <decause> council and leadership will be pleased
15:01:35 <giannisk> Thanks everyone for being here today. And thanks for helping us resolve these "issues".
15:01:43 <decause> lets take it the last mile next time
15:01:54 <giannisk> Ending the meeting in one minute.
15:01:57 * mailga is sorry for being late
15:02:03 <giannisk> mailga: no worries
15:03:02 <giannisk> #endmeeting