famsco
MINUTES
14:13:03 <cwickert> #startmeeting FAMSCo 2016-06-29
14:13:03 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Jun 29 14:13:03 2016 UTC.  The chair is cwickert. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
14:13:03 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
14:13:03 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'famsco_2016-06-29'
14:13:09 <cwickert> #meetingname famsco
14:13:09 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'famsco'
14:13:29 <cwickert> #chairs potty gnokii mailga lbazan giannisk
14:13:35 <cwickert> who did I forget?
14:13:49 <cwickert> #topic Roll call
14:13:53 <cwickert> .fas cwickert
14:13:54 <zodbot> cwickert: cwickert 'Christoph Wickert' <christoph.wickert@gmail.com>
14:14:01 <mailga> .fas mailga
14:14:01 <zodbot> mailga: mailga 'Gabriele Trombini' <g.trombini@gmail.com>
14:14:26 <cwickert> #chair tuanta
14:14:27 <zodbot> Current chairs: cwickert tuanta
14:14:38 <cwickert> gnokii: are you here?
14:16:13 <gnokii> yes, but very instable I start right now the IRC on phone
14:17:11 <cwickert> ok
14:17:51 <cwickert> #topic Tranforming FAmSCo into "FOSCo"
14:18:00 <cwickert> .famsco 373
14:18:00 <zodbot> https://fedorahosted.org/famsco/ticket/373
14:18:21 * jflory7 is around
14:18:28 <potty> tuanta
14:18:38 <potty> .hello potty
14:18:38 <zodbot> potty: potty 'Abdel G. Martínez L.' <abdel.g.martinez.l@gmail.com>
14:18:40 <cwickert> ok, cool
14:19:16 <cwickert> it seems noriko volunteered for marketing
14:19:31 <cwickert> mailga: did this actually get discussed in the team?
14:19:46 <gnokii> who?
14:19:47 <cwickert> IIRC jflory7 is also part of the team, right?
14:20:08 <gnokii> can it be you mix the teams a bit?
14:20:17 <mailga> cwickert: for g11n not marketing. She's going to discuss with her team, yes.
14:20:20 <cwickert> sorry, you are right gnokii
14:20:23 <cwickert> ok
14:20:30 <cwickert> so, who do we have now?
14:20:40 <cwickert> jflory7: can we count on you for marketing?
14:20:52 <cwickert> or did anybody reach out to them? mailga?
14:21:03 <mailga> we have docs, mktg, g11n by my side.
14:21:29 <gnokii> mailga: design to
14:21:39 <cwickert> gnokii: tell us more please
14:22:00 <gnokii> cwickert the me ;)
14:22:09 <mailga> because of I spoke with Noriko yesterday, she's taking care of being the coordinator until another team member will substitute her.
14:23:36 <cwickert> gnokii: where has this been discussed?
14:23:49 <cwickert> gnokii: I don't see anything on the mailing list
14:24:12 <gnokii> cwickert we do that in IRC
14:24:26 <cwickert> gnokii: I can't find any meeting minutes either
14:24:54 <jflory7> cwickert: I can confirm participation for either or both Marketing and CommOps.
14:24:59 <gnokii> yeah because its hard for me to participate in the meeting at 2 in the morning
14:26:00 <cwickert> so, let's collect what we have....
14:27:36 <cwickert> #info gnokii will represent Design, jflory7 will represent marketing and/or CommOps, noriko g11n (until somebody else replaces her)
14:27:42 <cwickert> that's at least something
14:27:54 <cwickert> did we agree on a proposal at last?
14:28:10 <cwickert> like number of seats etc
14:28:17 <mailga> cwickert: how we consider websites? Techical or outreach?
14:28:30 <cwickert> mailga: I don't know
14:28:33 <cwickert> you tell me
14:29:51 <mailga> cwickert: you forgot zoglesby for docs
14:30:40 <mailga> In my opinion websites is just the half of the two sides of the project. Maybe a seat is mandatory.
14:32:10 <cwickert> more opinions?
14:32:23 <cwickert> mailga: half of what?
14:32:33 <cwickert> #undo
14:32:33 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: INFO by cwickert at 14:27:36 : gnokii will represent Design, jflory7 will represent marketing and/or CommOps, noriko g11n (until somebody else replaces her)
14:33:05 <gnokii> web is outreach definitely
14:33:42 <mailga> sorry cwickert I meant that websites is in the middle of the two faces of the project (both engineering and outreach).
