18:02:22 <jsmith> #startmeeting Fedora Board Meeting
18:02:22 <zodbot> Meeting started Fri Aug 13 18:02:22 2010 UTC.  The chair is jsmith. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
18:02:22 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
18:03:18 <jsmith> #meetingname Fedora Board
18:03:18 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fedora_board'
18:03:35 <jsmith> #topic Introduction
18:03:42 <jsmith> Just by way of announcements...
18:04:04 <jsmith> mdomsch is on a plane flight right now, and won't be able to join us for today's meeting
18:04:34 <jsmith> We're going to go ahead and start today's meeting with general questions and answers from the community
18:04:51 <jsmith> I kindly ask that you follow the protocol listed at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board_public_IRC_meetings
18:05:11 <jsmith> We need a member of the board to volunteer to be the moderator -- any volunteers?
18:05:19 <jsmith> (If not, I'll do the duty)
18:05:30 <rdieter> i can
18:05:35 <jsmith> Thanks rdieter
18:05:40 * spot is here too
18:05:48 <spot> assuming my laptop doesn't turn itself off. again.
18:06:04 <jsmith> In general, "?" means you'd like to ask a question, "!" means you'd like to comment on the current question, and "eof" means you're done talking
18:06:13 <jsmith> Please wait for the moderator to signal that it's your turn to speak
18:06:18 <stickster> ?
18:06:22 <jsmith> Any questions on the protocol before we get started?
18:06:40 <jsmith> stickster: Go ahead!
18:06:42 <inode0> you didn't follow the protocol :)
18:06:51 <rdieter> stickster: (ha), go ahead.
18:06:57 <stickster> :-) Is there any time limit on Q&A today?
18:06:58 <stickster> eof
18:07:10 <smooge> !
18:07:12 <EvilBob> !
18:07:16 <rdieter> smooge:
18:07:20 <jsmith> We typically do about 40 minutes of Q&A, to leave a few minutes for other board business
18:07:37 <smooge> I would prefer no longer than 8 minutes per question so we can do at least 5 questions.
18:07:47 <jsmith> Sounds fair
18:07:48 <smooge> EOF
18:07:58 <rdieter> EvilBob:
18:08:00 <EvilBob> I would like to thank the board for this change of format of the meetings. EOF
18:08:05 <jjmcd> ?
18:08:10 <jsmith> You're most welcome, EvilBob
18:08:26 <jsmith> We're still in experimentation phase, but we'll see how things go this week
18:08:31 <rdieter> jjmcd: your question
18:08:34 <jjmcd> In view of our recent slip, is the board as passionate as poelcat about learning how to keep a schedule? <eof>
18:08:51 <jsmith> I certainly am very sensitive to it
18:09:01 <jsmith> I don't like seeing the schedule slip
18:09:13 <jds2001> I'm sensitive to it,  but the reality is that things come up :(
18:09:22 <jsmith> At the same time, I don't like shipping something simply because we reached a date on the calendar
18:09:40 <smooge> ?!
18:09:41 <jsmith> There's got to be some human judgment on what the right balance is between those two
18:09:54 <jsmith> I think our Go/No-go meetings give that right balance
18:10:18 <rdieter> question about moderating, should we be moderating board members too, or are we all fair game to speak any time?
18:10:27 <jsmith> No, board members can just yell out :-)
18:10:33 <jsmith> (Otherwise, we'll be too slow)
18:10:35 <rdieter> ok, good.  I agree
18:11:02 <rdieter> #topic <jjmcd> In view of our recent slip, is the board as passionate as poelcat about learning how to keep a schedule?
18:11:18 <jsmith> #chair rdieter
18:11:18 <zodbot> Current chairs: jsmith rdieter
18:11:19 <mizmo> (just so you know i'm writing up a blog summary of this meeting as it goes along)
18:11:26 <jsmith> Thanks mizmo
18:11:30 <jsmith> #topic <jjmcd> In view of our recent slip, is the board as passionate as poelcat about learning how to keep a schedule?
18:11:31 <rdieter> mizmo: awesome
18:11:48 <smooge> I am rather inured to slippages. The installer has always been a last minute OMG we forgot that
18:12:31 <jsmith> smooge: Yes, but the installer is a pretty complex piece of software, too -- I think it would be unfair to "blame" the installer or its developers
18:12:33 <smooge> however I do expect engineering/qa/release management to try innovative ways to get around it
18:12:48 <jds2001> i would almost propose that anaconda freeze earlier or something - most slippage is anaconda.
18:12:50 <rdieter> I agree, anaconda is almost always highlighted for blockers, and schedules are often captive to getting those bugs fixed
18:12:54 <jsmith> The installer often has to adjust to many of the other changes that happen in the distro
18:12:55 <jds2001> but that gets us in fesco domain.
