13:00:02 #startmeeting FOSCo brainstorm meeting 13:00:02 Meeting started Mon Jul 18 13:00:02 2016 UTC. The chair is cwickert. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 13:00:02 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 13:00:02 The meeting name has been set to 'fosco_brainstorm_meeting' 13:00:07 #meetingname fosco 13:00:07 The meeting name has been set to 'fosco' 13:00:33 chair mattdm giannisk jflory7 gnokii robyduck decause 13:00:37 .hello jflory7 13:00:38 jflory7: jflory7 'Justin W. Flory' 13:00:42 .hello cwickert 13:00:43 cwickert: cwickert 'Christoph Wickert' 13:00:47 .fas giannisk 13:00:47 giannisk: giannisk 'Giannis Konstantinidis' 13:00:52 #topic Roll call 13:01:02 .hello mattdm 13:01:03 mattdm: mattdm 'Matthew Miller' 13:01:06 Morning, all! 13:01:09 #chair mattdm giannisk jflory7 gnokii robyduck decause 13:01:09 Current chairs: cwickert decause giannisk gnokii jflory7 mattdm robyduck 13:01:15 that's better... 13:01:22 .fas gnokii 13:01:23 gnokii: gnokii 'Sirko Kemter' 13:01:45 .hello robyduck_ 13:01:45 robyduck_: Sorry, but you don't exist 13:02:03 not sure if mailga is around 13:02:08 .hello robyduck 13:02:09 robyduck_: robyduck 'Robert Mayr' 13:02:55 Hi! 13:03:54 * cwickert waits a little more for others to show up 13:04:06 Hey, Kohane! 13:04:10 Sounds good to me. 13:04:23 Hi jflory7 13:04:42 .fas lailah 13:04:43 Kohane: lailah 'Sylvia Sánchez' 13:05:36 #info from ambassadors, we have cwickert, giannisk, mailga 13:05:53 #info form the council, there is mattdm, robyduck_ and cwickert 13:06:05 .hello bex 13:06:06 bexelbie: bex 'Brian (bex) Exelbierd' 13:06:08 #info gnokii is present for the design team 13:06:18 so i dont count? 13:06:26 I'm an ambassador too 13:06:35 * zoglesby is here 13:06:42 gnokii: oh, sorry, I forgot yo as part of famsco 13:07:29 #info from famsco, we have cwickert, giannisk, mailga, gnokii, and tuanta 13:07:42 .fas tuanta 13:07:43 tuanta: tuanta 'Truong Anh Tuan' 13:07:47 #info for docs, we have zoglesby 13:08:02 #info for websites, we have mailga 13:08:08 and robyduck 13:08:29 #info for commops and markting, we have jflory7 13:08:33 hello everybody 13:08:36 (hi, jibecfed, l10n) 13:08:47 I hope I did not forget anybody 13:09:03 Yes, you did... 13:09:04 #info jibec is here for l10n 13:09:17 ! 13:09:22 Kohane: I'm sticking to the list at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FOSCo_status#Third_proposal 13:09:33 Kohane: feel free to go ahead 13:10:43 Just in case, I'm here for the design team, I read the email on the list, I'm also ambassador. I didn't know I had to add myself to a list 13:10:56 welcome Kohane 13:11:09 Kohane: you are what? 13:11:11 I'm sorry 13:11:39 anybody else here representing a team I forgot to mention? 13:11:40 I am here because I am here. I had a conversation with decause and decided to join the meeting and see what was up and offer opinions if I had useful ones 13:11:40 I am...? 13:11:58 bexelbie: welcome 13:12:09 Kohane, bexelbie: Welcome both of you :) 13:12:17 Thanks! 13:12:24 ty 13:12:30 Kohane: I think gnokii is referring to the fact that you ar enot officially a member of the design team (at least not in FAS), but I'm glad you are here 13:12:36 this meeting is for brainstorming 13:12:45 so the more people with good ideas we have, the better 13:12:57 +1 cwickert 13:13:03 for a start, I'd like to give you some background on this 13:13:19 That's weird. I've been there for a long time. Usually offering thoughts rather than pictures but... 13:13:58 the idea for FOSCo, the Fedora Outreach Committee came up around two years ago, at the same time we also replaced the Fedora Board with the Council 13:13:58 +1 cwickert 13:14:31 and just like the council, we'd like to have a more meritocratic approach for the FOSCo 13:14:58 at the moment, FAmSCo, the Fedora Ambassadors Steering Committee, is a purely elected body 13:15:23 but we want FOSCo to not only represent the ambassadors, but to coordinate all outreach activities 13:15:38 that is ambassadors, marketing, design, commops and some more 13:16:07 I'm not going to list all the individual groups, because it is still unclear who will be part of FOSCo 13:16:07 cwickert++ 13:16:08 mattdm: Karma for cwickert changed to 4 (for the f24 release cycle): https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any 13:16:42 decause has been thinking about FOSCo, too, and ended up with almost 50 people 13:16:58 I think a body of this size is hardly functional, so we have to limit it somehow 13:17:25 so far, so good, I think what I said so far is consensus among everybody who has been involved so far 13:17:37 the rest is open for discussion 13:18:10 to give you an idea what FAmSCo has been working on so far, we created a wiki page at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FOSCo 13:18:49 please read it if you haven't already, but keep in mind that none of this is set in stone 13:18:56 How does this page with a statement about "user facing efforts" reconcile with "outreach" ? 