18:32:59 <abadger1999> #startmeeting Fedora Board IRC Meeting
18:32:59 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Apr 18 18:32:59 2012 UTC.  The chair is abadger1999. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
18:32:59 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
18:33:10 <abadger1999> #meetingname Fedora Board IRC Meeting
18:33:10 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fedora_board_irc_meeting'
18:33:17 <abadger1999> #topic Roll Call
18:33:32 <abadger1999> #chair jds2001 cwickert jreznik
18:33:32 <zodbot> Current chairs: abadger1999 cwickert jds2001 jreznik
18:33:36 * rudi_ is here
18:33:43 <abadger1999> #chair rudi_
18:33:43 <zodbot> Current chairs: abadger1999 cwickert jds2001 jreznik rudi_
18:34:02 <abadger1999> Greetings all, we had a number of regrets this week
18:34:56 <abadger1999> #info gomix, ke4qqq, gomix,  pbrobinson, rdieter, and rbergeron won't be here today
18:35:50 <abadger1999> #topic Announcements
18:36:20 <abadger1999> Fedora 17 beta went live yesterday!
18:36:30 <abadger1999> Congratulations to everyone who made that possible.
18:37:00 <jreznik> abadger1999: +1! Thank you everyone!
18:37:36 <abadger1999> #info congratulations to everyone who helped get Fedora 17 beta out the door yesterday
18:37:42 <abadger1999> Anyone else have announcements?
18:38:34 <abadger1999> Okay, moving on
18:38:35 <abadger1999> #topic Open Floor
18:39:09 <abadger1999> Due to so many people being missing today, the formal agenda is likely to take little time
18:39:38 <abadger1999> If anyone would like to bring something to the Board's attention for today's meeting (including existing issues), please bring it up now.
18:40:56 <inode0> ?
18:41:01 <abadger1999> inode0: Go ahead
18:41:04 <inode0> Just so you know we care :)
18:41:15 <abadger1999> :-)
18:41:16 <jds2001> we feel cared about :)
18:41:16 <abadger1999> Thanks!
18:41:31 <abadger1999> Alrighty then
18:41:39 <inode0> I'm really just peeking in to see how the names thing works out
18:41:44 <abadger1999> <nod>
18:42:35 <abadger1999> Peter Robinson is out today so we'll skip his reporting on his Board task
18:42:49 <abadger1999> But we missed both people who were supposed to report last week.
18:42:58 * abadger1999 notes wiki is down so I can't see who those people were
18:43:12 <cwickert> inode0: names thing?
18:43:24 <abadger1999> rudi_: Were you one of the people who were to report?  Would you like to do so this week?
18:44:35 <abadger1999> cwickert: The Fedora 18 naming election
18:44:45 <cwickert> ah
18:44:46 <abadger1999> + poll
18:45:18 <jreznik> abadger1999: only Peter Robinson today
18:45:33 <jreznik> wiki works https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board/Meetings
18:45:47 <abadger1999> jreznik: <nod>  But last week, rudi and rex were gone so there wasn't a report from them.
18:46:05 <abadger1999> Looks like rudi_ is otherwise occupied though, so I guess we'll skip this section.
18:46:19 <abadger1999> #topic Open tickets
18:46:56 <abadger1999> We have a lot of open tickets... I took abrief look in prep for this meeting and some of them look like they can be closed -- we can go over those later if we have time.
18:47:09 <abadger1999> The only one I know has been updated is the one I'm responsible for:
18:47:16 <abadger1999> 130: Make the Board less of a Single Point of Failure
18:47:31 <abadger1999> #topic Ticket 130, make the Board less of a single point of failure
18:47:59 <abadger1999> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Toshio/Board_single_point_of_failure
18:48:08 <abadger1999> The proposal is public, on that wiki page.
18:48:24 <abadger1999> If anyone has actually read it, we could discuss it :-)
18:48:32 * nirik notes the wiki should be working for everyone now.
18:48:51 <abadger1999> If not, Homework for this week, read the proposal, and comment on advisory-board about it.
18:49:03 * jreznik read it - briefly, has a few ideas
18:49:11 <abadger1999> I'll make sure to send a message to advisory-board to announce the draft for comments
18:49:26 <abadger1999> jreznik: Cool.  What have you got?
18:49:26 <jreznik> abadger1999: pls send it to fab-list and I'll comment it there :)
18:49:33 <abadger1999> Will do!
18:49:48 <abadger1999> #action abadger199 to take ownership of sending the draft to advisory-board for comments
18:50:08 <abadger1999> Anyone else have tickets they want to bring up today?
