18:06:32 <bpepple> #startmeeting cwg -- http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Community_Working_Group
18:06:32 <zodbot> Meeting started Tue Jan  4 18:06:32 2011 UTC.  The chair is bpepple. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
18:06:32 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
18:06:50 <bpepple> #meetingname cwg
18:06:50 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'cwg'
18:07:11 <bpepple> ping red_alert rbergeron nirik mjg59
18:07:16 * rbergeron is here
18:07:19 * nirik is around.
18:07:27 <bpepple> #topic roll call
18:07:27 <rbergeron> all caffeinated and ready to rummmmmmbbbbllllllllllle
18:07:34 * rbergeron 
18:07:39 * red_alert 
18:07:49 <nirik> 
18:08:17 <bpepple> #info nirik rbergeron red_alert bpepple mjg59 present
18:08:42 <bpepple> ok, looks like we've got everyone here. ;)
18:09:05 <bpepple> #topic agenda
18:09:24 <bpepple> ok, I'm not sure where we left things at from our last meeting.
18:10:00 <nirik> I think mjg59 was going to come up with a draft Code of conduct for us to look at and discuss?
18:10:09 <nirik> prabindatta_: ?
18:10:19 * prabindatta_ sorry
18:10:24 <mjg59> Yes, and I utterly failed to
18:10:28 <mjg59> Apologies for that
18:10:52 <mjg59> I've got some bare bones, I'll try to finish that off this afternoon
18:11:15 <bpepple> mjg59: that works, and then we can discuss that on the mailing list & at our next meeting.
18:12:02 <bpepple> #action  mjg59 will draft a code of conduct and send it to the mailing list for discussion.
18:13:03 <bpepple> alright, do we want to discuss enforcement again, or is there something else folks would like to discuss?
18:13:39 <nirik> sure, we could talk about enforcement.
18:14:13 <red_alert> +1
18:14:44 <nirik> I'll reiterate that I think we should try and have enforcement happen in the area where the issue takes place...
18:14:56 <bpepple> #agenda Conduct enforcement
18:15:04 <mjg59> I think we'd left it with the idea that existing authorities handle things where possible (ie, IRC, forums and the like)
18:15:06 <bpepple> oop.
18:15:15 <bpepple> #topic Conduct enforcement
18:15:30 <nirik> yeah. Of course sometimes people are not going to be happy with what happens/doesn't happen.
18:15:34 <bpepple> mjg59: correct. that seems the sanest solution.
18:15:46 <mjg59> Right
18:16:11 <mjg59> If people are unhappy with the result then I think we need a group of people who are trusted to decide whether or not things were handled appropriately
18:16:21 <mjg59> But final enforcement pretty much has to come down to the board
18:16:24 <bpepple> nirik: they can the escalate disagreements to a higher body (Board, CWG, or something else) can't they.
18:16:29 <nirik> right.
18:16:48 <nirik> I guess I would say as a first cut:
18:17:00 <nirik> try and solve at the local level
18:17:02 <mjg59> I don't think we want to create a group of people who themselves have the power to exclude people from project resources
18:17:20 <mjg59> Merely a group who can say "This should probably have been handled differently" and then refer it back to the local level
18:17:44 <nirik> yeah, I was thinking of perhaps CWG being a mediation level.
18:18:06 <nirik> ie, talking with the group and providing input for how to better handle things like that.
18:18:16 <red_alert> I figure we're also supposed to find out how to best deal with any kind of conflicts within the project and this is just one type of such conflicts
18:18:51 <nirik> in specific cases where someone feels unfairly treated, should we just ask the board to look at it if local and mediation doesn't solve their issues?
18:18:53 <red_alert> so we should probably set up a SOP for all kinds of conflicts we're supposed to handle/support/mediate
18:18:59 <rbergeron> yeah
18:19:05 <mjg59> That's true
18:19:13 <bpepple> nirik: similar to how FESCO sometimes recruited a third party to arbitrate disagreements.
18:19:25 <nirik> yeah.
18:19:31 <pjones> the "special prosecutor" model.
18:19:42 <mjg59> So, we should probably talk a little about what seems in-scope
18:20:04 <mjg59> For instance, the discussion about the request for F15 to ship with upstream's GNOME artwork
18:20:16 <mjg59> There was certainly community disagreement on that issue
18:20:44 <mjg59> Is that the kind of thing we should be looking at, or is the working relationship between Red Hat, the board and the community the board's responsibility?
18:20:45 <bpepple> mjg59: yup. some of the art team wasn't terribly thrilled about that.
18:21:28 <nirik> well, I don't think it should be up to CWG to solve all community disagreement.
18:21:41 <nirik> we should try and make sure the discussion is nice
18:21:54 <mjg59> nirik: No, but should we try to work on how decisions are presented?
18:22:17 <nirik> mjg59: well, what decision are we talking about here?
18:22:24 <mjg59> Not so much the decision
18:23:00 <mjg59> But should we limit ourselves to behavioural standards, or also look at the kind of generic issues that can trigger ill-tempered discussion?
18:23:11 <nirik> ah, I see what you are saying...
18:23:45 <mjg59> ie, should we do something like write best practices documents for groups to present their decision making process rather than things just appearing as fait accomplis?
