17:00:34 <cwickert> #startmeeting FAmSCo 2012-07-16
17:00:34 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon Jul 16 17:00:34 2012 UTC.  The chair is cwickert. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:00:34 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
17:00:40 <cwickert> #meetingname famsco
17:00:40 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'famsco'
17:00:49 <cwickert> #chairs cwickert danielbruno bckurera
17:00:53 <cwickert> #chair cwickert danielbruno bckurera
17:00:53 <zodbot> Current chairs: bckurera cwickert danielbruno
17:00:57 <cwickert> who else is here?
17:01:11 <cwickert> #topic Roll call
17:01:16 <cwickert> .fas cwickert
17:01:16 <zodbot> cwickert: cwickert 'Christoph Wickert' <christoph.wickert@googlemail.com>
17:01:20 <bckurera> .fas bckurera
17:01:20 <zodbot> bckurera: bckurera 'Buddhika Kurera' <bckurera@gmail.com>
17:01:27 <danielbruno> .fas dbruno
17:01:27 <zodbot> danielbruno: dbruno 'Daniel Bruno' <danielbrunos@gmail.com>
17:01:35 <cwickert> #chair aeperezt
17:01:35 <zodbot> Current chairs: aeperezt bckurera cwickert danielbruno
17:01:45 <cwickert> #chair nb
17:01:45 <zodbot> Current chairs: aeperezt bckurera cwickert danielbruno nb
17:01:48 <aeperezt> .fas aeperezt
17:01:49 <zodbot> aeperezt: aeperezt 'Alejandro Perez' <alejandro.perez.torres@gmail.com>
17:02:19 <nb> .fas nick@bebout
17:02:19 <zodbot> nb: nb 'Nick Bebout' <nick@bebout.net>
17:02:50 <cwickert> is the wiki down?
17:03:09 <danielbruno> working fine to me
17:03:17 <bckurera> fine for me too
17:03:24 <aeperezt> working fine for me too
17:04:32 <cwickert> for me it is very slow
17:04:40 <cwickert> so how many are we?
17:04:49 * cwickert counts 5
17:04:57 * nb counts 5
17:05:01 <danielbruno> we're 6
17:05:02 * bckurera 5/7
17:05:11 <danielbruno> ops
17:05:23 * nb sees no clint or jiri
17:05:39 <cwickert> #info aeperezt bckurera cwickert danielbruno nb present, jiri still traveling, herlo missing
17:05:47 * bckurera seems same what nb seems :)
17:05:53 <cwickert> #topic Announcements
17:05:58 <cwickert> any announcements?
17:06:34 <cwickert> ok, none
17:06:47 <bckurera> hi have one
17:07:03 <cwickert> go ahead please
17:07:23 <bckurera> we should welcome 4 new Ambassadors for our team
17:07:27 <bckurera> #link http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/ambassadors/2012-July/019990.html
17:07:34 <bckurera> welcome all
17:07:36 <bckurera> eof :)
17:10:37 <aeperezt> great
17:10:44 <cwickert> not sure if this is worth an announcement as we have new ambassadors every week it already was announced, but thanks
17:11:09 <cwickert> can anybody take over chairing the meeting for me? I am currently very busy and only have one eye to follow this meeting
17:11:23 <cwickert> so I am probably pretty slow and it's not good to waste time
17:11:35 <bckurera> we can make it a regular announcement from today, we need to welcome them to our team :)
17:12:02 <danielbruno> I can do that
17:12:13 <bckurera> thanks, lets move then
17:12:36 <danielbruno> another announcements?
17:12:46 <bckurera> nothing from me
17:12:53 <cwickert> bckurera: I don't think we should announce this. this is none of FAmSCo's business but FAMA
17:13:01 <cwickert> and FAMA already announces it
17:13:36 <danielbruno> ok, let's move to the tickets
17:13:54 <bckurera> cwickert -1, this is just saying welcome to them, not any formal announcement
17:14:23 <danielbruno> i have two tickets in mind to discuss about
17:15:36 <cwickert> bckurera: do as you like but I would like to use the meetings to discuss important stuff
17:16:08 <bckurera> danielbruno , shall we start discussing them
17:16:37 <bckurera> cwickert +1 , their joining is the most important thing I have :)
17:17:31 <danielbruno> .famsco 265
17:17:31 <zodbot> https://fedorahosted.org/famsco/ticket/265
17:17:48 <danielbruno> first ticket
17:18:01 <danielbruno> is the ticket about the sponsoring event
17:18:08 <bckurera> danielbruno, change the topic as it suits for the ticket
17:18:45 <danielbruno> #topic ticket 265
17:19:23 <danielbruno> we agreed at the last meeting to discuss it in the mail list
17:19:40 <aeperezt> danielbruno, not sure if we need to spend time disusing this ticket if the fudcon may organization and goal may change as mention on an email by rbergeron
17:19:50 <bckurera> yes, and FPL has something new against FUDcon
17:20:19 <bckurera> therefore I suggest we need to wait and see what is about to happen.
