20:01:29 <jwf> #startmeeting Fedora Mindshare Committee - 2017-02-13
20:01:29 <zodbot> Meeting started Tue Feb 13 20:01:29 2018 UTC.  The chair is jwf. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
20:01:29 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
20:01:29 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fedora_mindshare_committee_-_2017-02-13'
20:01:33 <jwf> #meetingname mindshare
20:01:33 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'mindshare'
20:01:38 <jwf> #topic Roll call
20:01:41 <nb> .hello2
20:01:42 <jwf> .hello jflory7
20:01:43 <zodbot> nb: nb 'Nick Bebout' <nb@nb.zone>
20:01:46 <zodbot> jwf: jflory7 'Justin W. Flory' <jflory7@gmail.com>
20:01:47 <jwf> #chair nb
20:01:47 <zodbot> Current chairs: jwf nb
20:01:50 * jwf waves
20:02:26 <bexelbie[m]> .hello bex
20:02:27 <zodbot> bexelbie[m]: bex 'Brian (bex) Exelbierd' <bex@pobox.com>
20:02:53 <jwf> #chair bexelbie bexelbie[m]
20:02:53 <zodbot> Current chairs: bexelbie bexelbie[m] jwf nb
20:03:14 <jwf> I feel unprepared since I'm not sure if there was an agenda for today?
20:04:07 <bexelbie[m]> I was under the impression robyduck
20:04:07 <jwf> First order of business, setting up a public meeting agenda :P
20:04:15 <bexelbie[m]> Was going to start us
20:04:22 <jwf> That was my impression too
20:04:28 <bexelbie[m]> Agenda would be fad planning
20:04:30 <langdon> i REALLY like using the pagure issues lists for this
20:04:31 <bexelbie[m]> Afaik
20:04:43 <jwf> I hope he didn't forget the meeting – I nearly did
20:05:03 <jwf> langdon: Curious to see an example. My favorite tool is Gobby but it's horribly inconvenient for anyone that doesn't know how to use it
20:05:10 <jwf> Which I think is most people
20:05:15 <langdon> sure... /me digs link
20:05:34 <langdon> https://pagure.io/modularity/issue/71
20:05:43 <langdon> it aint perfect.. but it is pretty good
20:05:46 <jwf> I like Gobby since you get an Etherpad-like functionality via a client, but you also get a static document you can link to: https://infinote.fedoraproject.org/cgit/infinote/tree/meeting-templates/fedora-commops-meeting-next
20:06:03 <langdon> someone else used it too.. but i can't remember who.. fesco? fedora-infra?
20:06:12 <jwf> langdon: Ohhh, so it's really just going through tickets tagged as "meeting"?
20:06:22 <bexelbie[m]> Can someone pm robyduck. My phone client is terrible
20:06:23 <jwf> langdon: Fedora-Infra uses it and I copied from them for CommOps
20:06:26 <langdon> jwf: right..very low barrier
20:06:27 <jwf> I can
20:07:50 <jwf> langdon: We use meeting labels in CommOps too, but the Gobby pad is our (read: my) tool to keep order during a meeting and to cover non-ticket items, like previous action items
20:07:57 <jwf> But I guess a ticket workflow could work for that too
20:08:19 <jwf> Potato patato, tomato tamato
20:08:26 <bexelbie[m]> Yep. Gobby sounds great until you hit client imho. Also Gobby autocorrects to lots of fun stuff.
