18:30:01 <Sparks> #startmeeting Fedora Board Meeting
18:30:02 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Sep 26 18:30:01 2012 UTC.  The chair is Sparks. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
18:30:02 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
18:30:21 <Sparks> #meetingname Fedora Board
18:30:21 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fedora_board'
18:30:28 <Sparks> #topic Roll Call
18:30:29 * cwickert Iis here
18:30:32 * Sparks is here
18:30:33 <gholms> Hi
18:30:41 * inode0 is here
18:31:32 <Sparks> #info ke4qqq will not be here due to $dayjob requirements
18:32:01 * jreznik is here
18:32:47 * mattdm is here just listening
18:32:58 <Sparks> #info rbergeron is somewhere and the Internets are somewhere else
18:33:11 <Sparks> #chair cwickert gholms inode0 jreznik
18:33:11 <zodbot> Current chairs: Sparks cwickert gholms inode0 jreznik
18:33:13 * cwickert wonders what he is supposed to do as secretary when zodbot is around :)
18:33:23 <Sparks> cwickert: Just sit back and look pretty
18:33:31 <cwickert> I can do that :)
18:33:32 <Sparks> cwickert: And probably mail out the minutes
18:33:35 <cwickert> suer
18:33:36 <cwickert> sure
18:33:42 <Sparks> cwickert: See, no sweat
18:34:06 * abadger1999 here
18:34:41 <Sparks> #chair abadger1999
18:34:41 <zodbot> Current chairs: Sparks abadger1999 cwickert gholms inode0 jreznik
18:35:03 <Sparks> nb: You around?
18:35:13 <Sparks> pbrobinson: You around?
18:35:26 <Sparks> I guess everyone else is accounted for...
18:36:18 <Sparks> #info Sparks, abadger1999, cwickert, gholms, inode0, and jreznik are in attendance.
18:36:48 <Sparks> #topic Agenda
18:37:03 <Sparks> Announcements
18:37:08 <Sparks> Open Q&A
18:37:14 <Sparks> Ticket #141: Keep better, open records of how Board members vote on issues
18:37:21 <Sparks> Release naming status (Jreznik)
18:37:32 <Sparks> Next Public Board IRC Meeting time/date confirmation: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 @ 18:30 UTC
18:37:40 <Sparks> #topic Announcements
18:37:44 <Sparks> Anyone have any?
18:38:36 <Sparks> #info Next Public Board IRC Meeting time/date confirmation: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 @ 18:30 UTC
18:38:38 <jreznik> nothing from me
18:39:19 <Sparks> Okay, moving along
18:39:26 <Sparks> #topic Open Q&A
18:39:38 <Sparks> Does anyone have anything questions for the Board?
18:40:26 * Sparks thinks this is going to be a short meeting
18:40:53 <gholms> I guess so.  :(
18:41:12 * Sparks also needs to keep a single thought in his head while he is typing
18:41:32 <Sparks> Okay, we'll we can come back to this at the end of the meeting if there is time.
18:41:48 <Sparks> #topic Ticket #141: Keep better, open records of how Board members vote on issues
18:41:55 <Sparks> #link https://fedorahosted.org/board/ticket/141
18:42:25 <Sparks> I believe the last thing we have on this topic is a proposal from Toshio.
18:42:32 <abadger1999> Yep.
18:42:38 * gholms goes to dig out a link
18:42:40 <Sparks> inode0: You seemed to be happy with that proposal.
18:42:57 <abadger1999> So we went from simply publishing votes to a proposal to start trying to do everything we can in public.
18:43:08 <inode0> well, agreeable anyway :)
18:43:42 <abadger1999> It would be a combination of creating public board trac + mailing list (moderated or posting limited to board members)
18:43:56 <abadger1999> and board rules to discuss and vote on things in public
18:44:00 * cwickert has a couple of questions about the propsal
18:44:05 <cwickert> proposal*
18:44:16 <abadger1999> cwickert: Go for it.
18:44:47 <cwickert> 1. Why do we need a board-public mailing list if we already have the board list? IIRC is has been opened, right?