17:20:29 <aeperezt> bckurera, +1
17:20:56 <danielbruno> so, for me no problem
17:20:58 <cwickert> .fas 265
17:20:59 <zodbot> cwickert: habibjr265 'Mahmud Ridwan' <habib.jr265@gmail.com> - fathy2650 'fathy hassan' <fathy2650@yahoo.com> - mcmahan265 'Steve McMahan' <mcmahan265@msn.com> - rajesh1265 'Rajesh Sundaram' <rajesh@itacumens.com> - hill33lovehill33 '黃進福' <f8742651@ms33.hinet.net> - lan712653192 '阿龙' <swzryl520@126.com> - white2651 'paritoshsharma' <paritoshsharma@eaton.com> - cloud681133 'Cloud' <26572274@yahoo.com.tw> - (1 more message)
17:21:10 <cwickert> .famsco 265
17:21:11 <zodbot> https://fedorahosted.org/famsco/ticket/265
17:21:32 <bckurera> Therefore will move to other tickets (reimbursements) and clear them, if we have time we can discuss those proposals
17:21:39 <cwickert> #topic Sponsoring event attendees
17:22:34 <danielbruno> let's move to other ticket that i have in mind
17:22:43 <cwickert> I think the current proposal still totally misses the point we are trying to address, but I haven't had the time to work on something myself either :(
17:23:04 <cwickert> should we go for 265 now or for something else?
17:23:25 <danielbruno> go to other ticket
17:23:40 <danielbruno> about reimbusements
17:23:40 <bckurera> Will move to other tickets, reimbursements, pls
17:23:54 <cwickert> ok
17:24:02 <danielbruno> #topic Reimbursements
17:24:11 <danielbruno> .famsco 301
17:24:12 <zodbot> https://fedorahosted.org/famsco/ticket/301
17:24:29 <danielbruno> it's ticket is the Release Party in Peru
17:24:30 <cwickert> 301 is not on the agenda
17:24:50 <danielbruno> i just want some suggestions about
17:25:11 <danielbruno> because it was very confuse
17:25:15 <cwickert> about what?
17:25:30 <cwickert> I don't think we can do anything here
17:25:43 <aeperezt> cwickert, +1
17:25:49 * nb thinks robyn is taking care of it
17:25:56 <danielbruno> what we should do in similar cases in the future?
17:26:05 <danielbruno> just pay what is not approved?
17:26:21 <cwickert> I thing we are facing two problems
17:26:25 <cwickert> or even 3
17:26:31 <cwickert> one was stuff not approved
17:26:48 <cwickert> I think this was a misunderstanding and these things will happen
17:27:15 <cwickert> I think we should not let down our contributors in this case
17:27:27 * nb thinks it isn't a large amount
17:27:28 <nb> just pay it
17:27:32 <cwickert> btw: should we now officially approve the shirts?
17:27:43 * nb moves to approve the tshirts
17:28:00 <nb> actually, we can peer review it I think
17:28:02 <cwickert> proposal: officially approve the shirts, even if Julita said she would pay them herself
17:28:04 <danielbruno> ok, i just think it a bit no sense
17:28:11 <danielbruno> because every thing was clear
17:28:34 <danielbruno> without "ifs"
17:28:45 * cwickert cannot follow danielbruno
17:29:57 <danielbruno> ok
17:30:05 <danielbruno> it's my personal opnion
17:30:21 <cwickert> sorry, but *what* is your personal opinion?
17:30:25 <aeperezt> danielbruno, I think we should approve the tshirts, but define a warning again this type of thing.
17:30:31 <nb> aeperezt, I agree
17:30:32 * herlo apologizes for being late
17:30:43 <danielbruno> I think this opens up scope for similar actions in future
17:30:52 <nb> danielbruno, true
17:30:55 <aeperezt> danielbruno, +1
17:31:14 * inode0 notes no one reads these tickets to even notice and thinks you should just let it go :)
17:31:33 <nb> inode0, yeah true
17:31:37 <nb> only famsco members can read them
17:31:39 <danielbruno> i aggree that we should not let dow  out contributors
17:31:58 <bckurera> I think soon the new funding guideline is ready, we dont have such problems
17:32:05 <danielbruno> but, things should be taken seriously
17:32:19 <bckurera> danielbruno +1
17:32:33 <bckurera> will inform this via FAm ML
17:32:33 <danielbruno> especially when money is involved
17:32:46 <inode0> ?
17:33:24 <cwickert> so for me there are now 3 questions: 1) should we now officially approve the shirts? 2) can we do something for this ticket now? 3) what can we do to prevent things like this from happening again?
17:33:32 <inode0> She misunderstood, when it was explained to her she offered to pay for her "mistake" - what more do you want?
17:33:45 <cwickert> is everybody fine with discussing these 3 questions in that particular order?
17:34:17 <bckurera> I m ok
17:35:26 <danielbruno> our time is short
17:35:30 * cwickert wonders if people fell asleep at the keyboards
17:35:40 <aeperezt> to avoid this time of misunderstands we need to include the amount of what was approved on the ticket for the future tickets
17:35:57 <danielbruno> we have things to do in the other ticket
17:36:26 <danielbruno> but if someone have something to speak about, the mail list is good place to do that
17:36:31 <bckurera> 1) Yes 2) Will approve it now 3) Soon we need to establish funding guideline which is on the trac as a proposal
17:37:01 <cwickert> I feel we are not short on time but we are wasting it. it cannot be true that one asks a simple yes/no question and 3 minutes later only one person replied
17:37:12 <cwickert> this is supposed to happen in 10 seconds
17:38:10 <herlo> cwickert: I think a minute is pretty reasonable to think and reply, not everyone thinks as fast as you :)
17:38:25 <herlo> or types, probably, either.