20:08:43 <langdon> jwf: yeah.. i guess i was missing the purpose.. but.. probably both :)
20:09:26 <jwf> I guess we could have a tooling discussion if we're waiting for robyduck. Not sure if it would make more sense to drop him an email, it doesn't seem like he's online IRC
20:10:03 <robyduck> .hello robyduck
20:10:04 <zodbot> robyduck: robyduck 'Robert Mayr' <robyduck@gmail.com>
20:10:06 <jsmith> .hello jsmith
20:10:07 <zodbot> jsmith: jsmith 'Jared Smith' <jsmith.fedora@gmail.com>
20:10:17 <jwf> #chair robyduck jsmith
20:10:17 <zodbot> Current chairs: bexelbie bexelbie[m] jsmith jwf nb robyduck
20:10:21 * jwf waves
20:11:08 <bexelbie[m]> O/
20:11:17 <jwf> I also pinged x3mboy in case he missed it too
20:11:29 <robyduck> sorry, I was counting too much on a calendar reminder :(
20:11:55 <jwf> robyduck: I set it up for Fedocal now too
20:11:59 <jwf> I almost forgot too, don't worry
20:12:32 <x3mboy> .hello2
20:12:34 <x3mboy> robyduck, o/
20:12:34 <zodbot> x3mboy: x3mboy 'Eduard Lucena' <eduardlucena@gmail.com>
20:12:36 <x3mboy> Hello, I'm here
20:12:47 <jwf> #chair x3mboy
20:12:47 <zodbot> Current chairs: bexelbie bexelbie[m] jsmith jwf nb robyduck x3mboy
20:13:29 <robyduck> so I think agenda for today should be:
20:13:44 <robyduck> 1) Meeting time
20:13:51 <robyduck> 2) Mindshare FAD
20:14:10 <robyduck> 3) Ambassador's reps
20:14:19 <jwf> +1
20:14:26 <robyduck> 4) Open Floor for any requests
20:14:44 <robyduck> does this more or less work for you all? Or did you set up anything?
20:15:07 <jwf> This sounds good to me – I think we can fit all that in. I didn't have anything in mind before now
20:15:19 <jwf> I also have a hard stop at :5 before the end of the meeting
20:15:37 <robyduck> ok, let's see until which point we go through :)
20:16:10 <robyduck> May I go on as chair, jwf?
20:16:14 <robyduck> you can too
20:16:16 <jwf> robyduck: The floor is yours!
20:16:22 <bexelbie[m]> +1
20:16:29 <robyduck> btw, the chair of Mindshare should probably be bexelbie[m]
20:16:45 <x3mboy> I would like to have the meeting one hour earlier
20:16:46 <robyduck> but if it's fine I would make just this meeting?
20:17:06 <robyduck> #topic Meeting time
20:17:06 <x3mboy> I'm ok with bexelbie[m] as chairman
20:17:27 <jwf> robyduck: I think it makes sense for the chair to be whoever wants to take initiative on the agenda prep / triage for the meeting
20:17:30 <bexelbie[m]> Please. I’m on a phone
20:17:31 <robyduck> So today is just a meeting to get together and sort out the most important things
20:18:00 <robyduck> we can confirm the time we agreed on, or try to find another one
20:18:28 <jsmith> Sounds good.
20:18:34 <x3mboy> Was this the time elected with whenisgood?
20:18:35 * robyduck is fine with this time, one hour earlier is dinner for me, and @home I'm cooking, so..
20:18:41 <robyduck> x3mboy: yes
20:18:45 <x3mboy> Sorry for that then, I'm fine with this time really
20:19:10 * jsmith is fine with this time (normally -- today was a bit of a mess)
20:19:32 <jwf> nb mentioned this time is a blocker and I think he pitched one hour earlier
20:19:37 <bexelbie[m]> This is the time that got unblocked. It seems that there may have been an entry error so this is blocked for one person.
20:19:37 <robyduck> x3mboy: as I said, we can, if needed set up another time, but we are on very different timezones and it is always difficult
20:20:03 <robyduck> bexelbie[m]: sounds like we should really go for a second whenisgood?
20:20:05 <jwf> Is an hour earlier a hard block for anyone? I am flexible to move 1hr earlier
20:20:28 <bexelbie[m]> The majority of free times are actually when the group is mostly asleep. The folks in the America’s are conflict city :)
20:20:33 <x3mboy> robyduck, yes, I get that. Today I just want to leave my office early, but nobody else wants that (Mindshare comitee includede) xD
20:20:34 <robyduck> jwf: yes for me, I really can't, kids would kill me
20:20:53 <jwf> Fair.
