18:00:52 <rdieter> #startmeeting cwg -- http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Community_Working_Group
18:00:52 <zodbot> Meeting started Tue Nov 30 18:00:52 2010 UTC.  The chair is rdieter. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
18:00:52 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
18:00:53 <red_alert> bpepple, mjg59, nirik, rbergeron, rdieter_work: everyone around? :) it's time, isn't it?
18:01:02 <rdieter> #meetingname cwg
18:01:02 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'cwg'
18:01:04 * nirik is here.
18:01:06 <rdieter> red_alert: yep! :)
18:01:08 * bpepple is here.
18:01:16 <rdieter> #topic roll call
18:01:36 * rbergeron 
18:01:44 <rdieter> pingy pingy: mjg59, rbergeron
18:01:54 * rbergeron is still here ;)
18:02:35 <rdieter> #info red_alert nirik bpepple rbergeron present
18:02:42 * red_alert is here but a bit exhausted from a 4h meeting at $dayjob this afternoon :/ and my connection seems a little laggy :/
18:02:57 * nirik is busy at dayjob, but will try and be here too.
18:03:49 <rdieter> I'd like to thank everyone profusely for volunteering to help out here.  much appreciated.
18:04:11 <rdieter> #topic agenda
18:04:19 <bpepple> np. thanks for spear-heading this, rdieter.
18:04:48 <rdieter> sorry for not doing a better job compiling a good agenda, but we have a vague outline of stuff to look at
18:05:02 <rdieter> largely, http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Community_Working_Group#Tasks_for_the_Working_Group
18:05:03 <red_alert> I think there's enough to discuss for a first meeting :)
18:05:18 <nirik> more than.
18:05:22 <red_alert> right
18:05:34 <rdieter> #topic logistics
18:05:46 <rdieter> I'd suggest starting here, get some icky stuff out of the way.
18:06:02 <rdieter> ie, * Create clear and easy points of contact, including a mailing list, irc channels.
18:06:03 <bpepple> so, we've got the mailing list set-up, but we still need to decide on an irc channel and set-up a trac instance.
18:06:11 <bpepple> right?
18:06:17 <rdieter> yeah.
18:06:40 <bpepple> I'll work on setting up the trac instance. I've got some time today and tomorrow.
18:06:57 <nirik> could we reuse an existing irc channel, or do we need a new one?
18:07:10 <rdieter> first off, let's make sure we want these things.  (I think we do, but ...)
18:07:20 <red_alert> the mailing list is members-only, isn't it? so we might want to think whether we need a list for the community to reach us
18:07:42 <rdieter> red_alert: correct, we'll want both a public contact address, and a private list
18:07:50 * nirik notes the mailing list archives are open currently.
18:07:56 <rdieter> doh, oops.
18:08:10 * rbergeron nods. I think we should decide if we want the mailing list to be public or private, the trac list to be public or private, and /or if we want to do what rex recommended on the wiki page, which is to have people wishing to stay anonymous to approach a member of the group.
18:08:35 <rbergeron> trac has no way of marking certain tickets as public or private, correct?
18:08:45 <bpepple> I don't believe so.
18:08:46 <rdieter> afaik, it's all or nothing
18:08:49 * rbergeron recalls this from other groups dealing with the same conundrum
18:08:56 <rdieter> which is fine, imo.
18:08:59 * rbergeron nods
18:09:07 <nirik> personally, I prefer as much as possible to be public. IMHO we should default to all public and then decide those specific things that need to be private for good reasons.
18:09:11 <rbergeron> I think it's important for us to be as transparent as we can
18:09:16 * rbergeron dittos what nirik is saying
18:09:35 <red_alert> +1 what nirik and rbergeron said :)
18:09:45 <nirik> yeah, there is a trac plugin that lets you make tickets private to the submitter and a group I think...
18:09:53 <nirik> they used it for freemedia for a while.
18:10:19 <mjg59> Hey, sorry, didn't realise we were starting today
18:10:21 <rbergeron> nirik: do you have any more details (like a name or if we have that implemented??)
18:10:38 <mjg59> (my mistake)
18:10:49 <nirik> rbergeron: trying to recall
18:11:27 <red_alert> nirik: do you know whether this plugin allows the submitter to make the ticket private while creating it? because if only we can make them private that might not work
18:11:31 * rbergeron thinks it would be good to have a public trac, and a public mailing list, and a private mailing list to be used only for very sensitive matters and used as little as possible, with the archives on the latter closed
18:11:39 <rbergeron> or alternately
18:11:46 <nirik> http://trac-hacks.org/wiki/PrivateTicketsPlugin
18:11:49 <rbergeron> wait until we approach that situation being needed and decide at that point.