18:45:18 <cwickert> I mean, we then end up with 3 lists: board, board-private and board-public
18:45:22 <abadger1999> cwickert: no, board-private is private
18:45:24 <inode0> I would guess so there wouldn't be so many sidetracks and repeat questions
18:45:33 <abadger1999> cwickert: ah -- do you mean advisory-board?
18:45:38 <cwickert> yes
18:45:46 <abadger1999> <nod>  -- what inode0 said.
18:45:54 <cwickert> advisory-board vs. board-public
18:45:57 <jreznik> yep, it does not makes sense to have three lists...
18:46:10 <abadger1999> learning from the secure boot example -- we ended up using board-private to hash out what to do.
18:46:11 <Sparks> IMO, the advisory-board list is the board-public list.
18:46:15 <abadger1999> but not because it needed to be private.
18:46:26 <jreznik> even we should avoid using -private as much to comply with this proposal (actually, we do not use it frequently)
18:46:45 <gholms> Sparks: The distinguising factor in the proposal is whether or not everyone can post to it.
18:46:45 <abadger1999> just  because we needed to have somepleace that we, as board members, could hash out what our points of agreement and differences were.
18:47:05 <jreznik> abadger1999: I get your point, but this is exactly what should be done in public
18:47:13 <abadger1999> jreznik: it would be public
18:47:24 <jreznik> and moderated...
18:47:59 <abadger1999> jreznik: the difference between board-public and advisory-board would be that advisory-board lets everyone give input.  board-public would let everyone read but only board members are having the conversation.
18:48:28 <Sparks> Let me post exactly what the proposal is and we can discuss each point.
18:48:29 <cwickert> I think this is not helpful
18:48:48 <Sparks> This is from Toshio's post:
18:48:51 <jwb> that was originally the setup with advisory-board
18:48:58 <jwb> people just copied it and replied to devel
18:49:01 <abadger1999> without that sort of space, board-private and the phone meetings are where we do that work.
18:49:09 <Sparks> #idea Have a new trac instance for things that can be discussed in public.
18:49:10 <abadger1999> and those are both private.
18:49:29 <Sparks> Are there any concerns to having an additional trac instance?
18:49:44 <cwickert> I'm afraid that if we discuss stuff on a read-only board-public list, people will respond on advisory-board and we have the discussion split up on two lists then
18:50:18 <inode0> probably, but it won't interrupt the discussion on board-public
18:50:29 <abadger1999> cwickert: as opposed to now where we have it split between advisory-board and board-private?
18:50:36 <gholms> I'm fine with a public trac instance for stuff that doesn't need to be private.
18:50:39 <Sparks> #undo
18:50:39 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Idea object at 0x25b14290>
18:50:46 <cwickert> ok, hold on please
18:50:57 <cwickert> first trac and then the list?
18:51:00 <Sparks> Yes
18:51:03 <cwickert> ok
18:51:07 <Sparks> Let's keep this straight.
18:51:09 <abadger1999> +1 to additional trac.. this is something we should have anyway.
18:51:12 <Sparks> #idea Have a new trac instance for things that can be discussed in public.
18:51:19 <cwickert> can't we just open the board's trac? and mark some tickets private?
18:51:36 * cwickert wanted to have the board trac open for years
18:51:37 <jreznik> btw. we were already discussing opening the phone calls - using our voip infra but as we do not have voip anymore, it would be difficult...
18:51:42 <Sparks> I would rather see a way to make certain aspects of the current Trac public.  I'm not sure how to do that/if that's a possibility.
18:52:09 <jreznik> cwickert: as I remember I'm not sure it's possible to mark private stuff in the public trac
18:52:15 <cwickert> Sparks: we can mark tickets private and even individual comments with a plugin
18:52:30 <Sparks> cwickert: That seems to be a better solution to me.
18:52:36 <jreznik> cwickert: so are you sure the plugin works? if so, it's the best solution
18:52:46 <Sparks> cwickert: That way things that end up being public can be and vice versa
18:52:52 <nirik> I don't think there is any such plugin. ;) Happy to hear otherwise tho
18:52:56 <gholms> #info We can mark trac tickets and even individual comments private with a plugin
18:53:03 <gholms> Oh.
