famsco
MINUTES
14:02:02 <mailga> #startmeeting FAmSCo 2016-12-14
14:02:02 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Dec 14 14:02:02 2016 UTC.  The chair is mailga. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
14:02:02 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
14:02:02 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'famsco_2016-12-14'
14:02:14 <mailga> #meetingname famsco
14:02:14 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'famsco'
14:02:47 <mailga> #chair bexelbie cwickert potty gnokii
14:02:47 <zodbot> Current chairs: bexelbie cwickert gnokii mailga potty
14:02:56 <bexelbie> .hello bex
14:02:57 <zodbot> bexelbie: bex 'Brian (bex) Exelbierd' <bex@pobox.com>
14:03:02 <mailga> #topic Roll Call
14:03:06 <gnokii> .fas gnokii
14:03:09 <zodbot> gnokii: gnokii 'Sirko Kemter' <buergermeister@karl-tux-stadt.de>
14:03:09 <mailga> .hello mailga
14:03:12 <zodbot> mailga: mailga 'Gabriele Trombini' <g.trombini@gmail.com>
14:03:46 <mailga> let's wait a couple of minutes waiting for someone else showing up.
14:04:15 <robyduck> .hello robyduck
14:04:16 <zodbot> robyduck: robyduck 'Robert Mayr' <robyduck@gmail.com>
14:04:44 <mailga> #chair robyduck
14:04:44 <zodbot> Current chairs: bexelbie cwickert gnokii mailga potty robyduck
14:04:46 <mattdm> hi everyone. sorry, clock got away from me :)
14:05:05 <mailga> #chair mattdm
14:05:05 <zodbot> Current chairs: bexelbie cwickert gnokii mailga mattdm potty robyduck
14:05:13 <mailga> hello all
14:05:37 <bexelbie> langdon, ping
14:05:37 <zodbot> bexelbie: Ping with data, please: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/No_naked_pings
14:05:48 * bexelbie is wearing clothes ....
14:05:50 <mailga> potty: around?
14:06:38 <mailga> first topic
14:06:41 <mailga> #topic Announcements
14:07:05 <mailga> #info Fedora 25 released
14:07:15 <mailga> #link https://fedoramagazine.org/fedora-25-released/
14:07:58 <mailga> #info nominations for the upcoming FAmSCo are open
14:08:09 <mailga> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FAmSCo_nominations
14:08:19 <mailga> any other news I forgot?
14:09:41 <mailga> #topic upcoming FOSCo
14:10:27 <robyduck> !
14:10:50 <mailga> this FAmSCo is not able to find a solution for the upcoming FOSCo so we decided to leave the task to the next FAmSCo.
14:10:58 <mailga> robyduck: go ahead.
14:11:12 <robyduck> I spent some time yesterday to resume all the discussions and the video from Jiri. Maybe we can take it as basis to start?
14:11:55 <robyduck> I have an fpaste if you agree
14:12:15 <mailga> robyduck: tooo much words are spent but till today we don't agree to anything. Go ahead.
14:12:29 <robyduck> https://paste.fedoraproject.org/506076/17063771/
14:13:54 <mailga> yes, this was more or less the starting point. At this was the reason why I decided to nominate myself to FAmSCo.
14:14:28 <mailga> robyduck: is this a proposal?
14:15:44 <robyduck> mailga: this is a resume of the most complete proposals
14:15:59 <mailga> robyduck: ok.
14:16:08 <robyduck> and based on that this could be a overall proposal we could go for, but let's hear the others too
14:17:00 * mattdm reads post
14:17:28 <gnokii> robyduck: it makes no sense to discuss anythin about it, the problematic was here simple that there was only talking about seats. You remember hopefully who did shut you off as web team and later on the same person said there was never a clear statement from that team
14:17:43 <gnokii> same he did with translation team
14:18:07 <robyduck> gnokii: I'm not questioning about seats, it's not interesting here
14:18:33 <robyduck> G11n could be added later, they will have to sort out their stuff first
14:18:42 <bexelbie> robyduck, your proposal makes specific seat recommendations which are part of the disagreement
14:19:38 <robyduck> bexelbie: gnokii: they are just based on objective points. Before talking about seats, I tried to find out what we need from FOSCo, and what FOSCo needs to work properly
14:20:07 <gnokii> robyduck: thats what I always said here but its like talking to the wall
14:20:17 <bexelbie> robyduck, I understand your chain of logic.  I am saying that not everyone agrees with yoru conclusions
14:20:25 <bexelbie> that is part of the reason FAmSCo is dead locked
14:20:36 <robyduck> then let's get back to that, gnokii, and find out a way to start with FOSCo
14:21:19 <mailga> the first question is: do we need FOSCo?
