13:00:02 <cwickert> #startmeeting FOSCo brainstorm meeting
13:00:02 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon Jul 18 13:00:02 2016 UTC.  The chair is cwickert. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
13:00:02 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
13:00:02 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fosco_brainstorm_meeting'
13:00:07 <cwickert> #meetingname fosco
13:00:07 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fosco'
13:00:33 <cwickert> chair mattdm giannisk jflory7 gnokii robyduck decause
13:00:37 <jflory7> .hello jflory7
13:00:38 <zodbot> jflory7: jflory7 'Justin W. Flory' <me@justinwflory.com>
13:00:42 <cwickert> .hello cwickert
13:00:43 <zodbot> cwickert: cwickert 'Christoph Wickert' <christoph.wickert@gmail.com>
13:00:47 <giannisk> .fas giannisk
13:00:47 <zodbot> giannisk: giannisk 'Giannis Konstantinidis' <giannis@konstantinidis.cc>
13:00:52 <cwickert> #topic Roll call
13:01:02 <mattdm> .hello mattdm
13:01:03 <zodbot> mattdm: mattdm 'Matthew Miller' <mattdm@mattdm.org>
13:01:06 <jflory7> Morning, all!
13:01:09 <cwickert> #chair mattdm giannisk jflory7 gnokii robyduck decause
13:01:09 <zodbot> Current chairs: cwickert decause giannisk gnokii jflory7 mattdm robyduck
13:01:15 <cwickert> that's better...
13:01:22 <gnokii> .fas gnokii
13:01:23 <zodbot> gnokii: gnokii 'Sirko Kemter' <buergermeister@karl-tux-stadt.de>
13:01:45 <robyduck_> .hello robyduck_
13:01:45 <zodbot> robyduck_: Sorry, but you don't exist
13:02:03 <robyduck_> not sure if mailga is around
13:02:08 <robyduck_> .hello robyduck
13:02:09 <zodbot> robyduck_: robyduck 'Robert Mayr' <robyduck@gmail.com>
13:02:55 <Kohane> Hi!
13:03:54 * cwickert waits a little more for others to show up
13:04:06 <jflory7> Hey, Kohane!
13:04:10 <jflory7> Sounds good to me.
13:04:23 <Kohane> Hi jflory7
13:04:42 <Kohane> .fas lailah
13:04:43 <zodbot> Kohane: lailah 'Sylvia Sánchez' <BHKohane@gmail.com>
13:05:36 <cwickert> #info from ambassadors, we have cwickert, giannisk, mailga
13:05:53 <cwickert> #info form the council, there is mattdm, robyduck_ and cwickert
13:06:05 <bexelbie> .hello bex
13:06:06 <zodbot> bexelbie: bex 'Brian (bex) Exelbierd' <bex@pobox.com>
13:06:08 <cwickert> #info gnokii is present for the design team
13:06:18 <gnokii> so i dont count?
13:06:26 <Kohane> I'm an ambassador too
13:06:35 * zoglesby is here
13:06:42 <cwickert> gnokii: oh, sorry, I forgot yo as part of famsco
13:07:29 <cwickert> #info from famsco, we have cwickert, giannisk, mailga, gnokii, and tuanta
13:07:42 <tuanta> .fas tuanta
13:07:43 <zodbot> tuanta: tuanta 'Truong Anh Tuan' <tuanta@iwayvietnam.com>
13:07:47 <cwickert> #info for docs, we have zoglesby
13:08:02 <cwickert> #info for websites, we have mailga
13:08:08 <cwickert> and robyduck
13:08:29 <cwickert> #info for commops and markting, we have jflory7
13:08:33 <cwickert> hello everybody
13:08:36 <jibec> (hi, jibecfed, l10n)
13:08:47 <cwickert> I hope I did not forget anybody
13:09:03 <Kohane> Yes, you did...
13:09:04 <cwickert> #info jibec is here for l10n
13:09:17 <Kohane> !
13:09:22 <cwickert> Kohane: I'm sticking to the list at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FOSCo_status#Third_proposal
13:09:33 <cwickert> Kohane: feel free to go ahead
13:10:43 <Kohane> Just in case, I'm here for the design team, I read the email on the list, I'm also ambassador. I didn't know I had to add myself to a list
13:10:56 <cwickert> welcome Kohane
13:11:09 <gnokii> Kohane: you are what?
13:11:11 <Kohane> I'm sorry
13:11:39 <cwickert> anybody else here representing a team I forgot to mention?
13:11:40 <bexelbie> I am here because I am here.  I had a conversation with decause and decided to join the meeting and see what was up and offer opinions if I had useful ones
13:11:40 <Kohane> I am...?
13:11:58 <cwickert> bexelbie: welcome
13:12:09 <jflory7> Kohane, bexelbie: Welcome both of you :)
13:12:17 <Kohane> Thanks!
13:12:24 <bexelbie> ty
13:12:30 <cwickert> Kohane: I think gnokii is referring to the fact that you ar enot officially a member of the design team (at least not in FAS), but I'm glad you are here
13:12:36 <cwickert> this meeting is for brainstorming
13:12:45 <cwickert> so the more people with good ideas we have, the better
13:12:57 <tuanta> +1 cwickert
13:13:03 <cwickert> for a start, I'd like to give you some background on this
13:13:19 <Kohane> That's weird. I've been there for a long time. Usually offering thoughts rather than pictures but...