18:53:04 <gholms> #undo
18:53:04 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Info object at 0x358aed50>
18:53:07 <jreznik> nirik: yep, that was the reason why we punt it last time
18:53:12 <jreznik> but would be great to have such plugin
18:53:14 * inode0 thinks there is less danger of accidental exposures with separate tracs too
18:53:22 <cwickert> Kevin Fenzi: rbergeron said so, trac-plugin-private-comments
18:53:25 <nirik> there is a privateticket plugin, but it doesn't have a way to make selective tickets public.
18:53:26 <jreznik> two tracs = inconsistency
18:53:30 * nirik looks
18:53:53 <inode0> what inconsistency? they are used for different things
18:54:00 <cwickert> nirik: http://trac-hacks.org/wiki/PrivateCommentPlugin
18:54:11 <Sparks> inode0: But if something then needs to become private...
18:54:12 <nirik> yeah, reading.
18:54:24 <jreznik> Sparks: yep, that's what I thought
18:54:32 <cwickert> Sparks: IIRC we can mark something private at any time
18:54:34 <Sparks> inode0 jreznik: and vice versa
18:54:38 <gholms> #link http://trac-hacks.org/wiki/PrivateCommentPlugin
18:54:43 <abadger1999> cwickert: "Email notifcations are not filtered and, as far as I know, can't be filtered via a plugin. To filter the notifications I made some minor core changes. If a comment is private the text 'the ticket is processed internally' will be set as comment text."
18:54:53 <jreznik> so action #1 is to gwt what's possible with PrivateCommentPlugin
18:54:55 <nirik> so, the tickets would be always public, comments would be able to be marked private... if that works, we can look at adding that plugin, but not sure it does all you want it to. ;)
18:55:08 <nirik> and yeah, not sure we want to make core trac changes. ;(
18:55:21 <Sparks> nirik: chicken
18:55:25 <jreznik> anyone skilled enough to write trac plugin for board? would be hero :D
18:55:26 <abadger1999> cwickert: although that might still be okay if we're not using the per-comment feature.
18:55:50 <abadger1999> write yes; time to maintain -- not so much :-)
18:56:10 <Sparks> cwickert: Can you follow up with nirik for our next meeting and see if we can figure out if this is a viable solution?
18:56:28 <cwickert> I am not sure if I'll find the time...
18:56:41 <gholms> nirik: I presume you've already seen this:  http://trac-hacks.org/wiki/PrivateTicketsPlugin
18:56:53 <nirik> gholms: yeah, we already have that
18:56:55 <jreznik> abadger1999: what I'd like to avoid is to take care about 2 trac instances, 3 mailing lists - maintainence hell
18:57:09 <nirik> the problem with it is that it's per instance... so if you load it all tickets are private
18:57:15 <gholms> Dang
18:57:44 <Sparks> #action Sparks to work with nirik to see if the Trac PrivateCommentPlugin is a viable solution and bring back the results to the next Board meeting.
18:57:45 <cwickert> ok, how about this? nirik and I look into the plugins and then report back. we can already agree being as public as possible now
18:57:45 <abadger1999> jreznik: sure... but otoh, if we want to go this route, we have to work with the featureset that exists...
18:57:55 <Sparks> #undo
18:57:55 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Action object at 0x20c195d0>
18:58:15 <nirik> sure, I'm happy to help
18:58:19 <Sparks> #action cwickert to work with nirik to see if the Trac PrivateCommentPlugin is a viable solution and bring back the results to the next Board meeting.
18:58:26 <cwickert> I mean, do we all agree we should *try* to open the current board trac? given that it's technically possible?
18:58:26 <Sparks> cwickert nirik: Thanks!
18:58:44 <Sparks> I think it's a good idea.
18:58:47 * cwickert agrees to his own proposal for obvious reasons ;)
18:58:55 <jreznik> cwickert: yep, I'm definitely ok with that - open it!
18:58:56 <abadger1999> okay, privatecommentsplugin doesn't look like it will work.
18:59:00 <Sparks> +1
18:59:05 <gholms> If it's technically feasible, go for it!