14:33:45 <cwickert> #info so far we have the following representatives for FOSCo: gnokii for the design team, jflory7 for marketing and CommOps, zoglesby for docs and noriko for g11n
14:34:12 <cwickert> #info noriko will eventually be replaced by somebody else later
14:34:42 <cwickert> has somebody asked websites if they want to participate?
14:34:56 <mailga> websites works with infra and with the mktg.
14:35:28 <mailga> cwickert, I'm a member of websites, I'll try to speak with robyduck.
14:36:14 <jflory7> .
14:36:40 <jflory7> Oops, sorry – accidental keypress
14:36:46 <cwickert> #action mailga to clarify the websites representative with robyduck
14:37:07 <cwickert> any other teams or representatives?
14:37:25 <gnokii> can take a while robyduck moved to a new place and has no net right now
14:37:58 <mailga> cwickert: I hope to be able to update the ticket with websites representative before the deadline (at the moment Robert is relluy busy).
14:38:20 <cwickert> mailga: we can still swap people later
14:38:42 <mailga> gnokii: I've his phone number. Not a problem.
14:39:21 <mailga> cwickert: but we need to know if websites is interested in a seat before the deadline, aren't we?
14:40:37 <cwickert> mailga: yes
14:40:48 <mailga> cwickert: ok.
14:42:08 <cwickert> now for the design
14:42:24 <cwickert> not the design team but the design of FOSCo
14:42:30 <cwickert> where are we with that?
14:45:24 <cwickert> does anybody want to make a proposal or should we stick to what we have?
14:45:34 <gnokii> well that should be discussed with the representatives
14:45:50 <cwickert> gnokii: we had months for this
14:46:07 <cwickert> and we have a deadline in two days
14:46:31 <cwickert> tell me how you want to kickstart a discussion or what you haven't done that weeks ago
14:49:10 <cwickert> so, how do we move on now?
14:49:28 <cwickert> should we just vote on a proposal or continue discussing it
14:49:29 <cwickert> ?
14:49:55 <cwickert> It's not that I don't want us to discuss it further, but I want to make progress
14:50:07 <gnokii> how would be hearing others first and not demanding a structure, like you do
14:51:31 <cwickert> gnokii: Fedora is driven by meritocracy. The ones who do are steering the direction. We have asked various teams and people for feedback for almost 1,5 years now, but there was little or no outcome. Why do you think it will be different this time?
14:51:54 <gnokii> cmon stay on the floor
14:52:15 <cwickert> again, I'm open for further discussions, it might be a good idea do discuss this with all future representatives, but we have a deadline in two days
14:52:39 <gnokii> and?
14:52:41 <cwickert> should I ask the council to push the deadline back? Do we want to discuss this at FLOCK?
14:52:59 <gnokii> why not, what is the problem with that?
14:53:30 <cwickert> gnokii: there is nothing wrong with it, the problem is the lack of progress in the last 1,5 years
14:54:00 <cwickert> you want to discuss this with the representatives, in case of the design team that's you yourself
14:54:11 <gnokii> shall I look who was 1.5 years the outreach representative in the council and in how many meetings he participated in?
14:54:57 <cwickert> you had this action item for several weeks, still I don't see anything from you. now you want a discussion?
14:55:41 <gnokii> I want the whole time, shall I show you all the meeting logs where I said that?
14:56:09 <cwickert> gnokii: yes, you said you want to discuss, but you never said what you actually want to discuss
14:57:30 <gnokii> what shall fosco become a working structure or just a new dead thing? So people participate in something only when it makes sense for them, fosco shall help to coordinate the work between that groups and right for the start you even want to ask them for the needs?
14:57:34 <cwickert> and if I cannot make it to the meetings, I cannot make it. Still, I was more active in trac and on the mailing list and took care of my action items
14:57:38 <gnokii> good start I would say
14:58:08 <cwickert> gnokii: that's a valid question, but it was discussed years ago
14:58:37 <gnokii> with whom?
14:58:53 <cwickert> with previous famsco, with the council
14:59:16 <cwickert> you had the chance to participate in this discussion on the mailing list of the meetings
14:59:21 <cwickert> but you never did, right?
14:59:40 <cwickert> it's not that I want to blame you or anybody else, but I think we need to move on.
14:59:56 <gnokii> why?
15:00:03 <cwickert> you – and everybody else – can discuss all day, but what we really need are proposals how to move along
15:00:10 <gnokii> because you promised the council that deadline?
15:00:52 <gnokii> exactly, and that starts that you hearing the people who get involved and not demanding them what you want
15:01:25 <cwickert> no, it starts with YOU – or anybody else – making a proposal
15:01:32 <cwickert> so far I have seen nothing from you
15:01:39 <cwickert> only mailga, me and jflory7
15:02:01 <gnokii> eh I said already come down to earth
15:02:29 <cwickert> yes, but you still did not say what you want to improve
15:02:47 <cwickert> that goes not only for gnokii, but for others, too.