18:51:08 <abadger1999> Moving right along then
18:51:16 <abadger1999> #topic Fedora 18 Name Election
18:51:38 <abadger1999> We've gotten the list of okay names back from Legal.
18:52:01 <abadger1999> I'll be adding the election in the voting application today.
18:52:19 <abadger1999> Things that need to be decided:  What dates do we want to run this for?
18:52:43 <abadger1999> What do we want the choices on the "Should we continue to have release names" poll to be?
18:52:57 <abadger1999> #topic dates for the election
18:53:45 <abadger1999> The old schedule was 06 April through 12 April
18:54:05 <jreznik> so 20 - 26?
18:54:26 <abadger1999> works for me
18:54:30 <rudi_> +1
18:54:35 <jds2001> +1
18:54:46 <abadger1999> +1
18:55:10 <abadger1999> cwickert: If you'd like to vote as well, that's as close to consensus as we'll get today.
18:55:39 <cwickert> +1
18:55:51 * cwickert is sorry for the delay, got distracted
18:56:20 <abadger1999> #info Fedora 18 naming election will run from April 20th through end of day April 26th (UTC)
18:56:49 <abadger1999> #topic choices for the "Continuing to have release names" poll
18:56:55 <cwickert> ?
18:57:03 <abadger1999> cwickert: go ahead
18:57:12 <cwickert> do we have a quorum and are our votes valid?
18:57:30 * cwickert thinks we need 5 out of 9
18:57:32 <abadger1999> I'm considering our votes valid b/c this is time critical.
18:58:04 <cwickert> works 4 me
18:58:05 <abadger1999> and I don't think we have a set in stone policy written down anywhere about what constitutes quorum
18:58:17 <jsmith> !
18:58:27 <cwickert> EOF
18:58:27 <abadger1999> I'll certainly give others a chance to object in email/irc later :-)
18:58:29 <abadger1999> jsmith: Go ahead
18:58:41 <jsmith> When I was FPL, quorum was always 5 or more voting members
18:58:45 <jsmith> EOF
18:58:48 <abadger1999> k
18:58:52 * abadger1999 counts who's present
18:59:01 * jds2001 
18:59:12 <abadger1999> Looks like we have just enough for quorum then
18:59:23 <abadger1999> If everyone votes yay or nay on something.
18:59:45 <cwickert> rly?
18:59:51 * cwickert only counts 4
19:00:07 <jreznik> cwickert: abadger1999 cwickert jds2001 jreznik rudi_
19:00:08 <abadger1999> rudi_, cwickert, abadger1999, jds2001, jreznik
19:00:13 <jds2001> cwickert, jds2001, abadger1999, jreznik, rudi_
19:00:16 <abadger1999> :-)
19:00:27 <cwickert> ok
19:00:48 <abadger1999> jsmith: I'll have to ask you for the link to the quorum info after the meeting to make it more visible.
19:00:51 <abadger1999> So...
19:01:01 <abadger1999> I think we had a proposal for three choices
19:01:04 <cwickert> !
19:01:12 <abadger1999> cwickert: Go ahead
19:01:30 <cwickert> strictly speaking the vote on the naming elections did not get a quorum
19:01:39 <cwickert> as only 4 people votes
19:01:42 <cwickert> voted*
19:02:05 <cwickert> that was rudi_, abadger1999, cwickert, jreznik but jds2001 was missing
19:02:15 <cwickert> sorry, jreznik did not vote
19:02:16 <jds2001> 14:54 < jds2001> +1
19:02:27 <abadger1999> oh, I see
19:02:36 <jds2001> jreznik made the proposal, though :)
19:02:43 <abadger1999> #undo
19:02:43 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Topic object at 0x1ed4c550>
19:03:11 * cwickert is German and therefor expected to be pedantic, please forgive me
19:03:14 <abadger1999> jreznik: care to vote on your proposal for April 20th to April 26th for the naming election?
19:03:35 <jreznik> abadger1999: +1
19:03:39 <cwickert> yay
19:03:41 <rudi_> Yay!
19:03:45 <abadger1999> :-)
19:03:53 <abadger1999> #topic choices for the "Continuing to have release names" poll
19:03:58 * jreznik supposed it was my proposal - so implicit +1 :)
19:04:07 <abadger1999> Okay, so the three choices that were proposed are:
19:04:16 <abadger1999> * Keep choosing release names the same way we do now.
19:04:17 <abadger1999> * Keep release names but change the way we choose them (to be determined later)
19:04:19 <abadger1999> * Stop using release names.