17:38:35 <bckurera> hello herlo welcome :)
17:38:53 <herlo> bckurera: hi, I sneaked in a little bit ago
17:39:04 <cwickert> I feel like the meetings are becoming more and more ineffective because we are just talking randomly and nobody seems to pay attention
17:40:23 <bckurera> I paid attention, my response is there
17:40:27 <herlo> understood. Let us move forward
17:40:51 * nb already stated his opinion
17:40:59 <nb> and cwickert already made a proposal
17:41:04 * cwickert thinks we have a problem as danielbruno left
17:41:25 * herlo hasn't responded because he came in the middle of the conversation and doesn't have enough context
17:41:29 <cwickert> I made a proposal how to discuss this ticket
17:41:45 <nb> cwickert, well,  wouldn't the t-shirt amount be small enough to fall under peer review?
17:41:51 <nb> therefore, we dont' need a quorum of famsco to approve it/
17:42:20 <cwickert> nb: we don't have a peer review yet as this policy was not yet ratified
17:42:22 <bckurera> nb peer review is not effective yet, it is yet a proposal
17:42:38 <herlo> nb: and to that point, we shouldn't be discussing this if we already have a process. I thought it hadn't been approved yet, however.
17:42:57 <cwickert> should we approve the shirts now or should we continue with random stuff?
17:43:09 * nb wonders why it takes forever just to approve a policy
17:43:21 <herlo> nb: let's table that
17:43:29 <herlo> we can discuss after we get this issue resolved
17:43:43 <cwickert> nb: because nobody has a written proposal, you are welcome to work on it
17:43:46 <nb> well, i guess we don't have a quorum now if we have to have 5 members
17:43:52 <nb> cwickert, there is one in the ticket
17:43:55 <nb> i wrote it out a while back
17:44:14 <cwickert> this is not yet a fully worded proopsal, but anyway
17:44:16 <herlo> again, let's discuss the issue at hand folks
17:44:35 <inode0> $70 isn't worth all you spending all this time worrying about when it was spent to promote Fedora - just approve the actual expenses and move on :)
17:44:44 <herlo> inode0: +1
17:44:48 <nb> +1
17:45:13 <aeperezt> +1
17:45:19 <bckurera> I have already cast my vote above
17:45:25 <bckurera> I approve it
17:45:30 <nb> +1 just approve it
17:46:46 <cwickert> +1
17:46:54 <herlo> cwickert: btw, we have  5
17:47:07 <cwickert> herlo: 4
17:47:12 * herlo needs a ticket number to gain context, but will +1 approval based upon what we have
17:47:17 <cwickert> now we have 5 again
17:47:21 <cwickert> herlo: 301
17:47:24 <herlo> cwickert: count again :)
17:47:28 <herlo> ahh, 5 :)
17:47:31 <herlo> cwickert: thanks
17:48:03 <danielbruno> sorry guys, the energy supply get down
17:48:07 <danielbruno> i'm back
17:48:15 <cwickert> awesome, it only took us 20 minutes to approve USD 70
17:48:57 <bckurera> pls lets move >>
17:49:00 <cwickert> #agreed we'll cover the costs for the shirts at the F17 release party Peru, even if we did not approve them initially
17:49:11 <cwickert> ok, next question: is there something we can do now?
17:49:21 <cwickert> my humble opinion: no
17:49:33 <bckurera> 9 minutes left :)
17:49:35 <danielbruno> i think no
17:49:58 <cwickert> I just pinged rbergero again, but that's all I can do
17:50:17 <herlo> +1 from me as well
17:50:28 <herlo> just finished reading the ticket
17:50:38 <aeperezt> no, but add specific amounts approve on next tickets when it is partially approved and pass this suggestion to the next approval procedure
17:50:53 <cwickert> aeperezt: please try to stick at one topic at a time
17:51:17 <cwickert> ok, lets just say there is nothing we can do
17:51:33 <cwickert> question 3) how can we avoid something like this in the future?
17:51:47 <aeperezt> cwickert, that is the response to your question "is there something we can do now?" I'm on the topic
17:51:49 <herlo> easily, let's get the approval process pushed through
17:52:00 <herlo> #3
17:52:04 <cwickert> aeperezt: now != next approval
17:52:12 <cwickert> I think there will always be misunderstandings like the shirts, but when we say we approve something, we need to make sure it happens
17:52:23 <cwickert> and I wonder who of you spoke to Julita?
17:52:38 <cwickert> danielbruno, aeperezt: did she talk to you?
17:52:46 <danielbruno> i do
17:53:00 <aeperezt> cwickert, she talked to me
17:53:02 <danielbruno> she sent an email to me
17:53:11 <cwickert> ok, and what did you guys do?
17:53:26 <cwickert> telling her that we won't pay for the shirts was not helpful
17:53:27 <aeperezt> I think we should talk to her after we confirm the amount was cancel
17:53:53 <danielbruno> i said for her that the ticket was approved withoutd the t-shirts
17:54:01 <danielbruno> *without
17:54:07 <cwickert> yeah, but that doesn't make the payment happen
17:54:22 <cwickert> Julita said somebody promised her the payment will be taken care of
17:54:31 <cwickert> and whoever this was then needs to make it happen
17:54:49 <cwickert> until she contacted me on Tuesday evening, Neville was not even aware of this ticket
17:54:54 <danielbruno> i don't know who promised it for her
17:55:06 <cwickert> if you want Neville to pay something, you need to assign the ticket to him
17:55:41 <cwickert> I think every time we approve something, we should reassign the ticket to somebody
17:55:57 <cwickert> and that person needs to take care of the ticket and make sure it really gets paid
17:56:05 <aeperezt> cwickert, I did not promises her that
17:56:13 <cwickert> ideally, we reassign it to the credit card holders
17:57:04 <danielbruno> in the next case we can do that
17:57:15 <cwickert> no, we MUST do this
17:57:20 <cwickert> not we *can*
17:57:30 <cwickert> ok, so who takes over this ticket now? I mean, even if it's on rbergero to pay, who will have an eye on it?
