17:00:43 <mattdm> #startmeeting Board (2014-10-06)
17:00:43 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon Oct  6 17:00:43 2014 UTC.  The chair is mattdm. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:00:43 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
17:00:46 <mattdm> #meetingname board
17:00:46 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'board'
17:00:47 <mattdm> #chair mattdm gholms cwickert inode0 mjg59 Sparks jwb number80 yn1v
17:00:47 <zodbot> Current chairs: Sparks cwickert gholms inode0 jwb mattdm mjg59 number80 yn1v
17:00:49 <mattdm> #topic Welcomes, hellos, etc.
17:00:57 <mattdm> Welcomes, hellos, etc!
17:01:12 * inode0 waves
17:01:13 <cwickert> .fas cwickert
17:01:14 <zodbot> cwickert: cwickert 'Christoph Wickert' <christoph.wickert@gmail.com>
17:01:16 <number80> .hellomynameis hguemar
17:01:17 <zodbot> number80: hguemar 'Haïkel Guémar' <karlthered@gmail.com>
17:01:32 <mattdm> .hellomynameis mattdm
17:01:33 <zodbot> mattdm: mattdm 'Matthew Miller' <mattdm@mattdm.org>
17:02:10 <mattdm> As per usual, we'll wait a few minutes for folks to show up.
17:03:24 * mattdm is waiting :)
17:04:28 * gholms hullos
17:04:29 <jwb> here
17:05:32 <mattdm> okay so missing Matthew, Eric, and Neville still...
17:05:40 <mattdm> any non-board-members lurking?
17:05:56 <inode0> yn1v joined just before the meeting so I expect he is around
17:06:39 <mattdm> ok well... here we go
17:06:46 <mattdm> #topic Agenda
17:06:51 <mattdm> #link  https://fedorahosted.org/board/ticket/12
17:07:18 <mattdm> and, I here's some things from there to go through:
17:07:25 <mattdm> 1. Is consensus process adequately described?
17:07:26 <mattdm> 2. Term limits?
17:07:28 <mattdm> 3. Selection of area-representative seats (particularly outreach)
17:07:30 <mattdm> 4. Minor: change order as gholms suggests?
17:07:32 <mattdm> 5. Other?
17:07:50 <mattdm> ("I here's"? What? Whatever.)
17:07:52 * yn1v was in another channel
17:07:59 <mattdm> welcome yn1v!
17:08:20 <mattdm> Any other things we should add to #5?
17:08:24 <mattdm> ("other")
17:09:14 <mattdm> okay then. I guess we'll see when we get there :)
17:09:18 <mattdm> #topic Is consensus process adequately described?
17:09:37 <mattdm> inode0: Hopefully the in-ticket conversation was helpful....
17:09:59 <mattdm> Is there more that could or should be described in the charter?
17:10:01 <jwb> i think it's adequately described.  we might need to look at the number of votes required more closely
17:10:06 <inode0> Not to me is my answer but I'm probably ok with that anyway.
17:10:15 <mattdm> inode0: okay :)
17:10:48 <mattdm> anyone else?
17:11:00 <inode0> I mean the positive negative votes can be flipped based on how one proposes the thing being voted on but there isn't symmetry in the meaning of positive/negative votes.
17:11:19 <jwb> i don't think there's supposed to be symmetry.  that's the point
17:11:25 <inode0> That still makes my head swim.
17:11:53 <mattdm> Right, they are explicitly assymetrical. The positive count is basically a measure for whether there's enough _active_ support for a proposal
17:12:05 <mattdm> whereas the negative is "are there serious issues?"
17:13:15 <inode0> So you think it just does not matter how I state a given proposal?
17:13:55 <mattdm> inode0 you mean, can you be tricky with negatives?
17:14:06 <inode0> X is allowed by Fedora's Foundations vs. Fedora's Foundations preclude X for example? Maybe it doesn't matter but it isn't clear to me.
17:14:38 <mattdm> In either case, the proposal there would be to make a certain statement re the foundations.
17:14:58 <mattdm> Negative votes would preclude a statement being made.
17:16:17 <mattdm> And the goal would be to come up with a statement that everyone agrees with.
17:16:17 <inode0> I'll think about that some more, it probably doesn't matter.
17:16:22 <yn1v> I feel that is pretty general, and I am okey with that. It will cover most cases, and if we find the one rare case that we get stuck, then we explore how to deal with that one
17:16:27 <mattdm> inode0: thanks.