18:59:13 <abadger1999> it only marks comments private... there's no way to mark whole tickets private.
18:59:20 <gholms> If it isn't then I'm still fine with a second instance that we can use for most of our stuff.
18:59:24 <Sparks> abadger1999: That might be okay
18:59:44 <gholms> Sparks: Well, it means descriptions and subjects can't be particularly descriptive.
19:00:01 <Sparks> gholms: Right.  I can see use cases on both sides of that fence
19:00:03 <cwickert> abadger1999: there is another plugin for that
19:00:52 <abadger1999> cwickert: the privateticketsplugin that nirik already said doesn't work for us?
19:00:55 <inode0> I just worry a bit here that we assume everyone who uses this will be trac savvy - and they won't be and things that should be private will get exposed
19:01:21 <Sparks> inode0: Well, lets see what solution cwickert and nirik come back with next time.
19:01:32 <Sparks> Everyone ready to move on to the mailing list discussion?
19:02:01 * gholms looks to see if they already have an #action
19:02:08 <gholms> Ah, there it is.
19:02:12 <gholms> Let's move on.
19:02:13 <Sparks> #idea Have a new board-public mailing list. This list should either be moderated by board members or not open for posting (possibly that also means subscription... not sure what mailman2 allows). Archives are definitely public. Unless a discussion needs to be private, discussion should occur here.
19:03:07 <inode0> one comment on this - if everyone interested can't subscribe having the archives public I think is pretty useless
19:03:26 <inode0> famsco does that now and even people very interested can't be bothered over time to go look at archives
19:03:35 <cwickert> +1
19:03:40 <Sparks> I can see both sides of this.  There is time when discussion on decisions need to be between board members to hash out a unified approach.  On the other hand, it's yet another list...
19:03:43 <gholms> Everyone should be able to subscribe to a list like this.
19:03:58 <gholms> Maybe not *post* to it, but...
19:04:31 <jreznik> what about fab list moderation? it's not as much used as we wish, quite low traffic...
19:05:10 <inode0> Sparks: I just want the public to be able to follow along in more or less real time with the discussion by subscribing to the list
19:05:22 <abadger1999> It should be doable to have subscription without posting privs, I think.. should be similar to how an announce list is setup.
19:06:04 <Sparks> So does everyone like the idea of a board-public list that is moderated, allows anyone to subscribe, and has a public archive?
19:06:14 <gholms> #info The goal of the board-public list would be for board members to be able to carry on public conversations with minimal distractions that currently occur on the board-private list
19:06:17 <abadger1999> jreznik: fab is currently used for discussion with people outside of the board.... If we were to start moderating fab we'b need to move that discussion elsewhere.
19:06:42 <abadger1999> Sparks: +1 from me
19:06:51 <Sparks> +1
19:07:10 <gholms> +1
19:07:25 <jreznik> well I'm ok, just I don't like third mostly not used at all mailing list...
19:07:39 <inode0> fab is mostly not used now too
19:07:41 <cwickert> -1
19:07:54 <gholms> I'm a little concerned about conversations spilling over onto the advisory-board list, though.
19:07:57 <cwickert> I really see no benefit in yet another list
19:08:03 * gholms doesn't like multi-list conversations
19:08:10 <cwickert> gholms: +1
19:08:29 <Sparks> jreznik inode0: What is your vote?
19:08:33 <gholms> Is it *so* hard to filter out noise that we have to have a third list for that purpose?
19:08:44 <Sparks> gholms: Sometimes
19:08:45 <Sparks> iMO
19:08:51 * gholms is reconsidering his vote
19:08:57 <jreznik> Sparks: how often? :)
19:08:58 <inode0> right, I agree with that too but there is too much noise if these are on a completely open list and we'll end up using the phone and -private
19:09:01 <cwickert> I mean, what is so bad about fab list? we can still ignore the things we don't want to discuss
19:09:34 <Sparks> I think a good example would be the recent secure boot discussions...
19:09:53 <inode0> that would have been complete mayhem on fab, don't you think?
19:09:59 <Sparks> Yes
19:10:16 <jreznik> Sparks: the SB discussion was more our fail to discuss it properly...