18:12:06 <rdieter> true, there's nothing that needs privacy.. yet.
18:12:29 <rdieter> I'd second rbergeron initial proposal, keep stuff open until something else is needed
18:12:35 <rbergeron> If we take the approach listed of asking folks with needs for anonymity to come to us, we can deal with that situation at that point.
18:12:49 <mjg59> rbergeron: If an issue occurs that requires privacy, I'd prefer not to have to go through the hoops of setting up the infrastructure for that, testing to ensure that the archives are working properly and then tell the relevant people that they can email us...
18:13:09 <mjg59> The other thing I'd suggest is that it not be archived at all
18:13:10 <rdieter> good point there.
18:13:24 <bpepple> If we're using trac is there a real need for a public mailing list?
18:13:46 <rdieter> #info mjg59 present
18:13:48 <rdieter> mjg59: hi! :)
18:13:49 <mjg59> There's always a (small) chance that someone will bring something up that relates to someone who later gets elected (if we end up with that model)
18:13:51 * nirik wonders if we need trac. ;)
18:14:22 <red_alert> trac is good for keeping track of our own tasks too
18:14:27 <bpepple> nirik: yeah, I'm fine with either. I just question if we need both.
18:14:45 <mjg59> I find trac awkward for discussion
18:15:14 <nirik> well, I think we may be doing this backwards. ;)
18:15:15 <rdieter> nirik: perhaps not, I was wondering if trac might be overkill at this point
18:15:22 <rbergeron> I think either way is fine, so long as we make it clear where people should take their issues.
18:15:38 <bpepple> rbergeron: agreed.
18:15:43 <rbergeron> We could go with the approach of mailing list, and if it becomes clear that we can't handle or keep track of things, trac may be a next step.
18:15:45 <red_alert> rbergeron: and we should be able to work with the chosen tool effectively :)
18:15:53 <nirik> How about we don't setup trac, we leave the list as open. Then we decide what things people would come to us with, and decide our infrastructure based on those needs once we know them.
18:16:04 <bpepple> nirik: works for me.
18:16:12 <mjg59> nirik: I'd lean towards wanting a private list to be available from the start
18:16:28 <rbergeron> nirik: I think that's a good point. We're not really sure if we're going to be hearing echoes, or if there will be a line of people banging on the door. :)
18:16:37 <rdieter> mjg59: agreed.
18:16:39 <mjg59> nirik: My other concern is that if we set one up after some event it's obvious that we want to have a discussion about it
18:16:47 <nirik> mjg59: I guess that would be ok with me too... and open it if we decide that would work better I guess.
18:16:50 <red_alert> I really think if we want people to come to use with their community issues which tend to be very sensitive we should allow private discussion from the very beginning
18:17:00 <mjg59> I'd go for an open list and a closed list and hope that the closed list never gets used
18:17:08 <bpepple> mjg59: +1
18:17:16 <rdieter> cwg-private list +1
18:17:32 <rbergeron> sounds good.
18:17:34 <mjg59> Advertise the availability of both, encourage the use of the open one
18:17:38 <nirik> ok.
18:17:57 <red_alert> mjg59: +1
18:18:02 <rdieter> for -private, mjg59 suggested no archiving, any objections to that?
18:18:26 <rbergeron> Does private mean anyone can mail to the list, but only members receive the mail?
18:18:37 <red_alert> is time-limited archiving available instead?
18:18:41 <rbergeron> Is that a configuration option?
18:18:42 <rdieter> rbergeron: yes (non-members will be moderated though)
18:18:47 * nirik shrugs. there's always records, but I guess that solves the case of new people joining later and not being able to see the old discussions.
18:19:02 <rbergeron> rdieter: ahhh. /me hugs whoever gets to moderate the spam ;)
18:19:33 <bpepple> rbergeron: I did the fesco list for a few years. it was never that bad.
18:19:53 <nirik> yeah, occasional spams or a cross post or something.
18:20:39 <nirik> next topic? or anything more on this one?
18:20:42 <rdieter> who wants the job of making the cwg-private list ? (I can)
18:21:09 <rbergeron> bpepple: the cloud list has been like 2 or 3 a day lately. I odn't know what's up with that.