17:58:08 <cwickert> ok, I'll do it
17:58:15 <danielbruno> I will do it
17:58:18 <cwickert> I am used to nagging people and kicking butts
17:58:31 <cwickert> #info danielbruno will make sure that #301 gets paid
17:58:32 <danielbruno> cwickert, leave it with me
17:58:49 <cwickert> I think we should handle responsibility regionally
17:59:11 <cwickert> so when a request is from LATAM, either danielbruno or aeperezt should take care of it
17:59:14 <danielbruno> +1
17:59:19 <cwickert> nag Neville and make sure it gets paid
17:59:31 <bckurera> No need to misundetand, but people who are in the same region knows what is the best than others, therefore we need to take care of those region wise
17:59:39 <cwickert> and if he cannot pay it, like in this case, we need to nag harish or rbergero
17:59:43 <aeperezt> cwickert, but FPL is the one who has the ticket now
18:00:08 <cwickert> aeperezt: no, neville has it
18:00:37 <cwickert> aeperezt: the ticket is assigned to yn1v, not to rbergero
18:00:38 <herlo> k, moving on
18:00:47 <danielbruno> let's move to the next
18:00:52 <cwickert> danielbruno: I'll reassign it to you
18:00:58 <danielbruno> ok
18:01:14 <cwickert> #topic Cheatcubes, printed material to Jreznik
18:01:19 <cwickert> .famsco 304
18:01:19 <zodbot> https://fedorahosted.org/famsco/ticket/304
18:01:54 <cwickert> ok, I think we just need to rubberstamp it
18:01:56 <cwickert> +1
18:02:00 <bckurera> USD 55
18:02:02 <danielbruno> +1
18:02:04 <bckurera> I approve +1
18:02:15 <aeperezt> +|
18:02:19 <aeperezt> +1
18:02:23 <herlo> +1
18:02:24 <nb> +1 (i disagree that this needs to be approved by famsco, it should be approved by peers)
18:02:28 <nb> but i agree with approving it
18:02:34 <cwickert> #agreed #304 is approved
18:02:47 <cwickert> #topic Request for reimbusement train tickets to Rome
18:02:52 <cwickert> .famsco 305
18:02:52 <zodbot> https://fedorahosted.org/famsco/ticket/305
18:03:30 <cwickert> I think we should approve it but tell him to request approval *before* he expenses something next time
18:03:38 <cwickert> Fedora is no self-service
18:03:44 <herlo> +1 approve and notify
18:03:53 <danielbruno> +1 approve and notify
18:04:02 <aeperezt> +1 approve and notify
18:04:10 <cwickert> +1
18:04:16 <bckurera> +1
18:04:20 <cwickert> #agreed #305 is approved
18:04:30 <cwickert> ok, any other tickets?
18:04:39 <nb> yes........
18:04:43 <nb> reimbursement process
18:05:09 <cwickert> nb: you mean 284?
18:05:23 <cwickert> erm. 281
18:06:08 <herlo> I think we should try to get this approved asap so we can stop dealing with these smaller tickets directly and let the regional groups handle their own business.
18:06:15 <herlo> it'll be good for both famsco and the regions.
18:06:24 <nb> Yes
18:06:30 <nb> I move we approve, at this meeting, https://fedorahosted.org/famsco/ticket/281#comment:10
18:06:49 <nb> USD 0-499: Approval by peer (FAmSCo member, credit card holder or a person approved by the credit card holder)
18:06:49 <nb> USD 500-1999: Approval by regional community
18:06:49 <nb> USD 2000-5000: Approval by FAmSCo
18:06:49 <nb> USD 5000+: Approval by FAmSCo. Additionally, we need somebody from Red Hat to issue a PO.
18:07:01 <nb> the guidelines of what constitutes a regional community meeting should be left up to the region t decide
18:07:04 <cwickert> nb: but that is only half of it
18:07:12 <nb> what is the other half?
18:07:26 <bckurera> Who and how to approve?
18:07:27 <cwickert> this is only the limits, not *how* approval works
18:07:42 <bckurera> what is meant by Regional Community, who is responsible?
18:07:51 <nb> bckurera, the regional meetings.....
18:07:52 <cwickert> or should we completely leave this to the regional communties?
18:07:58 <bckurera> those are the questions we need to have
18:08:00 <nb> cwickert, i think we should jsut set the amounts
18:08:00 <cwickert> nb: LATAM does not have regional meetings
18:08:01 <herlo> bckurera: cwickert: I seriously think the Regions can decided that for themselves, we shouldn't be deciding that
18:08:08 <nb> and then the regions can decide the rest
18:08:21 <nb> cwickert, then they need to get them started......
18:08:31 <bckurera> I mean we need to have clear definition to avoid misunderstandings
18:08:33 <herlo> cwickert: they need to sort that out too, if meetings are not needed, that's fine, but they need to define a process themselves.
18:08:33 <nb> or come up with a way to have votes in tickets or something
18:08:37 <nb> bckurera, let the regions do it
18:08:51 <danielbruno> the latam meetings were taken
18:08:58 <nb> FAmSCo spends way too much time on approving minor expenses
18:09:02 <herlo> I think the mandate should be that each region has a process for approving money up to $2k USD
18:09:05 <cwickert> what about the concerns that inode0 stated?