20:21:03 * nb can move an hour earlier or later
20:21:05 <nb> either way
20:21:26 <robyduck> later whenever you want (other 2 hours from now)
20:21:27 <jwf> If nb has an account and can update his availability, that may be faster than getting everyone to paint times again. If not, then I guess a new one is our best option
20:21:31 <nb> I don't know if i made a mistake on whenisgood or not
20:21:38 <nb> maybe i looked at timezone wrong
20:22:12 * nb did not save the update url
20:23:02 <robyduck> nb: hmm, I probably have still the link of results, we can check that out and keep this time for another week before deciding for another whenisgood?
20:23:17 <robyduck> would that be an option?
20:23:19 <x3mboy> +1
20:23:22 <nb> next week i probably won't be here, i'm only here today because $workmeeting got cancelled
20:23:32 <robyduck> oh I see
20:23:41 <nb> i have a workmeeting every tuesday this hour
20:23:51 <nb> otherwise i am pretty flexible
20:23:55 <bexelbie[m]> Is when is good down?
20:23:57 <x3mboy> One hour later works for you?
20:23:59 <nb> yes
20:24:06 <jwf> One alternative is that the time creator could delete nb's response and then he can fill it in again
20:24:07 <x3mboy> robyduck?
20:24:12 <jwf> bexelbie[m]: Yes, for me too
20:24:23 <robyduck> yes
20:24:29 <x3mboy> bexelbie[m]?
20:24:35 <bexelbie[m]> If everyone can do one hour later let’s do that.
20:24:50 <x3mboy> Ok, so vote on one hour later?
20:24:53 * robyduck is happy with an hour later
20:24:56 <jwf> One hour later can work for me
20:24:58 <bexelbie[m]> It’s 10pm but I’ll make it work
20:25:04 <jwf> Not convenient for me but I can make it work
20:25:12 * nb appreciates it
20:25:24 <robyduck> cool, it's 10pm for me too, but I'm more relaxed at that hour
20:25:32 <jwf> jsmith too?
20:25:35 <robyduck> jsmith: ?
20:25:36 <x3mboy> It will be really hard for me, because it's subway time, but I can make it work too
20:25:46 <bexelbie[m]> Yes. I can do the hour later
20:25:59 <jsmith> One hour later does *not* work well for me.... I have another standing meeting.
20:26:03 <jsmith> But I could try to multitask :-)
20:26:09 <robyduck> ha
20:26:24 <jsmith> An hour earlier is fine, but not later
20:26:35 <jwf> Maybe a new WhenIsGood would be helpful after all
20:26:37 <jwf> :P
20:26:49 <x3mboy> Yes, it looks like that
20:26:50 <nb> earlier would work for me also, but i think robyduck said he could not
20:27:00 <robyduck> my proposal at his point would be:
20:27:51 <robyduck> Keep this meeting time (or one hour later, we have one blocker) till the FAD, and then set it up face to face. Eventually playing poker to set it up
20:28:02 <robyduck> :)
20:28:02 <jwf> +1
20:28:23 <x3mboy> +1
20:28:37 <robyduck> this would be for 2 meetings
20:29:00 <nb> +0 (we could go ahead and do whenisgood, but i guess we could work it out in person too, either way)
20:29:41 <robyduck> bexelbie[m]: jsmith ?
20:29:47 * langdon thinks more poker = more fun!
20:29:53 <robyduck> I'm fine also with a whenisgood if you like
20:29:56 <jsmith> +1 from me
20:29:56 <x3mboy> Throwing a pencil to the ones who don't agree with my time availiability can be fun
20:30:07 <robyduck> langdon: yeh
20:30:09 <jwf> *langdon raises ante*
20:30:21 <nb> robyduck, why don't we go ahead and do whenisgood again
20:30:31 <nb> and see if something works out, if not, we can wait until FAD
20:30:33 <robyduck> ok let's do that then
20:30:40 <jwf> If it helps, I can take that action item
20:31:10 <bexelbie[m]> I will run for office on a campaign for Tuesday’s at 3
20:31:19 <robyduck> #action robyduck will set up a new whenisgood for a better meeting time and send mails to all members once it is ready
20:32:28 <jwf> Awesome, sounds good to me
20:32:31 <jwf> FAD?