19:10:32 <jreznik> but it could be bad on fab list
19:10:54 <Sparks> jreznik: I think there could have been a high noise level.
19:10:57 <jreznik> I'm +0.1 on the proposal :)
19:11:18 <jreznik> not convinced it's a good idea as the use cases are quite rare
19:11:30 <Sparks> I hated that discussion was hidden as there wasn't really anything there to hide but trying to keep the information straight was difficult.
19:11:48 <Sparks> jreznik: It's a tool... we use it when we need it.
19:11:54 <abadger1999> (and also a low absolute amount of signal from board members... Board members were a lot more engaged in the board-private discussion than on the fab or devel discussions)
19:12:01 <Sparks> jreznik: Good to have it even if we don't use it often
19:13:01 * Sparks wipes the votes clean
19:13:18 <inode0> philosophically I always wanted the board to actually discuss things on fab - but it never happens and there are reasons I guess that it never happens
19:13:33 <Sparks> I just see it as an extra tool in the toolbox
19:13:59 * abadger1999 <nod>s to inode0's point
19:14:19 <Sparks> Vote again?
19:14:29 <abadger1999> +1
19:14:37 <cwickert> -1
19:14:38 <jreznik> inode0: that's the question - if we want to be more open, do more things in public - we should communicate... another list sounds more like - ok, you can see what's happening, great but that's all you can get :)
19:14:58 <gholms> 0
19:15:01 <jreznik> 0
19:15:15 <inode0> +1 without a lot of enthusiasm
19:15:31 <Sparks> jreznik: It's like being in a room with the rest of the board having a conversation... a conversation that can be heard by all.
19:15:52 <Sparks> +1 (similarly without a lot of enthusiasm)
19:16:24 <jreznik> for now 3 +1, 2 0, 1 -1
19:16:48 <gholms> Mind if I offer another proposal?
19:16:53 <inode0> please do
19:17:00 <gholms> Proposal:  Discuss public tickets, once we have them, on the advisory-board list and table board-public list discussion until we see how the former works in practice
19:17:26 <Sparks> gholms: Works for me
19:17:44 <gholms> We don't necessarily have to do this all in one shot, after all.
19:17:53 <inode0> you can read the archives to see how it worked in the past in practice - I don't think it works on anything that gets anyone emotional in the public
19:18:18 * inode0 is willing to try though
19:19:07 <gholms> So is that a -1/0/+1?
19:20:04 <inode0> I think we have the same problem either way - cases where the discussion would fork in the first proposal will be cases where there is too much noise to work productively in the second
19:20:50 <gholms> That sounds likely.
19:21:32 * inode0 leans towards the first proposal where at least there can be quiet and focus to the discussion in one place
19:21:49 * gholms waits for more people to chime in
19:21:58 * Sparks agrees with inode0
19:22:47 <inode0> it is all an attempt to be more open, if whatever we do doesn't work we'll just do something else :)
19:23:14 <cwickert> so the list will be readable, but nobody except board members will be able to reply?
19:23:25 <abadger1999> cwickert: correct.
19:23:32 <cwickert> this will be very frustrating for the readers
19:23:55 <inode0> yes, it will
19:24:00 <cwickert> imagine a conversation where you are not allowed to talk
19:24:02 <abadger1999> cwickert: But it would seem to be an improvement over the status quo --
19:24:06 <inode0> but will it be better or worse than what they see now?
19:24:14 <mattdm> For what it's worth, traffic on the main devel list is a fraction of what it was a few years ago. Can it be made clear that community discussion of the topic is encouraged in the other list?
19:24:16 <abadger1999> wherein, you know that the Board's talking about your issue.
19:24:21 <Sparks> cwickert: We could let it be moderated and allow in questions OR make sure people's questions are answered here.
19:24:21 <abadger1999> But you don't know what they're saying.
19:24:34 <abadger1999> how they're arriving at their decisions, etc.