14:21:38 <gnokii> robyduck: I just repeat here what I said last famsco meeting, famsco has to do some steps that fosco can take over and just open the discussion with all the teams nothing more
14:21:58 <gnokii> and I am not in the opinion that we still need a famsco later on
14:22:08 <robyduck> bexelbie: what I am saying are two things, mainly: We need to decide if we want FOSCo or not. If yes, FAmSCo is dead.
14:22:26 <bexelbie> Not everyone agrees with that conclusion either robyduck
14:22:29 <robyduck> the scond is, that FOSCo will need a period of time to work well
14:22:30 <bexelbie> also part of the deadlock
14:23:12 <robyduck> bexelbie: this is a point I don't understand. We always agreed FOSCo will take over the few FAmSCo duties left.
14:23:19 <robyduck> no need to have overlapping bodies
14:23:26 * Amita always read this meeting logs and most of the times it is FOSCo and FAMSCo
14:24:09 <bexelbie> robyduck, they are not overlapping in some people's views
14:24:27 <robyduck> then you have two weak bodies
14:24:29 <bexelbie> some people disagree with that conclusion that appears to be fundamental in your thinking
14:24:46 <bexelbie> Everyone doesn't see it as two weak bodies
14:24:48 <gnokii> exactly we agreed on that especially one of the purposes was to get the budget out of ambassadors hand to spread it wider
14:25:11 <bexelbie> gnokii, I don't think everyone see budget as a key component of this conversation either
14:25:15 <robyduck> bexelbie: the last FAmSCo started with FOSCo, and I was part of it. Most of the FAmSCo duties passed over to the regions, and that is good. Or do you want them back?
14:25:36 <gnokii> we might then ask mattdm for what we wanted fosco once
14:25:39 <bexelbie> robyduck, I am not offering personal specific opinions at this time
14:25:44 <mattdm> I was just going to ask that same question: if we would retain FAmSCo, would it have new or stronger duties?
14:25:54 <bexelbie> however I will add that I have not heard anyone suggest that responsibilities should be recentralized
14:26:14 <robyduck> there is just a few things left in FAmSCo anymore, so let's get those into a new wonderful body with more power all player will benefit from
14:26:20 <bexelbie> The retain FAmSCo I have heard about is a body that ensure that ambassadors work together across regions and have the same standards
14:26:22 <bexelbie> today they do not
14:26:48 <bexelbie> robyduck, you're proposal assumes taht those FAmSCo duties are appopriate for all members of the new body to be deciding on
14:26:55 <bexelbie> not everyone agrees
14:27:01 <mattdm> gnokii: I want the outward-facing parts of the project to work together on creating strategies for growth, developing messaging around those strategies, and delivering the on the ground
14:27:01 <bexelbie> s/you're/your/
14:27:26 <bexelbie> the on the ground piece is where I see Ambassadors fitting in
14:27:30 <robyduck> bexelbie: yes I do, most of them are ambassadors
14:27:31 <mattdm> (delivering _them_ on the ground)
14:27:51 <robyduck> and they will benefit from the other members
14:27:55 * cwickert is here and reads trhe backlog
14:27:56 <mailga> mattdm: if we don't aggregate the outreach groups we never have a common strategy.
