13:59:47 <mattdm> #startmeeting Council (2017-12-13)
13:59:47 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Dec 13 13:59:47 2017 UTC.  The chair is mattdm. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
13:59:47 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
13:59:47 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'council_(2017-12-13)'
13:59:49 <mattdm> #meetingname council
13:59:49 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'council'
13:59:51 <mattdm> #chair mattdm jkurik jwb langdon robyduck bexelbie stefw
13:59:51 <zodbot> Current chairs: bexelbie jkurik jwb langdon mattdm robyduck stefw
14:00:08 <jkurik> .hello2
14:00:09 <bexelbie> .hello bex
14:00:09 <zodbot> jkurik: jkurik 'Jan Kurik' <jkurik@redhat.com>
14:00:10 <mattdm> ooh I guess that should be
14:00:13 <zodbot> bexelbie: bex 'Brian (bex) Exelbierd' <bex@pobox.com>
14:00:15 <mattdm> #chair dperpeet
14:00:15 <zodbot> Current chairs: bexelbie dperpeet jkurik jwb langdon mattdm robyduck stefw
14:02:23 <mattdm> anyway. we have jkurik and bexelbie. who else?
14:03:02 <langdon> .hello2
14:03:03 <zodbot> langdon: langdon 'Langdon White' <langdon@redhat.com>
14:04:02 <mattdm> ok, so this is a "tickets and ongoing" meeting
14:04:19 <mattdm> the purpose of which is to make sure the ticket queue does not grow infinitely
14:04:31 <jwf> .hello jflory7
14:04:32 <zodbot> jwf: jflory7 'Justin W. Flory' <jflory7@gmail.com>
14:04:35 <mattdm> we are not supposed to be ticket driven, but tickets do provide important focus and tracking
14:04:49 <mattdm> so I've picked some to go through today
14:04:57 <mattdm> #topic Today's Agenda
14:05:09 <mattdm> #info 1.  Proposal for CommOps FAD - Jan. 29-31, 2018
14:05:11 <mattdm> #link https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/159
14:05:13 <mattdm> #info 2. Election stuff
14:05:15 <mattdm> #link https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/153
14:05:17 <mattdm> #link https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/151
14:05:19 <mattdm> #link https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/159
14:05:41 <mattdm> #info 3. Confirming Diversity Team charter
14:05:47 <mattdm> #link https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/157
14:06:25 <mattdm> There are some other things -- I don't think we'll have time for all
14:06:27 <bexelbie> should we include 156 with #2?
14:06:47 <mattdm> bexelbie: yes, sure :)
14:06:53 <langdon> #159 is not about election..
14:07:01 <langdon> was that meant to be 156?
14:07:06 <mattdm> That seems likely/
14:07:29 <mattdm> The other things I had in mind are: the flock fee and council bios (a reminder)
14:07:46 <mattdm> and bexelbie points out an infrastructure question
14:07:58 <mattdm> https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/158
14:08:03 <mattdm> about F25 EOL
14:08:19 <mattdm> but I think that might take time to bake.
14:08:31 <mattdm> my proposal here is to go through the first three and then decide what we've got time for
14:08:38 * mattdm has to leave right at 10
14:08:46 <bexelbie> +1
14:08:46 <jwf> +1
14:08:50 <mattdm> (which is in 52 minutes, for people for whom 10 is not the local time)
14:09:03 <mattdm> #topic Proposal for CommOps FAD - Jan. 29-31, 2018
14:09:19 <mattdm> This just came in and I doubt anyone has time to evaluate this
14:09:33 <mattdm> on the other hand, it's soon, and time is of the essence and etc
14:10:13 <mattdm> bexelbie: how does the budget look for this?
14:10:23 <mattdm> the proposal looks basically reasonable to me, pending details
14:10:38 <bexelbie> we have funds for this
14:10:48 <bexelbie> There is currently underspend from previous fads
14:10:56 <bexelbie> although I think part of G11N isn't filed
14:11:15 <bexelbie> I'd request council authorize the money with the knowledge that I'll absorb underspends before allocating new monies to that budget line
14:11:35 <bexelbie> to keep the unallocated line full for other uses and not "lock" money up unnecessarily
14:11:41 <mattdm> that sounds good to me
14:11:46 <mattdm> anyone opposed?