18:09:12 <herlo> whether it's in a meeting or over email
18:09:19 <cwickert> no
18:09:37 <cwickert> well, I don't care how it is done, meeting or email, but it needs to be transparent
18:09:43 <bckurera> I like the idea, will approve it and let the regions to handle it
18:09:45 <herlo> we are giving guidelines here, not stating a hard requirement
18:09:52 <cwickert> this means we need a ticket in the tracker and a link to the mail or the meeting log
18:10:09 <cwickert> one of the biggest problems we are facing is finding out who approved what
18:10:12 <bckurera> No every request should be on the trac
18:10:18 <aeperezt> cwickert, latam is in the process to have regional meetings
18:10:27 <herlo> cwickert: agreed. We can require that it be transparent and reported on every transaction. It just means tht the famsco member in that community will need to be the watchdog for that region.
18:10:27 <cwickert> and we need to make sure to not loose control when we give it to the regional communties
18:10:32 <herlo> or the CC holder maybe
18:10:58 <cwickert> I argued about this with inode0 for quite a while
18:11:09 <cwickert> I think some of his concerns are valid
18:11:20 <nb> yes, but we need to start somewhere
18:11:24 <nb> if this doesn't work, then change it
18:11:27 <cwickert> say you only have the same 3 people at the meetings every time and they make decisions
18:11:28 <nb> but right now what we have isn't working
18:11:38 <bckurera> +1 , FAmSCo member should be responsible, if there is something wrong it should be taken into FAmSCo by the member
18:11:44 <herlo> cwickert: and this is a problem how? We are a meritocracy
18:11:50 <nb> cwickert, then more people should start showing up
18:12:09 <cwickert> say these three people make 10 decisions over 2k each
18:12:19 <cwickert> voila, there does the budget for the complete year
18:12:27 <herlo> bckurera: exactly, I agree that a famsco member or cc holder should be involved with every decision in a region
18:12:34 <nb> cwickert, but we are making up problems that haven't happened
18:12:37 <herlo> if nothing more than being aware, that's involvement
18:12:50 <nb> we keep mentioning "what if"...... but we haven't had a problem as it is
18:12:58 <nb> not everything goes through famsco now anyway
18:13:01 <herlo> cwickert: that wouldn't happen according to the guidelines above
18:13:06 <cwickert> herlo: involved is ok, but not being held responsible
18:13:11 <herlo> $2kusd requres famsco involvement
18:13:12 <cwickert> herlo: why not?
18:13:19 <cwickert> herlo: then 1999 each
18:13:20 <herlo> aka approval
18:13:29 <nb> afaik the max spevack rules are still in effect (so far) that say people can spend $300 or $500 without any approval
18:13:40 <nb> and at least some regions approve stuff on their own as it is
18:13:46 <bckurera> There are FAmSCo members, cant they take the responsibility in their own regions?
18:13:59 <herlo> cwickert: I think you are not trusting the peopel in the region if you are concerend about that
18:14:12 <cwickert> nb: they never were effective. I know two credit card holders who said they don't and cannot follow Max's rules
18:14:27 <nb> cwickert, they were in NA at least
18:14:27 <herlo> truthfully, some people liek to take advantage of the situation you present, but I am just willing to trust the contributors to the point that they will police themselves.
18:14:33 <nb> i know no one approves the small expenses I make
18:14:36 <nb> no one as in no committee
18:14:46 <cwickert> nb: inode was one of the cc holders I was talking about.
18:14:48 <nb> if i buy shipping supplies, i just ask inode0 to paypal me money
18:15:00 <cwickert> I am afraid we are putting them into a difficult situation
18:15:13 <cwickert> because they are ultimately responsible
18:15:16 <herlo> I think it's all about trust
18:15:20 <nb> cwickert, nothing says they have to pay it
18:15:24 <nb> they can say no, ask someone else
18:15:27 <cwickert> they have signed a contract with RH
18:15:32 <cwickert> and then?
18:15:34 <nb> FAmSCo cannot force the credit card holders to do something
18:15:39 <cwickert> right
18:15:48 <nb> cwickert, plus there's always the redhat cc holders
18:15:50 <nb> who can pay for stuff too
18:16:08 <cwickert> lets not advocate this, this is dangerous
18:16:16 <herlo> you just have to trust that people will do the right thing. I am less concerned if someone tries to screw us over. It's just if that happens, we'll deal with it then. Arguing over piddly amounts like $70USD seems more wasteful than worrying about the chances of being scammed
18:16:24 <nb> herlo, +10000000
18:16:39 * nb suggests we take a damn vote on this, we've been discussing it long enough
18:16:42 <nb> we need to do SOMETHING
18:16:43 <cwickert> because people will start: oh, lets make a stupid decision and buy a pink pony. if inode0 doesn't pay it I'll look for somebody else
18:17:03 <herlo> cwickert: and if they do, so be it. It's not up to us to police the people
18:17:05 <nb> FAmSCo should not be asked for approval for $70 purchases
18:17:20 <cwickert> nb: I fully agree
18:17:21 <herlo> it's up to them to police themselves. They are here because they want to help fedora, not cause pain and anguish
18:17:30 * nb requests we take a vote on comment 10
18:17:33 <cwickert> but before I change something, I want it bulletproov
18:17:42 <cwickert> nb: what exactly?
18:17:55 <cwickert> the suggestions in that comment, too or only the limits?
18:18:09 <cwickert> comment 10 is not a fully worded proposal
18:18:16 <nb> the limits
18:18:20 <nb> and let the regions decide the rest
18:18:22 <herlo> cwickert: it's not going to be bulletproof.
18:18:31 <nb> #proposal approve the limits in comment 10, let the regions decide how to implement them
18:18:42 <herlo> plus, we can state that all decisions be recorded and transparent in some fashion
18:18:53 <bckurera> nb +1 herlo +1
18:19:07 <herlo> I don't care how, just that they report them each quarter, month, or something.
