19:00:49 <jsmith> #startmeeting Fedora Board Meeting
19:00:49 <zodbot> Meeting started Fri Jan  7 19:00:49 2011 UTC.  The chair is jsmith. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
19:00:49 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
19:01:41 <jsmith> #chair jsmith jsmith smooge abadger1999 ke4qqq kital rdieter
19:01:41 <zodbot> Current chairs: abadger1999 jsmith ke4qqq kital rdieter smooge
19:01:48 <jsmith> #meetingname Fedora Board
19:01:48 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fedora_board'
19:01:58 <jsmith> #topic Introduction
19:02:35 <jsmith> Welcome to our bi-weekly Fedora Board IRC meeting
19:02:38 <smooge> here
19:03:18 <jsmith> Today, we're going to discuss overarching goals we'd like to accomplish over the next few releases
19:03:42 <jsmith> The idea is to narrow down our wish list from fifteen to two or three (or maybe four?)
19:03:55 <jsmith> The original list of goals is here:
19:03:58 <jsmith> #link http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Meeting:Board_meeting_2010-12-13
19:04:40 * kital is here
19:04:57 <jsmith> Just as a reminder, we're going to encourage everyone to use the Board meeting protocol as outlined in the "General Rules" section of https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board_public_IRC_meetings
19:05:11 <jsmith> (For members of the Board, just type as fast as you can!)
19:05:21 <jsmith> Any questions before we get started?
19:06:08 <Dandapani> ? will there be general Q&A at the end?
19:06:18 <jsmith> Dandapani: There will be, if we have time.
19:06:43 <jsmith> Dandapani: We typically reserve at least half of the meeting for open Q&A, but this meeting is a bit different -- we'll see how much time we have after discussing the goals
19:06:55 <jsmith> Thanks for asking :-)
19:07:45 <jsmith> #topic Discussion of overarching multi-release goals
19:08:13 <jsmith> Let me start out the discussion by saying that I think the fifteen or so goals we have are all important -- and I wish we could accomplish them all!
19:08:55 <jsmith> For better or for worse, however, I think it's important that we pick the most important goals and attack those first
19:09:01 <jsmith> Hence the reason for today's meeting
19:09:56 <smooge> ok
19:10:26 <jsmith> I can throw out my "favorites" in the list, but I'd rather hear from other people first
19:10:35 * kital want to add that famsco will discuss Board Goal Settings in their next meeting after the intro by david nalley according to action item from last board meeting
19:10:43 <kital> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/famsco/2011-January/000554.html
19:10:53 <jsmith> Which goals do you think are highest priority?
19:11:18 * ke4qqq shows up late
19:12:20 <rdieter> ke4qqq: hola
19:12:24 <kital> of course GOAL #3: Improve and encourage high-quality communication in the Fedora Community
19:12:43 <jsmith> That one is on my "favorites" list
19:13:05 <limburgher> !
19:13:24 <jsmith> => limburgher
19:13:45 <limburgher> GOAL #7: Encourage open standards , but it's huge.
19:14:23 <jsmith> Sure, that's a huge one, but it's important
19:14:58 <jsmith> That being said, I'm not sure it's as urgent or as pressing as GOAL #3
19:15:11 <limburgher> jsmith: +1
19:15:12 <andrewjroth> ?
19:15:19 <jsmith> => andrewjroth
19:15:27 <andrewjroth> Pardon the ignorance, but does Fedora have an overall goal/mission statement?
19:15:45 <rdieter> glad you asked!
19:15:47 <jsmith> andrewjroth: Great question.  The answer is "absolutely!"
19:16:01 <ke4qqq> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Overview
19:16:04 <ke4qqq> andrewjroth: ^^
19:16:11 <jsmith> The Fedora Project creates a world where
19:16:11 <jsmith> * free culture is welcoming and widespread,
19:16:11 <jsmith> * collaboration is commonplace, and
19:16:11 <jsmith> * people control their content and devices.
19:16:19 <jsmith> That's our vision statement
19:16:28 <abadger1999> Also: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mission
19:16:32 <smooge> !
19:16:45 <jsmith> smooge: You're a board member -- just jump right in :-)
19:17:11 <smooge> oh sorry.. trying to be polite. Was there a goal for us to write out our actual "charter" or was that for something else.
19:17:34 <abadger1999> sorry same page these days, just a redirect
19:17:54 <abadger1999> smooge: That's an example of carrying out Goal #1
19:18:11 <smooge> Then that to me is #1 also :)
19:18:36 <andrewjroth> !