19:04:53 <cwickert> ?
19:05:00 <abadger1999> cwickert: Go ahead
19:05:15 <cwickert> should we cast our vote for our favorite or vote on each of them?
19:06:05 <abadger1999> I don't know that the election application supports anything but range voting -- so I think people can vote for all of them if they want.
19:06:30 <jds2001> that wouldnt make much sense to do
19:06:41 <abadger1999> <nod>
19:06:42 <jreznik> range voting is non sense here
19:07:00 <cwickert> ah, I thought it was just on us to decide
19:07:45 <abadger1999> cwickert: ah -- ultimately it is... a few board meetings ago, though, we decided we wanted to have a poll to see whether there is a strong dislike of release names or a strong love of them
19:08:03 <cwickert> maybe this is a stupid idea, but do we really need a legally binding vote or would a survey be ok, too?
19:08:20 <jds2001> i think that the whole idea is a survey
19:08:20 <abadger1999> having it atthe same time as voting on the release name seemed the most fair to people who want to keep the release names as they'll be voting on the names anyway.
19:08:29 <jds2001> but ithe infra we have to conduct one is the voting system
19:08:47 <abadger1999> cwickert: the idea is a survey -- unfortunately, we only have one tool for voting or surveys at the moment
19:08:52 <nirik> !
19:08:57 <abadger1999> nirik: go ahead
19:09:41 <nirik> There's a google summer of code student who is wanting to work on getting limesurvey packaged and help get it deployed in fedora infrastructure, but that work is a ways out... so all we have now in house is the voting app.
19:09:43 <nirik> EOF
19:10:04 * abadger1999 notes that he's playing a little loose with the Board IRC meeting rules.  If someone is finding the discussion confusing, let me know and I'll get more strict.
19:10:34 <abadger1999> cwickert: Does that answer your question?
19:11:01 <cwickert> well
19:11:54 <cwickert> I would prefer a poll as a real vote using the voting app restricts the eligible voters
19:12:05 <cwickert> but if this is all we have I see no other option
19:12:26 <cwickert> nirik: the voting app means all we have is range voting?
19:12:57 <cwickert> as we can only have one winner, I think people should only be able to cast one vote
19:13:10 <abadger1999> cwickert: To be clear, you're thinking that you want anyone to be able to participate in the poll, not just the Fedora Contributors?
19:13:29 <nirik> !
19:13:30 <cwickert> yes
19:13:58 <cwickert> IIRC the board discussion was more about getting feedback rather than having a legally binding election
19:14:21 <jds2001> maybe we're overengineering a little bit using the voting system
19:14:30 <nirik> https://www.limeservice.com/ also does hosting of survey's... so that might be an option if you want to do a survey.
19:14:34 <jds2001> but i dunno how to engineer correctly either :(
19:14:41 <cwickert> and therefor I think a survey would be better and having it open to our users, too
19:14:44 <cwickert> EOF
19:15:02 <nirik> only 25 responses for free tho. So, likely not helpful. Sorry.
19:15:05 <jds2001> nirik: i think fedora even has a relationship with them.
19:15:16 <abadger1999> hmm...
19:15:19 <jds2001> nirik: someone cna put in a credit card :)
19:15:38 <abadger1999> I was definitely thinking that we wnated to poll just contributors rather than anyone.
19:15:38 <jds2001> rbergeron mentioned that in another context as well.
19:15:49 <jds2001> abadger1999: why?
19:18:21 <abadger1999> jds2001: I don't see it as a poll of "Would you download Fedora if it has a catchy name" -- I think of it as asking "does having a name make your life as a contributor better or worse?"
19:18:41 * jreznik_n9 is back from mobile, my laptop collapsed:-(
19:19:00 <jds2001> abadger1999: i think both are important to measure, though
19:19:37 <abadger1999> eh
19:19:55 <abadger1999> they're very different, though
19:20:02 <jds2001> <nod>
19:20:22 <abadger1999> The first question really just asks "Should fedora have a release name? (yes/no)"
19:20:56 <abadger1999> The second audience/question can also ask if the manner of choosing the release name is why people are against it.
19:21:01 * jds2001 thinks it is definitely more relevant to contributors how said name is chosen, obviously.
19:21:32 <cwickert> well ok then, lets just go for the voting app
19:22:17 <jds2001> inode0 mentioned in the other channel that the only reasonable way of getting a good value using the voting app is to ask *just* the first question
19:23:05 <abadger1999> okay.. why?
