20:00:09 <stickster> #startmeeting Flock software update
20:00:09 <zodbot> Meeting started Thu Nov 12 20:00:09 2015 UTC.  The chair is stickster. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
20:00:09 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
20:00:12 <stickster> #meetingname flocksoftware
20:00:12 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'flocksoftware'
20:00:16 <stickster> #topic Roll call
20:00:19 <stickster> .hello pfrields
20:00:21 <zodbot> stickster: pfrields 'Paul W. Frields' <stickster@gmail.com>
20:00:26 <puiterwijk> .hello puiterwijk
20:00:27 <zodbot> puiterwijk: puiterwijk 'Patrick "マルタインアンドレアス" Uiterwijk' <puiterwijk@redhat.com>
20:00:40 <puiterwijk> (I'm only partially here though)
20:01:01 <jwb> hi
20:01:48 * jwb wonders why puiterwijk has japanese characters in his FAS name
20:02:01 <stickster> because that's where he was manufactured
20:02:14 <jwb> they make all the best stuff in japan
20:02:22 <stickster> apparently
20:02:30 <stickster> #chair jwb puiterwijk
20:02:30 <zodbot> Current chairs: jwb puiterwijk stickster
20:02:43 <mizmo> .hello duffy
20:02:45 <zodbot> mizmo: duffy 'Máirín Duffy' <fedora@linuxgrrl.com>
20:02:49 <stickster> #chair mizmo
20:02:49 <zodbot> Current chairs: jwb mizmo puiterwijk stickster
20:03:09 <stickster> I'll go ahead, and if anyone else comes in they're welcome
20:03:13 <stickster> #topic Software update
20:03:36 <stickster> Of note are the closed issues thus far:
20:03:38 <stickster> https://github.com/puiterwijk/GUADEC-regcfp/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aclosed
20:04:18 <stickster> Patrick set up tagging and categorization for talks, as well as arbitrary fields, co-speakers, email support, and some branding removal
20:04:24 <stickster> Nice work puiterwijk  :-)
20:04:33 <mizmo> puiterwijk++
20:04:39 <puiterwijk> :-)
20:04:43 <stickster> there are some substantial things remaining...
20:04:47 <stickster> https://github.com/puiterwijk/GUADEC-regcfp/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue
20:05:23 <stickster> But at this point AIUI there's no venue decision, so we have some time still
20:06:02 <stickster> puiterwijk: Some of these issues look pretty substantial, like reworking the desk and adding funding management
20:06:05 <stickster> care to comment?
20:06:36 <puiterwijk> stickster: I have a lot of those almost done, and funding I'll have an hack fest next weekend
20:06:44 <stickster> oh jeez
20:06:50 <stickster> see what I mean, jwb?
20:07:07 <jwb> i expected nothing less
20:07:17 <stickster> puiterwijk++
20:07:35 <stickster> darn it zodbot, give him cookies! I DEMAND IT
20:07:53 <stickster> #info puiterwijk has a lot of current issues done as well, and hackfesting on funding
20:07:58 <stickster> puiterwijk: Who's hackfesting with you?
20:08:25 <puiterwijk> stickster: the funding committee and GUADEC organization committee of gnome
20:09:13 <stickster> Out of curiosity, do they have similar funding process requirements as Fedora?  Or is it a whole different process?
20:09:14 <jwb> hm
20:09:41 * stickster would think that funding <--> papers entanglement is pretty universal
20:09:48 <mizmo> i think they have more funding inputs than we do
20:09:55 <puiterwijk> It's about the same I think. The biggest difference is that they used to have more 1-on-1 talks and they require blog posts at the end
20:09:58 <mizmo> like ours would basically be rh right
20:10:19 <puiterwijk> mizmo: right. But that's all channeled through a single channel for GUADEC
20:10:27 <mizmo> ah ok
20:10:58 <stickster> mizmo: probably -- jwb may know more. I thought sponsorships usually go to offsetting goods, so we can aim spending at more travel subsidies
20:11:25 <stickster> Yeah, GUADEC has the advantage of a foundation that can take in $$
20:12:05 <jwb> we'd probably need spot or ruth for how sponsorship works, but i believe you are correct stickster
20:12:31 <spot> jwb: needs to go through decause now.
