13:02:40 <mcatanzaro> #startmeeting workstation_wg
13:02:40 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon May  6 13:02:40 2019 UTC.
13:02:40 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location.
13:02:40 <zodbot> The chair is mcatanzaro. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
13:02:40 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
13:02:40 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'workstation_wg'
13:02:46 <mcatanzaro> #meetingname Workstation WG
13:02:46 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'workstation_wg'
13:02:57 <mcatanzaro> #meetingname "Workstation WG"
13:02:57 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to '"workstation_wg"'
13:03:00 <mcatanzaro> Oh whatever
13:03:05 <mcatanzaro> #topic roll call
13:03:08 <mcatanzaro> .hello catanzaro
13:03:10 <zodbot> mcatanzaro: catanzaro 'Michael Catanzaro' <mcatanzaro@gnome.org>
13:03:17 <petersen> .hello2
13:03:18 <zodbot> petersen: petersen 'Jens Petersen' <petersen@redhat.com>
13:03:38 <kalev> .hello2
13:03:40 <zodbot> kalev: kalev 'Kalev Lember' <klember@redhat.com>
13:05:46 <mcatanzaro> cschalle, ryanlerch: Good morning!
13:06:05 <cschalle> good morning
13:06:16 <cschalle> .hello cschalle
13:06:18 <zodbot> cschalle: Sorry, but you don't exist
13:06:18 <mcatanzaro> otaylor is probably not going to attend today... then it looks like we're missing mclasen
13:06:32 <cschalle> yeah, mclasen is not in the office otday
13:06:36 <mcatanzaro> #chair petersen kalev cschalle
13:06:36 <zodbot> Current chairs: cschalle kalev mcatanzaro petersen
13:07:10 <mcatanzaro> THat leaves only ryanlerch. I think that, since the WG size is reduced from nine to seven, that four should suffice for a quorum?
13:07:25 <cschalle> agreed
13:07:26 <petersen> cschalle: fas id :)
13:07:42 <petersen> mcatanzaro: I suppose so hehe
13:09:39 <mcatanzaro> #topic WG membership
13:10:40 <mcatanzaro> So we have five candidates
13:11:05 <mcatanzaro> Steven Snow, Chris Murphy, Langdon White, Phil Wyett, Geoffrey Marr
13:11:14 <mcatanzaro> stickster has been promoting Langdon
13:11:54 <mcatanzaro> I think I was first to suggest Chris. Then I also recognize Phil (who's been sending a bunch of MRs to update GNOME packages)
13:12:07 <mcatanzaro> Not sure about the others
13:12:30 <mcatanzaro> So just arbitrarily deciding who to accept and who not to accept is going to be kinda hard
13:13:00 <petersen> I feel someone should reach out to all the candidates we came up with last time, I mean in private just to be sure they all see it
13:13:03 <mcatanzaro> We could accept everyone, but then the WG size would be 12 and that seems a bit large
13:13:04 <kalev> I would like to support Chris as well. He's shown good skills in analyzing problems in our mailing lists and coming up with various ideas how to fix things.
13:13:52 <petersen> petersen: Though already reading the mailing-list proactively is certainly a positive thing
13:13:55 <mcatanzaro> otaylor also reached out to Sinnay and Sanja, who were not interested.
13:14:03 <petersen> Ah thanks!
13:14:21 <petersen> That's fair enough then
13:15:36 <cschalle> hmm, well on one side I would love to formalize how we pick people, to make it feel less arbitrary, on the other side I don't know if we want to delay picking people while having what is likely to be relatively long period of discussing and implementing something
13:16:01 * otaylor is here now, btw
13:16:06 <mcatanzaro> #chair otaylor
13:16:06 <zodbot> Current chairs: cschalle kalev mcatanzaro otaylor petersen
13:16:14 <langdon> i am very interested.. but summit is killing me.. i can pay attention again next week
13:16:35 <petersen> We could also use meeting time availability as one criterion possibly?
