fedora-meeting-2
LOGS
17:06:10 <aeperezt> #startmeeting
17:06:10 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon Nov 19 17:06:10 2012 UTC.  The chair is aeperezt. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:06:10 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
17:06:11 <herlo> though it's basically what they've always done.
17:06:15 <sesivany> I agree with herlo, even though the meeting takes 10 minutes, we should do it and record it.
17:06:15 <herlo> .fas herlo
17:06:16 <zodbot> herlo: herlo 'Clint Savage' <herlo1@gmail.com>
17:06:23 <aeperezt> #chair herlo bckurera sesivany
17:06:23 <zodbot> Current chairs: aeperezt bckurera herlo sesivany
17:06:25 <sesivany> .fas eischmann
17:06:25 <zodbot> sesivany: eischmann 'Jiri Eischmann' <eischmann@redhat.com>
17:06:34 <aeperezt> .fas aeperezt
17:06:34 <zodbot> aeperezt: aeperezt 'Alejandro Perez' <alejandro.perez.torres@gmail.com>
17:07:08 <bckurera> .fas bckurera
17:07:10 <zodbot> bckurera: bckurera 'Buddhika Kurera' <bckurera@gmail.com>
17:07:15 <aeperezt> any specific topic?
17:07:17 <herlo> so, four are here. cwickert sends his regrets
17:07:33 <bckurera> sounds like #info
17:07:45 <sesivany> herlo: yes, cwickert seems to be very busy at work nowadays.
17:07:53 <herlo> well, lets just do the agenda as per normal. If nothing is too pressing, we can just move quickly through to open floor
17:07:59 <herlo> #info cwickert sends regrets
17:08:21 * herlo notes that nb is in this room, missing dbruno, however.
17:08:28 <herlo> anyone else missing?
17:08:43 <bckurera> nope 4+1+3 = 7
17:08:55 <herlo> \o/
17:08:59 * herlo can't do math
17:09:06 <bckurera> sorry bad math 4+1+2=7
17:09:12 <herlo> lol
17:09:20 <herlo> apparently, bckurera can't do math either :)
17:09:41 <aeperezt> lol
17:09:58 <bckurera> bckurera herlo we will celebrate it :D
17:10:10 <herlo> 8-D
17:10:30 <herlo> https://fedorahosted.org/famsco/report/9 <-- agenda
17:10:40 <herlo> holy cow, not much there! :)
17:11:01 <aeperezt> herlo, yes
17:11:08 <aeperezt> only old subjects
17:11:21 <sesivany> herlo: wasnt it our goal? to get rid of all minor decisions and tasks to focus on bigger things? :-)
17:11:22 <aeperezt> but important ones
17:11:37 <aeperezt> sesivany, +1
17:11:39 <bckurera> herlo in future it is not holy cow it is holy cat ;)
17:12:19 <herlo> sesivany: yes, I'm quite happy with the outcome here
17:12:27 <herlo> bckurera: lol
17:12:29 <sesivany> I'd like to finally finish #281...
17:12:41 <sesivany> we've been working on that for loooong time.
17:12:44 <herlo> sesivany: from NA side, it's done
17:13:07 <aeperezt> from latam it's done
17:13:27 <herlo> sesivany: what about EMEA?
17:13:31 <bckurera> apac almost done !
17:13:37 <herlo> I am pretty sure we are really close
17:13:51 <sesivany> the question is: are we going to make some core common guidelines with extensions for every region or every region will have their separate guidelines?
17:14:00 <sesivany> I mean the core is the same in all of them.
17:14:14 <aeperezt> sesivany, +1
17:14:37 <herlo> sesivany: I think every region should just control their own. Let's not make it harder
17:14:42 <bckurera> sesivany : there are some fundamental ideas that are common and should have in every region
17:15:06 <bckurera> like no receipts no reimbursements
17:15:14 <herlo> bckurera: while I agree with your sentiment, rather than having a central guideline, every region can build upon other region's ideas.