20:12:36 <puiterwijk> I think the technical part is mostly the same though
20:13:11 <jwb> spot: is there a new world order with how sponsorship works?  i think we were looking for "how do sponsors actually sponsor us"
20:13:53 <spot> uh, okay, why do you want to know that?
20:13:58 <suehle> We technically do require blog posts, we just don't track them particularly well.
20:14:04 <puiterwijk> But note that if it's different from GUADEC, you should just let me know how it works and I can fix it in
20:14:17 * spot doesn't mind explaining it, but its mostly administrivia and paperwork.
20:14:32 <suehle> We do take in sponsorship money. It goes to our cost center and back out to Flock.
20:14:51 <jwb> spot for impacts on software used for flock
20:15:17 <suehle> spot, it would be nice to track that process, don't you think? What point we're at
20:15:37 <suehle> Who's been contacted, when they've agreed to sponsor, when they've signed the contract, when the invoice has been created?
20:16:08 <spot> suehle: okay. we did that in a google doc last year, but if the tooling does it, that's fine.
20:16:23 <djb_> thanks for letting me join the meeting
20:16:30 <suehle> spot, I think the point of the software is not having 487 google docs
20:16:55 <puiterwijk> If you tell me how it works, I'll be able to add it in
20:17:06 <spot> suehle: okay, i thought it was more for scheduling/reg/talks.
20:17:20 <djb_> what are the next steps for me to get more involved or help besides joining the meetings
20:17:28 <mizmo> spot, we aim to make your life easier as holistically as possible :)
20:18:27 <stickster> djb_: If you have any nodejs experience, I"m sure puiterwijk would be open to hackfest help on the regcfp app
20:18:52 <djb_> unfortunately I do not
20:19:49 <stickster> spot: Do you have a link for one of the more recent docs/sheets?
20:19:59 <spot> puiterwijk: basic workflow is "identify a possible sponsor and a contact (or contacts) at that sponsor. mark if they want to sponsor or not (and at what level). send them the contract for sponsorship. when we receive the signed contract, we put it into the RH finance systems of doom, which eventually results in the necessary place for payment.
20:20:34 <puiterwijk> spot: hmm okay. I'll ping you later for more detailed info.
20:21:26 <spot> stickster: sent it to you.
20:21:31 <stickster> thanks
20:22:18 <stickster> So, with the understanding that some funding process support is on the way...
20:22:49 <stickster> #info Much discussion on funding/sponsorship process support in the app and how it works IRL for previous Flock
20:23:10 <stickster> #action stickster to locate doc spot sent and share with puiterwijk
20:24:08 <stickster> #topic Software plan
20:24:45 <stickster> ...do folks feel fairly comfortable with the plan of combining the regcfp app for registration/tracking, with a simplified WordPress site for content/front matter?
20:25:40 <jwb> i think we need the full set of stakeholders to make that decision
20:25:45 <jwb> and most of them are not present
20:25:54 <jwb> but it does sound like a workable plan to me
20:26:36 * stickster suggests pulling the proposal into something easy to read and circulating that
20:27:01 <jwb> stickster: yes.  probably with sufficient background on why we are trying to change it
20:27:05 <mizmo> i think the only viable alternative was zookeepr right
20:27:07 <stickster> i.e. cover: 1. problems we tried to solve (and possibly those we didn't); 2. resources available; ...
20:27:13 <mizmo> in terms of proposals for moving forward
20:27:22 <jwb> mizmo: that's what i remember
20:27:33 <stickster> 3. proposed solution; 4. benefits/risks/etc.
20:28:35 <stickster> Yeah, zookeepr was basically it.
20:28:41 <stickster> N.B.: https://github.com/zookeepr/zookeepr/graphs/contributors
20:30:54 <stickster> I think I said it last time, but just in case: zookeepr isn't moving very fast upstream, and its framework is way out of date to start with. So it's unlikely we can get a bunch of changes done upstream to support e.g. funding process
20:31:29 <stickster> So I'm comfortable throwing in with regcfp, and I think we can likely even find a few people to help puiterwijk if needed since it's a modern nodejs app
20:31:48 <mizmo> yeh it seems clearly like the better solution
20:32:06 <stickster> Does anyone feel differently?