15:03:12 <cwickert> famsco is hardly operational atm. this has been going on for a while and hasn't changed with the last elections. I think this is reasons enough to move on ASAP.
15:04:14 <gnokii> ok, I repeat what I said in several meetings before its on us to look what tasks that are only on interest for the Ambassadors are left and how to ensure that fosco can make this decisions for them, that brings out the structure and not ah regional and they shall decide in the meetings
15:04:43 <gnokii> jflory how many participants are in FAMNA meetings now?
15:05:01 * jflory7 scrolls up for context
15:06:27 <jflory7> It varies week to week, but anywhere from 5 - 12.
15:06:35 * jflory7 still isn't sure what the question is about
15:06:49 <gnokii> is it representative?
15:06:53 * cwickert either, but let's see where gnokii is heading with this
15:07:29 <gnokii> yeah just take a look into particiapation of APAC, tuanta was last week for several months the first time in a meeting and there we was 3 people then
15:07:46 <gnokii> so what shall that become, that 3 people decide then?
15:08:47 <jflory7> gnokii: On the weeks where there's broader participation, I'd say it is representative of the region. On the weeks with lower participation, probably not.
15:09:20 <jflory7> We have to have a minimum of 5 sponsored members to take an official vote
15:09:32 <gnokii> see in APAC they only come to the meeting when they have a ticket oopen for sponsoring
15:10:57 <gnokii> so from my perspective to say simple, each region one seat might not work
15:13:04 <cwickert> gnokii: ok, that's a valid concern, but what is your suggestion?
15:14:31 <gnokii> see above look what decisions should be made by the ones who representing the ambassadors and then look, how to integrate enough seats for doing this decisions into fosco
15:15:16 <gnokii> second concern, I have no objection against appointed seats but it should be in that gremium not the majority
15:16:09 * mailga just spoke with robyduck and also websites is interested in having a FOSCo seat. Just for the moment I'm the coordinator (just like Noriko for g11n) so we can save the date of the deadline.
15:19:28 <cwickert> gnokii: I'm sorry, I cannot follow you
15:20:21 <cwickert> I mean, the question what FOSCo is to do for the ambassadors can be answered pretty easily
15:20:27 <cwickert> everything we do today
15:20:45 <cwickert> and the stuff we don't do for various reasons
15:23:29 <cwickert> all: it's not that I want a deadline or that I want to push things. But you need to be aware of the fact that if we don't come up with a proposal, the council will. and then we have less say in it than we have now
15:23:54 <cwickert> gnokii: see why I want us to move forward?
15:25:17 <cwickert> mailga, gnokii: it seems it's only the three of us now. potty is busy, tuanta dropped out. how do we move on?
15:25:22 <gnokii> mmh before this famsco the famsco was not operative, but the ambassadors did still work so now tell me, for what there are then 4 seats needed in FOSCo? For me it looks it works with lesser
15:25:53 <cwickert> gnokii: that's exactly why we want a meritocratic body like FOSCo
15:28:54 <cwickert> mailga, gnokii: Do you want me to ask the council to push the deadline? I will only do this if we have a way forward
15:29:10 <gnokii> and before you speak more, I already brought up all this points in the ticket but you was more busy to ask me what I have against meritocracy
15:29:11 <cwickert> means we need a clear roadmap
15:29:38 <gnokii> well I tell you there are people who talk a lot about the few things they do are the the meritocrates? Not for me
15:29:45 <cwickert> gnokii: come on, I responded to your tickets 5 weeks ago, but you didn't respond afterwards
15:29:59 <gnokii> for what
15:30:01 <cwickert> https://fedorahosted.org/famsco/ticket/373#comment:18
15:30:02 <mailga> cwickert: we should propose a roadmap to Council.
15:30:17 <gnokii> you dont have to tell me
15:31:23 <mailga> cwickert gnokii does it make sense having a meeting ad-hoc to discuss and approve a draft of proposal?
15:32:29 <cwickert> mailga: we have weekly meetings but haven't had any progress, even though we had three proposals
15:32:45 <cwickert> so we have two options now
15:32:51 <gnokii> mailga: depends, I am a bit busy right now have to move until 1st to a new office, so its hard right now to find time especially I always have to do to strange times
15:33:17 <cwickert> 1. have a meeting with all representatives and discuss things openly
15:33:32 <cwickert> 2. agree on a proposal and then meet with the representatives
15:33:32 <gnokii> mailga it will be more flock in person
15:33:48 <gnokii> na meet and then agree
15:34:43 <cwickert> gnokii: if 7 people cannot agree on 3 proposals, why would more people–and possibly more propsals– make it easier to agree on one?