13:17:30 <mcatanzaro> Which reminds me, someone mentioned this last time: did we lose ryanlerch? Anyone know when he last attended?
13:18:23 <cschalle> no, don't remember when he last attended
13:18:56 <petersen> I think more than a month
13:19:15 <otaylor> he marked 9:00am eastern daylightsavings time as something he couldn't do on whenisgood
13:19:54 <petersen> 11pm in Brisbane
13:20:08 <petersen> during EDT
13:20:32 <otaylor> (he last said something in the meeting in February)
13:20:49 <petersen> Yeah he chaired one of the meetings I remember
13:20:57 <mcatanzaro> #meetingname workstation
13:20:57 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'workstation'
13:21:03 * mcatanzaro learns how to work this properly
13:22:17 <petersen> I think it is okay/fair to ask him (and anyone else) to confirm
13:22:28 * mcatanzaro discovers https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/sresults/?group_id=workstation&type=team
13:22:45 <mcatanzaro> He said ".hello" at the March 25 meeting
13:23:13 <petersen> He certainly attends more than some others ;) :-)
13:24:37 <otaylor> In some sense, the membership doesn't *really* matter - the two important things are a) we can reliably get quorum b) we have enough people picking up tasks and contributing
13:25:15 <otaylor> and of course - c) we can find a common time to meet :-)
13:25:22 <petersen> otaylor: +1
13:25:22 <mcatanzaro> (c) being the hard part
13:27:03 <mcatanzaro> #link https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meetingtime.html?iso=20190506&p1=605&p2=204&p3=47
13:27:08 <mcatanzaro> This is what we're dealing with regarding timezones
13:27:33 <mcatanzaro> St. Louis is an hour behind Boston, and Brisbane is an hour ahead of Tokyo
13:28:09 <mcatanzaro> So no way to pick a time that's not red for someone... but Ryan and Jens have been very flexible in the past
13:28:25 <langdon> .hello2
13:28:26 <zodbot> langdon: langdon 'Langdon White' <langdon@redhat.com>
13:28:34 <langdon> ^^ figure im paying a bit of attention
13:28:36 <mcatanzaro> Anyway, I have my next meeting now so I need to divide my attention, welcome langdon
13:28:41 <petersen> mcatanzaro: fortunately I am in Singapore now - one hour behind Tokyo :)
13:29:07 <mcatanzaro> That one hour probably makes a big difference
13:29:12 <petersen> It does!
13:29:43 <petersen> Means even during EST the meeting now is only 10pm :)
13:29:50 <mcatanzaro> (Anyway, someone feel free to take over chair)
13:32:42 <petersen> Any other topics we should cover also today?
13:33:07 <cschalle> looking at the open items, nothing jumps out at me
13:33:10 <mcatanzaro> Well it's easy to pay half attention when nobody is typing anything... the only other item on the agenda was disk partitioning, but I think WG composition is more important to sort out first
13:33:28 <mcatanzaro> Seems like none of us have strong opinions on how we should do this though
13:34:18 <otaylor> My proposal here is that we don't worry about odd vs. even, add Langdon, Steven Snow, and Chris Murphy, we double check with ryanlerch whether he wants to continue, we thank Geoffrey and Phil and suggest that they can attend meetings and help out if they are interested, but don't add them for now, we pick the best possible meeting time (maybe this one), then we track attendence and prune people who don't attend / don't say any
13:34:20 <otaylor> thing
13:35:22 <langdon> in modularity & server, we also have a rule "if present at meeting, your vote counts"
13:35:48 <mcatanzaro> Tracking attendance seems important (this will make it easier to reach quorum too). Don't need to be attendance Nazis, but I think we have too much trouble reaching quorum currently.
13:35:59 <kalev> I can support otayler's proposal above
13:36:03 <mcatanzaro> We don't do too much in the way of close votes so that doesn't seem like much of a motivator here.