18:12:55 <mizmo> the installer guys work really hard but the problem is we have no distro without a working installer so they are less able to make mistakes than the rest of package maintainers
18:13:03 <smooge> jsmith, oh maybe I used the wrong word.. I wasn't blaming it as much as asaying "It is what it is"
18:13:11 <jds2001> which is precisely where hte board should not be.
18:13:15 <jsmith> Sure, I think we all recognize that the installer plays a vital role
18:13:43 <jsmith> I have to give kudos to the anaconda folks though -- they went out of their way to try to help us get things in shape
18:13:57 <jds2001> oh, they're great, make no mistake :)
18:14:07 <smooge> the installer has been and always will be an NP problem.
18:14:45 <smooge> and it will always have things that will come up of "Oh dear dog I thought I put that in last month? Oh it was for X-1.0 and this is X1.1
18:14:55 <jsmith> jjmcd: In short, I'm more concerned about whether or not we're learning from schedule slips than the actual slip itself.
18:14:56 <walters> (here, apologies for being late)
18:15:06 <jsmith> walters: No worries
18:15:07 <mizmo> i think we're over 8 min on the question now
18:15:12 <jsmith> Next question!
18:15:58 <mizmo> i have a question but i dont know if i can ask it being on the board hehe
18:16:04 <jsmith> mizmo: Absolutely!
18:16:22 <EvilBob> ?
18:16:23 <mizmo> i was wondering if we can work on a vision statement for fedora, because i think a lot of conflict in our project stems from not having a clear vision
18:16:54 <jsmith> mizmo: Absolutely... It's one of the things I'd personally like to work on over the next month or two
18:17:04 <rdieter> #topic <mizmo> i was wondering if we can work on a vision statement for fedora ...
18:17:09 <jsmith> I certainly have my own vision of what I think Fedora is and should be
18:17:30 <jsmith> but I want to work with all the key stakeholders (the board, steering committees, etc.)
18:17:38 <jsmith> to make sure we're all working in concert with each other
18:17:50 <rbergeron> ?
18:17:56 <smooge> I wanted to say that it has been on my mind. I ahve been reading various books and wondering about the various 'vission/mission statements"
18:18:24 <smooge> so I would like to help as long as I keep my prose down from 20 pages to summary
18:18:25 <jsmith> In general though, I think we're probably closer to agreement on "vision statement/strategy" and less in agreement on "tactics"
18:18:37 <mizmo> i would disagree with that
18:18:55 <mizmo> there's definitely a consumer camp and a for-techies camp
18:19:01 <mizmo> that do not always see eye-to-eye
18:19:28 <jsmith> Sure... but I'll be honest, I don't think it's a zero-sum game
18:19:35 <jds2001> the real goal is somewhere in the middle of that....
18:19:45 <jds2001> the previous boards have come up with something
18:19:59 <jds2001> not saying that we shouldn't revisit it, but this has been done.
18:20:07 <mizmo> that's target audience though, vision is what you do with it
18:20:15 <mizmo> the techie camp sees fedora as a bucket of parts
18:20:27 <mizmo> the consumer camp a polished desktop experience
18:20:35 <mizmo> techie camp sees more emphasis on development tools
18:20:37 <jsmith> I'm gonna be honest -- I'm not treating anything (well, OK... maybe anything except the four freedoms) as sacred things that can't be revisited/discussed
18:20:44 <jds2001> well, it has to be a bucket of parts that can be put together :)
18:20:55 <mizmo> but do you call it abucket of parts
18:21:08 <mizmo> or have a bucket of parts and call that a standard / ABI / SDK
18:21:17 <mizmo> language is really important and we're lazy with ours
18:21:23 <jds2001> yes and no. The default configuration should be a put together bucket.
18:21:24 <mizmo> fedora is a community, a desktop, a bucket of parts - it's too confusing
18:21:28 <inode0> !
18:21:30 <mizmo> see we disagree :)
18:21:46 <rdieter> inode0:
18:21:46 <jds2001> but if you just want the pieces, you should be able to do that too :)
18:21:59 <mizmo> sure, but maybe give it a separate term so you're not confusing folks
18:22:08 <mizmo> also, we need to know which one gets top priority
18:22:11 <inode0> since Fedora is a community, this sort of thing might be worked on by the community rather than the board to begin with
18:22:36 <mmcgrath> inode0: the community has no facility to make decisions
18:22:36 <smooge> how?