19:25:28 * mattdm holds up a chart: http://gmane.org/plot-rate.php?group=gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.devel
19:26:02 <Sparks> mattdm: yikes
19:26:08 <cwickert> personally I think that a read only list is worse than a hidden list because of the frustration it creates. I'd rather not know what people are talking than not being able to reply. but this is just my personal opinion and I think others see it as an improvement
19:26:53 <jwb> i don't
19:27:07 <jwb> like i said earlier, we already had that setup.  it didn't work
19:27:17 <Sparks> cwickert: Being public is better than being private.  At the same time there are times when the discussion needs to happen between members of the Board.
19:27:34 <jwb> then don't use a list.  just email them privately
19:27:45 <Sparks> jwb: And then we're back to being private
19:28:11 <jwb> sorry, i wasn't understanding what you were implying there
19:28:16 <jwb> so i'll rephrase
19:28:28 <jwb> then use the list.
19:28:58 <cwickert> if people think the read only list is an improvement, go for it. It's just don't agree, but I don't want to hold up the meeting
19:29:14 <cwickert> I think we already had a majority who thinks it's an improvement, right?
19:29:31 <inode0> well, only 3 +1 and two of those were tepid
19:29:47 <gholms> It's an improvement if the alternative is having the useful discussion on the private list.
19:29:47 <rgeri77> hi
19:29:57 <inode0> or was that the trac vote
19:30:21 <Sparks> Okay, let's look at the alternative...
19:30:44 <Sparks> #idea We keep the lists the way they are now and really start using the advisory-list more.
19:30:48 <Sparks> votes?
19:31:00 <rgeri77> am i late the emea meeting ?
19:31:02 <cwickert> +1
19:31:08 <cwickert> rgeri77: board meeting
19:31:22 <inode0> +1 in theory but that has been tried before too and also doesn't work I'm afraid
19:31:29 * nirik thinks a good rule of thumb should be "default to open". ;)
19:31:40 <gholms> +1
19:31:59 <jwb> fesco seems to do this just fine
19:32:16 <Sparks> nirik: Agreed, it's just whether or not "open" also includes the ability to talk as well.
19:32:43 <gholms> rgeri77: IIRC, the EMEA meeting begins in 30 minutes.
19:32:46 <jreznik> +1
19:32:56 * abadger1999 agrees with inode0.... which really makes my vote -1
19:32:56 <Sparks> 0
19:33:35 <rgeri77> thanks
19:33:42 <Sparks> #info 4 +1, 1 0, 1 -1
19:33:49 <inode0> so has publishing actual minutes of private meetings ever been tried? I figure that is too much work for everyone?
19:34:03 <Sparks> It would seem maintaining the status quo has a higher yield
19:34:19 <Sparks> Are we just going to go with that?
19:34:19 <gholms> inode0: Moreso than we do now?
19:34:37 <inode0> a summary and minutes are way different
19:34:37 <abadger1999> inode0: well... for instance, how would we publish the secure boot discussion that happened on the private list?
19:34:41 <gholms> Oh.
19:34:57 <inode0> abadger1999: that is a different question
19:35:11 <abadger1999> inode0: So you're thinking meetings only, not the discussions?
19:35:38 <inode0> but it too could could be published in the same way with oversight from those contributing to that discussion
19:35:44 * gholms tries to come up with a list of things that would appear on the public list, comes up with a very short list
19:35:55 <abadger1999> Could be tried -- I think it would be hard on the secretary as you have to match names with voices... I'm pretty bad at that, for instance.
19:36:07 <Sparks> In hopes of not running this topic completely into the ground, I think we're saying that we want to keep things the way they are, list-wise.  Yes?
19:36:18 <cwickert> inode0: we are publishing minutes of the phone meetings, they are private, too
19:36:18 <abadger1999> eh.
19:36:30 <inode0> it isn't the secretary I worry about - the members need to read and edit/fix/amend what the secretary spits out
19:36:39 <abadger1999> no majority either way is what I'm seeing
19:36:44 <gholms> Sparks: Yes, please.  We can change it later, and it's easier to create a list than it is to close one down.
19:36:56 <abadger1999> Sparks: and status quo is pretty darn bad :-)
19:37:11 <Sparks> #agreed We will maintain the two email lists for now and try to use the advisory-list more
19:37:17 <cwickert> yay
19:37:37 <Sparks> jreznik: Are you ready to talk about release names?