15:35:28 <gnokii> I dont see here 7 people
15:37:38 <mailga> cwickert gnokii do we have a FOSCo ML yet? I think we should collect opinion there with the coordinators for each group.
15:38:11 <gnokii> mailga: I dont think so but the creation of one would be a step in the right direction
15:39:00 <cwickert> I disagree. We have a social/process problem, a technical solution is not the answer
15:39:04 <cwickert> anyway
15:39:42 <cwickert> gnokii: you don't see 7 people in the trac ticket? at least 6, lbazan has not been participating in the discussion
15:40:12 <mailga> we have to find the way to make people pay attention to the proposal.
15:40:34 <gnokii> I just see that I raised points and they got ignored
15:40:51 <cwickert> gnokii: you raised concerns, but you did not present a solution
15:41:30 <gnokii> or you step simple over the solution and stick to you idea
15:42:06 <cwickert> gnokii, mailga: how do you want to move forward. three simple steps and a timeline please.
15:44:05 <gnokii> mailga: already did say it, there would be a discussion with all involved parties needed and thats the next step and if you look into the participating parties you might see its not the best idea to say 4 for the Ambassadors
15:45:06 <cwickert> gnokii: ok, go ahead, schedule a meeting with all relevant parties withing the next week. sounds like a plan?
15:45:27 <mailga> 1) edit new proposal in a couple of days max 2) vote the proposal alive in another couple of days 3) nominate a coordinator to edit the detailed proposal.
15:46:13 <gnokii> mailga: also brought up a better solution I dont think that noriko nor me will be willing to accept always that we get the bad card doing meetings in the middle of the night
15:46:31 <mailga> cwickert: works for me +1 to the meeting ad-hoc.
15:46:51 <cwickert> gnokii: that's what scheduling is for. sites like whenisgood.net can help
15:47:22 <gnokii> ^^
15:47:28 <mailga> gnokii: you and Noriko will give your concerns late in the morning (for you).
15:47:43 <cwickert> I suggest we first try to find a slot with famsco and all the representatives and then invite the other interested participants by mail to their team's mailing list
15:48:18 <gnokii> mailga: Noriko is even 5hrs ahead of me
15:49:08 <cwickert> propsal: step 1. set up a doole/whenisgood poll. 2. invite famsco + representatives 3. once they have agreed to a time, invite everybody else by mail to their list
15:49:29 <mailga> gnokii: not a problen, you and Noriko are authorized to explain your idea the day later.
15:49:31 <cwickert> where 2 means: infite them to the poll
15:50:19 <cwickert> gnokii: right, we have trac and a mailing list for those who are not present. you are free to bring up your points (and suggestions how to address them!) there
15:50:47 <mailga> cwickert: 0:make much clear the proposals in the ticket
15:51:08 <cwickert> mailga: gnokii wanted an open discussion with everybody first
15:51:47 <mailga> cwickert: in which sense?
15:52:37 <cwickert> mailga: ask gnokii :) I think it is ok if we present our proposals first, but it might influence people
15:53:22 <cwickert> if we narrow it down to the things we agreed on, we might single out some valuable input
15:54:15 <cwickert> somehow, I can understand gnokii's concern, but on the other hand people are free to bring up their ideas all the time. it's just proposals, nothing is set in stone yet
15:54:50 <cwickert> gnokii, mailga: so first finish the proposals and then a big meeting or the big meeting first
15:54:51 <cwickert> ?
15:56:02 <gnokii> yeah but there might be no space for impact lead and 4 representatives for ambassadors thats why I said more then once we have just to think right now what is the minimum to ensure decisions can be made right
15:56:12 <mailga> cwickert gnokii we cannont collect every single input. IMHO. No one said we have to edit a perfect proposal, that's something we can adjiust on the way. But we must present a proposa soon.
15:56:41 <gnokii> mailga: not aim for the best is wrong
15:56:46 <cwickert> gnokii: we have no impact leave atm :)
15:56:53 <cwickert> haha, I wrote leave
15:57:01 <cwickert> freudian slip :)
15:57:17 <cwickert> I wanted to say "we have no community impact lead atm"
15:57:44 <gnokii> thats what si written in you idea
15:58:26 <gnokii> we might also discuss, how big must be a group to get a seat does eg FedoraMagazine need one or are they represented by marketing
15:58:28 <cwickert> gnokii: we are not discussing proposals right now and this is a corner case. I'm sure the seat will be filled soon.