13:13:58 <cwickert> the idea for FOSCo, the Fedora Outreach Committee came up around two years ago, at the same time we also replaced the Fedora Board with the Council
13:13:58 <Kohane> +1 cwickert
13:14:31 <cwickert> and just like the council, we'd like to have a more meritocratic approach for the FOSCo
13:14:58 <cwickert> at the moment, FAmSCo, the Fedora Ambassadors Steering Committee, is a purely elected body
13:15:23 <cwickert> but we want FOSCo to not only represent the ambassadors, but to coordinate all outreach activities
13:15:38 <cwickert> that is ambassadors, marketing, design, commops and some more
13:16:07 <cwickert> I'm not going to list all the individual groups, because it is still unclear who will be part of FOSCo
13:16:07 <mattdm> cwickert++
13:16:08 <zodbot> mattdm: Karma for cwickert changed to 4 (for the f24 release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
13:16:42 <cwickert> decause has been thinking about FOSCo, too, and ended up with almost 50 people
13:16:58 <cwickert> I think a body of this size is hardly functional, so we have to limit it somehow
13:17:25 <cwickert> so far, so good, I think what I said so far is consensus among everybody who has been involved so far
13:17:37 <cwickert> the rest is open for discussion
13:18:10 <cwickert> to give you an idea what FAmSCo has been working on so far, we created a wiki page at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FOSCo
13:18:49 <cwickert> please read it if you haven't already, but keep in mind that none of this is set in stone
13:18:56 <bexelbie> How does this page with a statement about "user facing efforts" reconcile with "outreach" ?
13:19:09 <Kohane> So we should think how to limit or manage that number of people, because they're too many to work properly. Is it that?
13:19:10 <mattdm> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FOSCo is idea so far (not set in stone)
13:19:38 <jflory7> Oh, yeah, maybe a #topic change too :)
13:19:49 <cwickert> jflory7: for some reason I cannot change it
13:19:52 <mattdm> bexelbie: "outreach" may not have been the best word, but no one has come to agreement on anything better :)
13:20:09 <jflory7> cwickert: zodbot isn't changing the channel topic because it isn't OP'd, but it is notated correctly in the meeting minutes after the meeting.
13:20:13 <Kohane> Outreach is OK for me
13:20:16 <bexelbie> mattdm, I understand.  I am driving at the idea that user facing drags in a lot of groups that affect our users but don't affect branding, etc.
13:20:28 <bexelbie> are we looking at reaching out to existing users and potential/new users?
13:20:31 <gnokii> mattdm: if I go for that page there is engineering included, I dont think thats a good idea to do so
13:20:32 <mattdm> I was thinking of "efforts that go out from contributors to users"
13:20:45 <bexelbie> a good example is docs ... it is customer facing, and may be a good marketing point but is not written as a marketing point .. if that makes sense
13:21:02 <cwickert> gnokii: engineering was mailga's idea, but again, this is not set in stone
13:21:23 <cwickert> in fact, we have different proposals of how FOSCo should be composed
13:21:46 <gnokii> bexelbie: mattdm wanted to inlcude also docs, me to so we are of same opinion on that
13:22:15 <bexelbie> Starting from an attraction perspective, how is the communication between ambassadors, marketing and design?  Does this group need to help there
13:22:15 <mattdm> yeah I would s/Engineering/Docs/ in that chart :)
13:22:16 <cwickert> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FOSCo_status has 3 different propsals about possible  FOSCo's composition
13:22:19 <bexelbie> then we can add more ?
13:22:24 <cwickert> hold on
13:22:30 <bexelbie> I can see docs being involved for sure - just trying to figure out mission
13:22:47 <cwickert> can we please stick to the meeting protocol, otherwise it gets a little hard for me
13:23:20 <robyduck_> cwickert: +1
13:23:28 <Kohane> +1
13:23:33 <Kohane> !
13:23:55 <cwickert> bexelbie: was your question about "outreach" already addressed or do you want further discussion?
13:24:17 <bexelbie> I understand why the word outreach was used, but I am still unclear on the overall goal I hear a few different things
13:24:23 <bexelbie> I'd like more clarity on "contributors to users"
13:24:34 <bexelbie> as that seems to not include some roles, in my mind
13:24:39 <bexelbie> which I suspect is incorrect
13:24:59 <cwickert> bexelbie: where does "contributors to users" come from?
13:25:08 <bexelbie> mattdm, above
13:26:46 <cwickert> bexelbie: the overall goal is not yet defined. The problem we are facing is that there are various user-facing groups in Fedora, which hardly or not at all collaborate. We just want to change that and have everything user-facing coordinated by one body. makes sense?
13:26:56 <mattdm> that was "contributors -> users", as opposed to "contributors -> making an OS, and hey, hopefully some users will use it" :)
13:27:11 <mattdm> cwickert +1
13:27:24 <Kohane> Cwickert +1
13:27:26 <jibec> +1
13:27:31 <bexelbie> cool +1
13:27:45 <cwickert> bexelbie: ok, what roles are missing?
13:27:55 <cwickert> that question goes to all of you...
13:28:19 <bexelbie> well, assuming s/engineering/docs/ do you want to include i18n, etc?  Or are they are groups that coordinate in other ways?
13:28:33 <gnokii> l10n
13:28:35 <bexelbie> as you also brought up limiting size for manageability (which is +1000 from me)
13:28:45 <bexelbie> s/i18n/l10n/ .. sorry
13:28:46 <cwickert> frankly speaking, I think engineering would not be part of the team, but l10n probably
13:28:47 <gnokii> i18n is more engineering part ;0
13:28:54 <cwickert> or g10n
13:29:12 <mattdm> g11n, i guess :)
13:29:33 <cwickert> oops
13:29:49 <bexelbie> yeah g11n .. was counting on my hands multiple times there :)
13:29:54 * bexelbie prefers a24z :P
13:30:01 <mattdm> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/G11N is a superset of i18n, l10n, fltg, and zanata
13:30:13 <zoglesby> I think that as we move forward, if we are missing input from teams it will become clear.
13:30:45 <cwickert> so the very core is ambassadors, marketing and design. Everything else is subject to discussion
13:30:47 <Kohane> I think docs/translators work quite well, at least they know what's going on in the other team. I don't see the same on others groups or teams.