18:24:25 <rbergeron> I don't know that we should be in the business of making groups adhere to specific processes for decision making.
18:24:33 <rbergeron> Or recommending, really.
18:24:42 <nirik> well, it's going to vary a bit I fear too...
18:24:53 <rbergeron> Every group is different
18:24:59 <rbergeron> and every situation is different
18:25:05 <mjg59> rbergeron: I was thinking of presentation, not the process itself
18:25:14 <mjg59> I'm happy for us to feel that it's out of our scope
18:25:37 <nirik> ideally, I would like to see folks step in where there is something like this and urge calm and reasonable discussion in the right place.
18:25:42 <mjg59> But it's something that has an impact on the community interaction, so I think we ought to at least decide where our boundaries are
18:26:18 <nirik> so, perhaps for us it would be nice to make a Putting_out_flamewars_SOP :)
18:26:25 <rbergeron> I think our boundaries should be: If someone asks for help or mediation, we should be willing to give it. We shouldn't be going out of our way to find situations, or to implement processes to "fix" things that aren't yet broken.
18:26:34 <rbergeron> I'm kind of a hands-off person, though :)
18:27:29 <mjg59> rbergeron: I think anything we did in this respect would be purely as advice, with no expectation that failing to follow that advice should result in bad things happening
18:28:10 <mjg59> But, like I said, I'm not wed to the idea of us doing this :)
18:28:14 * rbergeron nods
18:28:21 <nirik> I think a document for mailing lists like freenodes http://freenode.net/catalysts.shtml would be good to have and point people to.
18:29:38 <nirik> so, perhaps we should focus on code of conduct stuff for now?
18:29:45 <mjg59> I think that's fair
18:29:53 <mjg59> We seem to have agreement that it's a good starting point for discussion
18:30:15 <bpepple> might be best. I don't think mjg59 suggestion is a bad idea, just might be worth giving some more thought down the road.
18:32:40 <bpepple> so, back to enforcement for a bit. Is everyone in agreement that existing authorities handle things where possible, and disagreements be brought to a higher authority for some type on arbitration?
18:33:17 <mjg59> Yes, and I'd say that the initial focus should be on mediation
18:33:18 <nirik> that sounds reasonable to me.
18:33:41 <nirik> I also think we should make sure to have a 'buck stops here' place... which I assume would be the Board.
18:33:49 <mjg59> Right
18:33:57 <bpepple> sounds good. just wanted to make sure so we could mark it in the minutes.
18:34:01 <nirik> and hopefully they could vote/rule/whatever on things in a timely manner.
18:35:14 <bpepple> #agreed existing authorities handle conduct enforcement where possible, and disagreements be brought to a higher authority for some type on arbitration, with the Board being the final 'buck stops here' place.
18:36:01 <bpepple> ok, so is there anything else in regard to enforcement anyone wants to add?
18:37:03 <bpepple> alright. moving on then...
18:37:06 <red_alert> I think after we have a (first version of the) code of conduct we should get in touch with all authorities to find out what they think about the code and its enforcement
18:37:41 <red_alert> and their role in the latter
18:38:24 <nirik> I'd say if we get a c-o-c we like, we should ask the board what they think, then if they like it ask for more widespread input...
18:38:39 <nirik> and yeah, asking places that would have to enforce it seems like a good idea.
18:39:01 <bpepple> nirik: seems reasonable to me.
18:39:05 <mjg59> Yes. I don't think we can justify the implementation of anything like this without talking to the community as part of the process
18:39:16 * nirik nods. we need community buy in for sure.
18:39:22 <mjg59> But clearing it with the board first before moving on to that step seems reasonable
18:39:28 <bpepple> #topic misc
18:39:36 <red_alert> +1 for asking the board first, probably fesco next
18:39:39 <mjg59> The obvious people we need to talk to are IRC operators and forum moderators
18:39:48 <nirik> and mailing list admins.
18:39:50 <bpepple> mailing list mods.
18:39:51 <mjg59> Yes
18:40:50 <red_alert> SIG/project commitees as well
18:40:55 <bpepple> alright. is there anything else we need to discuss this week, or should we start to wrap it up?
18:41:04 * nirik is still not sure a c-o-c will help us any, but I guess it's really just a more detailed version of 'be excellent'
18:41:13 <rbergeron> lol
18:41:14 <rbergeron> yep.
18:41:37 <red_alert> it's worth a try
18:41:42 <red_alert> if nothing else :)
18:42:52 <bpepple> does this meeting day & time still work for everyone?
18:43:08 <rbergeron> indeed.
18:43:16 <nirik> fine with me usually.
18:43:17 <mjg59> Works for me
18:43:17 <red_alert> couldn't work any better for me :)
18:43:51 <bpepple> works for me also. so let's plan on meeting next tuesday at this time.
18:44:08 <red_alert> +1
18:44:19 <bpepple> anything else? otherwise I think we can put a fork in this meeting.
18:45:18 * nirik has nothing.
18:45:27 <bpepple> ok, thanks for your time everyone!
18:45:30 <red_alert> looking forward to mjg59's proposal for a code of conduct :)
18:45:31 * rbergeron is out of commentary ;)
18:45:37 <bpepple> #endmeeting