19:19:08 <jsmith> That reminds me of an important thing to point out -- these fifteen goals are all strategic -- once we decide the most important, then we'll work with FAMSCo, FESCo, etc. to work on the tactical ways we want to implement the goals
19:19:15 <jsmith> => andrewjroth
19:19:19 <andrewjroth> With the vision statement in mind, I think that goals 4, 6, and 14 would be important as they alight most closely with the vision statement (imho)
19:19:37 <limburgher> ?
19:19:56 <kital> maybe we can have a vote on all goals to build a diagram - as example a page in the fudcon booklet which people can fill and give back
19:20:17 <jsmith> => limburgher
19:20:20 <kital> vote your free most important or something like that
19:20:44 <kital> s/free/three
19:20:50 <jsmith> kital: I think that's an interesting thought, but unfortunately it's still the minority that can attend FUDCon :-/
19:20:50 <limburgher> Could someone flesh out what specifically is meant by #6?
19:20:56 <abadger1999> I'd rather votes came in as some form of "I want to work on this" rather than "Oh, oh, pick this one"
19:21:15 <kital> just a thought
19:21:15 <limburgher> abadger1999: +1
19:21:28 <andrewjroth> abadger1999: +1
19:21:30 <ke4qqq> smooge: while I tend to agree with that sentiment - I also cringe a bit at the thought given our traditionally 'leaderless'-type of organization.
19:21:40 <jsmith> limburgher: The idea is to setup infrastructure such that you can easily sync your own settings/documents/etc. from "the cloud" when logging in to a new computer
19:21:53 <brrant> abadger1999 +1
19:21:54 <ke4qqq> abadger1999: +1 - /me is loathe to hand down edicts to people who aren't us to do $work
19:22:18 <skvidal> !
19:22:38 <jsmith> => skvidal
19:22:43 <jsmith> ke4qqq: +1
19:22:50 <abadger1999> I think #6 was kind of the idea of hosting infrastructure so Fedora Contributors could access their data from many places.
19:23:27 <skvidal> wrt to goal #6 -  if we're focused on that  - are we going to change our core apps  to emphasize that, too? Is this a development decision?
19:23:36 <d3vnull> +1
19:24:09 <limburgher> ?
19:24:17 <skvidal> and if this is a development decsion - do we have consensus and support from that various groups in red hat that would actually DO that?
19:24:22 <jsmith> skvidal: Like I said earlier, I think we should first decide which strategic goals are most important, and then focus on the specific tactics to achieve that goal
19:25:18 <jsmith> skvidal: I've made no attempt to reach consensus on development decisions yet, as I think that's a bit premature -- maybe I'm wrong though
19:25:24 <smooge> ok I want to work on getting a charter that expresses how FAMSCO, FESCO, BOARDSCO and whatever else interact and their responsibilities.. so we don't spend a lot of meetings going "hey I thought that was their job" :)
19:25:54 <rdieter> smooge: agreed, let's consider that part of #1 (governance)
19:25:56 <jsmith> smooge: We had talked about having a hackfest session at FUDCon to do just that :-)
19:26:01 <ke4qqq> smooge: I'd love to help you with that - and think it's important
19:26:48 <abadger1999> smooge, ke4qqq: I'd include "contributors" in that list of groups that interact to account for the "leaderless" (or lead-by-doing) organization.
19:27:17 <rdieter> with my own contributor hat on, I see #1, #3, #4 as being both important (and semi-related), and areas where I personally could work towards.
19:27:34 <jsmith> => limburgher
19:27:53 <rbergeron> ?
19:28:07 <ke4qqq> rdieter: I tend to agree with that list - perhaps adding #10
19:28:36 <limburgher> So 6 is essentially analogous to a sort of NFS /home in a Fedora-controlled cloud?
19:29:03 <rdieter> limburgher: again, these are strategic goals, but that could possibly be one way to achive that.
19:29:20 <jsmith> limburgher: Same rough idea -- there are many different ways to implement that
19:29:23 <limburgher> Or dropbox sort of thing?  Ok, I think I understand the intend.
19:29:33 <jsmith> => rbergeron
19:29:44 <rbergeron> Has the board considered sending representatives to individual team meetings and asking those teams about what their "pie in the sky" goals might be, to see perhaps how the board might be able to support those goals?
19:29:45 <abadger1999> The example given was dropbox-like.  I can see other ways to implement it too.