13:30:49 <zoglesby> Trying to figure out the perfect team is going to continue to slow down the process
13:31:16 <bexelbie> The ability to change the gropu as we go will definitely help
13:31:23 <jibec> zoglesby +1
13:31:31 <jflory7> zoglesby: I'm thinking the same as zoglesby. I do like the third proposal, although I think maybe G11n would fit in well to the discussion as well, because I feel like their type of contributions fit into the overall purpose for what FOSCo is trying to achieve.
13:31:31 <bexelbie> while I would never tie us to the past, it would be nice to see examples of where we think this gropu could have helped in the past
13:31:33 <cwickert> it not only depends on whether we want somebody in FOSCo but if the team is willing and able to take part
13:31:57 <gnokii> Kohane: I find interesting that the G11n team sees that a bit different
13:32:26 <jflory7> bexelbie: Ahh, I have context of a recent situation where having a FOSCo-like body would be helpful, if that would be useful to you :)
13:32:31 <Kohane> Yes, I know but you should see how it is on other teams like Latam ambassadors
13:33:07 <bexelbie> jflory7, it would be if only so we can make sure that the framework we "launch" with would have solved that .. and then we can adapt for new challenges, imho
13:33:15 <cwickert> hold on
13:33:26 <cwickert> let's get back to a question bexelbie just asked
13:33:52 <cwickert> what problem would FOSCo typically solve or what would it have been supposed to solve in the past
13:34:20 <cwickert> with my ambassador's head on, there are some examples
13:34:29 <gnokii> better work within the different groups they have to be better connected
13:34:33 <giannisk> Collaboration between specific sub-projects in order to achieve common goals
13:34:38 <jflory7> bexelbie: Agreed. In this comment, you can see the "Looking at why" part for a situation concerning Design + Ambassadors. https://fedorahosted.org/famsco/ticket/373#comment:23
13:35:09 * mattdm is interested to see cwickert switch heads :)
13:35:27 <gnokii> :D
13:35:39 * Kohane is interested too
13:35:41 <cwickert> marketing makes the 'talking points', but the ambassadors are the one to spread the message
13:36:06 <cwickert> so basically, the ambassadors hardly have a say in what they are to advertise
13:36:17 <mattdm> ^ and ambassadors talk to users, and marketing doesn't hear that feedback
13:36:26 <gnokii> ++
13:36:41 * jflory7 nods
13:36:41 <cwickert> right mattdm, that's the biggest problem I see here
13:37:09 <cwickert> and on the other hand, the ambassadors are also 'customers' of the design team. We often need artwork but have no idea how to get it from the designers
13:37:20 <cwickert> at least that recently improved as jflory7 announced
13:37:34 <Kohane> !
13:37:35 <jflory7> In the short-term. :)
13:38:11 <cwickert> #info https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org/new-guidelines-fedora-ambassadors-design/ how to request artwork from the design team
13:38:22 <bexelbie> cwickert, so if ambassadors want a say in the marketing position, why shouldn't they just join the marketing group?  Otherwise this group would seem to become responsible for marketing. Or are we just here to make sure marketing and ambassadors sit down at the same table?
13:38:25 <cwickert> so I think we all get the idea,, right?
13:39:20 <Kohane> Yes.
13:39:22 <cwickert> bexelbie: the ambassadors are older than the marketing group and I see them as two different groups.
13:39:34 <cwickert> this is up for discussion, but not in short term
13:39:39 <cwickert> Kohane: your turn
13:39:40 <giannisk> bexelbie: Do they want to have a say? They want to collaborate with marketing in a more effective way.
13:40:36 <cwickert> can we please follow the meeting protocol? use ! if you want to say something, ? to ask.
13:40:51 <giannisk> cwickert: Sure, but let's everyone use the protocol then.
13:40:52 <gnokii> bexelbie: the task for marketing and ambassador are very different
13:41:00 <bexelbie> !
13:41:00 <jibec> !
13:41:04 <Kohane> Yes. It takes a bit because I'm on phone.
13:41:05 <cwickert> now it's Kohane's turn
13:41:12 <Kohane> OK  thanks
13:41:16 <mattdm> !, but after this topic is done :)
13:43:16 <Kohane> What I see it's that not all ambassadors groups are noticing stuff in the same way. In Latam many of the marketing work go under radar. Or this. I saw not even half a comment about this meeting or other teams contributions. It would be interesting to find out where the chain breaks.
13:44:10 <giannisk> ! - in reply to Kohane
13:44:19 <Kohane> I think that would solve many issues, if we can communicate stuff in a smooth
13:44:24 <Kohane> Yes
13:44:27 <gnokii> !
13:44:41 <cwickert> Kohane: fair enough, but I think this will happen as we move on
13:44:50 <jflory7> ! - also to Kohane
13:44:55 <Kohane> Yes
13:45:02 <cwickert> for a start, I'm happy if we manage to improve communication
13:45:15 <cwickert> gnokii: in reply to Kohane, too?
13:45:22 <gnokii> yes
13:45:29 <Kohane> That's what I tried to say. Improve communication.
13:45:31 <cwickert> giannisk, gnokii and then jflory7
13:45:57 <cwickert> and then we move on with bexelbie and jibec once this question is answered
13:46:20 <giannisk> Kohane: Agreeing with you. It's not just about better communication -between- sub-projects and regional communities. It also has to be -inside- these groups.
13:46:22 <giannisk> eof
13:46:39 <bexelbie> ! on this communication topic if possible
13:46:54 <Kohane> Thanks giannisk :)
13:47:02 <jflory7> giannisk++
13:47:40 <gnokii> Kohane: it breaks with you, when you are part of marketing and dont communicating the things to LATAM ambassadors.....