14:12:03 <langdon> im +1 even though i don't really have a vote
14:12:08 <bexelbie> I've read the proposal and have been involved in the planning discussions about it (and will be attending) - I think it is solid
14:12:18 * langdon just read it and it made sense
14:12:22 <bexelbie> a bit ambitious - but I am also glad for that.  I think even that is moderated appropriately
14:12:33 <jwf> langdon: Mission accomplished then :)
14:12:47 <mattdm> #proposal Funds are available, the proposal looks solid, and we need a fast decision so travel can be arranged, so we're approving this now.
14:12:51 <langdon> jwf: :)
14:12:57 <jwf> bexelbie: The ambition was my key concern, and that's why we tried splitting it between primary / secondary goals.
14:12:59 <mattdm> #info mattdm does want to see a logic model. It sets a good example :)
14:13:00 <jkurik> the proposal looks good, so I am +1
14:13:03 <jwf> Thank you all.
14:13:13 <jwf> And yes, the logic model is anticipated, just after my final exams end this Friday.
14:13:18 <mattdm> fair :)
14:13:28 <jwf> I will follow up with that one by next week.
14:14:09 <Rhea> (I would note that the final budget will be a little bit less than the number in the ticket/proposal.)
14:14:17 <jwf> #action jwf Create the logic model for the CommOps FAD by next Council meeting
14:14:19 <mattdm> Rhea: that's always nice when true :)
14:14:38 <mattdm> okay. I see no negatives, although we are missing jwboyer and robyduck
14:14:48 <jwf> Rhea: I'll go and update the Council ticket with the updated number in the wiki.
14:14:50 <Rhea> As long as we can get the estimate travel booked before it changes :P
14:15:27 <mattdm> I don't think this is something we need to hold -- I'll accept any complaints about pushing things through
14:15:28 <jkurik> mattdm: lazy concensus till end of the week, then ?
14:15:38 <mattdm> I'm worried about that and travel
14:15:43 <Rhea> And I would have a question for bexelbie - can we use your card to pay for the accommodation in-person?
14:15:46 <bexelbie> I'd like to get this booked now
14:15:56 <mattdm> jkurik: You okay with just saying yes now?
14:16:01 <bexelbie> Rhea, we can work out the logistics of this offline - but yes
14:16:07 <jwf> If folks here are okay with moving forward on booking, I can follow up with bexelbie after this meeting on arrangements.
14:16:11 <mattdm> We *have* been saying "there is money for FADs -- please get us your proposals"
14:16:24 <jwf> I don't want to spend too much time here because of other tickets, since mattdm has the hard cut-off at 10
14:16:32 <Rhea> (I've already booked the hotel a wihle back, they had the last few good rooms.)
14:16:46 <jkurik> mattdm: as I do not see any reason why jwf or robyduck might be oposed, then I am ok to say YES now
14:16:55 <mattdm> ok, cool.
14:17:06 <mattdm> #agreed Funds are available, the proposal looks solid, and we need a fast decision so travel can be arranged, so we're approving this now.
14:17:10 <jkurik> s/jwf/jwboyer/
14:17:16 <mattdm> or is it #approved ?
14:17:22 <jwf> You got it, #agreed :)
14:17:28 * mattdm can never remember since we don't do the formal thing so much in council meetings anymore :)
14:17:33 <robyduck> .hello robyduck
14:17:34 <zodbot> robyduck: robyduck 'Robert Mayr' <robyduck@gmail.com>
14:17:40 <mattdm> okay next thing
14:17:45 <mattdm> #topic 2. Election stuff
14:17:50 <mattdm> #undo
14:17:51 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Topic object at 0x45a9f2d0>
14:18:05 <mattdm> oh hey robyduck! did you see the above about commops fad?
14:18:24 * robyduck is reading, yeah. Sorry for being late
14:18:39 <mattdm> no problem -- glad you could make it
14:18:40 <robyduck> do you need my +1 here?
14:18:49 <langdon> should we let robyduck read scrollback, move on, and come back?
14:18:59 <langdon> and/or the proposal
14:19:01 <mattdm> robyduck: we need your "not -1" :)
14:19:07 <robyduck> let's make it, it's within the FY and if we have funds we should use them
14:19:13 <mattdm> cool
14:19:14 <robyduck> so then +1
14:19:16 <mattdm> okay good
14:19:19 <robyduck> :)
14:19:21 <mattdm> #topic 2. Election stuff
14:19:21 <langdon> nvm then :)
14:19:30 <mattdm> So this didn't go so smoothly :)
14:19:34 * bexelbie will post the budget entries in a moment and then go figure out if Jenkins is up to republish the site
14:19:54 <jkurik> no, it did not
14:19:55 <langdon> either the original or the decision to do over :)
14:20:37 <AndroUser> * heh *. Herrold on mobile clt
14:21:25 <jwf> !