19:29:59 <jsmith> limburgher: Sparkleshare is a FLOSS implementation similar to Dropbox -- again, one possible implementation
19:30:22 <ke4qqq> rbergeron: almost - we have sent out invites to some initial groups (fesco, famsco) to have convos re the goals
19:30:31 <jsmith> rbergeron: Absolutely!  We're getting a meeting set up with FESCo first, and then we'll meet with FAmSCo, SIGs, etc.
19:30:33 <kital> rbergeron: yes this are action items from last board meeting
19:32:30 * abadger1999 notes that what we're doing is a little different than what rbergeron is saying.
19:32:44 <abadger1999> We took the list of goals from our own ideas + feedback on fab-list
19:32:51 <ke4qqq> abadger1999: hence my response of 'almost'
19:32:53 <abadger1999> Now we're taking those goals to the teams.
19:32:54 <ke4qqq> :)
19:33:20 <abadger1999> In retrospect, I think her statement might work better -- go to the teams and ask for goals, then synthesize thm together.
19:34:02 <abadger1999> b/c the teams are made up of the people who are actively doing work and should have the most say in the process/most likely to then do work to implement them.
19:34:02 <ke4qqq> abadger1999: or even better ask those teams to go to the indiv. contributors and see what they actually want to accomplish and have them filter those to us.
19:34:09 <abadger1999> <nod>
19:34:19 <ke4qqq> abadger1999: yep, more buy-in up front
19:34:23 <rdieter> abadger1999: come to think of it, lack of such synthesizing could very well be a source of some of conflict wrt direction we've experienced lately (ie, everyone's notion being different or contradictory)
19:35:12 <ke4qqq> abadger1999: though if for instance you and I started talking about $someinfraproject and got really excited about it, and started working on it - would board blessing really matter?
19:35:14 <rbergeron> Well, I think maybe the teams could be largely consumed with $gettingstuffdone to the point that ... nobody is bringing things to the Board.
19:35:18 <smooge> and the fact that many of us computer people have a hard time synthesizing
19:35:34 <rbergeron> for these meetings.
19:35:35 <rdieter> rbergeron: very much true
19:35:51 <rbergeron> Or, they think it's none of the board's business what they want to accomplish, and don't want any roadblocks plopped in their way.
19:36:20 <abadger1999> ke4qqq: That's true.  Maybe I see outlining goals as less determining the course of Fedora as helping to chart where we're unconsciously headed.
19:36:21 <rbergeron> Obviously we know that's not the intent, but I think many people tend to just want to *do stuff* and not *present* what they want to get done.
19:36:47 <jsmith> abadger1999: +1
19:36:56 <abadger1999> rbergeron: +1 to everything you've said.
19:37:06 <jsmith> rbergeron: +1
19:37:36 <limburgher> rbergeron: +1
19:37:40 <ke4qqq> abadger1999: ohhh interesting perspective  -  and I think such a chart could be very useful
19:39:16 <abadger1999> with that in mind do we maybe want to... not start over but at least, clarify/rethink what we're asking of the teams that we've asked about the goals?
19:39:17 <rdieter> I'd be happy to take that on, how about compiling a list of groups to contact?  brainstorm mode no
19:39:20 <ke4qqq> so should we perhaps consider revamping this process to do collection from SCo's SIGs initially
19:39:31 <ke4qqq> +1 abadger1999
19:39:38 <rdieter> mode on... that is. hee
19:40:11 <rdieter> abadger1999: we can do both, ask for feedback about ideas already compiled as well a solicit for more
19:40:17 <abadger1999> <nod>
19:40:18 <jsmith> abadger1999: I guess I'm OK with that, as long as it doesn't end up derailing the conversation
19:40:50 <jsmith> abadger1999: My *only* concern is having the process drag on for too many months
19:41:04 <rdieter> sure, can't wait forever.
19:41:13 <ke4qqq> I am just not interested in proposing tons of goals that no one has interest in accomplishing
19:41:17 <abadger1999> jsmith: Okay I am interested in something what end result do we realistically (not ideally) hope to get out of the conversation?
19:41:49 <ke4qqq> jsmith: won't the process always be 'in process' with new goals being created, old ones being accomplished or abandoned?
19:42:00 <jsmith> Realistically, we'd have three or four of our fifteen goals that the Board, FAMSco, and FESCo all agree on
19:42:32 <jsmith> And we'd begin to talk with each of those groups about tactics for starting to accomplish said goals
19:42:33 <smooge> I would like a clearer blue print of what we are trying to do and get to both short term and long term.. so that we can better communicate "join us if you want to go to X" and help those who watn to go to Y to get there elsewhere
19:42:35 <jsmith> ke4qqq: Absolutely!