13:47:43 <gnokii> eof
13:48:00 <cwickert> bexelbie: yes, but lets stick to the current order. you can type ahead if you like :-)
13:48:16 <cwickert> jflory7 and then bexelbie please
13:48:46 <Kohane> !  in reply to gnokii
13:50:17 <jflory7> I just wanted to add that there are existing tools that are available now that are working towards making things like this easier. The Community Blog is probably the most apparent and visible way of doing this. Using it as a way to communicate even short bits of information what a team is working on or what's happening across the project is a useful way to communicate news in a way where everyone is on the same page. Understandably, asking to
13:50:17 <jflory7> write about every little thing a group may be working on is a big demand, but it doesn't need to be like that. If there's a major, general "focus" that a group is working, even a couple hundred words about what's going on can be helpful in communicating news.
13:50:24 <jflory7> Specific to FOSCo...
13:51:17 <jflory7> I think we should be aware of these existing tools or platforms available to us, and help use them to create a stronger, more united source of information distribution across the project (doesn't just have to be blog posts).
13:51:19 <jflory7> eof
13:51:31 <cwickert> thanks jflory7, now bexelbie
13:52:15 <bexelbie> My concern is that an attempt to fix communication with a council could lead to a series of status reports and no actions to take.  I also don't know that a meta-council can fix intergroup comms.  My "Why?" question was to drive at what decisions need to be made by this group.  Some of these examples feel like they could be resolved by having clearer comm policies from subgroups i.e. All design requests require comm with the design group -
13:52:15 <bexelbie> even if we pull from a standard library for you.  We don't need a council to impr
13:52:15 <bexelbie> ove a blog or a wiki, imho. That said, there probably is a need for a FoSCO of some sort but for action.  EOF
13:53:12 <mattdm> bexelbie: that's a good segue to the thing I wanted to add :)
13:53:29 <mattdm> And that is: budget
13:53:43 <gnokii> ++
13:53:54 <mattdm> Under prior and existing process, the ambassadors are the primary consumers of the Fedora community budget
13:54:10 <mattdm> Which inherently leads to money being spent on ambassadors' things :)
13:54:16 <gnokii> ++
13:54:39 <mattdm> and those are valuable, but it means there's not a good way to spend money on, for example, a marketing campaign
13:54:47 <mattdm> or translation events
13:54:56 <mattdm> other than one-off requests to the council
13:55:00 <gnokii> !
13:55:04 <bexelbie> !
13:55:09 <mattdm> and the council currently doesn't have money set aside for that
13:55:14 <mattdm> eof
13:55:22 <mattdm> (eot, i guess)
13:55:23 <Kohane> mattdm +1
13:55:34 <cwickert> ok, let me continue on this point for a moment
13:56:37 <cwickert> I think we need to discuss what the scope of FOSCo is. It's definitely more than just communication. budget is an important thing, but there will be more to come
13:56:52 <cwickert> basically I want us to work on all outreach efforts together
13:57:01 <cwickert> anyway, not we continue with gnokii and bexelbie
13:57:21 * cwickert is glad he reserved a two hours time slot
13:57:31 <bexelbie> Budget is an action.  If we need to make sure that money is spent on more directed goals, a body that par
13:57:32 <bexelbie> cels it out is a good thing.  However, the grouping needs to make sense so it isn't some money for engine
13:57:32 <bexelbie> ering, some money retained for direct Fed Council use/allocation, and some money for this random group of
13:57:32 <bexelbie> activities over here :)
13:57:41 <bexelbie> wow that pasted badly, sorry.
13:57:55 <bexelbie> I think we need to carefully define "outreach efforts" as well
13:58:11 <bexelbie> it seems like we want a meta-marketing organization more than "outreach" in some ways
13:58:11 <bexelbie> eof
13:58:33 <gnokii> its not that Ambassadors wasnt willing to spent money on this cwickert as myself saw the budget always for all fedorians not just the ambassadors, we had a few sponsorings for helping non-ambassadors to go to a hackfest and also some smaller translation events
13:58:39 <gnokii> eof
13:59:35 <cwickert> gnokii: thank you, we fully agree. It's just a historical thing, the ambassadors were there since the early days and they naturally spend a large amount of money
13:59:46 <cwickert> bexelbie: good points
13:59:54 <cwickert> now it's jibec's turn
14:00:04 <jibec> As a translator point of view, it looks like clear we need to translate packages content to reach end users, but it turns to be very unclear for community activities (the only exception is static websites). Does Fedora Project want to help creation of multi-lingual cooperation or should it exist elsewhere ? What’s the positioning of the existing fedora planet, ask.fp.o or the incoming fedora-devel or fedora-hubs ? I hope this
14:00:09 <cwickert> jibec: sorry I forgot you in the heat of the battle ;)
14:00:13 <jibec> that kind of questions and monitor it. At the moment, there isn’t much work for community translator : website and a few packages.
14:01:07 <cwickert> jibec: I'm afraid we cannot answer the question yet. it depends on our strategy on the one hand an the resources of your team on the other
14:01:08 <gnokii> !
14:01:43 * giannisk thinks we should focus more on the vision and objectives of FOSCo. We are already past an hour.
14:02:05 <sgallagh> jwb: Given that we scrapped the rolekit workshop, do you want to replace it with the PRD workshop?
14:02:27 <cwickert> jibec: that ultimately raises the question whether or not your team needs to be on FOSCo. I like the idea of "full" and auxiliary seats here, e.g. you could send somebody to FOSCo to work on a particular project.
14:02:44 <cwickert> giannisk: noted
14:02:51 <cwickert> gnokii: go ahead please
14:02:52 * Kohane agrees with giannisk thoughts.
14:04:25 <jibec> ok, I'll look forward for the strategy
14:04:27 <gnokii> jibec are you aware what going on with the translation steering committee G11N wants to re-invent and that one of the main points the funding is, addionally translation is one of the easiest things to start with, so we reach out for new contributors not just users
14:04:29 <gnokii> eof
14:05:06 <cwickert> ok, lets's move on
14:05:29 <cwickert> before we continue with the objectives, let's just have some quick polls
14:05:57 <cwickert> who should be part of FOSCo? Do we agree the core, that is ambassadors, marketing and design?