14:21:36 <mattdm> jwf: yeah go ahead
14:22:00 <jwf> I wanted to note this was one of the things we identified for the CommOps FAD, was to spend time focusing on the elections in a long-term, holistic view: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FAD_CommOps_2018#Improving_Fedora_elections
14:22:29 <jwf> If other Council members are in Brno after DevConf, we could make our schedule focus on this and any of you would be welcome to participate too
14:22:57 <mattdm> #info CommOps is interested in working on improving this specifically as a topic for the post-DevConf FAD we just approved
14:22:58 <jwf> But because of the pain points, not just this time, but noticing other difficulties in past elections, we wanted to spend time on it
14:23:14 <jwf> Especially to make the Elections less of a one-man Herculean effort
14:23:24 <jwf> Because I think it asks a lot of one person
14:23:39 <jwf> And also to find ways to make them more engaging with the community too
14:23:53 <jwf> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FAD_CommOps_2018#Improving_Fedora_elections
14:24:48 <mattdm> yeah, one serious problem is that people who are quietly doing good work don't get enough visibility
14:25:14 <jwf> +100
14:25:21 <mattdm> other people -- who also do good work, don't get me wrong -- who are more visible historically or through personality or through role have an advantage
14:25:51 <mattdm> That's one thing the questionairre and campaign period are supposed to solve
14:26:11 <jkurik> IMO we should simplify the whole election process and make it less error-prone via an automation or review process
14:26:28 <mattdm> agreed. but that's a bigger topic
14:26:41 <mattdm> What's the plan to make the next election go smoothly next month?
14:27:39 <jkurik> mattdm:  vote in the ticket https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/156 for D)
14:28:17 <jkurik> imo the mandatory interviews are a big barrier
14:28:41 <mattdm> ok, so we need the interview questions thing answered
14:28:42 <langdon> jkurik: as you know, i disagree, but i think 3 qs are appropriate
14:28:55 <langdon> mattdm: 156 you mean?
14:29:04 <mattdm> #action all council members come to consensus in ticket #156
14:29:08 <jkurik> langdon: who will make the decision which 3 qeustions to select ?
14:29:14 <jwf> If we choose Option D, I think we should pair it with a reassurance that the election process is being revisited for the next elections. A lot of people find the questionnaires valuable, and my concern is a poor reflection on us if it looks like we're abolishing them
14:29:26 <mattdm> jwf I agree
14:29:27 <bexelbie> Echoing langdon's sentiment a bit - I think not having a questionaire sends a message about how we value them
14:29:29 <langdon> jkurik: i added that to my comment :) the respective bodies.. so like council for council
14:29:35 <bexelbie> I think we need to do it because we believe in it
14:29:37 <mattdm> I'm hard -1 to D, so that's easy :)
14:30:05 <jwf> Long-term, I don't know if questionnaires are the right way for us to engage – but I don't think we'll come up with a solution for next month.
14:30:05 <mattdm> And I'll put my money where my mouth is and volunteer to help select the three questions.
14:30:12 <langdon> i will point out, based on jwf's comments, this may be a one off decision
14:30:22 <bexelbie> not to be too late to the party on tis
14:30:35 <mattdm> Yeah. That's the right thing to do anyway. I just want to make sure it goes smoothly and feels fair this next time around
14:30:41 * langdon looks around for the party
14:30:41 <jwf> I think three key questions is a reasonable choice, but I feel like it would also be interesting to solicit community comments for a week. I also don't know if that would open the floodgates to all kinds of unhelpful critic too.
14:30:48 <bexelbie> but I propose "E" - mandatory interview - no manadatory questions.  Let someone post "I don't want to answer questions" if they don't want too
14:31:01 <bexelbie> that says a lot
14:31:15 <bexelbie> the questionaires shouldn't be horrible long - if they are that is a different challenge
14:31:34 <AndroUser> Fwiw, i did not find the questions inappropriate, nor building a response hard. Problem was technical getting a draft up
14:31:42 <langdon> jwf: yeah... im generally -1 on that.. because it will take a lot of effort.. if we did engage community, i would think it would be for the 3-5 qs we use for the next 2? 3? 5? cycles
14:32:02 <langdon> so that it would be time invested that lasted longer than just the one cycle
14:32:11 <jwf> AndroUser: This is one thing we slipped on too – normally I send detailed instructions to all nominees about how to do it before the election. But I was busy and wasn't able to get to it in time.