18:21:09 <nirik> rdieter: thanks. ;)
18:21:21 <bpepple> I can, unless you really want to. ;-)
18:21:28 <rdieter> #action rdieter to create unarchived cwg-private mailing list (that hopefully will never get used, but you never know)
18:21:46 <nb> if you are just wanting a way for people to contact you privately, you could make a fas group and just do cwg-members@fedoraproject.org
18:21:53 <rdieter> bpepple: well, I'll just do the poking, I don't have the access myself
18:22:03 <rdieter> bpepple: if you can do it, even better/faster
18:22:21 <bpepple> I'd be poking people also, so it wouldn't be any faster.
18:22:21 <nirik> nb: fas groups have some limitations/annoyances over a list tho. ;)
18:22:27 <nb> nirik, true
18:22:35 <nb> bpepple, rdieter who should be admin, i'll go ahead and make it
18:22:55 <rdieter> nb: I guess me for now, anyone else want admin access ?
18:23:15 <rbergeron> not me. ;)
18:23:23 <rdieter> nb: I guess add bpepple too, in case of raptors :)
18:23:26 * nirik already deals with enough lists. ;)
18:23:44 <bpepple> rdieter: works for me.
18:23:46 * red_alert is happy to help with the list if needed
18:24:00 <red_alert> but I don't need to get admin access if there's no need to :)
18:24:13 <nb> rdieter, bpepple password sent
18:24:21 <nb> are both of your fas names the same as your nicks?
18:24:22 <nb> i think?
18:24:30 <rdieter> nb: rdieter , yes.
18:24:33 <bpepple> nb: yup. mine's bpepple.
18:24:45 <rdieter> anything else logistic-wise to worry about?
18:24:53 <red_alert> #fedora-cwg? :)
18:25:00 <rdieter> hmm... will this same time work for semi-regular meetings ?
18:25:21 <mjg59> Works for me
18:25:23 <rdieter> red_alert: oh that too.
18:25:25 <bpepple> we probably need to update the wiki appropriately, and make sure to advertise it to the mailing lists.
18:25:29 <red_alert> time works for me
18:25:34 <nirik> sure, I suppose another channel...
18:25:42 * nirik can set that up if you like.
18:25:44 <bpepple> time & day works for me.
18:25:53 <rbergeron> yup
18:26:05 <rdieter> bpepple: yeah, the page in /topic needs to be moved to be clearly marked as the charter, and other info linked in elsewhere
18:26:24 <nirik> yeah, this time is ok for now at least for me.
18:26:33 <rdieter> I'll work on that, but my wiki-fu is a bit weak.
18:27:36 <rdieter> #info group to use #fedora-cwg as an additional contact point
18:28:42 <rdieter> once I've made the wiki semi-presentable, I'll advertise the fact (and enlist others here to help do that too)
18:28:57 <rdieter> #action rdieter to work on cwg wiki
18:28:57 <red_alert> I should be able to help with wiki-fu if necessary
18:29:20 <rdieter> #action red_alert to provide wiki-fu too
18:30:12 * rbergeron would be happy to reiterate whatever goes into the wiki in blog post when y'all are done.
18:30:50 <rdieter> ok, I think that wraps that up for now.  next topic?  do we want to touch on whether or not to do a Code of Conduct?  or how to best work with other related groups in fedora ?
18:31:20 <nirik> My personal opinion is no. I'm happy to be persuaded, but I think it's not a good idea. ;)
18:31:34 <bpepple> nirik: a code of conduct?
18:31:38 <mjg59> I've seen upsides to codes of conduct in other projects. I've seen no appreciable downsides.
18:31:50 <rdieter> coc it is then. :)
18:31:55 * rbergeron sits on the couch next to nirik
18:32:00 <rdieter> #topic To be or not to be... a code of conduct
18:32:05 <nirik> bpepple: yes, no to a code of conduct. ;)
18:32:11 <nirik> mjg59: there are lots of downsides. ;)
18:32:13 <mjg59> Well. Other than that people argue about it for a while, and then everything goes back to normal except that we have a more solid example of expected behaviour
18:32:30 <nirik> 1) disruptive people won't sign it, so won't care about it.
18:32:37 <nirik> 2) people will language lawyer.
18:32:39 <bpepple> I use to be pretty against a code of conduct, but I've slowly been leaning towards the thought that the project has grown large enough to need one.
18:32:45 <mjg59> nirik: We don't need people to sign it
18:32:57 <mjg59> nirik: We just need to expect people to abide by it
18:33:11 <mjg59> The ideal code of conduct is vague enough that there's no way to language lawyer it
18:33:19 <nirik> then why have it?