18:22:44 <rdieter> mizmo: I would agree terminology needs to be improved
18:23:10 <inode0> the community has interested people who can express a vision - so the board doesn't begin with a blank slate and make stuff up :)
18:23:14 <mizmo> (2 minutes left)
18:23:18 <jsmith> inode0: That's not to say we won't take lots of input from the community
18:23:27 <walters> i'll just say i'm here to put together a coherent whole, and have always found it something appealing about fedora (as opposed to say Debian)
18:23:37 <mmcgrath> inode0: that's not a community, that's individuals suggesting to the board (which they're welcome to do)
18:23:40 <mizmo> +1 to walters
18:23:45 <jds2001> inode0: the board is a cross-section of the community (and fairly represenative, i think.....)
18:23:50 <jsmith> inode0: but in general, the governance model of Fedora makes it difficult for the community as a whole to agree on these sorts of issues
18:23:51 <inode0> mmcgrath: follow protocol
18:23:56 <mizmo> like jared said it's not a zero-sum game though
18:24:02 <mmcgrath> ugh, there's reading I have to do ehh?
18:24:28 <jsmith> mmcgrath: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board_public_IRC_meetings
18:24:44 * inode0 suggests another review of how the wikipedia people do this sort of thing
18:24:45 <jsmith> One more minute on this question, and then we'll move on
18:24:54 <val-l> +1 walters
18:25:18 <mizmo> i'm looking forward to working on it
18:25:21 <mizmo> i feel like i've been waiting a while :)
18:25:29 * ctyler joins, thinking he's half hour early for 3pm meeting, facepalms to realize it's a 2pm -- my apologies
18:25:42 <jsmith> inode0: Would you be willing to write a post on the advisory-board mailing list about how Wikipedia does things?
18:26:10 * inode0 will see that someone does although rbergeron understands their process better
18:26:20 <jsmith> And anybody else for that matter -- feel free to bring these sorts of things up on the list
18:26:31 * jsmith would like to see more discussion on that list, fwiw
18:26:37 <rbergeron> !
18:26:39 * jds2001 too
18:26:47 <mizmo> it's deifnitely been really difficult
18:26:49 <rdieter> rbergeron:
18:26:50 <mizmo> to do the fedora website redesign
18:26:51 * rbergeron would be happy to summarize that
18:26:52 <rbergeron> :)
18:26:54 <mizmo> without having a vision laid out for fedora
18:27:15 <caillon> there's also a study which was posted a bit ago that helps outline the wikipedia stuff.  there are things to take away from it.
18:28:15 <rdieter> can we move on?  we've got a couple of queue'd questions now.
18:28:22 <jsmith> OK... moving on.
18:28:32 <rdieter> EvilBob: your question
18:28:33 <EvilBob> What is the board's opinion on using something like systemd that as I understand it is still being coded this close to a release? Shouldn't core code be a bit more mature before inclusion? systemd is but an example. I know this is mainly a FESCo thing but surely the board has an opinion.
18:28:37 <EvilBob> OEF
18:28:41 <EvilBob> EOF
18:29:08 <jsmith> Yeah, that's more of a FESCo decision
18:29:10 <rdieter> #topic <EvilBob> What is the board's opinion on using something like systemd that as I understand it is still being coded this close to a release? Shouldn't core code be a bit more mature before inclusion?  ...
18:29:22 <spot> my opinion is that FESCo is free to make that call. ;)
18:29:26 <jsmith> I certainly have my own opinions about it, but I'm not sure how relevant they are in a Board meeting
18:29:29 <stickster> !
18:29:33 <rdieter> stickster:
18:29:35 <jsmith> I'd be happy to share personal opinions offline
18:29:35 <jds2001> this is purely a fesco matter, but remember that one of the four Foundations is "first".
18:30:06 <stickster> I saw that jsmith posted something to the devel list saying he would like to see FESCo taking a more active role in tracking/managing technical development in Fedora
18:30:07 <mizmo> since we dont have a vision who knows if fesco's policy on the matter meets it :-/
18:30:36 <smooge> I believe it is a fesco matter but I understand mizmo's point of view
18:30:38 <jsmith> In general though, my attitude is that sometimes you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet.  Let's just be careful about how we break the eggs.
18:30:52 <stickster> eof
18:30:52 <mizmo> it should be the board's job to decide the vision to help fesco make the right call for fedora
18:31:10 <stickster> ?
18:31:18 <ctyler> separating 'first' and 'on fire' can be a challenge
18:31:19 <rdieter> jsmith: and to balance who many eggs we're willing to break to get there
18:31:20 <EvilBob> !
18:31:30 <jsmith> rdieter: Yes...
18:31:34 <rdieter> EvilBob:
18:31:54 <EvilBob> In this case if it blows up in "our" face it will reflect on the board
18:32:19 <jsmith> Sure... all decisions reflect on Fedora as a whole, and on the governance in particular
18:32:25 <rdieter> stickster:
18:32:27 <jsmith> I think we all realize that
18:32:27 <EvilBob> That being the case the board should have an opinion IMO rather than passing the buck.