18:19:15 <bckurera> and plus every region FAmSCo member should be responsible for every decision the region take
18:19:24 <cwickert> bckurera: no, please not
18:19:31 <cwickert> they cannot be held responsible
18:19:49 <bckurera> cwickert I dont get the idea?
18:19:57 * nb thinks they should just be held responsible for what they approve as a peer
18:20:01 <nb> not for everything the region does
18:20:39 <cwickert> bckurera: I am traveling a lot recently. say some idiots and approve a pink pony for USD 1999 and I am the one who is held responsible even if I was not at the meeting or even though I disagreed?
18:20:40 <herlo> bckurera: no, I agree with cwickert and nb here. The problem is that would take way more resources. I think we just need to trust our contributors.
18:20:45 <bckurera> My point is this, we need to make sure the approval is transparent, for that we need to responsible
18:21:08 <herlo> bckurera: approval is not the issue here, it's responsibility
18:21:15 <bckurera> what they agree is not our responsibility but we need to make sure that the process is transparent, if it is not we need to ring the bell
18:21:16 <cwickert> bckurera: what does "responsibility" mean? do I have to pay it from my own pocket if nobody else wants to take it over?
18:21:37 <herlo> the value of this is who's responsible. I think that's a collective thing. We're all here because we like the values in the fedora project, no?
18:21:39 <aeperezt> bckurera, later it could be that there is no famsco member for a particular region then who will be responsable
18:22:12 <bckurera> aeperezt it is tricky question to answer, :)
18:22:17 * nb thinks the famsco member should try to make sure that it is transparent
18:22:23 <nb> but i don't know that we should use the word responsible
18:22:26 <herlo> If so, I believe we should let others in the group have the same right. We judge them only if there is an error or as cwickert says, they buy a pink pony. If we're transparent and willing to correct mistakes as we go, this will likely not be a concern at all.
18:22:32 <nb> plus, it is not guaranteed that there is a member in each region
18:22:32 <cwickert> ok, so lets add: "If your request was approved, you are responsible of documenting this decision in a transparent manner for reporting and make sure the credit card holder is aware of it"
18:22:36 <bckurera> nb that is his responsibility I mean :)
18:22:36 <danielbruno> nb, +1
18:22:40 <nb> cwickert, +1
18:22:56 <danielbruno> cwickert, +1
18:22:58 <herlo> cwickert: +1
18:23:01 <cwickert> ok, lets try to break this down into smaller pieces
18:23:06 <cwickert> first only the limits
18:23:14 <nb> +1 to the limits in comment 10
18:23:19 <cwickert> Id like to change 5000 to 4999 please :)
18:23:22 <nb> ok
18:23:28 <cwickert> not that it really matters, just for consistency
18:23:32 <herlo> bckurera: no responsibility clause, it causes problems against volunteers who are just trying to do the best that they can.
18:23:41 <cwickert> herlo: +1
18:23:50 <cwickert> everybody agrees to the limits?
18:24:00 <danielbruno> +1
18:24:03 <aeperezt> +1
18:24:09 <cwickert> +1
18:24:19 <herlo> +1
18:24:25 <nb> +1
18:24:29 <bckurera> ok +1
18:24:34 <herlo> yay!
18:24:40 <cwickert> #topic Budget review guidelines
18:25:20 <cwickert> #agreed limits from https://fedorahosted.org/famsco/ticket/281#comment:10 are approved, only 5000 will be changed to 4000 for consistency
18:25:30 * bckurera since there is 5 votes mine makes no difference :)
18:25:38 <cwickert> ok, next thing is the transparency
18:25:41 <bckurera> but I agree with the idea :)
18:25:55 <herlo> bckurera: yes it does :)
18:25:56 <cwickert> +1 for what I proposed before: "If your request was approved, you are responsible of documenting this decision in a transparent manner for reporting and make sure the credit card holder is aware of it"
18:26:01 <herlo> the more votes is better
18:26:04 <bckurera> shall we agree to use trac please?
18:26:11 <herlo> bckurera: no
18:26:18 <bckurera> why?
18:26:23 <herlo> bckurera: your region can discuss and agree on their own
18:26:34 <herlo> each region should have a transparent process for approval, however.
18:26:34 <cwickert> I think we need trac
18:26:59 <bckurera> herlo -1 we need to be uniform all over the project, not APAC can use something and EMEA another thing
18:26:59 <cwickert> I mean, for that amount of money, requiring a ticket is not too much, is it?
18:27:04 <bckurera> we all need to use something common
18:27:10 <herlo> I think the region should decide. I agree that *we* personally need trac, but I don't want to force trac on every region just because they might do it a bit differently.
18:27:21 <herlo> bckurera: we do not
18:27:44 <bckurera> trac is the ebst way to track it, so I strongly +1 to trac
18:27:46 <cwickert> so say we use mailing lists... I then link to a ticket and say: "hey, we approved this here in this mail"
18:27:55 <cwickert> but then a flame war starts and people disagree
18:28:03 <cwickert> now try to find out who is right
18:28:21 <bckurera> yes indeed cwickert
18:28:31 <herlo> cwickert: are we talking about famsco or above approvals? or per region here?
18:28:41 <cwickert> herlo: per region or per peer
18:28:57 <herlo> I stil think the region can use trac and we can recommend it. I just don't like the requirement of trac if something else works.