13:19:09 So we should think how to limit or manage that number of people, because they're too many to work properly. Is it that? 13:19:10 #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FOSCo is idea so far (not set in stone) 13:19:38 Oh, yeah, maybe a #topic change too :) 13:19:49 jflory7: for some reason I cannot change it 13:19:52 bexelbie: "outreach" may not have been the best word, but no one has come to agreement on anything better :) 13:20:09 cwickert: zodbot isn't changing the channel topic because it isn't OP'd, but it is notated correctly in the meeting minutes after the meeting. 13:20:13 Outreach is OK for me 13:20:16 mattdm, I understand. I am driving at the idea that user facing drags in a lot of groups that affect our users but don't affect branding, etc. 13:20:28 are we looking at reaching out to existing users and potential/new users? 13:20:31 mattdm: if I go for that page there is engineering included, I dont think thats a good idea to do so 13:20:32 I was thinking of "efforts that go out from contributors to users" 13:20:45 a good example is docs ... it is customer facing, and may be a good marketing point but is not written as a marketing point .. if that makes sense 13:21:02 gnokii: engineering was mailga's idea, but again, this is not set in stone 13:21:23 in fact, we have different proposals of how FOSCo should be composed 13:21:46 bexelbie: mattdm wanted to inlcude also docs, me to so we are of same opinion on that 13:22:15 Starting from an attraction perspective, how is the communication between ambassadors, marketing and design? Does this group need to help there 13:22:15 yeah I would s/Engineering/Docs/ in that chart :) 13:22:16 #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FOSCo_status has 3 different propsals about possible FOSCo's composition 13:22:19 then we can add more ? 13:22:24 hold on 13:22:30 I can see docs being involved for sure - just trying to figure out mission 13:22:47 can we please stick to the meeting protocol, otherwise it gets a little hard for me 13:23:20 cwickert: +1 13:23:28 +1 13:23:33 ! 13:23:55 bexelbie: was your question about "outreach" already addressed or do you want further discussion? 13:24:17 I understand why the word outreach was used, but I am still unclear on the overall goal I hear a few different things 13:24:23 I'd like more clarity on "contributors to users" 13:24:34 as that seems to not include some roles, in my mind 13:24:39 which I suspect is incorrect 13:24:59 bexelbie: where does "contributors to users" come from? 13:25:08 mattdm, above 13:26:46 bexelbie: the overall goal is not yet defined. The problem we are facing is that there are various user-facing groups in Fedora, which hardly or not at all collaborate. We just want to change that and have everything user-facing coordinated by one body. makes sense? 13:26:56 that was "contributors -> users", as opposed to "contributors -> making an OS, and hey, hopefully some users will use it" :) 13:27:11 cwickert +1 13:27:24 Cwickert +1 13:27:26 +1 13:27:31 cool +1 13:27:45 bexelbie: ok, what roles are missing? 13:27:55 that question goes to all of you... 13:28:19 well, assuming s/engineering/docs/ do you want to include i18n, etc? Or are they are groups that coordinate in other ways? 13:28:33 l10n 13:28:35 as you also brought up limiting size for manageability (which is +1000 from me) 13:28:45 s/i18n/l10n/ .. sorry 13:28:46 frankly speaking, I think engineering would not be part of the team, but l10n probably 13:28:47 i18n is more engineering part ;0 13:28:54 or g10n 13:29:12 g11n, i guess :) 13:29:33 oops 13:29:49 yeah g11n .. was counting on my hands multiple times there :) 13:29:54 * bexelbie prefers a24z :P 13:30:01 #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/G11N is a superset of i18n, l10n, fltg, and zanata 13:30:13 I think that as we move forward, if we are missing input from teams it will become clear. 13:30:45 so the very core is ambassadors, marketing and design. Everything else is subject to discussion 13:30:47 I think docs/translators work quite well, at least they know what's going on in the other team. I don't see the same on others groups or teams. 