17:15:32 <sesivany> herlo: that's right, it would delay it again, let's leave it for the time after elections.
17:16:33 <herlo> bckurera: if we go with a central guideline then we (FAmSCo) would have to maintain such a guideline. I feel that this gets in the way of the ultimate goal, which to me is 'get out of the way and let people go forth and do awesome things'
17:16:51 <aeperezt> herlo, I think there are basic guidelines defined as common ground and one place for them and have regions additions will make more solid the procedure and keep famsco as the body regulating it
17:16:59 <herlo> let the regions sort it out themselves, they are very capable.
17:17:57 <bckurera> herlo I agree with you, but there are things that regions also cannot change, few things like what I have noted above
17:18:13 <aeperezt> like say on I let you do the stuff but I still keeping and eye on you
17:18:17 <herlo> aeperezt: except someone else has to maintain it, not the regional representatives. Each region understands this issue quite well. Maybe a yearly review or some such from FAmSCo and each region to the other regions would be good, no?
17:18:29 <herlo> bckurera: sure, but those are mandates from RH, nobody can change those...
17:18:37 <herlo> nobody in the community, that is
17:19:18 <herlo> aeperezt: that's why the guidelines exist in the first place....
17:19:22 <bckurera> herlo : yes other than those, regions can change it as they wish but with the approval of FAmSCo ( that sounds fair)
17:19:37 <sesivany> bckurera: i think that famsco approval for each regional guideline should be enough. for now, we should just make sure that all guidelines are accordance with what we agreed on in famsco. That's it.
17:19:43 <aeperezt> herlo, that sound good it we add that on the rules that they will be review by famsco once a year or something like that
17:19:58 <herlo> bckurera: we previously agreed it's not approval from famsco, but review with recommendations
17:20:17 <herlo> sesivany: +1
17:20:40 <herlo> aeperezt: each region should just do that, no need for a mandate
17:20:53 <herlo> it's good to regularly review things anyway.
17:21:11 <herlo> and to have it written down that it should happen seems reasonable as well.
17:21:30 <aeperezt> maybe a note that if the region change it, it must be approved by famsco
17:22:05 <bckurera> herlo : I cant agree, FAmSCo should approve changes and amendments
17:22:26 <herlo> bckurera: we already agreed on review with recommendations previously.
17:22:27 <sesivany> aeperezt: maybe it doesn't have to be an approval, just a review. Each region should notify famsco about changes.
17:22:53 <aeperezt> sesivany, that sound better
17:22:54 <bckurera> herlo : barely the recommendation wont enough on such critical issues
17:22:55 <sesivany> and we should tell them stop if something is not OK, but I wouldn't let them wait for our approval with every change.
17:23:01 <herlo> I don't have a problem with a notification of review for anything more than a minor change
17:24:03 <herlo> bckurera: I disagree. We aren't a group that should be giving mandates. We are a group that serves our community. If they want to make a change they feel is important, we should be willing to consider it and give feedback. We are here to serve them and help them get things done.
17:24:36 <herlo> as sesivany points out, we should point out and not allow craziness, that is true.
17:25:06 <herlo> but I think a review would do such things. I don't feel the communities we're serving would be providing things that are outrageous anyway.
17:25:58 <bckurera> herlo : agree with you 100%, but there should be a control, if it is a genuine need for sure FAmSCo says ok, no matter if it facilitate our FAms, but in any case if it is not FAmSCo can make it better too
17:26:58 <herlo> If they are asking for a change in a guideline that is so far off from the rest of the regions, then something is clearly wrong and we should step in. However, I see that as a very severe and extremely rare case. Each region has my trust to do the right thing. A control isn't a tight grip, but rather a gentle caress and loving push in the right direction.
17:28:02 <herlo> Thus my suggestion for regular review and recommendations rather than requiring approval.