19:23:43 <inode0> !
19:23:50 <abadger1999> inode0: go ahead
19:24:15 <inode0> So lets say you have 5 choices, one get rid of names and 4 variations on how to keep names
19:24:29 <VICODANAX> i vote yes if my vote counts, keep release names.
19:24:37 <inode0> Everyone who wants to keep names votes maximum for all but the first one
19:24:38 <jreznik> inode0: good point
19:24:45 <inode0> how do you make any sense of that result?
19:24:56 * abadger1999 would not like to propose that we have that level of detail
19:25:12 <inode0> well, even with 3 options suggested
19:25:29 <inode0> I want to keep names so I vote 3 for the first two and 0 for the 3rd
19:26:07 <abadger1999> inode0: Do you value both of the first two equally?
19:26:10 * jds2001 would probably do something similar - i think that names are important, but I'm frankly ambivalent to how they're chosen.
19:26:17 <abadger1999> <nod>
19:26:27 <inode0> No, but I value names so I vote to maximize keeping names :)
19:26:38 <VICODANAX> having people vote on names is cool
19:26:47 <VICODANAX> Beefy Miracle is probably the best release name ever.
19:26:53 <abadger1999> So... range voting seems to actually be very common in surveys
19:27:03 <abadger1999> But it's not presented in the same way.
19:27:46 <abadger1999> I like to eat beefy Miracles for Lunch:  Disagree [0 1  2  3  4  5]  Agree
19:28:07 <jreznik> 5
19:28:08 <VICODANAX> 5
19:28:12 <jds2001> 5
19:28:16 <abadger1999> I'm not sure if the voting app's UI lets people see that, though.
19:28:26 * jds2001 is pretty sure it doesnt
19:28:37 <jds2001> but we could make up for that in the election text
19:28:40 <abadger1999> *see it that way
19:28:49 <VICODANAX> what are the proposed names for F18?
19:29:08 <abadger1999> ah
19:29:31 <abadger1999> #info Fedora 18 proposed names are here: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/voting/about/f18-name
19:29:46 <abadger1999> even though the election isn't fully ready yet.
19:30:09 <VICODANAX> LOL
19:30:17 <VICODANAX> KETCHY KETCHUP FTW!
19:30:21 <VICODANAX> i predit it.
19:30:24 <VICODANAX> predict*
19:30:38 <VICODANAX> Pop Soda would be cool but Ketchy Ketchup is just hilarious
19:30:40 <abadger1999> So...
19:31:25 <abadger1999> Let's talk about hte results we get back.
19:31:57 <VICODANAX> I vote for option 1 out of the 3, if it ain't broke don't fix it.
19:32:30 <jds2001> VICODANAX: problem is some people think it's broke
19:33:26 <VICODANAX> it's not
19:33:30 <VICODANAX> they're wrong.
19:33:42 <VICODANAX> again
19:33:44 <abadger1999> if we find that 100 people were polled, 20 said 3 for keep things as is, 40 gave it a 2; 35 said 3 for keep names, 30 gave it a 2, 60 said get rid of names, 10 gave it a 2 -- would that give us useful information?
19:33:47 <VICODANAX> 17 has the best release name ever.
19:33:54 <VICODANAX> out of any OS ever made
19:34:19 <VICODANAX> abadger1999: no.
19:34:31 <VICODANAX> everyone has an opinion
19:34:34 <VICODANAX> and a religion
19:34:38 <abadger1999> VICODANAX: We're actually having a working meeting here, would it be okay with you if you only talk once in a while?
19:34:54 <VICODANAX> oh, sorry if I was rude.
19:35:18 <abadger1999> No problem.. it's just we have to make a decision soon if we're going to get this setup for Friday.
19:35:41 <VICODANAX> yeah, i was just trying to help you do that and offering my opinion, which of course is not fact
19:36:57 <abadger1999> So, Board members.... if we break out more information than just a single raw number for each option, does that make it work?
19:37:11 <abadger1999> Or do we want to figure out a two option poll instead?
19:37:46 * jds2001 thinks maybe
19:38:01 * jreznik is not sure
19:38:09 <cwickert> *** is not either
19:38:12 <jds2001> but the thing is we dont want to sacrifice the anonymity of the results, for one.
19:38:23 <jds2001> maybe == not sure, BTW :)
19:38:25 <abadger1999> I hesitate to make this suggestion without more Board members but perhaps, since so many of the top people think the present system is broken two options could look like this:
19:38:45 <abadger1999> * Stop having release names
19:39:00 <abadger1999> * Have release names but use some other method to decide what they are
19:39:29 <EvilBob> !