19:37:42 <abadger1999> You need +5 for agreement unless it's time critical...
19:38:05 <Sparks> abadger1999: :(  You are correct.
19:38:07 <jreznik> Sparks: I hope it's going to be quick
19:38:08 <Sparks> #undo
19:38:08 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Agreed object at 0x36ff2d50>
19:38:28 <abadger1999> Sparks: If we're going to make that work... we also need to adopt a rule like fesco's where discussion of public matters is prohibited on the -private list.
19:38:45 <Sparks> abadger1999: I'm good with that.
19:38:54 * gholms is fine with that
19:38:59 <Sparks> Let's move this discussion to the mailing list and move on.
19:39:07 <jwb> which lsit?
19:39:14 <cwickert> hahaha
19:39:16 * abadger1999 fesco was bad about that for a long time.... since I'm no longer on fesco, I don't know if it's gotten better or not.
19:39:17 <Sparks> jwb: The Advisory Board list
19:39:18 <Sparks> :)
19:39:31 <abadger1999> :-)
19:39:35 <Sparks> #topic Release naming status
19:39:39 <abadger1999> If no one discusses it there, then we'll know this solution doesn't work ;-)
19:39:39 <Sparks> jreznik: You have the floor
19:39:42 * cwickert notes that we have 20 minutes left until the EMEA meeting
19:40:27 <jwb> abadger1999, the only emails i've gotten to the fesco list my entire term thus far are trac ticket emails, which are public
19:40:34 <pjones> abadger1999: fesco handles that by having basically nothing in private.
19:40:39 <pjones> something the board should strive for as well.
19:40:42 <jreznik> cwickert: I'll try to be as quick as possible :)
19:40:48 <jreznik> don't worry
19:40:50 <abadger1999> jwb: Cool
19:40:50 <pjones> It works very well.
19:41:11 <abadger1999> pjones: Actually, the board historically was setup to handle private matters, so it's different
19:41:14 <cwickert> pjones: big +1
19:41:21 <jreznik> for Board members (yep, still closed trac)
19:41:24 <jreznik> #link https://fedorahosted.org/board/ticket/146
19:41:27 <abadger1999> pjones: Whereas fesco was not supposed to handle much of anything that was private.
19:41:51 <abadger1999> pjones: attempting to change that with proposals like this one, but.... there are still the private matters that come up for discussion once in a while.
19:41:51 * jreznik is not sure he has a floor now :D
19:41:53 <cwickert> #topic Fedora 19 naming process
19:42:01 <abadger1999> jreznik: go for it.
19:42:03 <cwickert> jreznik: go for it
19:42:36 <jreznik> the thing is - we are running out of time for fedora 19 name (according to schedule, the process should start soon)
19:43:01 <jreznik> and we have not agreed on any solution by now
19:43:37 <jreznik> robyn proposed to stick with current naming process and continue the discussion and restart naming from Fedora 20
19:43:43 <jreznik> in case we will have an angreement
19:44:57 * Sparks thinks we should make the naming process a priority so we aren't just pushing this down the road
19:44:59 <jreznik> sorry, this was also my fault that we were unable to get a real proposal by now but it's more like neverending story... at least we are pretty sure we want to continue with naming Fedora releases
19:45:16 * abadger1999 won't be on the board for the f19 naming task so I'm fine with any proposal.
19:45:37 <Sparks> abadger1999: term limits?
19:46:13 <abadger1999> Sparks: heh, term expires and I'm too busy to keep doing it :-)
19:46:22 <gholms> +1; if nothing else people will have cooled off a little more by then
19:46:25 <jreznik> mine term expires too
19:46:39 <Sparks> jreznik: We're keeping you around until you solve this
19:46:50 <jreznik> Sparks: noooooo! :D
19:46:51 <inode0> gholms: depends on what name is selected in the next round whether they will be cool or hot :)
19:47:05 <gholms> Hehe
19:47:32 <jreznik> so for now - do you agree with postponing it to Fedora 20? I think we do not have enough power to make decision in less than a few weeks...