14:06:14 <cwickert> +1 if you agree, then we can ask for other groups
14:06:20 <giannisk> +1
14:06:23 <Kohane> +1
14:06:25 <bexelbie> +1
14:06:28 <zoglesby> +1
14:06:30 <jibec> +
14:06:33 <jflory7> +0
14:06:36 <tuanta> +1
14:06:43 <cwickert> ok, that was a no-brainer ;)
14:06:47 <cwickert> jflory7: ?
14:07:10 <gnokii> +1
14:07:24 <mattdm> +0 I think docs and g11n shouldn't be discounted, but on the other hand I see the problem with too many groups
14:07:38 <cwickert> mattdm: I'd come to this later, but thanks
14:07:44 <jflory7> cwickert: My only thought is that I could see overlap in terms of what FOSCo is doing with things that might also be shared with CommOps. I think it would be helpful for CommOps to be considered for the core to prevent two different bodies working on similar tasks for the same end goal.
14:07:44 <jflory7> eof
14:07:49 <mattdm> (I'd put "marketing and ambassadors" at core, and design, g11n, and docs as next tier)
14:07:54 <gnokii> mattdm: I wanted this kind of meeting because we can hardly demand them to be part
14:08:11 <mattdm> gnokii: yes, excellent point
14:08:30 <bexelbie> if there are not more than those groups, we have a marketing meta-group - it would need a new name
14:08:44 <cwickert> bexelbie: please just wait
14:08:51 <cwickert> what about websites?
14:09:23 <cwickert> mailga: are you there btw?
14:09:53 <giannisk> !
14:10:26 <cwickert> Who thinks websites should be part of FOSCo?
14:10:40 <gnokii> +1
14:10:56 <giannisk> -1, not for the "core"
14:11:06 <cwickert> giannisk: that was not the question
14:11:08 <jflory7> -1 (in terms of "core")
14:11:12 <jflory7> Oh.
14:11:24 <mattdm> From my outsider-to-websites perspective, I see that design and websites work together closely...
14:11:29 <jflory7> ^
14:11:32 <gnokii> core?
14:11:49 <mattdm> and I see design as the "in" to FOSCo there, with the other aspect connecting more to Engineering
14:11:53 <gnokii> +1 for mattdm wanted to say that to
14:12:11 <Kohane> cwickert:  the question is about the core or in general?
14:12:14 <mattdm> but I may be off-base and I won't argue if websites wants to be involved directly
14:12:19 <cwickert> Kohane: just general
14:12:34 <cwickert> mattdm: I fail to parse your last sentence
14:12:34 <Kohane> +1 then
14:13:13 <mattdm> well, a lot of websites is basically engineering work, I mean
14:13:16 <gnokii> why we not ask robyduck if he thinks would be good?
14:13:26 <mattdm> oh yeah robyduck_ is here :)
14:13:32 <mattdm> robyduck_ what do you think?
14:13:53 <cwickert> mailga already indicated they would be interested and robyduck was willing to fill that role
14:14:05 <cwickert> however it seems both are afk atm
14:14:12 <robyduck_> my personal thought is that websites are close to end users, and theoretically should have a FOSCo seat
14:14:21 <cwickert> thanks robyduck_
14:14:27 <cwickert> let's move on then
14:14:33 <mailga> cwickert: here I am wit a big lag, sorry,connection aren't workinking fine.
14:14:36 <robyduck_> but I don't want to argue too much if all of you are not of the same opinion
14:14:38 <giannisk> ! - asked for permission to speak earlier
14:14:45 <cwickert> giannisk: ok, go ahead
14:15:03 <giannisk> My thought is that we need to be agile.
14:15:11 <cwickert> robyduck_: you are not arguing at all, thanks
14:15:22 <giannisk> We start off with a basic FOSCo consisted of ambassadors, marketing, design and maybe commops. That's it.
14:15:41 <giannisk> We can't put too many groups inside FOSCo at once, otherwise we risk dropping the ball.
14:15:57 <giannisk> I believe it's going to be really hard for all these groups to "migrate" at once.
14:16:11 <giannisk> Think of FOSCo as a "pilot" group.
14:16:21 <robyduck_> cwickert: maybe websites, if you have too many people for n seats, could be an auxiliary seat for design (yes we work really close when speaking about #outreachy#)
14:16:26 <giannisk> We can consider adding other sub-projects to FOSCo later on.
14:16:49 <giannisk> But, let's start with a committee that is very specific.
14:16:58 <bexelbie> !
14:17:02 <giannisk> Just my two cents - eof
14:17:18 <cwickert> ok, thanks giannisk
14:17:31 <cwickert> nevertheless I'd like to quickly finish a run-through of th egroups
14:18:03 <mailga> gainniskI think that the preference is given to the people having more than one group applied, so groups are well represented and people are less than the groups.
14:18:43 <cwickert> what about docs?
14:18:53 <bexelbie> !
14:19:20 <cwickert> ok, it seems that quick +1/-1/0 votes are not working here
14:19:33 <mailga> docs is necessary both for mktg and amby.
14:19:41 <bexelbie> +0 docs, like all the other groups are great.  What problem is solved with their presence, what problem is solve with their lack of presence.
14:19:57 <bexelbie> problem is created with their lack of presence
14:20:25 * cwickert is a bot lost now
14:20:25 <gnokii> cwickert: maybe we should ask the group if they want get involved and then find a way how to integrate them instead voting on which group to take
14:20:36 <cwickert> bexelbie: are you eof?