20:33:04 <robyduck> #topic Mindshare FAD
20:33:31 <robyduck> ok, so I am looking for the right place for a FAD in South Tyrol (Italy)
20:33:59 <robyduck> it will last from 3d march (arrival day) until 7th (departure), 4-5-6 will be meeting days
20:34:21 <jsmith> robyduck: I'm assuming that's close to Bolzano? Or has the plan changed?
20:34:35 <robyduck> jsmith: it's near Bolzano, yes
20:34:43 <jsmith> :-)
20:35:09 <robyduck> is ther anyone who is not able to attend?
20:35:14 <bexelbie[m]> Folks are typically flying into Venice or Milan. FYI
20:35:20 <bexelbie[m]> So we get to train it
20:35:20 <jwf> My flight tickets are in the process of being booked
20:35:36 <robyduck> Yeah, near airports are Venice or Milan, but even Verona or Innsbruck
20:35:55 <robyduck> Munich could also work, it's the same distance from Bolzano than Milan
20:35:55 <x3mboy> robyduck, I've checked here: https://www.etiaseurope.eu/etias-requirements/venezuelan/italy and it looks like I won't need a Visa. How can I confirm that?
20:36:31 <jwf> I know this is related to the next topic, but the big question I had was whether the Ambassador reps will be able to be selected in time for the FAD
20:36:38 <robyduck> x3mboy: no you don't need a Visa
20:36:49 <x3mboy> robyduck, Cool! Thanks
20:37:09 <robyduck> passport is fine
20:37:56 <bexelbie[m]> Unlikely jwf. But there are ambassadors in this group
20:38:08 <robyduck> this FAD will be a bit longer than normally, but 3 days should give us the opportunity to work out some nice plans and objectives for this first year
20:38:35 <jwf> bexelbie[m]: Okay. I know it was mentioned in the Council ticket that the Ambassador reps would be included, so we might want to clarify that messaging
20:39:29 <robyduck> fine if you all can come then ;)
20:39:43 <robyduck> #topic Ambassador representatives
20:39:53 <robyduck> jwf: so that's the topic you mentioned
20:40:35 <robyduck> The regions are not able to select 2 reps for them and I think the best would be to work out a different solution
20:41:04 <robyduck> I would like to have them at the FAD, but we are very close to it, so this should be done soon
20:41:50 <robyduck> Any ideas how we can select 2 of them as representatives? We actually don't have anyone from APAC for example
20:42:01 * robyduck looks at the nominations
20:42:24 <robyduck> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mindshare/Representatives
20:43:27 <x3mboy> We have 4 regions, it will be impossible to have the whole representation
20:43:32 <nb> robyduck, it is easy
20:43:33 <jwf> I would prefer to make sure the selection criteria for the Mindshare reps is made transparently and publicly than try and rush a decision in time for the FAD
20:43:35 <nb> just have an election
20:43:42 <nb> make the ambassadors group be able to vote
20:44:01 <x3mboy> And that is because one of the problems we should solve with this comitee is that Ambassadors are disconnected
20:44:08 <nb> robyduck, I will not arrive until sometime on the 4th.
20:44:20 <bexelbie[m]> I think the lack of reps is not driven by this committee. The regions have either not been able to do this or have struggled to do so.
20:44:32 <bexelbie[m]> I think we may need to identify and ask people.
20:44:33 <robyduck> nb: that's still fine
20:44:34 <nb> i have a prior committment on the 2nd and on the morningo f the 3rd.  I could probably cancel the morning of the 3rd commitment, but it wouldn't gain me much travel time
20:44:47 * robyduck will be back in 2 minutes
20:44:50 <nb> planning to leave home afternoon of 3rd
20:45:26 <jwf> bexelbie: I don't know if we've communicated that we expected regions to select candidates. The wiki page with nominations is the only thing I've seen
20:45:58 <jwf> I'm hesitant to assume that regions have trouble selecting candidates a candidate from every major region is currently on the nominations page
20:45:59 <x3mboy> India is APAC, right?
20:46:04 <jwf> x3mboy: Yes.
20:46:24 * nb didn't realize we wanted regions to select candidates
20:46:30 * nb thought we were going to do it similar to an election?