19:47:39 <Sparks> +1
19:48:01 <abadger1999> +1
19:48:03 * inode0 is fine postponing it indefinitely until there is a concrete proposal that is accepted changing it
19:48:04 <jreznik> (it's not I mistrust Board able to do a quick bold decision in time :D)
19:48:54 <Sparks> jreznik: Will you be bringing this to the advisory-list for discussion?
19:49:29 <Sparks> cwickert: ?
19:49:48 <jreznik> Sparks: you mean the whole discussion or just - postpone it to F20+?
19:50:06 <Sparks> jreznik: the renaming discussion
19:50:11 <cwickert> +1
19:50:29 * Sparks assumes jreznik is a +1
19:51:25 <jreznik> Sparks: /me and toshio tried several times, we also had first kickup meeting but not sure anyone here is as much interested in as it deserves
19:51:31 <jreznik> Sparks: yep, I'm +1
19:51:43 <Sparks> Okay, so that's is 6 +1s
19:52:10 <jreznik> ok, I'm going to adjust schedule for election in the ticket
19:52:12 <gholms> jreznik: That meeting was painful.  I'm sorry you had to go through it.
19:52:30 <Sparks> #agreed The F19 naming will go as normal and a yet-to-be-determined naming schema will be used for F20
19:52:32 * nb is here
19:52:42 <jreznik> gholms: at least there was one conclusion - we want to continue with naming process
19:52:45 <inode0> jreznik: you know we have a new election coordinator this cycle?
19:52:47 <jreznik> one less option
19:52:54 <jreznik> inode0: yep, I know
19:53:01 <Sparks> jreznik: yeah, there has to be a better way than the everyone-screaming-in-a-room
19:53:03 <jreznik> I'll talk to hom too
19:53:14 <Sparks> jreznik: All done?
19:53:28 <jreznik> s/hom/him
19:53:28 * inode0 has one reminder for the end
19:53:35 <Sparks> #topic Open Q&A
19:53:39 <Sparks> inode0: Go ahead
19:53:56 <Sparks> #chair nb
19:53:56 <zodbot> Current chairs: Sparks abadger1999 cwickert gholms inode0 jreznik nb
19:54:03 <inode0> everyone on the board should consider ticket 145 for next week's meeting
19:54:25 <Sparks> inode0: agreed
19:54:59 * gholms nods
19:55:01 <Sparks> Okay, does anyone have any questions for the board?  We have five minutes!
19:55:41 <Southern_Gentlem> prposal call fedora releases by their #
19:55:58 <Sparks> Southern_Gentlem: TwEnTy
19:55:59 <Southern_Gentlem> Fedora 19 is F19 untill this is settled
19:56:15 <cwickert> #action everyone on the board should consider ticket 145 for next week's meeting
19:56:41 <Sparks> Southern_Gentlem: Can't you figure out a way to propose that as a name?
19:57:06 <Southern_Gentlem> that way people who really want to nameing to continue can work for it to happen otherwise it doesnt
19:57:10 <inode0> counterproposal: stop naming now and leave it spherical cow for eternity
19:57:24 <Southern_Gentlem> +1
19:57:34 <cwickert> nope, go back to Beefy Miracle
19:57:40 <mattdm> (The spherical cow is, after all, theoretically perfect. Why change it?)
19:57:53 <gholms> Heh
19:57:58 <cwickert> and name it Beefy Miracle 2, Beefy Miracle 3, ...
19:58:00 <Sparks> inode0: counter counterproposal: all names must have a 3-dementional shape and animal
19:58:03 <jreznik> Beefy Cow!
19:58:05 <Sparks> cubical pig
19:58:13 <Southern_Gentlem> cwickert,  we have some contributors that Beefy offended
19:58:31 <cwickert> Southern_Gentlem: I know
19:58:44 <Southern_Gentlem> kill the naming till a new naming scheme can be agreed upon
19:58:45 <jreznik> we should really end now - emea meeting is on the schedule...
19:58:58 <Sparks> Yep.
19:59:02 <cwickert> +1, unless there are real questions
19:59:06 * gholms recommends continuing on the list
19:59:10 <Sparks> Okay, thanks everyone for coming out!
19:59:14 <Sparks> #endmeeting