15:59:07 <cwickert> can we please discuss the way forward now and not shortcomings the individual proposals?
15:59:40 <mailga> gnokii cwickert details in the proposals can be fixed later.
15:59:47 <cwickert> first big meeting or first the proposals?
16:00:23 <cwickert> gnokii: you said you want an open discussion with everybody first, why are you insisting on cornercases of individual proposals now?
16:00:24 <gnokii> cwickert: I prefer marking out the problems gettting them all collected and then come up with a proposal
16:00:56 <mailga> cwickert: IMO first give a deadline for the proposal collect (by FAmSCo members) then big meeting.
16:01:08 <cwickert> gnokii: we have been doing this for weeks. You raised some concerns, I asked you to explain them and you did not respond. let's not start all over again
16:01:56 <cwickert> gnokii: you just said something very different, you said you want a meeting with all relevant parties first. You said the same weeks ago on the mailing list. what made you change your mind suddenly?
16:02:19 <gnokii> no you just asked me what I have against meritocracy and I give you again an answer I dont think that who makes the most noise about something is the best choice
16:02:21 <cwickert> mailga: we have been giving deadline after deadline for famsco members
16:03:41 <cwickert> ok, it's time to leave for me. how do we move on from here?
16:03:57 <cwickert> and please don't tell me the same we said weeks ago...
16:04:45 <mailga> cwickert: correct, for me the proposal are only the ones in the ticket, no more deadline, so they are the starting point for a big meeting. But I don't wanna seem a bit "fasacist".... :-)
16:05:56 <cwickert> mailga: sounds good, thank you
16:06:25 <cwickert> mailga: how about giving gnokii a final deadline for outlining his problems and proposing solutions?
16:07:39 <mailga> cwickert: sounds good, but only for Sirko. Others FAmSCo reached deadline yet: they didn't speak before and cannot speak now. IMHO.
16:08:49 <cwickert> gnokii: you think you can explain your concerns in the ticket until Friday 12:00 UTC?
16:10:37 <cwickert> did he drop out again?
16:11:00 <cwickert> mailga: how about the schedule for the big meeting? do you like my idea?
16:11:37 <gnokii> no, but if you would take a look into #373 and not simple read the first line and say something about meritocracy you would see some of my concerns already
16:11:47 <mailga> cwickert: you mean whenisgood?
16:11:49 <gnokii> and you not addressed them
16:12:51 <cwickert> gnokii: I asked you to elaborate your point, which you didn't do yet.
16:13:08 <cwickert> mailga: no, the roadmap. I don't care what tool we use
16:13:15 <gnokii> I dont have to explain that meritocracy isnt democracy
16:14:07 <mailga> cwickert: roadmap is ok for me.
16:14:28 <cwickert> mailga: like: one week for scheduling, one week for inviting the world and then have the meeting take place
16:14:40 <cwickert> in fact, we should speed this up
16:14:46 <cwickert> scheduling should happen quicker
16:15:04 <cwickert> that gives people more time to prepare for the meeting
16:15:47 <mailga> cwickert: exactly, let's make scheduling shorter
16:16:34 <cwickert> gnokii: we all know meritocracy isn't democracy, but we don't know what your point is. Please be so kind as to outline it in the ticket and make suggestions how to address the 4 issues you outlined there. ok?
16:17:52 <cwickert> mailga: ok, scheduling until the Monday 4th and the meeting in the week starting with the 11th. makes sense?
16:19:13 <gnokii> yeah what might be the solution for after 4 appointed seats and 2 another one elected by the Ambassadors and Design and Marketing be?
16:19:35 <mailga> cwickert: make sense to me, do we decide this between gnokii you and me? (I think other FmSCo will follow our decision).
16:20:17 <cwickert> mailga: lazy consensus would imply we wait another week, but I think we can just go ahead. this is not a decision that sets something in stone
16:20:30 <cwickert> so let's just decide it here and now
16:20:44 <mailga> cwickert: +1
16:20:48 <cwickert> +1
16:20:59 <cwickert> gnokii: are you ok with the schedule for the all-hands meeting?
16:24:05 <gnokii> did I say I have to move into another office? I mean I stop at Phnom Penh International University and start at Puthisastra University
16:25:20 * mailga will make a wikipage under a FOSCo section with the proposals in the ticket tomorrow and update the ticket with its liks)
16:25:21 <cwickert> gnokii: can you please answere a single question before you leave?
16:27:09 <cwickert> mailga: let's just go ahead and close this meeting
16:27:11 <cwickert> #endmeeting