14:28:08 <robyduck> which are appointed, not elected, from other teams
14:28:15 <mattdm> mailga: yeah, hence the initial idea :)
14:28:37 <bexelbie> creating a way for teams to work together and strategize doesn't have to mean merging them
14:28:57 <bexelbie> having a body that is ambassador heavy puts a heavy emphasis on the "ground game"
14:29:37 <bexelbie> Ambassador is one aspect of our strategy
14:30:06 <mailga> mattdm: and the same I tried to carry on in this FAmSCo.... Maybe with some misunderstanding but if we don't agree that a budget is not only money but also strategies, tools, people and so on, we don't relly need FOSCo. IMO.
14:30:16 <cwickert> !
14:30:50 <robyduck> bexelbie: FAmSCo is already almost dead, that's a fact, the original FAmSCo was quite different and had many many more responsibilities.
14:31:27 <robyduck> sorry cwickert, I think you can go ahead whenever you like
14:31:30 <mailga> cwickert: go ahead.
14:31:50 <cwickert> I still believe we need both FAmSCo and FOSCo. FOSCo can only happen if other groups such as design, marketing, and comm-ops join our efforts. But if FOSCo is busy with ambassadors stuff, it offers no value for anybody to join.
14:32:46 <robyduck> cwickert: what is the benefit of FOSCo then? To ambassadors? They will have two bodies
14:32:53 <gnokii> famsco is since a year just busy with discussing fosco
14:32:57 <bexelbie> robyduck, I do not think the regions have a shared vision, strategy, goals, or standards.  I do not think they are talking to each other to help everyone do better.  I believe this is hard to fix on a committee that is full of non-ambassadors too.
14:33:14 <cwickert> we have seen at FLOCK that FAmSCo work is not disappearing. In our session, we spent more time than we wanted on ambassadors' stuff. Now imagine this happens in an IRC meeting. The non-ambassadors people will just idle and become bored.
14:33:20 <bexelbie> robyduck, Ambassadors, should  have one seat in FOSCo like every other grup
14:33:47 * mattdm liked robyduck's proposal but is becoming pretty convinced by cwickert and bexelbie
14:33:50 <cwickert> robyduck: the benefit is that they have one clear communication channel to talk to other groups. that's all we ever wanted
14:33:56 <bexelbie> And they get the same thing out of FOSCo a group like Magazine gets
14:34:02 <robyduck> bexelbie: correct, they don't share many things but they are also different, and you saw that. I believe ambassadors can still benefit from other teams' experience
14:34:26 <bexelbie> robyduck, yes, they can benefit - but they would benefit more from each other's experience first as they do similar work
14:34:47 <bexelbie> but instead the regions get caught fighting fights internally because they don't have a body to go to get help
14:34:53 <cwickert> robyduck: the initial idea of FOSCo was never the "one mighty body to solve all our problems" but a liaison from the ambassadors to the other outreach groups
14:35:01 <bexelbie> and (huge can of worms) because the regions are probably not the right size
14:35:20 <robyduck> cwickert: indeed
14:35:37 <cwickert> the reason why FOSCo did not yet happen is because we became too ambitious, we wanted to many too many things in one step.
14:35:43 <bexelbie> If we believe that FAmSCo/Ambassadors has problems then pushing those all on FOSCo is not going to solve them
14:35:44 <robyduck> and we need this liasion, internally and also as outreach
14:36:04 <cwickert> we designed a very powerful body but failed to see that it will not solve our FAmSCo problems
14:36:34 <robyduck> cwickert: how many responsibilities are left in FAmSCo right now?
14:36:53 <cwickert> robyduck: we haven't given anything up, so we still have the same responsibilities
14:37:14 <bexelbie> robyduck, I don't see this as a responsibility-count problem.  I see it as a we need a body to bring the regions together problem
14:37:24 <bexelbie> taht body isn't FOSCo, imho, it is FAmSCo
14:37:33 <cwickert> robyduck: it's just that not much is happening, we don't get a lot of requests and we don't do a lot. that has caused a downward spiral
14:37:35 * bexelbie is very tired of typing in mixed-camel-case-like-thing
14:37:56 <cwickert> the problems FAmSCo has predate the idea of FOSCo. FOSCo will not solve any FAmSCo problems. And in fact, having an body for the ambassadors only is a huge advantage for them. they retain their independence.