18:29:06 <cwickert> I mean, we need a trac ticket anyway to attach the invoice and handle the payment
18:29:21 <bckurera> good point :)
18:29:24 <cwickert> you wouldn't do this on a mailing list
18:29:33 <danielbruno> the trac is a great tool for that
18:29:36 <cwickert> and if you use private mail, it's no longer transparent
18:29:52 <bckurera> no private mail at all
18:29:56 <cwickert> please, let us make the live of the CC holders a bit easier and require a ticket
18:30:21 <cwickert> I know how much time kital needs for reporting and RH accounting folks want to see everything
18:30:31 <cwickert> they even require him to print out event reports
18:30:43 <cwickert> of recently, they wanted a list of people who were at a dinner
18:30:48 <herlo> I don't think the conversation about payment or what not needs to be transparent, only the resulting amount and justification for the costs
18:30:59 <herlo> again, I think it's a regional thing.
18:31:14 <cwickert> all regions have trac instances already
18:31:17 <herlo> cwickert: I actually think it will make the lives of the cc holders more complex.
18:31:39 <herlo> they shouldn't need to be the one putting in the information, whether it be in a ticket or whatever system they use
18:31:41 <cwickert> herlo: how so? kital prints out the tickets and the event reports and attachments
18:32:00 <cwickert> herlo: but RH accounting wants to see it
18:32:22 <nb> IDK, i'm kind of +0 to requiring trac
18:32:30 <nb> i think its a good idea to do stuff in trac
18:32:39 <nb> but what if a region wants to use a mailing list or something?
18:33:07 <cwickert> nb: how can you make sure a mail on a list is authoritative?
18:33:10 <herlo> I think it's a good idea to have stuff in trac, I'm ont arguing that. I'm just saying that the regions should decide that for themselves. Maybe they want to use some other ticketing system or a bit of software that we haven't considered yet
18:33:17 <bckurera> No they should use the trac for the sake of the clarity, or soon this system will collapse
18:33:42 <herlo> meh
18:34:04 <cwickert> we don't say the decision needs to happen in trac
18:34:11 <herlo> 'trac' is the problem here. It's *one* system that we're locking people into, I want to let them choose the system as long as it provids the information we need.
18:34:22 <bckurera> herlo they can use whatever they need but should be align with the projects' tools as well !
18:34:24 * herlo notes the foss mentality here :)
18:34:28 <cwickert> but you should add a link to the meeting log or the mail where the decision took place
18:34:43 <herlo> cwickert: +1
18:34:45 <cwickert> herlo: try to tell RH accounting of floss mentality ;)
18:34:46 <bckurera> i agree with cwickert
18:35:16 * herlo thinks the problem is with 'requiring' software
18:35:29 <herlo> I don't care how it's done and we can 'recommend' trac as it makes the most sense now.
18:35:40 <herlo> I just care that it's not an edict
18:36:02 <bckurera> shall we please take a decision not
18:36:13 <bckurera> time is running, it is 1:30 hrs now
18:36:41 <herlo> bckurera: I don't think there's a decision to be made, really. It's just a matter of how we state it to the regions.
18:36:44 <nb> #proposal strongly recommend using trac, do not require trac, leave the decision up to the regions
18:36:51 <cwickert> *require* transparency and *recoomend* trac?
18:36:53 <herlo> nb: +1
18:36:59 <herlo> cwickert: perfect!
18:37:01 <nb> #proposal require some form of transparency
18:37:22 <cwickert> +1
18:37:39 <bckurera> My opinion is they *should* use the trac and I vote for it.
18:38:07 <herlo> bckurera: should is a fine word :)
18:38:40 <cwickert> bckurera: "should" is pretty weak, but I get what you mean and I am with you
18:38:49 <cwickert> who is still around? danielbruno, aeperezt?
18:38:54 <herlo> strongly recommend is fine with me
18:38:57 * danielbruno is here
18:39:09 <aeperezt> here
18:39:09 <cwickert> ok, danielbruno: require or recommend?
18:39:10 <bckurera> good cwickert :)
18:39:22 * nb suggests "strongly recommend"
18:39:32 <cwickert> "urge" /me runs
18:39:42 <danielbruno> i'm "strongly recommend"
18:39:52 <bckurera> ok then *require* or *strongly recommend* ?
18:40:00 * aeperezt strongly recommend
18:40:06 <cwickert> ok, it seems we have a winner
18:40:06 <herlo> cwickert: hehe
18:40:29 <cwickert> ok, what about the other suggestions, lets quickly go through them
18:40:37 <danielbruno> but the region that don't want use must to prove that the tool or way used are trusted
18:40:48 <danielbruno> *dont't want use trac
18:40:58 <cwickert> "minimum of 5 ambassadors at regional meetings"? +1 or -1?
18:41:11 <danielbruno> +1
18:41:28 <cwickert> danielbruno: do you think this is realistic for LATAM?
18:41:34 <cwickert> bckurera: how about APAC?
18:41:41 <herlo> meh, I tihnk the process is still should be up to regional folks. To decide the process itself there, sure 5minimum is good
18:41:43 <danielbruno> cwickert, yes
18:41:46 <bckurera> we already practice and we are fine with this
18:42:18 <herlo> just define what the results should look like, let them come up with the process. Trust them to find a better way than we can.
18:42:29 <bckurera> 5 would be a good minimum limit
18:42:40 <cwickert> herlo: how about we require a minimum of attendees, we recommend it to be 5 but leave it up to the communities?