14:20:46 <bexelbie> yes, but I have a resposne to gnokii when I can
14:21:05 <Kohane> Gnokii +1
14:21:46 <mattdm> cwickert++ for heroic job at keeping us on point :)
14:21:49 <cwickert> gnokii: well, I consider this implied, but as a matter of fact, we never really received an answer from any of the groups, not even from those willing to participate or represented here.
14:22:35 <cwickert> how do people feel about giannisk's suggestion of starting with a small group?
14:22:50 <Kohane> I think it's a good idea
14:22:54 <zoglesby> +1
14:23:05 <Kohane> +1
14:23:10 <mattdm> +1
14:23:12 <gnokii> -1
14:23:31 <bexelbie> +1 with definition and no random invites
14:23:55 <jflory7> +1 giannisk, +1 bexelbie
14:24:05 <jibec> +1
14:24:16 <giannisk> Thank you
14:24:33 <cwickert> ok, great, but it's a major change from what we discussed earlier
14:24:41 <robyduck_> -1 (we should track this down now, and not in 6 months again)
14:24:55 <cwickert> let's see how that works and hope it unfolds nocely
14:24:57 <cwickert> nicely*
14:24:59 * tuanta likes giannisk's idea. Just want to add a fact that active people (who more chances to be a part of FOSCo) are often members of a few groups, not only one!
14:25:11 <cwickert> now on to objectives
14:25:19 <cwickert> let's give this 15 minutes, not more
14:25:41 <cwickert> and before we finish this sessions, I would like us to look at the propsals
14:25:48 <Kohane> Tuanta is right but we have to start somewhere
14:26:01 <cwickert> not necessarily vote, but tell us which you like best
14:26:07 <cwickert> anyway, objectives
14:26:22 <cwickert> giannisk: you want to add something here?
14:26:31 <giannisk> cwickert: Sure
14:26:34 <jflory7> #topic Objectives
14:26:45 <giannisk> To enhance collaboration between involved sub-projects and groups.
14:27:16 <giannisk> To help drive community efforts across regions.
14:27:28 <gnokii> !
14:27:46 <giannisk> All: carry on :)
14:27:52 <cwickert> hold on giannisk
14:28:03 <cwickert> I think your second point is a little vague
14:28:07 <cwickert> care to elaborate?
14:28:21 <bexelbie> !
14:28:45 <giannisk> cwickert: We need to improve community outreach both inside and across regions.
14:29:09 <giannisk> cwickert: That is, to improve general visibility about Fedora to end users and also to help the community grow.
14:29:24 <giannisk> The way I see it at least - eof
14:30:03 <cwickert> ok, gnokii and then bexelbie
14:31:17 <gnokii> some might stop thinking with involve a group or two means automatically another seat, I see this core nonsense as we bring now out something and then have to get back to the table soon discuss it again
14:31:27 <gnokii> eof
14:31:38 <bexelbie> I feel like giannisk's first point is a natural effect of putting any N groups on a council - but one that may devolve into status reportsl  The second point sounds a lot like famsco just creating better comm between the regions.
14:31:42 <bexelbie> eof
14:32:42 <cwickert> gnokii: we never meant to distinguish between 'core' and anything else. I only used the term 'core' to illustrate where the idea came up.
14:33:58 <cwickert> bexelbie: actually I'm afraid that regional coordination might fall behind compared to famsco, but let's see
14:34:11 <cwickert> atm, the only group in fedora that is organized by regions is the ambassadors
14:34:18 <cwickert> anyway, we should make it an objective
14:34:26 <cwickert> more suggestions for objectives?
14:34:40 <bexelbie> !
14:34:46 <bexelbie> ?
14:34:58 <cwickert> bexelbie: go ahead
14:35:18 <bexelbie> cwickert, I don't know that I understood your statement.  How is this group going to succeed at cross-regional communcations and coord. if famsco can't?
14:35:23 <gnokii> well its simple mattdm did say it as it will be the follow up for famsco it has to deal with budget again
14:36:10 <cwickert> bexelbie: that's exactly what I was trying to say
14:36:12 <Kohane> I'm getting confused...
14:36:25 <cwickert> ok, I feel I need to explain that a bit
14:36:46 <cwickert> the only group in Fedora that is organized by regions are the ambassadors
14:37:06 <cwickert> all other teams are global, means they don't need any regional coordination
14:37:27 <bexelbie> !
14:37:34 <Kohane> Yes...  That makes sense
14:37:37 <tuanta> +1 cwickert
14:37:47 <mattdm> !
14:38:28 <cwickert> now if we have a body that represents many different groups, of which only one is organized by regions (a big one admittedly), I don't think this body will be able to improve coordination across regions
14:39:05 <cwickert> I mean, we could of course try, but I don't know if it is possible and thus we should not make it a primary objective
14:39:16 <jibec> !
14:39:18 <cwickert> it only makes sense if we can actually fulfill that role
14:39:24 * cwickert looks around
14:39:33 <cwickert> bexelbie, then mattdm and jibec
14:39:35 <bexelbie> Given the regionalization of Ambassadors, does it make sense for this group to get an objective and budget responsibility but have representation from Famsco and not from each region - budget flows from council -> fosco -> famsco, other groups ?  Let's not overload this group solving ambassador region comm - let's let famsco do it as they are closer to the situation and do the coord now.
14:39:55 <bexelbie> eof
14:40:17 <mattdm> Marketing and translations could *benefit* from regional coordination, though, even though they aren't organized that way. Maybe docs too.
14:40:37 <mattdm> (that's both my comment from above and also partially in reply to bexelbie)
14:40:44 <Kohane> Cwickert:  it makes sense that only ambassadors are organised by regions. That's what I meant.
14:41:04 <cwickert> mattdm: good point, with my ambassadors head on, I probably had a narrow view of "regional coordination" :)
14:42:08 <jibec> shouldn't we have an objective on community grow and user grow ? first proposal included "document the state of the os", but it looks like it vanished
14:42:12 <gnokii> !