18:32:39 <EvilBob> EOF
18:33:24 <jsmith> EvilBob: Please understand -- I'm not playing "pass the buck"
18:33:30 <jsmith> EvilBob: The buck stops here.
18:33:31 <rdieter> the buck stops here obviously, so it's in all of our interests that core tech pieces do not fail
18:34:01 <stickster> I realized my statement was leading to a question and I didn't indicate that properly. :-) jsmith: Can you elaborate on how you envision that expanded role for FESCo?  What's an example or two of roles/actions you think FESCo could take up for technical management?
18:34:07 <jsmith> EvilBob: That being said, they're the ones tasked with making the judgment calls on technical features, and whether they're ready or not for inclusion.
18:34:24 <stickster> eof
18:34:36 <jsmith> Sure...
18:34:47 <EvilBob> jsmith: and if the board sees them making a potential serious mistake it is just allowed to pass?
18:34:52 <EvilBob> oops
18:35:11 <rdieter> so, in that regard, if we, as the board, see fesco flying down to fail-ville, it's our job to step in to help right the ship
18:35:16 <jsmith> EvilBob: The Board can obviously go back to FESCo and overrule them, etc.
18:35:25 <jsmith> stickster: To answer your question...
18:35:26 <inode0> ?
18:35:46 <jsmith> One of the hard things FESCo has to do is say "yay" or "nay" on the new features
18:35:48 <nirik> !
18:35:53 <jds2001> just as if the board heads to fail-ville, it's jsmith's job to right that ship.
18:35:57 <EvilBob> jsmith that statement is what I was looking for I guess. Thank you.
18:36:00 <jsmith> A couple of things I would like to see include:
18:36:02 <jds2001> hopefully that will never occur.
18:36:02 <rdieter> nirik:
18:36:06 <EvilBob> We can move on IMO
18:36:37 <jsmith> 1) Making things more clear as to what constitutes a features being "100%" ready or "90%" ready
18:36:49 <jsmith> It's not always clear what that means
18:37:03 <nirik> I would just like to note that FESCo holds all it's meetings in public on tuesday afternoons. Feel free to bring concerns up there or in a ticket to fesco. If there are widespread fears about systemd, please provide TECHNICAL feedback to help fesco decide about it.
18:37:19 <nirik> eof
18:37:25 <rdieter> nirik: indeed, thanks.
18:37:48 <smooge> I think that to be innovative we are going to need to have a VERY high bar for thinking something is going to be FAILville. FESCO is an open body and not a cabal.
18:38:10 <jsmith> The other thing I would suggest (not really relevant to this discussion) is to make it clear which types of things should go through the "features" process, and which types of things can just be added as package updates (or new packages)
18:38:23 <mizmo> smooge, but that's not a great position to have if say having a usable consumer desktop is important
18:38:47 <smooge> because I know  people who would want us to overrule everything til we got back to RHL-6.2 because its all been fail since then
18:39:08 <rdieter> ok, let's move on to the next question, rbergeron ?
18:39:20 * jsmith notes that we're past our eight minutes, but would love to continue this dicussion on the advisory-board list, and with FESCo :-)
18:40:15 <rbergeron> :)
18:40:35 <jsmith> rbergeron: Go ahead and ask your question
18:40:42 <rdieter> rbergeron: did you have a question, or did I goof?
18:40:45 <rbergeron> My question is: We are asking a lot of questions in this public meeting - not all of them will be answered or agreed on as far as concensus in an 8-minute period.
18:40:49 <rbergeron> no, i was typing
18:40:54 <rbergeron> and i'm going to continue to type
18:41:35 <rbergeron> Is it possible for us to keep track of these questions and make sure they are answered somewhere - or at least given a timeline for actions to be taken - so as to not have an hour of opinionating? :)
18:41:55 <jsmith> In general, discussion should happen on the advisory-board list
18:42:09 <jsmith> I prefer to use board meeting time for answering questions and making the tough decisions
18:42:26 <rdieter> #topic <rbergeron> We are asking a lot of questions in this public meeting ... possible for us to keep track of these questions and make sure they are answered somewhere ?
18:42:28 <jsmith> I'm sure others who have much more experience on the board than I do may see things differently
18:43:00 <rbergeron> Can we perhaps follow up the meeting with what the consensus answer is to questions asked?
18:43:19 <mizmo> i dont think irc is a great place to make heavy decisions
18:43:27 <jsmith> Yes, there will always be discussion in the board meetings, and that's healthy... but not everybody can attend the board meetings in real time
18:43:45 <mizmo> not in this format, there should be an agenda if its to make decisions
18:43:56 <jsmith> Correct
18:44:19 <stickster> !