18:33:24 <mjg59> It's not supposed to be an enumeration of things that are and aren't allowed
18:33:35 <mjg59> It's intended to be an aspirational goal that people attempt to abide by
18:33:35 <rbergeron> if it's vague, then everything will turn into a flame war about whether or not one has violated the code of conduct or not.
18:33:41 <mjg59> It's not a stick to beat people with
18:33:59 <mjg59> It's something to point at while saying "Are you sure that your behaviour is in line with this?"
18:34:05 <nirik> I'd be ok with expanding on or changing "be excellent to one another"
18:34:21 <mjg59> Right, "Be excellent to one another" is pretty much precisely how it should be
18:34:31 <mjg59> The Ubuntu one ended up longer (though not by a huge amount)
18:34:43 <mjg59> I'd be happy to look through what other projects have adopted and summarise them
18:35:01 <rbergeron> Isn't that already the rule, more or less? Be excellent?
18:35:04 * rdieter hunts for references to other groups' coc's to compare
18:35:24 <rdieter> http://live.gnome.org/CodeOfConduct
18:35:26 <mjg59> The real point of a code of conduct is to have evidence that we take behaviour seriously. It's something that indicates to newcomers that we strive to be a friendly group.
18:35:28 <nirik> the only downside to 'be excellent' is that some people dislike the reference or find it too vuage. ;)
18:35:43 <rdieter> http://www.kde.org/code-of-conduct/
18:36:02 <red_alert> is there a difference between a code of conduct and an etiquette?
18:36:34 <pjones> red_alert: well, the latter is generally less formalized than the former.
18:37:30 * nirik wonders if we couldn't change 'be excellent to one another' with a postel's law paraphrase.
18:37:57 <nirik> "be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others"
18:38:29 <red_alert> mind the different cultures - being excellent/conservative/liberal doesn't necessarily mean the same to all people
18:38:47 <mjg59> red_alert: Right, which is pretty much why the Ubuntu one ended up longer
18:38:50 <pjones> is there some culture in which excellent has a negative connotation?
18:39:12 <mjg59> A little more explanation of what "excellent" means is unlikely to be harmful
18:39:14 <pjones> (conservative and liberal are obviously problematic)
18:39:38 * bpepple likes the kde code of conduct. seems to define expected good behaviour without getting bogged down too much into details.
18:39:42 <red_alert> pjones: no, but what a person from country X things to be excellent might be not-really excellent for a person from country Y, i.e. they might have a very different understanding
18:40:49 <pjones> red_alert: yeah, I understand that - it's sortof why we were so vague in the first place, actually.  the vagueness has some utility in that we don't have to quibble about minor things, and when you're truly not being excellent to somebody else it's pretty obvious.
18:40:52 <nirik> example: I think it's excellent to be blunt and honest all the time, so when I call someone stupid and a jerk on a mailing list, thats fine, because I am being honest and blunt.
18:41:23 <pjones> nirik: ... and everybody else says "dude, that's not excellent", and you learn? ;)
18:41:57 <nirik> pjones: but the code of conduct says excellent right there... ;) Unless it also says "as subject to majority opinion of what this means" ?
18:42:32 <nirik> how about this: proponents of code of conducts gather them and pros and post to the list and we discuss further next week?
18:42:46 <pjones> nirik: yes, but that's always true.  look at the kde CoC: it obviously also means "be considerate as subject to the community standards of what considerate means"
18:43:29 <red_alert> in Europe we have lots of such examples, like the Germans are very blunt while the Swiss try to never harm anyone's feelings - that's an issue now and then, both parties think they're being excellent but the other doesn't think so
18:44:18 <red_alert> but I figure a etiquette instead of a CoC might be enough...like we already have one for the wiki and for #fedora, why not establish those for the whole community?
18:44:21 <rbergeron> nirik: +1
18:45:07 <rbergeron> In fact, I think it might be good to have those against as well post their thoughts. And it might be interesting to post to planet as well, to guage what other folks have to say.
18:45:13 <mjg59> nirik: A community is always going to have to adopt some consensus standard of behaviour. Moral relativism just doesn't work well in larger social groups
18:46:07 <nirik> mjg59: sure, just trying to codify it in a code-of-conduct thats as vuage as "be excellent" doesn't seem to me to help much, but I could be convinced I suppose. ;)
18:46:51 <mjg59> nirik: To a first approximation, anyone who attempts to word lawyer a code of conduct is in violation of the code of conduct
18:47:09 <mjg59> Because they're trying to justify behaviour rather than trying to understand the problem
18:47:18 <rdieter> mjg59: right, in short, "if you have to think about whether you're in violation, you probably are"
18:47:23 <mjg59> rdieter: Yup
18:48:14 <nirik> but then why not skip the code of conduct and go with "be excellent" ?