19:43:24 <andrewjroth> smooge: +1
19:43:35 <jsmith> ke4qqq: And six months down the road, we might say "We've done pretty good with goals X and Y -- let's put Z on the list now"
19:44:04 <ke4qqq> smooge: we have traditionally been very afraid to say that - at least from my perspective.
19:44:05 * kital still thinks that some kind of vote could give a quantified direction at least
19:44:09 <jsmith> ke4qqq: This isn't meant to be carved in stone -- the idea is to focus our attention on a small number of priorities
19:44:17 <ke4qqq> jsmith: sure
19:44:18 <abadger1999> smooge: If that's what we want, I think the goals really do need to come from the contributors, filtered through the teams before we state them.
19:45:03 <abadger1999> * and synthesized by us before we state them.
19:45:23 <ke4qqq> abadger1999: +1 as well - provided it's not lost in the cacophony of voices
19:45:47 <jsmith> Is there any reason why both a top-down and bottom-up approach can't work in parallel
19:46:04 <rdieter> jsmith: indeed, no.  do both
19:46:11 <abadger1999> yeah... I cold see our job in synthesizing being... how do we take cacophony and turn it into something understandable.
19:46:18 <jsmith> I mean -- just because the Board says "These are the three goals we like" doesn't preclude other groups from meeting, talking, and sharing their goals as well, right?
19:46:25 <abadger1999> jsmith: Sure... as long as the top down has a different goal.
19:46:40 <abadger1999> Which I think you kind of have.
19:46:41 <smooge> jsmith, I think in the past it has been shown that top down gets much more automatic pushback almost every time
19:47:08 <ke4qqq> jsmith: the only potential problem is that it could make the board seem irrelevant
19:47:14 * rdieter is afraid this may be getting derailed into a metadiscussion here
19:47:36 <ke4qqq> if our goals aren't aligned with the people doing the work
19:47:41 <abadger1999> ie: I don't want to draw lines of this is what Fedora is working towards top-down.  But I could see us saying "We think these goals are important places for Fedora to go" top down
19:47:56 <jsmith> rdieter: I agree -- we're 47 minutes into the meeting, and haven't really discussed the goals as much as the metadata
19:48:08 <jsmith> abadger1999: I absolutely agree -- these are not a mandate, these are a conversation starter
19:48:23 <andrewjroth> abadger1999: +1 agree, Fedora needs a clear direction for others to follow.
19:48:40 <rdieter> so, bad boy hat on... can be please get back to the topic at hand?  talking about actual strategic goals again?
19:49:47 <rdieter> (though perhaps we've run out of discussion there...)
19:50:28 <abadger1999> For me personally I want to work on the ones that touch on community building the most.  For me those are 1, 4, 12
19:50:32 <jsmith> Does everyone agree that we're coming up with a list of three or four goals to use to start the conversation with FESCo/FAmSCo/SIGs, and that doesn't preclude other goals from being added?
19:50:46 <rdieter> agreed
19:50:54 <andrewjroth> jsmith: +1 agree
20:01:13 <rbergeron> If it's something else, well, I guess it just lacks definition there, really.
20:02:14 <jsmith> rbergeron: While it might be largely a FAMSCo responsibility, that doesn't mean it's not a laudable goal for Fedora in general to be more transparent in that regard
20:02:36 <kital> rbergeron: the problem this is mostly only know to Ambassadors
20:02:42 <kital> s/know/known
20:02:53 <kital> Example: Fedora's community has a budget that is transparent, well-known, and easy to make requests of. Make it clear how to get money, who to ask for money ... Fedora is fiscally-transparent - where money is spent, what you can get funding for, and where you obtain funding.
20:03:06 <kital> Example: Ensure that contributors project-wide (and not just Ambassadors) recognize that there is funding available to further their Fedora-related work, and further create a culture of permission by default by enabling people to responsibly use small amount of budget without first having to ask for permission. Along the way, update and revise the processes for reimbursements globally.
20:03:49 <kital> and of course correct the mess with resources that we have right now with funding outside NA
20:04:06 <kital> contributors wait for ever to get their money
20:04:14 <kital> EMEA has no media for F14
20:04:21 <kital> because nobody answers
20:05:52 <kital> from the closed famsco trac instance
20:06:18 <kital> budget request was done in Oct
20:06:29 <rbergeron> okay. well, i didn't mean to pull off track into details - I just thought more clarification might be good there.