17:16:30 <mattdm> yn1v: yes
17:16:42 <mattdm> jwb: did you have a different number to suggest?
17:17:39 <jwb> not specifically.  if others think +3 is sufficient to get people off their arses and voting, then i'm fine with it
17:17:44 <jwb> it just seems small
17:17:45 <inode0> If it is possible I would also like "lack of consensus" to at least be clear in my head.
17:18:04 <jwb> inode0, a proposal is made.  someone votes -1 to it.  that is lack of consensus
17:18:07 <inode0> is any proposal with less than 3 positive votes a lack of consensus?
17:18:11 <jwb> no
17:18:19 <number80> +3 with no -1 is fine with me
17:18:35 <number80> that means that people are ok with it by apache lazy consensus rules
17:18:55 <inode0> well, we define consensus as three positive votes and zero negative votes, so isn't everything else a lack of consensus? :)
17:19:07 <gholms> Hehe
17:19:25 <mattdm> inode0 less than 3 with no negative votes means that there's probably consensus but not enthusiasm
17:19:36 <jwb> mattdm, right
17:19:49 <number80> inode0: +0 is a vote
17:20:22 * inode0 would like one or more negative votes being the definition of lack of consensus if that is what you all agree it really is then.
17:20:43 <mattdm> inode0: I can add something to that effect.
17:20:47 <jwb> fine with me
17:20:48 <mattdm> hold on second --doorbell
17:20:52 <number80> one negative vote should be enough
17:20:52 <inode0> and inode0 is happier with that
17:21:17 <inode0> number80: I care whether it is one - or one or more
17:21:27 <mattdm> (sorry back)
17:21:45 <mattdm> inode0: is your concern here over what might trigger the "deadlock" scenario?
17:22:26 <inode0> yes, and I don't really think any number of -1's should trigger it if there aren't at least +3 on the other side but that isn't firm
17:23:04 <mattdm> #action mattdm to update draft to clarify that lack of consensus is negative votes (esp in the context of the deadlock scenario)
17:24:17 <cwickert> when we speak of lazy consensus, do we have a timeframe
17:24:18 <mattdm> inode0: in order for the fpl-resolves situation plays out, a majority of the council need to be in favor of asking for that
17:24:19 <cwickert> ?
17:24:38 <number80> +1 cwickert
17:24:41 <mattdm> cwickert -- I put "generally three to seven days, although the timeframe should be stated each time and should be proportionate to the impact of the action"
17:25:15 <cwickert> mattdm: frankly speaking I think this is way too short
17:25:21 <inode0> mattdm: Yes, that is fine with me but doesn't mean I want a majority to be able to escalate anything they don't like to that end
17:26:08 <cwickert> also, "the time should be stated" is very vague. I mean, one could call for a vote and claim it was urgent and give it only 24 or 48 hours. what then?
17:26:55 <mattdm> Well, also "This process is used for decisions with short-term consequences and which can be easily reversed."
17:27:04 <cwickert> let's not forget we are talking about representatives. They probably have to discuss the issue at hand with the group they represent first
17:27:24 <jwb> i'd caution against over-engineering this.
17:28:03 <mattdm> cwickert in that case, a "hold on, I need to discuss this first" should do it
17:28:20 <inode0> cwickert: isn't ... yeah, what mattdm just said
17:29:06 <number80> Besides, important decisions can't be taken too fast, I assume only legal or trademark alike issues would need urgent voting
17:29:36 <inode0> Those mostly aren't that urgent either
17:30:02 <mattdm> This could be used for something like "I'm going to reorganize the vision/mission/objectives part of the wiki"
17:30:04 <number80> inode0: generally yes
17:30:45 <mattdm> that has some impact and I don't think anyone should just go do it, but it also shouldn't need to wait for everyone to vote
17:31:08 <gholms> Yup
17:31:14 <number80> *nods*
17:31:24 <yn1v> from other perspective, if the counsel rush something important, there will be a riot in the project... I see that it is unlikely that the counsel will risk that
17:31:42 <number80> what about setting the delay to "by the next meeting" by default"
17:31:46 <number80> .
17:31:48 <number80> ?
17:31:54 <mattdm> yn1v: yeah, what jwb said about overengineering...