13:30:49 Trying to figure out the perfect team is going to continue to slow down the process 13:31:16 The ability to change the gropu as we go will definitely help 13:31:23 zoglesby +1 13:31:31 zoglesby: I'm thinking the same as zoglesby. I do like the third proposal, although I think maybe G11n would fit in well to the discussion as well, because I feel like their type of contributions fit into the overall purpose for what FOSCo is trying to achieve. 13:31:31 while I would never tie us to the past, it would be nice to see examples of where we think this gropu could have helped in the past 13:31:33 it not only depends on whether we want somebody in FOSCo but if the team is willing and able to take part 13:31:57 Kohane: I find interesting that the G11n team sees that a bit different 13:32:26 bexelbie: Ahh, I have context of a recent situation where having a FOSCo-like body would be helpful, if that would be useful to you :) 13:32:31 Yes, I know but you should see how it is on other teams like Latam ambassadors 13:33:07 jflory7, it would be if only so we can make sure that the framework we "launch" with would have solved that .. and then we can adapt for new challenges, imho 13:33:15 hold on 13:33:26 let's get back to a question bexelbie just asked 13:33:52 what problem would FOSCo typically solve or what would it have been supposed to solve in the past 13:34:20 with my ambassador's head on, there are some examples 13:34:29 better work within the different groups they have to be better connected 13:34:33 Collaboration between specific sub-projects in order to achieve common goals 13:34:38 bexelbie: Agreed. In this comment, you can see the "Looking at why" part for a situation concerning Design + Ambassadors. https://fedorahosted.org/famsco/ticket/373#comment:23 13:35:09 * mattdm is interested to see cwickert switch heads :) 13:35:27 :D 13:35:39 * Kohane is interested too 13:35:41 marketing makes the 'talking points', but the ambassadors are the one to spread the message 13:36:06 so basically, the ambassadors hardly have a say in what they are to advertise 13:36:17 ^ and ambassadors talk to users, and marketing doesn't hear that feedback 13:36:26 ++ 13:36:41 * jflory7 nods 13:36:41 right mattdm, that's the biggest problem I see here 13:37:09 and on the other hand, the ambassadors are also 'customers' of the design team. We often need artwork but have no idea how to get it from the designers 13:37:20 at least that recently improved as jflory7 announced 13:37:34 ! 13:37:35 In the short-term. :) 13:38:11 #info https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org/new-guidelines-fedora-ambassadors-design/ how to request artwork from the design team 13:38:22 cwickert, so if ambassadors want a say in the marketing position, why shouldn't they just join the marketing group? Otherwise this group would seem to become responsible for marketing. Or are we just here to make sure marketing and ambassadors sit down at the same table? 13:38:25 so I think we all get the idea,, right? 13:39:20 Yes. 13:39:22 bexelbie: the ambassadors are older than the marketing group and I see them as two different groups. 13:39:34 this is up for discussion, but not in short term 13:39:39 Kohane: your turn 13:39:40 bexelbie: Do they want to have a say? They want to collaborate with marketing in a more effective way. 13:40:36 can we please follow the meeting protocol? use ! if you want to say something, ? to ask. 13:40:51 cwickert: Sure, but let's everyone use the protocol then. 13:40:52 bexelbie: the task for marketing and ambassador are very different 13:41:00 ! 13:41:00 ! 13:41:04 Yes. It takes a bit because I'm on phone. 13:41:05 now it's Kohane's turn 13:41:12 OK thanks 13:41:16 !, but after this topic is done :) 13:43:16 What I see it's that not all ambassadors groups are noticing stuff in the same way. In Latam many of the marketing work go under radar. Or this. I saw not even half a comment about this meeting or other teams contributions. It would be interesting to find out where the chain breaks. 13:44:10 ! - in reply to Kohane 13:44:19 I think that would solve many issues, if we can communicate stuff in a smooth 13:44:24 Yes 13:44:27 ! 13:44:41 Kohane: fair enough, but I think this will happen as we move on 13:44:50 ! - also to Kohane 13:44:55 Yes 13:45:02 for a start, I'm happy if we manage to improve communication 13:45:15 gnokii: in reply to Kohane, too? 13:45:22 yes 13:45:29 That's what I tried to say. Improve communication. 