18:44:26 <rdieter> stickster:
18:45:27 <jsmith> rbergeron: One of the things I'm looking at is a better tool for keeping track of the questions asked and the answers presented, so that I don't have to keep answering the same questions all the time :-)
18:45:41 * jsmith notes that we're about out of time for Q&A
18:46:02 <stickster> This forum was conceived as a way to make sure community members know Board members are listening to their ad-hoc concerns. It's always easier to capture an action from that when the question leads directly to a decision point, like "How do we collect data to figure out if ___ is a problem?" or "What should we do to make $PROCESS work better?"
18:46:21 <rdieter> sorry, moderator fail, had one more question queued (inode)
18:46:32 <stickster> Oops, sorry inode0 -- I'll finish quickly
18:46:44 <mizmo> how does the agenda for board meetings that are not Q&A get determined
18:46:55 <mizmo> these Q&A sessions should have an affect on that agenda
18:47:02 * mizmo notes she's a new board member and really has no idea
18:47:54 <rdieter> mizmo: ask jsmith to add it to the agenda, is usually all it takes.  doesn't necessarily have to be a board member asking either
18:47:56 <stickster> mizmo: That was part of how I set the agenda in the FPL role -- also input on the advisory-board, and specific situations that come up elsewhere in the Project where it seemed the Board was needed or could be useful
18:47:56 <jsmith> mizmo: Yes, the agenda comes from items brought up in the advisory board list, as well as other things brought to my attention
18:47:59 <stickster> eof
18:48:23 <jsmith> mizmo: If you have items you'd like on the agenda, please let me know -- I accept patches :-)
18:48:44 <mizmo> i seems like robyn's indicating a lack of followup
18:49:00 <mizmo> or maybe a worry about a lack of followup
18:49:31 <jsmith> I think that's a fair concern
18:49:31 <mizmo> is there a wiki page where the running agenda is stored?
18:49:38 <mizmo> it's hard to submit a patch without the code :)
18:49:59 <jsmith> mizmo: I usually build it from Trac tickets with the "meeting" keyword
18:50:03 * jsmith thinks that's the right one
18:50:16 <rbergeron> I am just saying - if there is something to be answered, can we call out the clear answer - if there is something to be followed up on, can we please define it, and get a timeline, or at least have someone responsible in the meeting for kicking off that followup on the advisory board list. Just for these public IRC q&a's - It's one hour, and we have a lot of community members, and I'd like to see that time well-used, questions answered
18:50:18 <jsmith> Board members can obviously create tickets with that keyword to get them on the agenda
18:50:27 <rbergeron> EOF :)
18:50:41 <jsmith> rbergeron: Yes, I've started investigating tools that will help with that
18:50:51 * jsmith hopes to have a better answer in the future
18:51:19 <stickster> !
18:51:22 <rdieter> stickster:
18:51:37 <stickster> In the meantime, I know mizmo has been putting a lot of work into her blog summaries (thank you for that mizmo!)
18:51:57 <stickster> Those could make a good guide for producing whatever's necessary to track something to conclusion.
18:52:27 <mizmo> if you want when i post them i can file and reference trac tickets
18:52:34 <mizmo> for any topics that didn't conclude
18:52:47 <jds2001> problem is the trac tickets are private
18:52:47 <jsmith> mizmo: That'd be great!
18:52:47 <rdieter> good idea, *like*
18:52:50 <stickster> eof
18:52:52 <rdieter> oh, doh
18:53:03 <mizmo> but can the trac tickets be referenced publicly?
18:53:16 <jds2001> sure, no one would be able to view them, though
18:53:47 <mizmo> i guess i can post the ticket # people can mention when asking about the issue
18:53:47 <jsmith> Again, I don't think we need to answer the technical decision of "how" in this meeting
18:53:55 <rdieter> can we squeeze in one more question?  or was there other board business for today?
18:53:59 <jsmith> But I think we've certainly answered the "why"
18:54:08 <jsmith> rdieter: Go ahead!  But let's make it quick.
18:54:15 <rdieter> inode0: your question please.
18:54:19 <inode0> I see several negative effects of Red Hat retaining structural control over the composition of the Fedora Board. What benefit does the Fedora Project get from this arrangement? Would anyone on the Board be in favor of transitioning the rest of the appointed seats to elected seats over the next few releases?
18:54:20 * jsmith had two or three other things he'd like to mention after the A&A
18:54:25 <jsmith> Q&A, that is
18:54:41 <spot> jsmith: i have a hard stop at 3, but feel free to continue w/o me
18:54:55 <rdieter> #topic <inode0> I see several negative effects of Red Hat retaining structural control over the composition of the Fedora Board. What benefit does the Fedora Project get from this arrangement?
18:55:17 <rdieter> inode0: can you describe the negative effects to which you refer?