13:36:06 <petersen> langdon: yeah may not be so bad - should encourage more active participants at least
13:36:42 <mcatanzaro> I could get behind otaylor's proposal. Who's Steven? :D
13:36:44 <petersen> otaylor: sounds okay to me too
13:37:02 <langdon> yeah.. the point for the other wgs (IMO) is more to show "interest" or "consensus" rather than breaking ties
13:37:26 <otaylor> mcatanzaro: he's been doing cool work writing about Silverblue for the magazine and helping people on the forum, but honestly I don't know a lot about him otherwise :-)
13:38:42 <kalev> probably a good idea to have people on the WG who are interested in Silverblue
13:39:02 <petersen> yep
13:39:12 <langdon> im interested in silverblue :)
13:39:21 <petersen> I am enjoying it!
13:39:26 <langdon> but.. if you want my opinion.. the more the merrier
13:39:27 <mcatanzaro> kalev: Any further thoughts on giving Phil access to GNOME::SIG? If he hasn't been making mistakes with his MRs then we might as well? If I were him, then that would keep me motivated despite being rejected for WG.
13:40:14 <kalev> mcatanzaro: yeah, that might be a good idea
13:41:04 <mcatanzaro> otaylor: How did you decide to include him in your first group rather than your second?
13:41:18 <otaylor> What groups?
13:41:45 <mcatanzaro> People to accept for membership vs. people to not accept
13:43:12 <otaylor> My split there was simply based on a) people I asked and who said they were interested vs. b) people who volunteered - not a reflection on their involvement or anything else
13:43:26 <mcatanzaro> Oh OK
13:44:27 <otaylor> If people think Phil has been contributing a lot and is a good candidate, then we should add him too (not saying anything against Geoffrey :-)
13:44:27 <mcatanzaro> Um, so are we all OK with otaylor's plan? I'm OK with otaylor's plan.
13:44:45 <mcatanzaro> Anyone know Geoffrey?
13:45:27 <otaylor> Current - pfrields - rdieter + Langdon + Steven + Chris + Phil would be 11 members
13:47:03 <mcatanzaro> I'm a little nervous about pushing past 10 members
13:47:33 <mcatanzaro> We could say Phil or Geoffrey could be considered if Ryan leaves
13:47:36 <langdon> what does it mean to "be a member"? listing on the "wiki page"?
13:47:36 <mcatanzaro> ?
13:47:48 <otaylor> We probably should give everybody a chance to vote - so since we don't have mclasen and ryanlerch, let's take this to email
13:47:59 <mcatanzaro> Besides listing on the wiki page, there's an expectation that you attend and participate in meetings, and you get to vote
13:48:09 <mcatanzaro> Of course, anybody can attend and participate in the meetings (without a vote)
13:48:15 <mcatanzaro> But in practice, usually it's WG members
13:48:17 <petersen> I don't a problem with 11 as long as we get quorum
13:48:58 <mcatanzaro> So for an 11-member WG, quorum would be 6 instead of 5
13:49:05 <petersen> Right
13:49:08 <langdon> that's why i like the "if you attend, you vote" rule cause it doesn't make you a "member" ... but you have some subset who will (normally) attend the meeting
13:49:20 <mcatanzaro> I'm not sure for a 10-member WG, would it be 5 (half) or 6 (majority)?
13:49:22 <otaylor> mcatanzaro: but quorum would also be 6 for 10 members
13:49:33 <mcatanzaro> OK, majority
13:49:41 <otaylor> so 11 is stricly better than 10 for getting quorum
13:49:53 <langdon> could you just make an arb quorum? not "better than half" but maybe lower?
13:50:34 <mcatanzaro> We could certainly make our own quorum rules, but the quorum rule is there for a reason: to make sure enough people are attending
13:50:41 <otaylor> langdon: we could. But if most people aren't showing up, then that makes action items and followups a big pain, and I don't see the point
13:50:43 * mcatanzaro not listening very well at his other meeting :D
13:50:59 <langdon> mcatanzaro: im not listening to either very well ;)
13:51:26 <petersen> Should we impose some minimum average attendance level?