14:37:58 <robyduck> many of them passed over to the regions, and budget is also more a Council thingalthough budget is complex to call it just with a single word)
14:38:15 <bexelbie> cwickert, I think the lack of requests should be met by FAmSCo taking a look into the regions and seeing if things are really great or if requests just aren't being made even though there are problems
14:40:05 <cwickert> let's ask ourselves this: If FOSCo is a joint venture of ambassadors, design, marketing and comm-ops, why do we take it for granted that it replaces FAmSCo but never even thought that it would replace other teams. I mean, even if design joins FOSCo, nobody would support the crazy idea that we dissolve the design team, their meetings or anything like this.
14:40:28 <robyduck> I don't see FAmSCo can solve its problems alone, we don't even have many candidates for it in the last couple of years. All this does not help.
14:40:46 <bexelbie> robyduck, that may mean we need to rethink the whole idea of what ambassadors is
14:40:49 <bexelbie> how it works
14:40:50 <gnokii> nobody is dissoving the ambassador group
14:40:51 <bexelbie> standards, et.
14:40:52 <bexelbie> etc.
14:41:18 <robyduck> bexelbie: no, not at all, don't go to far away from what I'm saying
14:41:24 <cwickert> robyduck: and how exactly does FOSCo help? How do we get more candidates?
14:41:34 <bexelbie> robyduck, if it is broken and it can't be fixed ...
14:41:35 <mattdm> It's probably worth pointing out that the main reason I suggested replacing FAmSCo was simply to keep from net growth in the number of governing bodies
14:41:37 <robyduck> cwickert: nobody will replace meetings or teams
14:41:54 <gnokii> mattdm +1
14:41:56 <robyduck> mattdm: and that is what we need
14:41:59 <mattdm> Because several people pointed out that it seemed like I was trying to solve every problem with a new committee :)
14:42:10 <cwickert> robyduck: I know, then why would we do the same for FAmSCo?
14:42:12 <bexelbie> sometimes you really do  need a new team
14:42:14 <robyduck> Coubcil and two bodies on its side, FEDCo and FOSCo
14:42:19 <robyduck> FESCo even
14:42:20 <gnokii> haha
14:42:41 <cwickert> robyduck: the governance of design, marketing etc will not change if they join FOSCo. Why should the ambassadors's governance change then?
14:42:54 <bexelbie> +1 cwickert
14:43:07 <robyduck> I probably miss something here. Which governance for design?
14:43:17 <robyduck> They don't have it actually
14:43:47 <cwickert> robyduck: whatever governance they choose to have. And the ambassadors should also have the chance to have any governance they want to have
14:44:49 <mattdm> Hey robyduck: on a scale from 1 to 10, how strongly do you feel about this? :)
14:45:10 <robyduck> about what?
14:45:38 <mattdm> robyduck: about having FOSCo absorb FAmSCo, basically. As opposed to also having FAmSCo continue.
14:46:23 <robyduck> mattdm: I am 100% or more to get FAmSCo absorbed and am willling also to help if needed to get it in place, but without FAmSCo.
14:46:39 <robyduck> as FOSCo wrangler or whatever
14:47:17 <robyduck> I don't want to dictate anything here, with other people obviously
14:47:17 <cwickert> the to-be-elected FAmSCo should have a strong mandate to revisit all rules and guidelines, burn everything down and start from scratch if necessary. But if we have no FAmSCo any longer, FOSCo will have to deal with all of this. Not only that non-ambassadors shouldn't have a say in ambassadors' policies, they are not interested in it at all. And this will probably kill FOSCo before if ever became productive
14:47:20 <robyduck> but ok, we should decid first what we want to do. Keep FAmSCo or not. I explained reasons why we should close FAmSCo and keep just FOSCo. You the other way. Can we try to get out of this empass? Voting? Anythign else?
14:47:40 * mailga thought to replace each governance with one, FOSCo. Then have smaller mini-governance to report to their region/group.
14:47:53 <mattdm> +1 get out om impasse
14:48:32 <robyduck> mattdm: ideas of how to proceed without getting deadlocked again?