17:28:25 <sesivany> herlo: I think that asking regions for notifications of all major changes is not any dictatorship.
17:28:27 <herlo> this is hard for me to figure out, since we already agreed upon the review and recommend model previously.
17:28:34 <herlo> sesivany: I'm all for that
17:28:39 <aeperezt> sesivany, +1
17:29:32 <sesivany> I'm for not standing in region's way, but at least some little control is necessary, let having notifications of all major changes is that kind of level of control.
17:29:44 <herlo> yep, this sounds good to me
17:30:25 <herlo> I just don't want it to bog us down each time someone corrects a typo or rewords a sentence.
17:30:31 <sesivany> the problem we have now is that we have to glue it together somehow. Some wiki pages need updates...
17:30:51 <sesivany> for example http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Reimbursements should point to regional rules.
17:31:17 <herlo> sesivany: good point. Let's make an action item for that
17:31:33 <sesivany> people are still confused to whom they should ask for budget/reimbursement,...
17:31:48 <bckurera> IMO just notifying is not enough. approval required, that is my ground !
17:32:06 <bckurera> sesivany : I like your idea
17:32:54 <sesivany> bckurera: but how would it help? If they make a change that is not OK, we're notified and we can ask at the next meeting.
17:33:28 <sesivany> bckurera: but approving every change takes time of both sides.
17:33:45 <sesivany> ask->act
17:33:58 <bckurera> sesivany : I m not talking about minor changes but some major points
17:34:12 <herlo> bckurera: let's step back a second here
17:34:40 <bckurera> but then there is a problem what is critical and what is minor, again things are getting complex :)
17:34:58 <herlo> in previous meetings, we have agreed as a quorum to review and recommend the original reimbursement guidelines from each region. This has gone very well and we have reviewed each regions guidelines and made a few recommendations in each case.
17:36:20 <bckurera> herlo : that is when we initiating the guideline process, but now the topic is what happen about the modifications after that
17:36:22 <herlo> What I am asking is why requiring approval is now different from what we agreed to on the original document. I get that it's for changes, but we shouldn't change our the process. It makes sense this way.
17:37:04 <herlo> bckurera: to me the document creation was more likely to have more issues than a simple change would have.
17:37:17 * herlo notes this meeting is now longer than 10 minutes :)
17:37:29 <herlo> sesivany: ^^
17:37:42 <bckurera> herlo : For clarity -> Major changes on regional reimbursement guidelines should be approved by the FAmSCo
17:38:10 <sesivany> herlo: that means there is always something to discuss, so having every meeting makes sense :)
17:38:22 <herlo> bckurera: this is your view, correct? My view is we should continue the review and recommend as we did for the original documents.
17:38:31 <herlo> sesivany: yep, which is why I pushed to have the meeting :)
17:39:45 <aeperezt> herlo, +1
17:40:08 <bckurera> yes we created the preliminary guidelines then get them approved with in regions and now they are up and running, so in future if they need to change it for sure FAmSCo will review and approve them, if they are really needy changes ofcourse FAmSCo will support
17:40:17 <herlo> bckurera: we did not approve them
17:40:26 <herlo> we recommended changes after a review
17:40:33 <herlo> each region approved their own guidelines
17:40:41 <herlo> that is my point
17:40:42 <aeperezt> bckurera, change the word approved to reviewed that will make soft tone and accomplish the same objective
17:40:50 <herlo> aeperezt: right
17:40:55 <sesivany> bckurera: but what is the definition of major changes? I think we gave regions quite clear borders and we should trust them they do well within those borders. Requiring them to ask for approval for every (major) change of rules within the borders is not in accordance with our policy.
17:41:19 <herlo> it's a debate between approve and review.
17:41:31 * herlo believes the latter to be the appropriate action
17:41:54 * sesivany agrees with herlo.
17:43:16 <sesivany> the difference is: review: every change is GO unless FAmSCo says otherwise, approval: every change is NO-GO unless/until FAmSCo says otherwise.