13:45:31 giannisk, gnokii and then jflory7 13:45:57 and then we move on with bexelbie and jibec once this question is answered 13:46:20 Kohane: Agreeing with you. It's not just about better communication -between- sub-projects and regional communities. It also has to be -inside- these groups. 13:46:22 eof 13:46:39 ! on this communication topic if possible 13:46:54 Thanks giannisk :) 13:47:02 giannisk++ 13:47:40 Kohane: it breaks with you, when you are part of marketing and dont communicating the things to LATAM ambassadors..... 13:47:43 eof 13:48:00 bexelbie: yes, but lets stick to the current order. you can type ahead if you like :-) 13:48:16 jflory7 and then bexelbie please 13:48:46 ! in reply to gnokii 13:50:17 I just wanted to add that there are existing tools that are available now that are working towards making things like this easier. The Community Blog is probably the most apparent and visible way of doing this. Using it as a way to communicate even short bits of information what a team is working on or what's happening across the project is a useful way to communicate news in a way where everyone is on the same page. Understandably, asking to 13:50:17 write about every little thing a group may be working on is a big demand, but it doesn't need to be like that. If there's a major, general "focus" that a group is working, even a couple hundred words about what's going on can be helpful in communicating news. 13:50:24 Specific to FOSCo... 13:51:17 I think we should be aware of these existing tools or platforms available to us, and help use them to create a stronger, more united source of information distribution across the project (doesn't just have to be blog posts). 13:51:19 eof 13:51:31 thanks jflory7, now bexelbie 13:52:15 My concern is that an attempt to fix communication with a council could lead to a series of status reports and no actions to take. I also don't know that a meta-council can fix intergroup comms. My "Why?" question was to drive at what decisions need to be made by this group. Some of these examples feel like they could be resolved by having clearer comm policies from subgroups i.e. All design requests require comm with the design group - 13:52:15 even if we pull from a standard library for you. We don't need a council to impr 13:52:15 ove a blog or a wiki, imho. That said, there probably is a need for a FoSCO of some sort but for action. EOF 13:53:12 bexelbie: that's a good segue to the thing I wanted to add :) 13:53:29 And that is: budget 13:53:43 ++ 13:53:54 Under prior and existing process, the ambassadors are the primary consumers of the Fedora community budget 13:54:10 Which inherently leads to money being spent on ambassadors' things :) 13:54:16 ++ 13:54:39 and those are valuable, but it means there's not a good way to spend money on, for example, a marketing campaign 13:54:47 or translation events 13:54:56 other than one-off requests to the council 13:55:00 ! 13:55:04 ! 13:55:09 and the council currently doesn't have money set aside for that 13:55:14 eof 13:55:22 (eot, i guess) 13:55:23 mattdm +1 13:55:34 ok, let me continue on this point for a moment 13:56:37 I think we need to discuss what the scope of FOSCo is. It's definitely more than just communication. budget is an important thing, but there will be more to come 13:56:52 basically I want us to work on all outreach efforts together 13:57:01 anyway, not we continue with gnokii and bexelbie 13:57:21 * cwickert is glad he reserved a two hours time slot 13:57:31 Budget is an action. If we need to make sure that money is spent on more directed goals, a body that par 13:57:32 cels it out is a good thing. However, the grouping needs to make sense so it isn't some money for engine 13:57:32 ering, some money retained for direct Fed Council use/allocation, and some money for this random group of 13:57:32 activities over here :) 13:57:41 wow that pasted badly, sorry. 13:57:55 I think we need to carefully define "outreach efforts" as well 13:58:11 it seems like we want a meta-marketing organization more than "outreach" in some ways 13:58:11 eof 13:58:33 its not that Ambassadors wasnt willing to spent money on this cwickert as myself saw the budget always for all fedorians not just the ambassadors, we had a few sponsorings for helping non-ambassadors to go to a hackfest and also some smaller translation events 13:58:39 eof 13:59:35 gnokii: thank you, we fully agree. It's just a historical thing, the ambassadors were there since the early days and they naturally spend a large amount of money 13:59:46 bexelbie: good points 13:59:54 now it's jibec's turn 14:00:04 As a translator point of view, it looks like clear we need to translate packages content to reach end users, but it turns to be very unclear for community activities (the only exception is static websites). Does Fedora Project want to help creation of multi-lingual cooperation or should it exist elsewhere ? What’s the positioning of the existing fedora planet, ask.fp.o or the incoming fedora-devel or fedora-hubs ? I hope this 14:00:09 jibec: sorry I forgot you in the heat of the battle ;) 14:00:13 that kind of questions and monitor it. At the moment, there isn’t much work for community translator : website and a few packages. 