17:32:23 <mattdm> number80: that kind of shifts to being meeting-driven
17:32:36 <number80> mattdm: next week
17:32:40 <cwickert> I don't want to overengineer this and in fact I don't think we do. but "generally 7 days" is IHMO too short. generally I expect representatives to not judge with their gut feeling but based on the feedback from their community. this should be the rule and not the exception, otherwise they are no representatives and it is not a council. and discussing that with ones group generally takes longer than 7 days I think
17:32:56 <mattdm> number80: 3-7 days :)
17:33:17 <jwb> cwickert, so would generally 10 days be better?
17:33:22 <number80> well, I'd rather explicitly set a default value
17:33:45 <number80> 3-7 days, some may assume 3, others 7 this could lead to misunderstandings :)
17:34:02 <cwickert> jwb: I even think of 14 days
17:34:25 <number80> two much, except during vacations period (summer, xmas, kwanza)
17:34:33 <mattdm> By 14 days, all of the energy to do the thing you wanted to do is killed.
17:34:54 <jwb> 14 days is the max timeout.  it's not the minimum time to approve
17:35:02 <jwb> but yeah, seems long
17:35:21 <jwb> look, the goal for any proposal should be review and vote as fast as responsibly possible
17:35:30 <mattdm> jwb: no, it has to be the maximum unless all voters vote at least 0 quickly
17:35:43 <mattdm> because what if someone shows up with a -1 on day 13.9?
17:35:50 <cwickert> ok, lets make a test: imagine this was a council and you were a representative. do you think that you had a chance to discuss this very topic with the the groups you are representing so you can give sufficient feedback how your group feels about the board reorganization?
17:35:55 <jwb> mattdm, i think you meant minimum then.
17:36:32 <mattdm> jwb: maybe? is a little confused :)
17:36:40 <inode0> cwickert: anything this big will take longer to sort out surely
17:36:51 <jwb> mattdm, your point is fine
17:36:57 <mattdm> cwickert: I would say that this is clearly a bigger decision that doesn't lend itself to lazy consensus
17:37:05 <jwb> mattdm, agreed
17:37:41 <number80> cwickert: I think that in 3-5 days, you could get enough feedbacks from a mailing-list
17:37:59 <number80> if you have to wait irc meetings, well, this would be problematic
17:38:11 <yn1v> I think that three days is too short, a default week seems logical. Specially if anybody can raise a hand and ask for more time when needed
17:38:33 <jwb> yn1v, yes
17:38:55 <inode0> seems to me a lot of what will fall into lazy consensus will not require or need constituency polling data to approve or deny
17:40:44 <mattdm> I guess I'm okay with saying 7 days, although I still feel like it's too long for the things to which this should apply.
17:41:18 <gholms> How about we say a week, shortenable to 3 days or lengthenable to 14 for really small or large things?
17:41:28 <gholms> I trust council members to be reasonable.
17:41:59 <yn1v> What I see is that we say a week, and most likely if it is something trivial will be solved before
17:41:59 <mattdm> gholms: I agree, although I think probably if it's over a week, we should just go to the full consensus for that decision
17:42:00 <inode0> as currently stated the person making the proposal would also state how long, that seems reasonable to me
17:42:26 <gholms> If someone thinks it's too short he or she can ask for more time.
17:42:33 <mattdm> right
17:42:36 <inode0> exactly
17:42:57 <gholms> mattdm: Yeah, and full consensus can be used for *anything* if need be.
17:43:18 <mattdm> and in most places where this is used, the need for a delay can be raised even by non-voting members
17:43:37 <mattdm> I could add that....
17:43:58 <mattdm> cwickert: are we convincing you at all here? :)
17:44:08 <gholms> Heh
17:44:11 <yn1v> I strongly agree that non-voting can ask for more time
17:44:18 <mattdm> I will add that.
17:44:50 <mattdm> #action mattdm to add that any project member can ask for lazy consensus to be extended to full consensus if they have a concern
17:45:40 <number80> *can ask* but not *can decide*
17:45:51 <cwickert> mattdm: not really
17:46:07 <mattdm> number80: well anyone can ask for anything... :)
17:46:12 <number80> *nods*
17:47:27 <inode0> cwickert: don't you think a lot of the little governance things will fall into the lazy approval section and most of the big change stuff will fall into the longer full consensus area?
17:48:27 <inode0> I guess until the ball starts rolling we won't know but I would expect a lot of decisions that really won't need more than your independent vote to come up
17:48:40 <cwickert> inode0: I don't know. I mean, who is to define that and what criteria are applied?
17:49:18 <mattdm> cwickert: well, again, it comes to some level of trust in the council. and if you don't trust them, then... what good will it do to wait for them to vote?