17:43:41 <sesivany> I'm for the former because it makes the things easier.
17:43:43 <bckurera> sesivany : as you noted changes with in the borders is ok but what about the out of the border?
17:44:36 * herlo doesn't understand in the borders vs out of the border?
17:46:10 <sesivany> herlo: I think the only hard border is $2000. Everything else is soft recommendations.
17:46:28 <bckurera> in my view FAmSCo should have a control over major modification and it would be the responsible body after all. It doesnt seems we are not facilitating, but if it needy and reasonable need will support for sure, coz our ultimate goal is to facilitate FAms and make it better
17:46:58 * aeperezt thinking bckurera is been devil's advocate
17:47:54 <herlo> oh, that border
17:48:01 <bckurera> aeperezt : i m not but since these guidelines are dealing with money we need to be very careful, I believe we do not need to create holes :P
17:48:34 <aeperezt> bckurera, 100% with you on that
17:48:48 <herlo> bckurera: I don't believe this creates holes.
17:49:02 <herlo> this being my suggestion of review and recommend
17:49:24 <aeperezt> all seems good as we are in a way really involve in our regions the thing is when we will be not the guidelines will need to be clear for the next to come
17:49:25 <sesivany> bckurera: the problem is the definition of major changes and that approving is more time consuming them just reviewing. What don't you like about reviewing. Here is a situation: a region makes changes that are not in accordance with our rules/policy, we're notified, we review the changes and at the next meeting we agree on asking the region to revert the changes. I don't see any lack of control here.
17:50:46 <bckurera> sesivany : that means regions can revert them if they want or continue without taking recommendations into account? Do I get it correct?
17:51:00 <aeperezt> that is why I agree with you bckurera, but disagree with approved by and think reviewed by will do better in that context as the new ones will know someone is looking at what they do
17:53:16 <sesivany> bckurera: I think FAmSCo should have a right to force the region to revert the changes, but it should be a "tool of last resort"
17:54:03 <bckurera> sesivany : then as I think there is a misunderstanding of words :)
17:54:23 <bckurera> sesivany : that is the control I have been talking of
17:56:04 <herlo> bckurera: I think the point of FAmSCo is for us to make the hard decisions. I think the regions voted us in to make these hard decisions, and they trust us to work hard to ensure they can continue doing good things for Fedora. In this, we will always have that control. The problem is, it's not usually a problem or concern and I feel we're wasting a lot of time discussing something that happens very rarely.
17:56:51 <herlo> to that end, I feel review and recommend is always going to be my stance because we should trust them to make good decision and we can gently correct them when they don't.
17:56:56 <sesivany> bckurera: for me, it was a discussion between explicitly approving (reviewing) things or explicitly unapproving things. I'm for having a way to reverse the changes. To have that kind of control, but we should use that power on daily basis.
17:57:16 <sesivany> should->should not
17:57:24 <herlo> sesivany: was about to correct that :)
17:57:45 <bckurera> sesivany : finally I can agree with you :)
17:58:18 <sesivany> bckurera: we should be watching and reviewing passively until something goes wrong way, then we should act.
17:58:40 <sesivany> I'm glad we've made this clear.
17:58:45 * herlo too
17:58:45 <bckurera> sesivany : that is the control I seek
17:59:10 <bckurera> aeperezt, what about you?
17:59:34 <aeperezt> bckurera, yes on that
18:00:34 <sesivany> should we make an agree note on this for the minutes?
18:00:43 <aeperezt> sesivany, +
18:00:48 <aeperezt> sesivany, +1
18:00:50 <bckurera> for sure, we dont want to discuss this again :)
18:00:51 <bckurera> +1
18:01:38 <sesivany> can someone with better focus today formulate it? I've done too many typos today :)
18:01:55 <herlo> +1
18:02:02 <bckurera> Regions are free to make modifications, amendments to their guidelines but it should be communicate to FAmSCo immediately and FAmSCo will review them and let them know the recommendations. However in extreme situation FAmSCo has right to force to rever back.