18:55:20 * spot is unsure what negative effects you're referring to
18:55:20 <jds2001> inode0: please expound on these "negative effects"
18:55:25 <inode0> ok
18:55:30 <jsmith> inode0: In general, it's all up for discussion.  Red Hat obviously puts a lot of resources into Fedora, and wants to see that its resources are used wisely.  That being said, I'm open to discussion.
18:55:50 <inode0> 1 - prominent community members declined to run for the board and this was one reason given
18:56:19 <spot> inode0: really? aside from kkofler, i didn't hear that from anyone.
18:56:30 <inode0> 2 - it reinforces the view (right or wrong) both inside and outside the Fedora family that Red Hat exerts a lot of control over the project
18:57:15 <jds2001> as for 2, keep i mind that I'm appointed and not a "puppet" of RHT in any way, shape, or form.
18:58:00 <inode0> 3 - it confuses at least me in understanding the relationship between Red Hat and Fedora (are we upstream with Red Hat as an important participator, or is the community participating in an internal Red Hat project)
18:58:02 <rdieter> I forget, how many appointed seats are there at the moment ?
18:58:03 <inode0> eof
18:58:09 <spot> i think RHT has done an admirable job with the last several round of appointments, and I also think it is a nice way to reflect Red Hat's investment and involvement in Fedora.
18:58:10 <caillon> rdieter, 4 appointed, 5 elected
18:58:19 <jsmith> I'll be honest here -- Red Hat pays my salary, but I still feel like an outsider looking in.
18:58:40 <DiscordianUK> !
18:58:40 <smooge> for #1 I think that it does not have a large effect because because those same people either don't run for FESCO or think its too political.
18:58:45 <rdieter> DiscordianUK:
18:58:53 <brunowolff> !
18:59:08 * spot hates to comment and run, but i really can't stay
18:59:08 <DiscordianUK> I think for example CentOS regards Fedora as upstream EOF
18:59:15 <jsmith> spot: Go ahead
18:59:17 <spot> this would be an interesting thread for the mailing list.
18:59:40 <jsmith> DiscordianUK: Yes, I think that's a pretty good generalization.
18:59:53 <rdieter> personally, I would consider the project leader and board chair position appointment to be "enough", but that's just me
18:59:53 <inode0> !
19:00:03 <smooge> for #2 making it 100% elected would not change the view that Red Hat does not exert lots of influence on the project because well it pays for pretty much everything
19:00:04 <rdieter> brunowolff:
19:00:14 <walters> inode0: a large amount of "influence" i'd agree with, and it's hard to avoid when the company invests as much as it does in terms of people and money; as far as "control", let me assure you there's no evil master plan
19:00:26 <brunowolff> I think that being able to fork Fedora is more important than the board membership.
19:00:27 <stickster> !
19:00:39 <jsmith> smooge: And it's not just money either -- it also employs many of the people who write the software, package it up, etc.
19:00:49 <brunowolff> And I have been seeing improvement along those lines throughout Fedora's history.
19:00:58 <smooge> jsmith, I consider that money :)
19:00:58 <caillon> jsmith, and infrastructure
19:01:21 <smooge> but I have a completely capitalistic view on things at times  :)
19:01:23 <brunowolff> That says to me that Redhat is guaranting their future behavior. EOF
19:01:33 <rdieter> though, appointees are a good way to balance out effects of the elections.  hows that for my firmly sitting on the fence
19:01:41 <rdieter> inode0: go
19:01:55 <inode0> I want to just make two quick points
19:02:43 <inode0> 1 - there are respected and very valued contributors who aren't running because they don't feel the board can ever really change from one view to another because of this structural constraint
19:03:25 <caillon> so, I think that #2 is still okay, because with all elected seats, it is possible (and honestly, not beyond the realm of possibility) to get a board full of Red Hat employees.  with appointments, that is unlikely to happen
19:03:35 <inode0> 2 - there is really no evidence that the composition of the board would look much different whether it was entirely appointed by the FPL or entirely elected - so this is I think more about perception in the short term
19:03:38 <inode0> EOF
19:03:51 <smooge> #3 is tied to #2. and needs to be clarified as I know various people get confused about it (and you get the Fedora is a people's collective chained to the man that is Red Hat)
19:03:56 <rdieter> stickster: go
19:04:39 <rdieter> the perception that nothing ever can or will change is saddening to me.
19:04:57 <stickster> I was going to say something else, but inode0, your new #2 seems to be directly contrary to the basis you laid down for your earlier question. I can't tell whether you were asking them because you felt one way, or the other.
19:05:09 <ke4qqq> !
19:05:19 <jsmith> Me as well... and I don't think we've done a good job historically of telling the relationship between Fedora and Red Hat.