19:39:34 <jds2001> but what if it's a vocal minority that believes that the process is broken?
19:39:34 <abadger1999> EvilBob: go ahead
19:39:45 <EvilBob> My suggestion would be Keep names or Drop names, if keeping names wins then address fixing naming so it can't be "fixed" resulting in another BM.
19:41:23 <abadger1999> EvilBob: So maybe option two would be * Keep release names (possibly changing how we decide what they are)
19:41:50 <jds2001> abadger1999: yep, which means we need only one question
19:41:52 <abadger1999> and then let people hash that out on the list.
19:41:57 <EvilBob> abadger1999: Right
19:42:12 <abadger1999> works for me.
19:42:21 <jds2001> WORKSFORME
19:42:34 <EvilBob> If it is over complicated it will be a lose IMO.
19:42:45 <jds2001> EvilBob: +1
19:43:00 <jds2001> and a waste of everyone's time.
19:43:16 <abadger1999> So I'll create that election with this:   * Stop having release names [0|1]    * Keep release names (possibly changing how they're chosen) [0|1]
19:43:57 * jds2001 still thinks we'll have crazies voting for both, but oh well.
19:44:17 <abadger1999> jds2001: if they vote for both, it'll be equivalent of voting for neither :-)
19:44:44 <abadger1999> whereas if they voted for 2 out of 3 in the other proposal it would have some meaning that we'd have to decide how to interpret :-)
19:44:49 <jreznik> the question is if we really want voting at all - fedora way is to get support and implement proposed change :)
19:45:38 <EvilBob> I think "I don't care so I voted for both" votes matter at least it shows interest and interaction with the community as a whole.
19:45:45 <abadger1999> jreznik: So.. If I want to get rid of release names, what do I need to do? ;-)
19:46:08 <gnokii> !
19:46:19 <abadger1999> Change the wiki to say that they've been discontinued for Fedora 19? :-)
19:46:22 <abadger1999> gnokii: go ahead
19:46:47 * abadger1999 was just kidding about changing the wiki to effect change
19:46:50 * EvilBob goes to vandalize the wiki if that is all it takes...
19:46:54 <EvilBob> ;)
19:46:56 <gnokii> I have a problem with go without code names, code names are a good starting point for the design team to start with
19:46:59 <gnokii> eof
19:47:28 <jreznik> gnokii: the problem is - current way how it works is not a good starting point too
19:47:41 <EvilBob> gnokii: the design team disagreed, at least that is what I read in the threads of doom
19:47:45 <jreznik> I don't see anythin beefy in the current wp (but I know solar and verne)
19:47:56 <abadger1999> gnokii: <nod>  Except that hte design team doesn't always like the starting point that the present method of choosing names gives them.
19:48:15 <abadger1999> I think they'd like to have a more consistent theme between the names to build on.
19:48:46 * jreznik thinks we try to solve to many things in one - we started with connotation analysis, we solved it (and one solution was to get rid of names)
19:48:46 <abadger1999> instead of a city one release, a submarine the next, and a hot dog after that.
19:49:07 * cwickert would like to point out that there is a meeting of the EMEA ambassadors supposed to take place in 10 minutes here
19:50:15 <EvilBob> Now is not the time or place to debate the usefulness of names anyhow, that is what the vote would be for.
19:50:59 <abadger1999> So we have two +1s for the poll I proposed.
19:51:05 <EvilBob> Now is the time to figure out how to get the community opinion to the board so they can act.
19:51:07 <cwickert> +1
19:51:32 <abadger1999> jds2001, cwickert, abadger1999 are +1
19:51:49 <abadger1999> jreznik, rudi_: Care to vote?
19:52:13 <abadger1999> #proposal I'll create that election with this:   * Stop having release names [0|1]    * Keep release names (possibly changing how they're chosen) [0|1]
19:53:37 <rudi_> Sorry: I'm +1 on that too
19:53:47 <jreznik> mmt
19:54:51 <jreznik> ok, I'm +1 with final proposal
19:54:57 <abadger1999> Cool.
19:55:06 <jreznik> good point by inode0, it makes more sense this way
19:55:18 <abadger1999> #action abadger1999 to create the poll with two options  * Stop having release names [0|1]    * Keep release names (possibly changing how they're chosen) [0|1]
19:55:29 <abadger1999> And we're out of time.
19:55:34 <abadger1999> Thanks for coming everyone!
19:55:38 <abadger1999> #endmeeting