20:46:32 <bexelbie[m]> It felt well communicated. I believe NA discussed it and wanted nb :)
20:46:34 <jwf> * selecting candidates when a candidate
20:46:40 <x3mboy> So APAC have skamath in the nominations
20:46:45 <jwf> bexelbie[m]: Maybe it's me but this is blind-siding me
20:46:58 <jwf> I did not know that expectation was in place
20:47:27 <jwf> I also have been unable to attend NA meetings in the last month
20:47:32 <jwf> To be fair
20:47:45 <bexelbie[m]> It’s blind siding me from the other side ...
20:47:59 <jwf> I also see other NA candidates listed on the nomination page which leads me to think it wasn't decided
20:48:24 * robyduck reads back
20:49:06 <x3mboy> But we actually don't need every region to be represented. As hard as it can sound, there are 2 seats and 4 regions
20:49:17 <bexelbie[m]> I’ve seen conversations in NA. I thought I saw them in LATAM
20:49:17 <jwf> From my POV… on one hand, the Ambassadors are a valuable part of Mindshare Committee because the scope of our work includes them. On the other hand, I think there is confusion about what the plan is to select these candidates, so I feel that this would be a topic best discussed at the FAD itself.
20:49:41 <x3mboy> From my side, I play devil's advocate in any team I participate, so Latam it's indeed represented in Mindshare
20:49:50 <bexelbie[m]> APAC is struggling in general recently and I assumed robyduck and others were talking in EMEA. I didn’t follow up though.
20:49:55 <robyduck> we are not thinking anymore about regions, so if an ambassador is from India or Colombia, that should not matter at all
20:50:07 <x3mboy> bexelbie[m], yes, both Latam candidates were elected on Latam's meeting
20:50:38 * robyduck also feels we should not decide representatives for the Mindshare committee, sounds like a conflict of interests
20:50:59 <jwf> x3mboy: I also think two Ambassador reps is helpful to add perspective to the work we do and also keep us connected to the Ambassadors. One of the blockers with FOSCo was too much representation, and I think two people is enough.
20:51:03 <robyduck> but we need to help here and decide a solution to make this selection happen
20:51:16 <nb> I think we should take nominations, and then have an election open to members of the ambassadors group
20:51:27 <nb> candidates must be members of ambassadors, and voters must be members of ambassadors
20:51:29 <bexelbie[m]> So in some ways we have reps but not as separate people. I think we should discuss this at the FAD but i don’t see it, initially, it as a blocker.
20:51:40 <nb> but i don't think this has to be done before the FAD
20:51:44 <x3mboy> jwf, totally agree
20:52:19 <x3mboy> +1 to nb idea
20:52:34 <x3mboy> Take it to an election and decide it after the FAD
20:52:39 <robyduck> what about setting up the voting machine and let vote just ambassadors?
20:52:45 <nb> robyduck, that is what i am suggesting
20:52:52 <x3mboy> LOL
20:53:01 <robyduck> hmm, I didn't arrive until your lines...sorry
20:53:05 <nb> oh ok
20:53:35 <x3mboy> But nb already have a seat, so one cadidate out
20:53:36 <robyduck> I think we don't have many other options, although it is not ideal, but why not
20:53:38 <jwf> I am strongly biased towards holding this discussion until the FAD, even though it does block Ambassador reps filling the seats until then. The reason why I prefer to wait until FAD is from discussion that happened in the CommOps FAD about the elections. I'm wondering if elections are the most effective way to keep this body productive.
20:54:03 <nb> jwf, what sort of discussions?
20:54:07 <jwf> Maybe we decide elections are best after all, but I think it's something that deserves a longer meeting topic or in-person face-time.
20:54:52 <x3mboy> So basically all of us are agreed with electing it after FAD, in any way that they will be elected, Am I right?
20:55:02 <nb> i think elections are good, because they represent the community as a whole, and plus, it's only 2 of the representatives that are elected from the whole project. the others are selected by each team
20:55:11 <robyduck> I would prefer to have them at the FAD
20:55:12 <jwf> nb: We caught up with jkurik and picked his brain about how elections have worked in Fedora over the years. We discussed indicators to evaluate what makes an election successful or not. We also discussed the idea of appointments over elections.