20:06:34 <kital> last request from cwickert who has taken ownership
20:06:38 <kital> If we want to have media for FOSDEM, we really need to hurry up. I am even willing to pay the bill if somebody grantees that I will be reimbursed a) completely and b) in time. Unfortunately my last reimbursements were not in a timely manner.
20:06:49 <kital> yes just a example
20:07:08 <kital> but in EMEA we have not event the possibilities to produce media right now
20:07:31 <kital> and this is the reason why i and maybe also David think we should make this more professional
20:07:57 <kital> but sorry for diving into deep details
20:08:17 * kital shuts up
20:08:57 <ke4qqq> I think a plan exists, and the need certainly does - but I think it's largely outside our purview (as the board) and well within RHT's firewall
20:09:10 <rdieter> so, while fixing that crappage is laudable, I'm having a hard time considering this a good strategic goal for the project
20:09:13 <ke4qqq> are there decisions we need to make at this point?
20:09:27 <ke4qqq> rdieter: +1 - firefighting I fear
20:09:49 <kital> rdieter: good strategic goal - yes you are right, this is not
20:09:58 <abadger1999> If we're going to present fesco/famsco with our "top 3-4" then we do.
20:10:55 <abadger1999> So I'm going to +1 rdieter's proposal to pare down and suggest this is what we do: Board members list your top three.  Then we'll discuss which ones we're willing to cut.
20:11:08 <abadger1999> Sound reasonable?
20:11:26 <jsmith> Sounds great
20:11:34 <jsmith> (and the community can then mock our choices!)
20:11:49 <ke4qqq> or burn us in effigy :)
20:12:33 <jsmith> My top three are 1, 3, and 12
20:12:37 <abadger1999> Mine: 1 4 12
20:13:50 <ke4qqq> 1, 3, 12
20:14:10 <rdieter> mine were: 1 3 4
20:15:14 <smooge> miner were 1, 3, 12
20:15:23 <abadger1999> kital: ?
20:15:50 <smooge> I see 12 building 4
20:16:35 <kital> ok than it is 3, 11, 13
20:17:30 <rdieter> smooge: nod, there are several that are closely related
20:17:31 <abadger1999> Here's are irst list of Board members present: 1 3 4 11 12 13
20:17:59 <kital> 12<->13 can join maybe
20:19:29 <rdieter> kital: that could work
20:19:33 <abadger1999> I can see that.
20:22:37 * abadger1999 working on a wiki page for this
20:23:19 <rdieter> cool, given the lingering silence, perhaps we've reached a good stopping point?
20:23:42 <kital> seems we have
20:23:46 <ke4qqq> worksforme
20:23:46 <smooge> yes
20:23:54 <kital> i will join the famsco meeting tomorrow
20:24:20 <kital> and see what they prioritize
20:24:52 <ke4qqq> ok - seems like there were questions - anything else before we get to those?
20:24:59 <rdieter> yay, I forget... when/how were we going to meet with fesco reps?
20:25:15 <ke4qqq> rdieter: 2 weeks from last mtg iirc
20:25:19 <ke4qqq> in irc
20:25:46 <abadger1999> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board_goals_2011
20:26:09 <rdieter> ok, good
20:26:30 <abadger1999> There's five goals there.  That seems managable even if we didn't hit our target of four.
20:26:50 <ke4qqq> yep
20:27:14 <kital> +1
20:27:18 <rdieter> we could probably do some gynastics to combine things more, but meh.
20:28:37 <jsmith> abadger1999: Works for me
20:28:47 <jsmith> abadger1999: I'm much more comfortable with five than I am with fifteen
20:28:58 <jsmith> OK, we're at the 90 minute mark.
20:29:14 <jsmith> Is everybody happy with what we've accomplished today?
20:29:19 <abadger1999> Cool.  I'll add some explanation about them (like -- people can suggest new ones), we'll be asking fesco/famsco/sigs for input/ etc.
20:30:01 <smooge> I am good
20:30:08 <abadger1999> mostly.  It would be nice to figure out how we can avoid the misunderstanding of what we're trying to accomplish at the outset.
20:30:24 <ke4qqq> I am good as well - hope those that visited with questions are still here though
20:30:27 <ke4qqq> abadger1999: +1
20:30:52 <abadger1999> Maybe that's mostly me -- jsmith plainly stated that at the beginning -- I was just bringing my prior misconceptions to the table.