14:48:53 <bexelbie> I am not sure that voting on the characteristics of the solution is a good way to start
14:49:07 <robyduck> It's clear we won't have 100% agreement, but that's not necessary
14:49:07 <bexelbie> the binary question of famsco survives or not depends on everything else
14:49:35 <robyduck> bexelbie: what do you propose?
14:49:41 <mattdm> That's why I asked how strongly you felt. If it's "MUST BE THIS WAY" then we may have some more talking to do. If it's "I disagree, but if that's what people want, fine...." then maybe we have a way forward
14:50:32 <mattdm> I propose: 1. separate bodies for now, with famsco specifically working on retooling ambassadors
14:50:55 <cwickert> IHMO the only thing that this FAmSCo has left to do is to create a bare-bone idea for FOSCo. But this time, let's keep it simple. And then let FOSCo decide on it's own governance etc. just as we did with the workstation, server, etc. wgs.
14:50:58 <mattdm> 2. next year, come back and see if we think that's working
14:51:18 <robyduck> mattdm: I'm strongly for FOSCo, but I accept also if we decide to go the other way. Although I don't believe in a great success (now), maybe time will tell me I am totally wrong.
14:51:18 <cwickert> mattdm: +1
14:51:19 <mailga> as FAmSCo member I ever say "if that is what people want, also I disagree, let's move forward". But how we can be sure about what people wants?
14:51:33 <gnokii> this famsco will not create any bone of fosco
14:51:38 <mattdm> mailga: people don't even know what they want :)
14:51:51 <cwickert> robyduck: it's not a decision against FOSCo but for both. And it gives both more freedom
14:52:07 <gnokii> especially here is a saying that ambassadors can decide how they are ruled
14:52:13 <mailga> mattdm: sure, but who's the people voting? FAmSCo + Council?
14:52:51 <mattdm> mailga: voting on which thing? my proposal?
14:52:57 <cwickert> gnokii: well, we have FAmSCo elections to come and we should encourage people to run by giving them the mandate to do anything they want
14:53:05 <bexelbie> we could redirect the question a bit by having FAmSCo ask the council to create FOSCo if they think it is needed and also tell the council that FAMSCo is going to spend some time working on ambassadors
14:53:11 <mailga> mattdm: yes.
14:53:24 <mattdm> mailga: ooh, bexelbie just answered that nicely :)
14:53:43 <mailga> mattdm: :-D agree.
14:55:35 <cwickert> mattdm: lets put it this way: what does the council want from us?
14:55:44 <mailga> cwickert: +1
14:55:50 <cwickert> is there anything FAmSCo should or should not do?
14:56:05 <mattdm> cwickert: world domination? :)
14:56:13 <cwickert> seems we are too lethargic to move, so we might need a kick in the butt.
14:56:22 <gnokii> not we
14:56:38 <mailga> please consider also we're in the nominatio period.
14:56:40 <mattdm> Give me a sec to say something more constructive :)
14:56:49 <cwickert> gnokii: did you work on the alternative election schedule in the meantime?
14:57:28 <gnokii> for what for you not understanding me because somebody else did made unqualified comments again
14:57:34 <mattdm> If FAmSCo can agree on the statement bex gives above, I think that's sufficient for now. [1/2]
14:58:14 <mattdm> And then we would want FAmSCo to significantly reenergize ambassadors over the next year, retooling for a beyond-the-lugs-and-linuxfests universe of the 21st century. [2/2]
14:58:25 <bexelbie> +10000000 mattdm
14:58:44 <gnokii> 20th you mean
14:58:45 <cwickert> mattdm: +1 to the latter
14:59:31 * mattdm has another meeting in a few seconds
14:59:35 <cwickert> gnokii: we are living in the 21st century, believe it or not
14:59:43 <gnokii> yes we do
15:00:04 <robyduck> lol
15:00:57 <bexelbie> Should we vote on this?
15:01:06 <bexelbie> well the parts of we that are voting members, I mean
15:01:07 <cwickert> +1 from me
15:01:32 <mailga> +1 also from me
15:02:42 <bexelbie> Does this wording work? Proposal: Ask Council to consider whether FOSCo is needed or not and to drive it if they think it is.  FAmSCo will focus on retooling itself for the new world of post-lugs/fests and hold elections with the goal of empowering the new FAmSCo to do whatever it takes to get there, including changing everything.