18:02:53 * bckurera something like this?
18:02:53 <sesivany> ok for me
18:03:30 <herlo> #agreed changes to the reimbursement guidelines are to be reviewed by FAmSCo. Recommendations given should be followed.
18:03:31 <bckurera> It is like you are free to do anything but with in limits, we are watching you :D
18:04:19 <aeperezt> bckurera, +1
18:04:22 * herlo notes it's a few minutes past the hour, time for Open Floor?
18:04:34 <sesivany> ok, now the action items.
18:04:46 <herlo> oh, sure. Forgot those... :)
18:04:47 <sesivany> I'm willing to do the change on wiki pages.
18:04:54 <bckurera> ok then are we going to close #281 then?
18:04:57 <sesivany> but any help is welcome ;)
18:05:55 <sesivany> bckurera: yes, but before that, I'd like to have links to all regional guidelines as the outcome of the issue there.
18:06:06 <aeperezt> sesivany, will offer my help but I rater someone with better english do it
18:06:24 <bckurera> agree with it
18:06:41 <herlo> #action sesivany to update wiki to properly link reimbursement guidelines together.
18:06:50 <bckurera> make sure to include changes should be communicated to FAmSCo too.
18:07:10 <aeperezt> sesivany, then we should remove the draf only message on the page
18:07:22 <herlo> aeperezt: I think so
18:07:34 <sesivany> aeperezt: good point
18:07:35 * herlo notes that NA already has theirs removed.
18:08:00 <sesivany> anything else to discuss? I will have to leave soon.
18:08:13 * herlo too
18:08:19 <bckurera> same in APAC, but http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Reimbursements should be updated
18:08:24 <herlo> #topic Open Floor
18:08:32 <herlo> bckurera: I put an action for sesivany to do that
18:08:48 <aeperezt> done latam https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ambassadors/LATAM/Reimbursement
18:08:59 <bckurera> if you need help use famsco ML, i ll be around :)
18:09:11 <herlo> do you want to put #link in front of all of our guidelines? I think we could do it all now.
18:09:26 <herlo> #link NA Reimbursement Guidelines https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FAMNA_Reimbursement_Guidelines
18:09:46 <herlo> then it's in the meeting notes
18:10:12 <bckurera> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ambassadors/APAC/Reimbursement
18:10:47 <sesivany> #link EMEA Reimbursement Guidelines https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ambassadors/EMEA/Reimbursement
18:11:10 <bckurera> #link APAC Reimbursement Guidelines https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ambassadors/APAC/Reimbursement
18:11:29 <herlo> just need LATAM
18:12:18 * bckurera it is quite strange but today meeting there are 4 members representing 4 regions :D
18:12:21 <aeperezt> #link LATAM Reimbursement Guidelines https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ambassadors/LATAM/Reimbursement
18:12:32 <herlo> aeperezt: you win :)
18:12:52 <herlo> anything else you guys want to discuss?
18:12:59 <sesivany> no
18:13:00 * herlo needs to step away
18:13:05 <aeperezt> herlo, why? :-)
18:13:07 <herlo> end meeting in 1 minute
18:13:12 <bckurera> yup will stop now then
18:13:19 <aeperezt> ok
18:13:20 <herlo> aeperezt: I was trying to get the LATAM guidelines too :)
18:13:25 <bckurera> thanks for the great idea from todays meeting and attending
18:13:26 <herlo> but you were faster
18:13:34 <herlo> bckurera: thank you as well
18:13:38 <aeperezt> lol
18:13:41 <herlo> and to everyone else aslo
18:13:42 <herlo> also
18:13:49 <aeperezt> thanks everyone
18:13:57 <aeperezt> ending the meeting
18:13:59 <herlo> #endmeeting