17:49:27 <cwickert> anyway, if you are all fine with this, I am not going to object. I'm just afraid we are loosing valuable feedback
17:49:58 <gholms> cwickert: If you need more time to gather input on things you can ask for it.
17:50:02 <mattdm> cwickert: soo, +0 on that :)
17:50:29 <gholms> Just because someone says three days doesn't mean it *has* to be three days no matter what.
17:51:19 <mattdm> okay, so, I think we have enough discussion on this topic for now. more in ticket if needed?
17:51:25 <inode0> yes
17:51:26 <mattdm> #topic Term limits?
17:51:41 <mattdm> So, I thought this was a good idea, but I am not beholden to it.
17:51:49 <mattdm> Much less so than I am to the lazy consensus :)
17:51:49 <cwickert> mattdm: I don't think it has to do with trust. there are people who I totally trust and admire, who's feedback I appreciate because they have been around for ages in Fedora. but I do not trust them to raise their concerns within 3-7 days because they are just too busy with other things. these people would then not be eligible for the council.
17:52:00 <inode0> If it is term limits for only 2 of 12 seats I don't think it is a good idea.
17:52:50 * gholms agrees with inode0
17:52:54 <mattdm> (cwickert: that's a legitimate concern. but it's why this is to be used for smaller decisions with short-term consequences only)
17:53:10 <mattdm> okay. unless anyone wants to argue for this, I will remove it
17:53:34 <cwickert> +-0 on term limits
17:53:40 <mattdm> #action mattdm to remove six-month "cooloff" period from elected seats
17:53:48 <mattdm> #topic Selection of area-representative seats (particularly outreach)
17:54:04 <mattdm> this is also from the ticket, this morning...
17:54:37 <mattdm> in the proposal, the engineering seat consists of things that are basically under fesco, or else close enough
17:54:46 <mattdm> but the outreach seat is broader than ambassadors
17:55:26 <mattdm> a lot of y'all have ambassadors and famsco experience.... what if we make famsco into "fedora outreach steering committee"?
17:55:33 <mattdm> with a broader charter?
17:56:07 <number80> the problem is that it will basically put the other outreach groups into minority
17:56:18 <inode0> I'm not sure how that would go over in the rest of the outreach area to be honest
17:56:24 <number80> marketing, design are very small groups compared to ambassadors
17:56:50 <gholms> I thought the members at large were supposed to help represent them.
17:57:04 <mattdm> I don't really want to introduce _another_ level of governance :)
17:57:11 * gholms is willing to entertain other ideas
17:57:14 <inode0> as far as this transition I don't have any objection to asking FAmSCo to help us get this accomplished now - but work toward a broader outreach group
17:57:28 <mattdm> gholms: yes. plus, some things like marketing is likely to be strongly represented in some of the objective-based seats
17:57:36 <yn1v> I think that ambassadors as general (not pointing fingers) has not been able to bring other teams into events, so I don't feel that will work as general
17:57:39 * number80 agrees to what inode0 said
17:58:12 <yn1v> but probably at individual level you may find some ambassador/famsco that will do nicely for outreach
17:58:24 <number80> I personnally think that the ambassadors as a group doesn't represent well outreach
17:59:03 <mattdm> okay, so this gets into a big topic quickly :)
17:59:08 <gholms> That's good to know.  :(
17:59:22 <number80> mattdm: that's why I said I agree with inode0
17:59:38 <number80> I think there are well-qualified people from ambassadors to represent outreach
17:59:56 <mattdm> So, the big topic is: _shouldn't_ ambassadors represent outreach well?
18:00:10 <mattdm> but I don't think we can solve that here
18:00:17 <number80> mattdm: I think this should be something solved by the council
18:00:23 <number80> not us
18:00:25 <yn1v> I don't worry for qualification, I worry for "connectedness"
18:00:46 * inode0 suggests we agree to engage FAmSCo now to handle this election but those of us who are interested in broader outreach leadership can pursue it
18:00:54 <number80> +1
18:00:58 <jwb> sure
18:01:02 <mattdm> works for me.
18:01:31 <mattdm> anyone that doesn't work for?
18:01:40 <mattdm> lazy consensus, 1 minute deadline! go!
18:01:42 <yn1v> works for me
18:01:46 <inode0> 3 minute lazy approval!
18:02:16 <mattdm> #info we agree to engage FAmSCo now to handle this election but those of us who are interested in broader outreach leadership can pursue it
18:02:39 <mattdm> #topic Minor: change order as gholms suggests?