15:03:09 * mailga says we're running out of time
15:03:21 <bexelbie> who else is a voting member of FAmSCo and is present? gnokii ?
15:03:24 <bexelbie> robyduck, ?
15:03:36 <robyduck> bexelbie: I'm not
15:03:48 <mailga> gnokii is
15:04:03 <cwickert> bexelbie: not quite sure about this. I think FAmSCo should still try to draft a FOSCo statement, but a very minimalistic one, similar to the one you outlined on the mailing list some weeks back
15:04:17 <cwickert> if we get agreement to that one, I'm fine and can step down in peace
15:04:38 <cwickert> and this will then go to the Council and they approve and improve it
15:04:57 <bexelbie> cwickert, I understand your point however I think that the strenght of this body should be focused on Ambassadors and we can ask council to do some of hte heavy lifting
15:05:08 <bexelbie> they won't be deciding it in private so people will still be able to weigh in
15:05:16 <gnokii> bexelbie: for what shall I vote for the future task for famsco I leave that up to the future famsco then
15:05:32 <cwickert> gnokii: you are free to run again
15:05:48 <bexelbie> gnokii, the proposal is, as I understand what mattdm and I said before and I summaarized with the line that reads:
15:05:55 <bexelbie> Proposal: Ask Council to consider whether FOSCo is needed or not and to drive it if they think it is.  FAmSCo will focus on retooling itself for the new world of post-lugs/fests and hold elections with the goal of empowering the new FAmSCo to do whatever it takes to get there, including changing everything.
15:06:01 <bexelbie> that is what you've been ask to vote on
15:06:03 <bexelbie> aiui
15:06:09 <cwickert> mailga, gnokii: do you think this FAmSCo can still reach a consensus on a minimalistic FOSCo mission statement?
15:06:20 <cwickert> with like 4 weeks left
15:06:36 <gnokii> bexelbie: sorry I see there votes before that was formulated
15:07:10 <bexelbie> gnokii, I was restating it for a #info line ... you're free to state both your vote and exactly what you voted for so that you can be sure we all understand you
15:07:18 <gnokii> cwickert: famsco will not decide any seat or mission statement for fosco
15:07:38 <mailga> cwickert: this 4 weeks are more or less two, I don't agree. If someone of us are able to write something for me is ok. But iI'm really burned out.
15:08:36 <cwickert> gnokii: I fully agree that we should not decide on the inner workings of FOSCo such as seats, decision making process, etc, but a mission statement is not about seat. It's basically a description of what we want FOSCo to to for the ambassadors.
15:08:39 <gnokii> cwickert: to make it very clear, you was the one here very loud saying why should the ambassadors give up there government, so here I ask you why should other group accept to live with an government decided by ambassadors
15:08:49 <robyduck> bexelbie: btw, do we have a quorum to vote here?
15:09:44 <gnokii> robyduck: 3/6 present
15:09:44 <mailga> robyduck: we're 3/6.
15:10:13 <bexelbie> robyduck, dunno
15:10:32 <robyduck> 6? Ah you have one member stepped down, right
15:10:46 <mailga> cwickert gnokii what do you think to cast votes in a ticket?
15:11:05 <cwickert> ok then
15:11:16 <cwickert> mailga: I'll add it to the ticket
15:11:26 <mailga> cwickert: +1
15:11:47 <mailga> if there's nothing else, I'm going to close the meeting
15:11:56 <mailga> 5
15:12:01 <mailga> 4
15:12:01 <cwickert> gnokii: again, a mission statement is not about the governance
15:12:13 <mailga> 3
15:12:18 <cwickert> the other groups and whoever is on FOSCo will make this decision later
15:12:29 <mailga> 2
15:12:33 <gnokii> na mission statement is definitely more then that, so actually you want to tell them what to do
15:12:48 <mailga> 1,99
15:12:53 <gnokii> if then that is up to the council not on famsco
15:12:54 <mailga> 1,98
15:13:05 <mailga> 1,97
15:13:16 <mailga> 1
15:13:22 <mailga> #endmeeting