20:32:52 <jwb> i'm curious to know what lmacken thinks
20:33:00 <jwb> mostly about abandoning the current setup
20:33:10 <jwb> i can't imagine he would be super opposed
20:33:26 <stickster> I can't either, but I agree -- it would be nice to have an lmacken nod
20:33:36 <mizmo> any other stakeholders we need
20:33:37 <stickster> Who knows, maybe he'd be interested in hacking a bit on this one
20:34:04 <stickster> mizmo: anyone from OSAS who's expected to use this system heavily
20:34:25 <stickster> That should include decause also
20:34:43 <stickster> I'm not sure yet of his role w/ Flock but I can't imagine he's not on the list of stakeholders
20:35:03 <jwb> mizmo: i think we'll have a more complete picture of the full stakeholders list in the next few weeks
20:35:17 <mizmo> kk
20:35:27 <jwb> but decause is probably the primary contact for now, per spot above
20:36:12 <stickster> yep yep
20:39:02 <stickster> OK so...
20:39:31 <stickster> next actions here -- I can take on the "put the plan together" and identifying stakeholders, mainly from this chat but also checking that list with suehle and others.
20:39:59 <stickster> mizmo: puiterwijk: jwb: I'll ask you guys to review it once I have it in a useful form
20:40:37 <stickster> #action stickster identify stakeholder list, mainly from this chat log but have suehle &co. check it
20:41:14 <stickster> #action stickster put together a concise doc for flock software plan/proposal
20:41:23 <stickster> #topic All other business
20:41:31 <stickster> Anything else we should discuss or do today before we break up?
20:42:12 <jwb> i'd like to thank stickster and mizmo and puiterwijk for their effort here
20:42:30 <jwb> i really appreciate other people stepping in and solving problems they don't even have to deal with :)
20:44:05 <stickster> np, this just seems like something we could do better to support, happy to help
20:45:00 <stickster> The real kudos go to mizmo and puiterwijk... mizmo for the exceptional research/results on tool comparisons, and puiterwijk for being a hacking machine
20:45:40 <stickster> puiterwijk: When did you say that hackfest happens?
20:45:45 <puiterwijk> Ah well. It's what I like to do :-)
20:46:03 <puiterwijk> stickster: I made a small mistake, it's the weekend after upcoming
20:46:10 <puiterwijk> So 21-22 nov
20:46:33 <stickster> OK -- that gives some time if we want to put out a call for help
20:46:53 <stickster> puiterwijk: You know, we have communityblog.fp.o now -- might be a great place for a short article. I can help you by writing it, since I can't help you by hacking
20:47:20 <puiterwijk> Sure
20:47:29 <stickster> puiterwijk: Can you update https://github.com/puiterwijk/GUADEC-regcfp/blob/master/README.md with installation instructions? That would be tremendously helpful
20:47:41 <puiterwijk> Ah sure. Will do.
20:47:45 <stickster> awesome
20:48:07 <stickster> Then I can point to that in the article for how easy it is to download/run/hack/rinse/repeat
20:48:24 <stickster> puiterwijk: I'll get with you elsewhere for channel details for the hacking
20:48:37 <stickster> #action puiterwijk Update README.md for the app on installation/deploy instructions
20:48:49 <puiterwijk> Sounds good  thanks!
20:48:52 <stickster> #action stickster write communityblog.fp.o article to invite hacking help for 21-22 Nov hackfest
20:49:57 <mizmo> oh thats a great idea
20:56:04 <stickster> Sorry, was following up on a couple PMs
20:56:10 <stickster> It looks like there's nothing else for this venue, then?
20:57:04 <stickster> I'll set up a follow-up for next week, probably a short session to see if I did my work :-)
20:57:12 <stickster> mizmo: puiterwijk: jwb: suehle: spot: Thanks for coming
20:57:20 <mizmo> \o/
20:57:40 <puiterwijk> stickster: thanks for chairing
20:57:49 <stickster> #endmeeting