13:52:10 <mcatanzaro> petersen: I think we can handle it on a case-by-case basis if we have problems once we start tracking it. But we should start tracking.
13:52:16 <petersen> sure
13:52:41 <petersen> I wasn't think anything high :)
13:52:47 <mcatanzaro> langdon: Normally we don't vote via email, but WG membership is such an important issue that it probably merits consent from those not here today
13:53:15 <otaylor> mcatanzaro: was that directed at me?
13:53:22 <petersen> That is also true - I feel certainly decisions demand full voting by members
13:53:45 <mcatanzaro> Um, do you want the action item to propose this by email, otaylor? (I could handle it. I understand it's a busy time for you. ;)
13:53:53 <petersen> certainly = certain, oops
13:54:01 <langdon> whether it was me or not, i agree with petersen .. however, I do like the voting in issues that the council and modularity have adopted
13:54:06 <mcatanzaro> Anyway if you write the mail, you get more influence in the likely result, your choice
13:54:07 <otaylor> OK, I'll follow up by email (I guess with the proposal +phil), get a vote, report to my mailing list / forum threads
13:54:25 <mcatanzaro> #action otaylor to continue membership discussion via private email
13:54:39 <petersen> langdon: true
13:55:16 <petersen> otaylor: thanks
13:55:18 <otaylor> for fesco, which does voting both ways, it can get confusing - definitely more tracking
13:55:25 <otaylor> anything else people want to cover today inthe last 5 minutes?
13:55:35 <mcatanzaro> otaylor: BTW I directed that at langdon because he suggested the "if you attend you can vote" rule (which is normally what we do too)
13:55:49 <otaylor> mcatanzaro: I think langdon meant that *anybody* who attends can vote
13:55:53 <mcatanzaro> #topic open floor
13:55:55 <langdon> correct
13:56:08 <otaylor> mcatanzaro: WG composition is anybody who shows up that day
13:56:10 <mcatanzaro> Oh
13:56:12 <petersen> nod
13:56:30 <mcatanzaro> See if we allow *anybody* to vote, then we could lose control of our secret cabal. Not sure what I think about that.
13:56:43 <mcatanzaro> OTOH it would be cool and potentially-healthy to encourage more participation.
13:57:02 <petersen> mcatanzaro: hehe
13:57:17 <mcatanzaro> BTW there is no Swedish conspiracy.
13:57:20 <langdon> BUT.. you have to make sure people who are regulars stay regulars and not assume someone else will cover for them
13:57:47 <petersen> proxy voting? lol
13:58:07 <mcatanzaro> Does anybody know Geoffrey, btw?
13:58:28 <langdon> ha.. not quite what i meant..more like if participation is open, regulars might assume others will pick up the slack
13:58:30 <petersen> I think I have seen him in bugzilla :)
13:58:47 <petersen> langdon: I was just being playful
13:59:14 <langdon> petersen: i figured.. but wanted to be clearer anyway
13:59:18 <petersen> langdon: do they need any fas qualitifications?
13:59:23 <petersen> :)
13:59:39 <langdon> they have to be a member of the fas group iirc
13:59:44 <petersen> okay
14:00:47 <kalev> mcatanzaro: Geoffrey is part of Fedora QA. Interested in GNOME and flatpak.
14:01:12 <langdon> apologies.. but i have to step away..
14:02:43 <kalev> from the list of names above, Chris, Langdon, and Geoffrey are the names I have interacted with and could support
14:02:56 <kalev> the other names I've only heard of in passing
14:03:19 <petersen> Well in a way some QA involvement would not hurt either - as long as the people are willing and able to help out
14:03:20 <kalev> which doesn't mean I'd be against :) Just very little interaction
14:04:30 <mcatanzaro> #endmeeting