18:03:13 <mattdm> so gholms suggested putting the positions in a different order in the document
18:03:20 <number80> wfm
18:03:25 <mattdm> does anyone have a strong opinion about one way being better than the other?
18:03:28 <jwb> i have no opinion
18:03:33 <number80> whatever gholms says wfm
18:03:41 <mattdm> I like my order because I wanted to emphasize the objective leads first
18:03:53 <gholms> I was really just surprised to see it jump around between seat durations.
18:04:11 <gholms> Nothing major, and certainly nothing I'd spend time arguing about.
18:04:16 <jwb> mattdm, you want to do that because it's new.  it won't be new in a few releases
18:04:36 <mattdm> jwb: yes, that's true.
18:04:36 <gholms> jwb++
18:04:45 <mattdm> how about I add this to the list of things to look at in a year?
18:04:57 <mattdm> and that way keep it at the top while it _is_ new?
18:05:08 <mattdm> this is a real list I am making :)
18:05:22 <inode0> fine with me
18:05:24 * cwickert is fine with that
18:05:25 <jwb> like i said, i have no opinion.  in either case, i think the objectives should have their own page anyway
18:05:26 <number80> don't mix it with groceries :)
18:05:30 <gholms> worksforme
18:05:34 <number80> +0
18:05:36 <mattdm> jwb: yes, and they probably will
18:05:42 <gholms> jwb: Indeed.
18:05:49 <mattdm> ok cool.
18:05:54 <mattdm> #topic Other?
18:05:57 <mattdm> anything else?
18:06:04 <yn1v> It is a long document, every time you read it, you will have to go back a a few paragraph to be sure that everything works out. So, I think the order is trivial.
18:06:16 <number80> diversity advisor ?
18:06:27 <number80> we didn't speak about it
18:06:41 <mattdm> #topic diversity advisor
18:06:41 <number80> this is something I'm really excited to have
18:06:49 <mattdm> okay speak!
18:07:07 <number80> gholms (him again) asked about how we select him/her
18:07:10 <inode0> I found it to be quite an easy document to digest even though I raised some questions. Well written and well organized.
18:07:16 <mattdm> inode0: thanks!
18:07:50 <number80> I personally think this should be someone outside the inner circle to get another point of view about us
18:07:58 <mattdm> I put "appointed by the fpl" in the latest draft, just to see how that looks
18:08:34 <jwb> mattdm, with input from the council?
18:08:35 <mattdm> number80: that certainly has some value.
18:08:48 <mattdm> jwb: yes that's actually what it says
18:08:53 <jwb> ok
18:09:37 <mattdm> I talked briefly with mizmo about this role. she currently is the administrator and point of contact for our outreach programs
18:10:00 <mattdm> She is also sensative about her time, as she is quite busy
18:10:02 <yn1v> I agree with number80 of the benefits of an outsider, but how long it will take to get to know how the project works. Kind of middle ground. Somebody that is not to deep involved to give some perspective, but some what involved that can get to do stuff shortly?
18:11:05 <inode0> So I am wondering if approval of the Council is a good thing to have for positions that require Red Hat employment? I don't really think disapproval could happen anyway.
18:11:05 <number80> yn1v: this is the problem, if you can't put some distance between yourself and the project, it is hard to improve diversity
18:11:21 <jwb> inode0, this is not a paid position at this time
18:11:25 <number80> we need someone experienced in these topics rather than someone who knows well the project
18:11:37 <inode0> No, but it says the same thing for all of them that are.
18:11:40 <number80> if we could have both it would be nice though
18:11:57 <jwb> guys...  you're already talking about WHO for the role.  i think that's a decision for the Council
18:12:09 <jwb> and instead we could probably just say "YAY DIVERSITY"
18:12:26 <yn1v> jwb, "YAY DIVERSITY"
18:12:27 <inode0> FPL makes the appointed in consultation with the Council and others or something works for me anyway.
18:12:40 <number80> diversity advisor should be someone who could say "NO THIS IS NOT OKAY" :)
18:12:54 <mattdm> inode0: *nod*
18:13:02 <number80> +1 inode0
18:13:08 <jwb> inode0, as a RHT employee, i would very much want to know if the person that we're looking at hiring seems to be a really bad idea to everyone else on the council that person would have to work with
18:13:14 <jwb> inode0, so it makes sense to me anyway
18:13:19 <mattdm> jwb yes, very much.