20:55:27 <jwf> It was a lot to think about, enough to make me hesitant to jump immediately to an election as a solution
20:55:41 <jwf> We could still decide an election makes the most sense, but I don't want to rush this decision
20:56:09 <jwf> I'm also hoping to include this in the CommOps FAD report
20:56:14 <jwf> Coming Soon™
20:56:16 <nb> robyduck, to have discussion at the FAD? or to have the amb reps at the FAD?
20:56:35 <robyduck> nb: to have ambassador reps at the FAD
20:57:00 * nb thinks it may be too little time to get amb reps picked and see if they can travel and make travel plans for them before the FAD
20:57:00 <robyduck> they are the biggest group within mindshare
20:57:04 <nb> but if we could, then that would be nice
20:57:45 <x3mboy> That could be an idea: From the cadidates whick ones can make it to the FAD? So they are selected
20:57:52 <x3mboy> which*
20:58:19 <jwf> robyduck: I am also hesitant to rush this decision because I want to make sure we decide on whatever criteria we go through with in a transparent and public way. A lot of people have opinions and I am cautious to make anyone confused on how the Ambassador reps were selected, even it's something that seems obvious or apparent to us
20:58:48 <jwf> Whatever we do, we should communicate the decision clearly. I am unsure if we can do it before the FAD since we're also trying to get other logistics together for the committee, like finding a meeting time
20:59:37 <robyduck> jwf: totally agree, but I also wouldn't discuss this to death. There are 8 candidates, 2 of them can represent ambassadors.
21:00:01 <jwf> Finding a meeting time is theoretically simple but also really, really hard. :P So I see other things taking our time to get us off the ground
21:00:21 <robyduck> Can we take this to pagure and see if we find a proper way? Meeting time is almost over
21:00:29 <robyduck> and jwf has to run, right?
21:00:37 * jsmith has to run
21:00:39 <bexelbie[m]> I’m concerned about visas and airfare. Not good reasons to exclude but real issues.
21:00:40 <jwf> robyduck: I don't want to discuss it to death either but we also need to communicate our decision too, and I am cautious about doing it the right way
21:00:45 <jwf> Ah, yeah, I lost track of time
21:00:49 <jwf> I do need to jump off, sorry!
21:01:02 <robyduck> ok
21:01:33 <robyduck> #action robyduck opening a pagure ticket to discuss a proper way for selecting ambassadors representatives
21:01:37 <nb> robyduck, is there any airport better than another to arrive at?
21:01:45 <nb> looks like milan and venice are the most economical
21:02:10 <bexelbie[m]> That’s why we’re picking those nb
21:02:19 <robyduck> #info rep for web and design will probably be mleonova, just FYI, this came out from a design meeting and emails between me and Mairin
21:02:19 <bexelbie[m]> Ticket prices have gotten bad in the last three days
21:02:37 <robyduck> nb: cheapest flights will go to Venice or Milan
21:02:50 <robyduck> Venice is easier to get to Bolzano
21:03:12 <robyduck> but both work
21:03:57 <x3mboy> We're off time
21:04:13 <bexelbie[m]> The docs fad overlap is using Milan because Venice is pricey
21:04:17 <bexelbie[m]> The budget for this is at its max now
21:04:22 <bexelbie[m]> And I don’t even have housing estimates yet
21:04:25 <robyduck> closing in 2
21:04:54 <nb> is a 2hr connection at CDG enough?
21:05:10 <nb> bexelbie[m], looksl ike my ticket will be $1700-$1800 either way, venice or milan, so i will probably do milan
21:05:14 <robyduck> nb: yes, you can even go to eat something with 2 hours
21:05:24 <nb> paula sent me an itenerary, but it was for leaving on the 3rd, so that won't work
21:05:34 <nb> or no, 3rd is right
21:05:37 <bexelbie[m]> Yes nb
21:05:38 * nb is all mixed up
21:05:40 * robyduck is closing the meeting, we can go on in the mindshare channel
21:05:46 <nb> yeah, /me switches to #fedora-mindshare
21:05:49 <x3mboy> Ok, I need to run too
21:05:51 <x3mboy> Bye guys
21:05:54 <robyduck> #endmeeting