20:31:54 <abadger1999> Something to think about wrt spot's irc protocol I think.
20:31:59 <ke4qqq> that misconception or bias is pretty prevalent I fear, and always good to explain anyway - more transparent
20:32:00 <abadger1999> (rather than now ;-)
20:32:21 <abadger1999> <nod>
20:34:40 <jsmith> OK, I propose we leave ten minutes for open Q&A, and then close the meeting
20:35:35 <jsmith> Any objections?
20:35:40 <abadger1999> ... and Dandapani just left :-(
20:35:44 <rdieter> sounds like a winner
20:35:44 <abadger1999> +1 from me
20:35:53 <jsmith> That's unfortunate :-(
20:36:04 <jsmith> #topic Open Q&A with the Board
20:37:03 <jsmith> Anybody else have questions?
20:37:05 <jsmith> Comments?
20:37:07 <jsmith> Concerns?
20:37:12 <jsmith> Rotton tomatoes?
20:37:35 <brunowolff> Do you have any details about when the discussion about Spins will be happening at FUDCON?
20:37:59 <brunowolff> I won't be there, but would try to be available at that time if I can.
20:38:13 <jsmith> brunowolff: I think it makes the most sense as a hackfest session.
20:38:16 <rdieter> good question, has anyone stepped up to lead that discussion yet?  If not, I can offer to help out.
20:38:35 <jsmith> brunowolff: If you want to propose a particular time that works well for you, I'll be happy to make sure that gets reserved
20:38:39 <brunowolff> Are those scheduled in advance?
20:38:54 <jsmith> A few of them are -- many of them are not yet scheduled
20:39:01 <brunowolff> I think I saw most were going to be on Monday.
20:39:12 <rdieter> looks like mdomsch has signed on for that
20:39:21 <rdieter> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FUDCon:Tempe_2011#Agenda
20:39:30 <rdieter> The Future of Spins 	What should Spins be going forward? 	Everyone 	Matt Domsch
20:39:43 <brunowolff> Typically I have only one work meeting every other Monday, so I can probably be free for an hour or so
20:39:51 <brunowolff> without having to take a vacation day.
20:40:59 <brunowolff> Sunday is probably OK. If I remember correctly there aren't any playoff games that day.
20:42:07 <rbergeron> brunowolff: lol ;)
20:43:56 <gholms> ?
20:44:16 <brunowolff> Otherwise just knowing a bit in advance (so I wake up early enough) is helpful. Are the hackfests all going
20:44:28 <brunowolff> to be scheduled on Saturday?
20:45:02 <rdieter> hackfests are Sun/Mon by the looks of it
20:45:12 <rdieter> technical sessions Sat/Sun
20:45:38 <brunowolff> My question was ambiguous. I wanted to know when I would know when a hackfest is scheduled.
20:46:12 <brunowolff> It looks like scheduling is scheduled for early Satuday, but I wasn't sure if that covered everthing.
20:46:13 <rdieter> ah, the scheduling usually does happen early the first day, yeah
20:47:02 <brunowolff> That should be enough lead time.
20:48:32 <jsmith> => gholms
20:48:38 <gholms> Does the Board support tacos or hotdogs?  I can't seem to find a consensus amongst the Fedora groups I have asked.
20:49:07 <jsmith> gholms: I prefer tacos... but lots of people prefer the Beefy Miracle.
20:49:08 <rdieter> saving the hard stuff for last
20:49:09 <brunowolff> Someone can thank Red Hat for having Brian Lane work on livecd-tools.
20:50:41 <gholms> Hrm, must be a difficult decision indeed.  :P
20:51:14 <jsmith> OK, anything else before we wrap up?
20:51:25 <rdieter> after much deliberation, while I do also much appreciate beefiness, I prefer tacos
20:51:27 <abadger1999> gholms: Good carnitas is hard to beat so  I vote tacos :-)
20:51:37 * abadger1999 notes he's updated https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board_goals_2011 to explain the purpose of the goals, where they're going next, etc.
20:51:39 <ke4qqq> tacos here as well
20:51:52 <abadger1999> it's a wiki so feel free to edit if I've misrepresented something.
20:52:47 <gholms> +4 for tacos?  Good enough for me.  Thanks!
20:53:06 <ke4qqq> abadger1999: looks good to me
20:53:28 <jsmith> OK folks... let's call it a meeting
20:53:35 <jsmith> Thanks again for your participation!
20:53:39 <jsmith> #endmeeting