18:42:43 <herlo> I'm sorry I'm being difficult, but I don't think it's up to us to decide even this detail
18:43:20 * cwickert is going to have meetings with himself and approve everything with 100% of the votes :)
18:43:23 <herlo> cwickert: it should be 'reasonable'. In NA it can and has been 2 or 3 for approval
18:43:36 <cwickert> ok, "more than one" :)
18:43:36 <herlo> cwickert: go ahead, as long as you are transparent
18:43:42 <herlo> cwickert: sure
18:44:09 <cwickert> ok, so should we require a minimum at all?
18:44:12 * herlo ribs cwickert about approving in meetings with himself and wonders if he actually talks :)
18:44:28 <herlo> cwickert: I think it's an implementation detail that each region will take care of on their own.
18:44:39 <herlo> recommending something though, I'm all for that
18:44:44 <herlo> just like trac
18:44:47 <herlo> :P
18:44:52 <cwickert> ok, I just had a private famsco meeting with myself and agreed with me that we should have at least 5 people :P
18:45:04 <herlo> lol
18:45:15 <herlo> too bad you don't make a quorum :)
18:45:26 <cwickert> in my private famsco I do :)
18:45:28 <herlo> the region should meet to discuss the rules
18:45:35 <herlo> it's not up to famsco
18:45:44 <bckurera> Further FAmSCo should have to have the control, like if something went wrong !
18:45:49 <herlo> cwickert: even your private famsco in your head :)
18:45:58 <aeperezt> herlo, +1
18:46:38 <cwickert> can we please now all cast our vote: should we set a minimum (no matter what)? +1 or -1?
18:46:45 <herlo> -1
18:46:51 <bckurera> +1
18:47:11 * herlo needs to go in 5 minutes
18:47:16 <danielbruno> +1
18:47:19 <aeperezt> -1
18:47:23 <cwickert> +1
18:47:30 <bckurera> there is the winner :)
18:47:32 <cwickert> nb: your turn
18:47:38 <herlo> bckurera: nb hasn't voted
18:47:38 <cwickert> not yet bckurera
18:47:48 <cwickert> and we don't have a majority yet
18:47:58 * bckurera :)
18:48:08 <cwickert> 3 out of 7 is not enough I think
18:48:31 <bckurera> silence means 0 ? ;)
18:48:40 <cwickert> won't help us either
18:48:56 <cwickert> ok, lets delay this
18:49:04 <cwickert> I think we already achieved something
18:49:13 <bckurera> almost 2 hrs on the meeting :)
18:49:23 <herlo> well, I think we can get the documentation started. This detail can be discussed later and added if voted in...
18:49:38 <herlo> then it can be added at that time.
18:49:43 <cwickert> I think we can start using it right away, but we really need somebody to make a nice paragraph for the wiki of it
18:50:05 <herlo> cwickert: I can do that this afternoon. I think nb wanted to help me, so we'll start on it....
18:50:07 <cwickert> I suggest that a native English speaker like herlo or nb goes for it
18:50:11 <herlo> if he doesn't I can still do it...
18:50:14 <danielbruno> herlo, can you do that?
18:50:21 <herlo> :)
18:50:27 <cwickert> #action herlo to word our decisions nicely
18:50:29 <herlo> danielbruno: yas, as I stated above.
18:50:34 <danielbruno> :)
18:50:41 * herlo heads out
18:50:43 <cwickert> herlo: but no cheating, don't strip down our requirements ;)
18:50:46 <herlo> thanks gang!
18:50:51 <herlo> cwickert: lol, I don't cheat
18:50:58 <herlo> only in horshoes and hand grenades
18:51:00 <cwickert> lets have a final approval next week
18:51:06 <herlo> sounds good
18:51:06 <cwickert> lol
18:51:12 <cwickert> ok, thanks everybody
18:51:13 <herlo> take care!
18:51:15 <bckurera> that is fine, till next week will wait then?
18:51:19 <herlo> horseshoes even!
18:51:27 <bckurera> thanks for the very long meeting B)
18:51:30 <herlo> bckurera: well, I am going to write up the details
18:51:34 <herlo> then we can vote on it
18:51:36 <danielbruno> i'll miss the next meeting
18:51:37 <danielbruno> :(
18:51:48 <cwickert> bckurera: yes, you can start using it in your next meeting, as long as you don't make the decision alone, you are fine
18:51:49 <danielbruno> i 'll be traveling to the FISL
18:51:49 <bckurera> nb will be missing too
18:51:58 <herlo> danielbruno: I'll email when the text is up
18:52:03 <herlo> then you guys can vote at that point.
18:52:06 <danielbruno> k
18:52:07 <cwickert> I will miss the next meeting, too I think
18:52:10 <bckurera> cwickert like the private FAmSCo meeting :D
18:52:12 <herlo> by email or on the talk page or something.
18:52:23 <herlo> cwickert: maybe we should move the meeting to a differnet day??
18:52:39 <bckurera> a special meeting?
18:52:39 <herlo> 3 people out is a likely problem.
18:52:42 <herlo> Just for next week
18:52:43 <cwickert> herlo: only for a week?
18:52:47 <herlo> yes
18:52:52 <danielbruno> i'll send my vote from some airport
18:52:56 <herlo> lol
18:52:59 <cwickert> herlo: doesn't make a difference for me, the rest of the week is actually worse
18:53:09 <bckurera> we use the trac to vote without shifting the meeting
18:53:16 <herlo> cwickert: earlier, like sunday at the same time?
18:53:33 <cwickert> please, no
18:53:38 <herlo> bckurera: sure, it's not that. I would like to have people there to discuss the other issues if we're going to meet
18:53:46 <cwickert> lets discuss this on the list
18:53:50 <cwickert> #endmeeting