14:01:07 jibec: I'm afraid we cannot answer the question yet. it depends on our strategy on the one hand an the resources of your team on the other 14:01:08 ! 14:01:43 * giannisk thinks we should focus more on the vision and objectives of FOSCo. We are already past an hour. 14:02:05 jwb: Given that we scrapped the rolekit workshop, do you want to replace it with the PRD workshop? 14:02:27 jibec: that ultimately raises the question whether or not your team needs to be on FOSCo. I like the idea of "full" and auxiliary seats here, e.g. you could send somebody to FOSCo to work on a particular project. 14:02:44 giannisk: noted 14:02:51 gnokii: go ahead please 14:02:52 * Kohane agrees with giannisk thoughts. 14:04:25 ok, I'll look forward for the strategy 14:04:27 jibec are you aware what going on with the translation steering committee G11N wants to re-invent and that one of the main points the funding is, addionally translation is one of the easiest things to start with, so we reach out for new contributors not just users 14:04:29 eof 14:05:06 ok, lets's move on 14:05:29 before we continue with the objectives, let's just have some quick polls 14:05:57 who should be part of FOSCo? Do we agree the core, that is ambassadors, marketing and design? 14:06:14 +1 if you agree, then we can ask for other groups 14:06:20 +1 14:06:23 +1 14:06:25 +1 14:06:28 +1 14:06:30 + 14:06:33 +0 14:06:36 +1 14:06:43 ok, that was a no-brainer ;) 14:06:47 jflory7: ? 14:07:10 +1 14:07:24 +0 I think docs and g11n shouldn't be discounted, but on the other hand I see the problem with too many groups 14:07:38 mattdm: I'd come to this later, but thanks 14:07:44 cwickert: My only thought is that I could see overlap in terms of what FOSCo is doing with things that might also be shared with CommOps. I think it would be helpful for CommOps to be considered for the core to prevent two different bodies working on similar tasks for the same end goal. 14:07:44 eof 14:07:49 (I'd put "marketing and ambassadors" at core, and design, g11n, and docs as next tier) 14:07:54 mattdm: I wanted this kind of meeting because we can hardly demand them to be part 14:08:11 gnokii: yes, excellent point 14:08:30 if there are not more than those groups, we have a marketing meta-group - it would need a new name 14:08:44 bexelbie: please just wait 14:08:51 what about websites? 14:09:23 mailga: are you there btw? 14:09:53 ! 14:10:26 Who thinks websites should be part of FOSCo? 14:10:40 +1 14:10:56 -1, not for the "core" 14:11:06 giannisk: that was not the question 14:11:08 -1 (in terms of "core") 14:11:12 Oh. 14:11:24 From my outsider-to-websites perspective, I see that design and websites work together closely... 14:11:29 ^ 14:11:32 core? 14:11:49 and I see design as the "in" to FOSCo there, with the other aspect connecting more to Engineering 14:11:53 +1 for mattdm wanted to say that to 14:12:11 cwickert: the question is about the core or in general? 14:12:14 but I may be off-base and I won't argue if websites wants to be involved directly 14:12:19 Kohane: just general 14:12:34 mattdm: I fail to parse your last sentence 14:12:34 +1 then 14:13:13 well, a lot of websites is basically engineering work, I mean 14:13:16 why we not ask robyduck if he thinks would be good? 14:13:26 oh yeah robyduck_ is here :) 14:13:32 robyduck_ what do you think? 14:13:53 mailga already indicated they would be interested and robyduck was willing to fill that role 14:14:05 however it seems both are afk atm 14:14:12 my personal thought is that websites are close to end users, and theoretically should have a FOSCo seat 14:14:21 thanks robyduck_ 14:14:27 let's move on then 14:14:33 cwickert: here I am wit a big lag, sorry,connection aren't workinking fine. 14:14:36 but I don't want to argue too much if all of you are not of the same opinion 14:14:38 ! - asked for permission to speak earlier 14:14:45 giannisk: ok, go ahead 14:15:03 My thought is that we need to be agile. 