18:48:18 <mjg59> I don't think there's a strong behaviour problem in the parts of the Fedora community I'm active in, so I don't expect anything much to change - except for it being an indication that we take the problem of negative behaviour seriously, which is something that helps attract people to the prject
18:48:19 <red_alert> I'd just set up a minimum standard of behaviour, like "be polite", "use standard language" (i.e. no slang, leet speak, dialects, ...), "avoid flaming", "try to understand the others point of view in a discussion", and so on
18:48:49 <bpepple> mjg59: agreed.
18:49:10 <mjg59> Anyway, we can probably take more concrete proposals to the list
18:50:33 <red_alert> I figure once we have decided on a coc/etiquette we should think about how we handle folks that ignore them repeatedly (and also after being shown the coc)
18:50:55 <mjg59> red_alert: Enforcement is a more difficult problem
18:51:11 <fenris02> red_alert, and do so in a manner that they understand, and dont merely become defensive
18:51:12 <mjg59> I think we should leave that until we decide what we're going to provide in the first place
18:51:18 <red_alert> mjg59: we're here to handle the more difficult problems in the community, aren't we?
18:51:18 * nirik thinks we should work with/empower existing management in those areas.
18:51:30 <bpepple> red_alert: gregk actually wrote a message last week on the board, that I thought was spot-on on how we should handle it.
18:51:50 <mjg59> red_alert: Yes, but coming up with solutions we don't end up using is a waste of time :)
18:52:20 <red_alert> if we don't intend to come up with solution and use them, we are wasting time for nearly an hour already
18:52:52 <nirik> ie, if it's a mailing list issue, we should talk with the mailing list admin... suggest solutions or offer to talk to the offender.
18:53:25 <drago01> as long as we don't reapeat the "hall monitors" nonsense
18:54:00 <red_alert> offenders mostly disturb more than just one list, though :)
18:54:02 <rdieter> I consider the job or mitigating or arbitrating conflict, much more important, but one does need a plan for when/if that ever fails
18:54:04 <mjg59> red_alert: If we don't agree on a CoC then we end up with very different enforcement approaches
18:54:06 <rdieter> job of...
18:54:16 <red_alert> mjg59: agreed
18:54:22 <mjg59> red_alert: So I think we should decide that first before worrying about enforcement
18:54:52 <red_alert> mjg59: correct, I was just saying that we need to do so if we decide for one
18:55:12 <mjg59> red_alert: Right, I was just saying that now's not the time to start worrying
18:55:17 <rdieter> that said, I'd hope that to be a *very* rare occurrence.
18:55:22 <rdieter> mjg59: +1
18:55:24 <bpepple> ok. we're almost out of time. so the coc discussion will continue on the list until next week.
18:55:25 <mjg59> Once we've agreed on the CoC/whatever situation, we can work on that
18:55:57 <rdieter> bpepple: true.  => list, blog'y
18:56:04 <red_alert> so are we meeting again in 1 or 2 weeks?
18:56:17 <rdieter> I'd suggest same time/place next week
18:56:26 <bpepple> rdieter: +1
18:56:30 * rbergeron nods
18:56:37 <nirik> rdieter: +1
18:56:47 <nirik> also, continue free discussion in the irc channel?
18:56:55 <rdieter> sure.
18:57:00 <red_alert> +1, I'm abroad next week though and not 100% sure I can make it to the meeting
18:57:00 <bpepple> rdieter: do you want to handle the agenda/run the meeting? Or would you like one of us to handle that?
18:57:56 <rdieter> bpepple: I'd prefer to hand it off ... eventually.  I'm here largely to facilitate getting things going is all.
18:58:22 <rdieter> bpepple: so... sooner the better, if you (or anyone) is willing to take the job
18:58:42 * nirik would like to not be it. I already run too many meetings. ;)
18:58:48 <bpepple> rdieter: that's what I thought. So, does anyone want to handle the agenda/run the meeting? If no one wants to do it, I'll step up.
18:59:54 <red_alert> I think both agenda and meeting can be a joint effort of everyone anyway :)
19:00:02 <red_alert> s/can/should/
19:00:42 <rdieter> nice time to get disconnected (me).
19:00:47 <rbergeron> lol
19:00:51 <nirik> sure. It's good often to have a point of contact / know who would be starting things tho, so you don't step on anyones toes.
19:01:01 <rdieter> ok, let's get out of the way for the next meeting.
19:01:04 <rdieter> #endmeeting