18:13:42 <mattdm> okay, so since we're at over an hour...
18:13:43 <number80> jwb: nice introduction to next topic: FPgM
18:13:55 <mattdm> number80: okay, what about?
18:14:09 <inode0> jwb: sounds nice but I don't think that happens in real life.
18:14:35 <number80> if FPgM is to be an official position, successors of jreznik should be presented to the council as we do with FPL
18:14:38 <jwb> inode0, well.  let's work together to make it so.
18:14:45 <number80> eof
18:14:51 <jwb> inode0, and if we fail, then nothing changes from your perspective anyway
18:14:55 <mattdm> number80 yes, that's in there too. same thing inode0 is talking about
18:14:58 <misc> this may cause some issue to people to say "I am gonna quite my job" in a public fashion
18:15:09 <yn1v> FPgM will be there anyway, this is just formalizing what already is happening, it is fine with me
18:15:13 <mattdm> misc: ???
18:15:29 <misc> mattdm: if eople need to be "vetted" by council before starting on the role
18:15:32 <misc> people
18:15:39 <misc> ( or maybe I misunderstood the whole idea )
18:15:45 <jwb> misc, i believe those people wouldn't even know they're being considered first
18:16:13 <mattdm> Or if they know, only know that they're one of a number of candidates
18:16:17 <jwb> FPL looks around, finds a few candidates they would like to talk to, discusses with Council, then approaches said people
18:16:20 <jwb> mattdm, right
18:16:49 <mattdm> in any case, I'm ready for....
18:16:53 <mattdm> #topic Next steps!
18:17:02 <mattdm> Do we feel like we're ready to vote on this today?
18:17:10 <jreznik> btw. for FPgM, it's more difficult - it's part time job/even less than part time job and has much more responsibilities within red hat than just fedora...
18:17:23 <jwb> mattdm, yes
18:17:24 <number80> jreznik: just a presentation
18:17:40 <jreznik> just to note that's not job for fpl to look for candidate but fpl is always involved in hiring process
18:17:42 <mattdm> jwb awesome.
18:17:52 * inode0 is ready to ask for a vote and have everyone given a short period of time to cast it
18:18:20 <mattdm> inode0: that seems fair, especially since there are a few minor changes to make based on the above
18:18:39 <mattdm> How about "vote by wednesday"?
18:18:50 <number80> fair enough
18:18:57 <gholms> worksforme
18:19:02 <mattdm> #action mattdm to make ticket for board vote by Wednesday.
18:19:12 <mattdm> thanks everyone
18:19:16 <inode0> one thing
18:19:24 <mattdm> inode0 yep?
18:19:57 <inode0> I wouldn't mind after changes are made some fairly broad announcement that we are going to vote on this very soon and if you care read it and talk to someone NOW.
18:20:17 <inode0> I hope that made sense
18:20:22 <mattdm> inode0: yes, that seems in line with what people were asking for on the board-discuss list
18:20:35 <mattdm> inode0: could you write that up?
18:21:16 <inode0> Maybe but I really am not swimming in free time, so not before late tonight.
18:21:37 <mattdm> is there anyone who would volunteer to do this _before_ late tonight?
18:22:16 * mattdm hears crickets
18:22:29 <mattdm> inode0: okay, so.... _could_ you do it late tonight?
18:22:46 <inode0> I can try.
18:23:18 <mattdm> #action inode0 to (attempt) to write general broad announcement of coming change
18:23:26 <cwickert> thanks inode0, that would be awesome
18:23:34 <mattdm> (yes, thanks)
18:23:47 * cwickert still has a talk to prepare for a conference tomorrow
18:23:57 <mattdm> anything else, anyone?
18:24:16 <inode0> mattdm: are you opening a ticket for this specific vote?
18:24:22 <mattdm> inode0: yes. new ticket.
18:24:30 <mattdm> i'll link to it in the old ticket.
18:24:36 <inode0> ok
18:24:45 <mattdm> and should do that and the changes within a few hours.
18:24:58 <jwb> i just wanted to say i really appreciate the thoughtful questions and the calm and productive discussion around all of this.  this is a very intense topic, and i think we've really handled it well as a group
18:25:02 <jwb> (for the most part)
18:25:19 * gholms agrees
18:25:27 * mattdm again dittos the thanks
18:25:41 <mattdm> okay, ending meeting in a minute....
18:26:09 * yn1v leaves for a meeting related to FUDCon
18:26:11 <mattdm> #endmeeting