14:15:11 robyduck_: you are not arguing at all, thanks 14:15:22 We start off with a basic FOSCo consisted of ambassadors, marketing, design and maybe commops. That's it. 14:15:41 We can't put too many groups inside FOSCo at once, otherwise we risk dropping the ball. 14:15:57 I believe it's going to be really hard for all these groups to "migrate" at once. 14:16:11 Think of FOSCo as a "pilot" group. 14:16:21 cwickert: maybe websites, if you have too many people for n seats, could be an auxiliary seat for design (yes we work really close when speaking about #outreachy#) 14:16:26 We can consider adding other sub-projects to FOSCo later on. 14:16:49 But, let's start with a committee that is very specific. 14:16:58 ! 14:17:02 Just my two cents - eof 14:17:18 ok, thanks giannisk 14:17:31 nevertheless I'd like to quickly finish a run-through of th egroups 14:18:03 gainniskI think that the preference is given to the people having more than one group applied, so groups are well represented and people are less than the groups. 14:18:43 what about docs? 14:18:53 ! 14:19:20 ok, it seems that quick +1/-1/0 votes are not working here 14:19:33 docs is necessary both for mktg and amby. 14:19:41 +0 docs, like all the other groups are great. What problem is solved with their presence, what problem is solve with their lack of presence. 14:19:57 problem is created with their lack of presence 14:20:25 * cwickert is a bot lost now 14:20:25 cwickert: maybe we should ask the group if they want get involved and then find a way how to integrate them instead voting on which group to take 14:20:36 bexelbie: are you eof? 14:20:46 yes, but I have a resposne to gnokii when I can 14:21:05 Gnokii +1 14:21:46 cwickert++ for heroic job at keeping us on point :) 14:21:49 gnokii: well, I consider this implied, but as a matter of fact, we never really received an answer from any of the groups, not even from those willing to participate or represented here. 14:22:35 how do people feel about giannisk's suggestion of starting with a small group? 14:22:50 I think it's a good idea 14:22:54 +1 14:23:05 +1 14:23:10 +1 14:23:12 -1 14:23:31 +1 with definition and no random invites 14:23:55 +1 giannisk, +1 bexelbie 14:24:05 +1 14:24:16 Thank you 14:24:33 ok, great, but it's a major change from what we discussed earlier 14:24:41 -1 (we should track this down now, and not in 6 months again) 14:24:55 let's see how that works and hope it unfolds nocely 14:24:57 nicely* 14:24:59 * tuanta likes giannisk's idea. Just want to add a fact that active people (who more chances to be a part of FOSCo) are often members of a few groups, not only one! 14:25:11 now on to objectives 14:25:19 let's give this 15 minutes, not more 14:25:41 and before we finish this sessions, I would like us to look at the propsals 14:25:48 Tuanta is right but we have to start somewhere 14:26:01 not necessarily vote, but tell us which you like best 14:26:07 anyway, objectives 14:26:22 giannisk: you want to add something here? 14:26:31 cwickert: Sure 14:26:34 #topic Objectives 14:26:45 To enhance collaboration between involved sub-projects and groups. 14:27:16 To help drive community efforts across regions. 14:27:28 ! 14:27:46 All: carry on :) 14:27:52 hold on giannisk 14:28:03 I think your second point is a little vague 14:28:07 care to elaborate? 14:28:21 ! 14:28:45 cwickert: We need to improve community outreach both inside and across regions. 14:29:09 cwickert: That is, to improve general visibility about Fedora to end users and also to help the community grow. 14:29:24 The way I see it at least - eof 14:30:03 ok, gnokii and then bexelbie 14:31:17 some might stop thinking with involve a group or two means automatically another seat, I see this core nonsense as we bring now out something and then have to get back to the table soon discuss it again 14:31:27 eof 14:31:38 I feel like giannisk's first point is a natural effect of putting any N groups on a council - but one that may devolve into status reportsl The second point sounds a lot like famsco just creating better comm between the regions. 14:31:42 eof 14:32:42 gnokii: we never meant to distinguish between 'core' and anything else. I only used the term 'core' to illustrate where the idea came up. 14:33:58 bexelbie: actually I'm afraid that regional coordination might fall behind compared to famsco, but let's see 14:34:11 atm, the only group in fedora that is organized by regions is the ambassadors 14:34:18 anyway, we should make it an objective 14:34:26 more suggestions for objectives? 14:34:40 ! 14:34:46 ? 14:34:58