19:05:19 <stickster> s/question/questions/
19:05:32 <stickster> jsmith: I have to say, I disagree with that. :-)
19:05:48 <jsmith> stickster: See -- I'm already changing things :-p
19:05:53 <stickster> :-)
19:05:54 * jds2001 too.
19:06:12 <rdieter> ke4qqq: go ahead
19:06:35 <ke4qqq> I wonder if some of those problems couldn't be mitigated with term limits. EOF
19:06:42 <inode0> Removing the structural control of the composition of the board would empower the community to *actually* reform the board if it felt that was needed
19:07:00 <caillon> stickster, I think that we've done a good job, but if the misperceptions are still going around, we probably didn't do it well enough.  :-)
19:07:11 <inode0> That empowerment would change the way the community views the board.
19:07:22 <smooge> inode0, that would require an elective that is interested in voting or forced voting.
19:07:39 <smooge> because basically too many people DON'T vote to make a difference
19:08:10 <jsmith> ke4qqq: Which problems in specific are you referring to?
19:08:19 <rdieter> it obviously goes both ways.  voting apathy <==> perception about not making a difference
19:09:04 <jsmith> As always, I think these would be great topics to bring up on the advisory-board mailing list.
19:09:05 <ke4qqq> jsmith: specifically inode0's original #1 - but also his second #1
19:09:31 <jsmith> I can't speak for the rest of the board, but I'm certainly open to suggestions on how we can make Fedora stronger
19:10:00 * jds2001 is too
19:10:22 * inode0 suggests making the board elected :)
19:10:32 <rdieter> I'd like to at least consider the idea proposed, about reducing the number of appointed seats... sometime over the next few months
19:10:48 <rdieter> note: we're over time on this topic now too, should probably move on if there's other stuff to do today.
19:10:57 <inode0> thanks
19:11:01 <jsmith> OK... in the interest of time, let's move the discussion to the list
19:11:20 <jsmith> #topic Updates
19:11:50 <jsmith> As everyone is probably aware, we had our Go/No-Go meeting and the Alpha release candidate did not pass the release criteria
19:12:01 <jsmith> The schedule has been pushed back a week
19:12:53 <jsmith> I see that there's active discussion on the lists about how to improve the process, and as long as we're learning from our slips, we're making progress
19:13:07 <jsmith> #topic Other Board Business
19:13:28 * jds2001 is on the failboat
19:13:40 <jsmith> In last week's board meeting, I asked each of the board members to go through the list of board tickets in our private Trac instance and see what tickets can be closed
19:13:46 <jsmith> There are a number of items that are in limbo
19:13:50 <jds2001> i didnt get a chance to go throug tickets :(
19:14:10 <jsmith> I didn't see much action on that front this week, so I'm going to make an extra effort this week to close as many as possible
19:14:31 <jsmith> I especially need the input of people who have been on the board for a while, as you're probably more in-touch with some of these issues than I am.
19:14:39 <jsmith> 'nuff said on that topic
19:15:03 <jsmith> Any other topics from the Board that need to be discussed?
19:16:14 <mizmo> the private stuff maybe
19:16:18 <smooge> not from me at the moment. my posting will be to the list when I cut out War and Peace from it
19:16:20 <mizmo> what we decided to do there
19:16:23 <mizmo> its on advisory-board list tho
19:16:25 <mizmo> so maybe not
19:16:42 <mizmo> but it was in response to a concern brought up in one of these meetings i think
19:17:05 <jsmith> Right... In general, I think we were all (or almost all) in favor of your proposal from last week
19:17:44 <jsmith> That we open up private matters after some embargo time, with the possible exception of personnel matters, so as not to embarrass said people
19:18:08 <jsmith> We'll need to work through the details on the list, but in general, I think we're all in favor of more transparency
19:18:28 <rdieter> <nod>
19:19:43 <jsmith> In short, there are times the Board discusses private matters (usually things that would damage relationships if discussed openly -- personnel matters, fiduciary matters, etc.)
19:20:36 <jsmith> We certainly want to be very careful about those things, but in general, there are items that can be revealed publicly at a later time.
19:20:53 <jsmith> Was that a decent summary of what was discussed (just so that everybody knows what we're talking about?)
19:20:59 <mizmo> yep
19:21:45 <jsmith> mizmo graciously accepted the task of helping us to keep track of said items, and I thank her for that
19:21:55 <jsmith> Anything else?
19:22:16 <stickster> ?  (knowing this is not community Q&A)
19:22:29 <jsmith> stickster: Sure... go ahead
19:22:52 <stickster> Do the Board members agree the change in the way the meeting was run was helpful?  Or did it cause obstacles for you?
19:22:55 <stickster> eof
19:23:04 <jsmith> stickster: Ah, good point.