14:42:23 * mattdm looks at clock
14:42:31 <zoglesby> translation has regional coordination as each language team works as a sub-sub-team, marketing and docs are to small to be effective as regional teams as it stands
14:44:03 <cwickert> jibec: I think "grow the community and user base" are definitely objectives, but I don't think "document state of the OS" is
14:44:10 <mattdm> zoglesby: *nod* yeah I don't mean they need to be broken into smaller groups.
14:44:15 <mattdm> cwickert +1
14:44:21 <cwickert> bexelbie: this is an valid question and it comes down to: "Will FOSCo replace FAmSCo or not?". If we want it to replace FAmSCo we could do something like appoint one representative from each region.
14:44:24 <giannisk> cwickert: +1
14:44:34 <cwickert> gnokii: your turn
14:45:30 <mailga> !
14:46:15 <Kohane> !
14:48:43 <cwickert> gnokii_: you were disconnected before we saw what you had typed
14:48:58 <cwickert> moging on with mailga, Kohane and then another attempt for gnokii
14:49:15 <mailga> regional divisions would create an additional cleavage, and FOSCo must replace FAmSCo, otherwise this discussion is a non-sense.EOF
14:49:18 <gnokii> last I typed was !
14:50:23 <giannisk> mailga: +1, on the replacement of FAmSCo by FOSCo
14:51:27 <cwickert> mailga, giannisk: I think FOSCo should replace FAmSCo, but I wouldn't say "must". Have a look at the mail "A modest FOSCo propsal" of decause on the council-discuss list for a couple of thoughts
14:51:42 <cwickert> Kohane, then gnokii-phone
14:51:49 <Kohane> OK
14:52:02 <cwickert> gnokii-phone: you disappeared again before we could read you
14:52:02 <bexelbie> !
14:52:40 * robyduck_ needs to run, thanks to all
14:52:41 <Kohane> It's just a question. If FOSCo replaces famsco, how it will work better?
14:52:55 <gnokii-phone> Yeah net is bad again
14:53:12 <Kohane> It makes no sense to replace things for the sake of it.
14:53:20 <Kohane> My thoughts
14:53:22 <cwickert> Kohane: agreed
14:53:24 <Kohane> EOF
14:53:37 <cwickert> we must make sure to replace something only of the replacement is better
14:53:54 <cwickert> but frankly speaking, FAmSCo is a mess atm, so we can hardly make it any worse
14:54:04 <cwickert> one of the reasons are the elected seats
14:54:21 <mailga> !
14:54:22 <cwickert> all of FAMSCo are elected, but live changes and people disappear
14:54:53 <cwickert> it has recently gotten better, but we hope that appointed members are more active in general
14:55:08 <cwickert> Kohane: does that answer your question?
14:55:22 <Kohane> Yes
14:55:36 <Kohane> Thank you cwickert
14:55:39 <mattdm> also, we already have a _lot_ of different groups already in fedora so we should be super-hesitant to create a net gain :)
14:55:42 <cwickert> ok, then bexelbie and mailga and then we move on to the different proposals
14:55:44 <bexelbie> Should we just ask famsco to reconstitute itself to fix the "mess"?  they can invite design and marketing to sit with them at their "table"  --- I think there is a need to try and get subgroups better connected - but I haven't heard a proposal that would seem to do it yet .. I haven't got one at the moment either.
14:55:51 * mattdm has to leave a in a few minutes
14:56:04 <cwickert> mattdm: so have I, don't worry
14:56:05 <bexelbie> eof
14:56:30 <cwickert> bexelbie: I'm afraid it won't work, FAmSCo is in a "lets just make FOSCo happen and be done with it" mood
14:56:53 <bexelbie> cwickert, then we recreate fosco == famsco with a name change and pretend we did something :P
14:56:55 <cwickert> mailga: your turn, quick please
14:57:10 <cwickert> bexelbie: no, we appoint people who are willing to get stuff done
14:57:17 <mailga> I think that today links between groups are in the hands of people joined more tha one groups. An overall body is absolutely necessary. EOF
14:57:18 <bexelbie> I know, hence the :P
14:57:22 <bexelbie> but this has ballooned
14:57:26 <cwickert> bexelbie: you got me ;)
14:57:45 <cwickert> mailga: ok, thanks a lot, I couldn't agree more
14:57:54 <cwickert> and now on to "proposals"
14:58:01 <cwickert> jflory7: can you change the topic please ?
14:58:04 <gnokii-phone> Fast banned kushal he bounces
14:58:15 <jflory7> #topic Proposals
14:58:18 <cwickert> thanks
14:58:21 <cwickert> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FOSCo_status
14:58:40 <cwickert> just a quick look at the proosals before we leave
14:58:50 <cwickert> basically 2 and 3 are the same
14:59:03 <cwickert> except that 2 lacks the commops seat
14:59:18 <cwickert> but has a "mission"
14:59:44 * jflory7 assumes 2 + 3 share the same general assumptions and mission?
14:59:58 <Kohane> Is it possible to fuse them into one?
15:00:05 <cwickert> jflory7: you tell me, 3 was your proposal ;)
15:00:27 <cwickert> I think someone forgot to add your 'misson' thoughts to the wiki page
15:00:34 * mattdm takes off
15:00:36 <Kohane> Merge them I mean
15:00:42 <mattdm> thanks very much cwickert
15:00:43 <jflory7> From what I see, the listed proposals are really just looking at composition and not much else. I think it was probably just something missed in porting to the wiki page.
15:00:44 <mattdm> and everyone
15:00:47 <cwickert> np mattdm
15:00:50 <jflory7> mattdm++ Thanks for being here!
15:00:56 <cwickert> I'll keep you updated
15:00:56 <bexelbie> latra mattdm
15:01:23 <cwickert> so, the big differences are between 1 and 2
15:01:50 <bexelbie> !