19:23:23 <mizmo> it was much easier to take notes this time
19:23:25 <ctyler> I think it was a good improvement.
19:23:26 <jsmith> I personally thought the change of IRC protocol helped eliminate confusion, but it did lengthen out the conversations
19:23:30 <mizmo> last time it took over an hour to unravel the spaghetti
19:23:35 <mizmo> i'm all caught up at this point
19:23:43 <jsmith> We may need to schedule more time to properly address more questions
19:24:27 <jsmith> (or convince people to ask more questions on the advisory-board list)
19:24:56 <mizmo> askign questions to a mailing list though, there's no guarantee of a response
19:25:02 <mizmo> so i can see why people wouldn't
19:25:14 <mizmo> unless there was some agreement like it'll be gotten to in at least a weeks time or something
19:25:34 <jsmith> mizmo: I think we've been pretty good at responding to questions on the advisory-board list
19:25:58 * jsmith has only been on the list a short while though, so maybe others have a different perspective
19:26:08 <mizmo> well im just saying in general
19:26:15 <mizmo> i dont think the list has been socialized that way
19:26:18 <mizmo> even if it does perform
19:26:21 <rdieter> I liked the format, thought it a fruitful balance of discussion vs organized productivity
19:26:22 <mizmo> fedora lists in general do not
19:26:31 <jsmith> Hopefully we can help change perceptions out there :-)
19:26:57 <mizmo> the list doesnt have a description, nor does it say it's a place you can ask questions https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
19:27:06 <mizmo> i actually wasnt even subscribed to it as a community member until a year or so ago, i didn't know what it was
19:27:10 <jsmith> Point well taken
19:27:12 <mizmo> i thought it was board members only
19:27:19 <jds2001> yeah, but  Ithink it's fair to assume that the list is regualarly tended by the board members.....
19:27:29 <mizmo> if you know what it is :)
19:27:38 <jsmith> #action jsmith to get a better description of the advisory-board list, and blog about it
19:27:46 * jds2001 tried to advertise it earlier.
19:27:56 <rdieter> jds2001: I thought you did good. :)
19:28:16 <mizmo> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board#Contact  <= doesn't say it's a place to ask questions, it says its a place for the board to discuss
19:28:18 <smooge> I figured if it let me post I was ok to post on it... or it was a bug they would have to find to shut me up. But thats probably a poor view
19:28:45 <jsmith> Again, we need to do a better job of getting the word out, then.
19:28:55 <jsmith> Let's use the list to discuss how we can better do that
19:29:16 <jds2001> now we have a meta-list :D
19:29:18 <jsmith> We're already 30 minutes past the hour
19:29:24 <rdieter> mizmo's concerns are valid, having a better description of the list in mailman and on wiki would be definite improvement
19:29:33 <stickster> !
19:29:41 <rdieter> stickster:
19:29:46 <jsmith> rdieter: Absolutely... that's why I said I'd take the action to help rectify that :-)
19:30:03 <stickster> Apparently neither I nor any of the previous FPLs realized this -- I just applied a new description but it can function as filler for whatever you guys would prefer.
19:30:08 <rdieter> oh sorry.. my brain just caught ".... and blog about it". :)
19:30:11 <stickster> eof
19:30:26 <jsmith> stickster: Thanks!
19:31:31 <jsmith> Other concerns?
19:31:55 <brunowolff> !
19:32:15 <jsmith> brunowolff: Go ahead
19:32:25 <brunowolff> I added a comment to the wiki page on questions suggestion people start typing before they get approval and send when they do.
19:32:38 <brunowolff> I think that will speed things up. EOF.
19:32:49 <jsmith> brunowolff: Thanks for doing that!
19:32:50 <jds2001> brunowolff: good idea....
19:33:08 * jsmith loves to see continual improvement
19:33:20 <jsmith> If nobody has anything else in the next two minutes, I'm going to move that we adjourn at that time.
19:33:52 <jsmith> Next meeting will be at this same time next Friday, and will be held over the phone
19:34:04 <walters> sounds good
19:34:12 <jsmith> If I remember correctly, rdieter is assigned to take notes
19:34:23 <jsmith> Again, I'd please ask the board members to go through the list of tickets
19:34:43 <smooge> thank you rdieter for moderating
19:34:45 <jsmith> I'm going to go through them as well, and also create some new tickets for action items from the last couple of meetings
19:34:52 * jsmith is still learning the ropes
19:35:17 <jsmith> Thank you all for coming and sharing and helping us make Fedora better -- I really do appreciate your input
19:36:28 <jsmith> Going once...
19:36:42 <jsmith> Going twice...
19:36:48 <jsmith> I move we adjourn
19:37:01 <jsmith> #endmeeting