15:02:20 <cwickert> I wonder if we need the release wrangler and all SIGs in FOSCo
15:02:36 <gnokii-phone> No!
15:02:45 <bexelbie> are we considering other proposals as a result of this meeting's discussion?
15:02:48 <cwickert> gnokii-phone: +1
15:02:54 <bexelbie> !
15:03:01 <giannisk> cwickert: All SIGs? Please don't.
15:03:02 <cwickert> bexelbie: sure
15:03:11 <gnokii-phone> And fesco isnt neededeither
15:03:17 <bexelbie> It sounds like this proposal has its roots in the challenges that famsco is facing.  Something like proposal 2 with no aux members seems to fix that.
15:03:18 <cwickert> ack
15:03:35 <cwickert> let's take a step back
15:03:43 <cwickert> so given that 2 includes commops, what is the general feeling: 1 or 2?
15:04:14 <bexelbie> Commops is in 1 and 3, not 2
15:04:52 <cwickert> bexelbie: Imagine it was in 2, too
15:04:57 <cwickert> I just said that
15:05:06 <zoglesby> I have another meeting I need to go to, sorry to have to leave
15:05:17 <bexelbie> I am not sure they need to be
15:05:32 * cwickert fails to parse this sentence
15:05:33 <gnokii-phone> Well i said my opinion to regional seats before
15:05:34 <cwickert> anyway
15:06:07 <cwickert> can we please get this answered before we all leave?
15:06:09 <giannisk> I think 3 sums it up really well, 4 regional ambassadors and 1 from each group: Commops, Design and Marketing. +1
15:06:32 <jflory7> I like the composition of #3 as well.
15:06:41 <gnokii-phone> See just thinking in seats
15:06:54 <Kohane> Between 1 and 2, I prefer 1
15:07:44 <cwickert> all: #2 and #3 are basically the same, except that commops is missing in #2 which is purely by mistake. So the big difference is between #1 and #2/#3. Which of these two options do you prefer?
15:08:27 * mailga doesn't give any preference, seeing the 1 is the mine.
15:08:32 * giannisk takes a closer look again.
15:08:32 <bexelbie> #2 based on mission but I would subtract the "other member" or aux membership
15:08:38 <Kohane> #1
15:08:51 <gnokii-phone> I prefer none I prefer involve more and for ambassadors give some up
15:09:06 <giannisk> #2/#3
15:09:37 <cwickert> gnokii: then why haven't you come up with that months ago?
15:10:53 <cwickert> giannisk tuanta mailga, robyduck_: your take?
15:11:04 <gnokii-phone> I said that before and we could had this meeting several months ago but there was somebody more interested to roll the chair election back
15:11:19 <tuanta> I prefer #3
15:11:21 <giannisk> cwickert: Already in favor of #2/#3
15:12:40 <cwickert> ok, thanks everybody
15:13:04 <cwickert> it seems there is a wide consensus for the composition of #2 or #3
15:13:43 <cwickert> gnokii: feel free to propose another composition, but please add it to the wiki quickly
15:13:56 <mailga> cwickert: there are SIGs intersted on Fedora's things, and FESCo should report their decision for strategies (mktg and amby should know where the Engineering is going to do)so my vote is for the #1
15:14:10 * giannisk needs to leave in about 20 minutes. Got a Fedora Women Day to run.
15:14:16 <cwickert> I'll try to summarize the outcome of this meeting and get back to all of you on the mailing lists
15:14:21 <tuanta> I need to go now for another meeting with my team
15:14:31 <cwickert> it has been a lot of input and I first need to sort stuff out
15:14:39 <cwickert> but after all, that's what a brainstorming is for
15:14:58 <cwickert> so I hope you are not disapplointed that we don't make actual decisions today
15:15:16 <giannisk> cwickert: We have done progress today and I'm happy about that. :)
15:15:20 <bexelbie> +1 for work today .. thank cwickert++
15:15:21 <zodbot> bexelbie: Karma for cwickert changed to 5 (for the f24 release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
15:15:21 <cwickert> but I think it has been helpful to provide feedback for FAmSCo and the council.
15:15:23 <jflory7> cwickert++ Thank you for chairing and keeping us on the rails. :)
15:15:26 <giannisk> cwickert++
15:15:27 <Kohane> No disappointment from me
15:15:36 <jflory7> Thanks to everyone else who also participated today too.
15:15:47 <cwickert> ok, so the general timeline is: We want this ready by FLOCK
15:16:09 <Kohane> That's a question?
15:16:17 <Kohane> Or a statement?
15:16:18 <bexelbie> which flock?
15:16:20 <bexelbie> :P
15:16:32 <cwickert> so I want to finalize the proposals, present them at FLOCK, we'll surely have some discussions there but after that, we should be done
15:16:42 <jflory7> cwickert: Sounds reasonable to me.
15:16:44 <giannisk> Who's gonna be at Flock? From this group.
15:16:48 * giannisk is.
15:16:49 <cwickert> because we, that is both FAmSCo and the Council, want FOSCo to happen soon
15:16:53 * cwickert is
15:17:03 * Kohane is
15:17:05 * jflory7 is
15:17:11 <cwickert> gnokii-phone: are you?
15:17:26 <jflory7> gnokii is giving a few talks, so I assume he will be
15:17:30 <cwickert> ok, cool
15:17:31 <gnokii-phone> Yes
15:17:39 <cwickert> so, let's make a wrap
15:17:40 <bexelbie> fwiw I will be too
15:17:47 <cwickert> thanks everybody for coming today
15:17:52 <cwickert> I appreciate your input
15:17:54 <giannisk> Perfect :) Flock will be great meeting point to finalize details.
15:17:58 <cwickert> thanks a lot
15:18:00 <giannisk> cwickert: Thanks for running this
15:18:02 <gnokii-phone> I fly next week
15:18:06 <cwickert> #endmeeting