14:32:57 <jwf> langdon: I meant community engagement on the options we've chosen for next election. My thoughts of having a community "RFC" period is that it may restore some of the eroded trust from the last election
14:33:13 <mattdm> jwf: +1 to that.
14:33:16 <langdon> jwf: ohh.. sorry.. i thought you meant on take 10->3 qs
14:33:21 <mattdm> Are we good on the _schedule_ this time around?
14:33:27 <langdon> link?
14:33:30 <jkurik> jwf: I sent the email, however some people had troubles even to log into the commblog
14:33:38 <jwf> #idea "RFC" period to ask community for comments on how we handle the election process this time in January
14:33:59 <jwf> #idea Mandatory interviews, no mandatory questions (someone can choose to not answer a question)
14:34:16 <langdon> jwf: i don't like the "skip questions" idea
14:34:19 <jwf> #idea Generating three "key" questions for each election body instead of many, many questions
14:34:33 <langdon> or are these ideas for the RFC?
14:34:42 <bexelbie> langdon, why not?
14:34:51 <jwf> langdon: I'm retroactively logging some of the earlier ideas mentioned, for Meetbot purposes
14:35:21 <jwf> langdon: I like the idea on the condition that it's clear the nominee skipped the question, not just omitted
14:35:25 <langdon> bexelbie: because if the questions are built such that someone doesn't feel comfortable answering it, then the questions are bad.. if you have 3 people who all answer different questions, how do you compare?
14:35:48 <Rhea> What does RFC stand for?
14:35:54 <mattdm> "Request for Comments"
14:35:56 <jwf> Oh, yeah. :) Request for Comments.
14:36:32 <Rhea> Hmm... not sure I understand the purpose of that?
14:36:35 <bexelbie> langdon, I agree with your comment that ideal questions are good for answering, however, I think mandatory questions creates hurdles to involvement that are unneeded - we want lots of participation
14:36:43 <bexelbie> Also, in the real world you rarely have direct comparables in all cases
14:36:46 <bexelbie> this is one of those cases
14:36:49 <langdon> origin of rfc: https://www.ietf.org/rfc.html
14:36:59 <bexelbie> and it may prompt comments on the interviews which is helpful too
14:37:05 <mattdm> bexelbie: That's why I think three are good. That's not too big of a hurdle. It really isn't.
14:37:06 <bexelbie> conversation generally trumps static
14:37:26 <mattdm> but anyway, let's get this worked on in the ticket. what about the proposed schedule?
14:38:19 <jkurik> I am not available the first week of January, so I can start with the RFC (selection of 3 questions) on the second week of January
14:38:27 <langdon> i would see "optional questions" and by extension, needing more questions (like if they are not all mandatory, then there should be more qs), a barrier.. I would have to really work out what questions i *should* answer to best campaign.. which is harder than just sitting down and answering 3 qs
14:38:38 <langdon> mattdm: i am not seeing the schedule
14:38:56 <mattdm> jkurik: where is the proposed new schedule?
14:39:10 <jkurik> mattdm: in bex's email :-)
14:39:22 * bexelbie goes looking for his own email
14:39:22 <jwf> I will have the bandwidth next week to write an article on the CommBlog to recap the difficulties of this month, explain what we're considering, and ask people for feedback. We could use the CommBlog to collect comments from the general public, and that also benefits that we don't have to require a FAS account to leave feedback. (For example, I wanted to share it out with people from other communities for feedback)
14:39:22 <jkurik> a second...
14:39:23 <bexelbie> :D
14:39:26 <mattdm> jkurik: can you put that in a ticket too?
14:39:39 <mattdm> what if bexelbie and I pick three questions this week?
14:39:51 <AndroUser> Jwf: np by me
14:40:22 <robyduck> schedule: https://paste.fedoraproject.org/paste/pU5cuyeRK8wrWSHn7RGU2w
14:40:34 <mattdm> robyduck++
14:40:58 <jkurik> thanks robyduck
14:41:04 <mattdm> wow that's short.
14:41:44 <mattdm> jkurik: let's do a ticket, and then +1 to jwf's commblog article
14:41:55 <mattdm> and we can really start socializing this *before* january
14:42:03 <mattdm> so everyone knows what's going on and why
14:42:23 <bexelbie> if we can get the questions chosen this week, we can open nominations next week
14:42:29 <jwf> +100, socializing it is really important – I have some other ideas, but I don't think they need to be covered right now
14:42:38 <jwf> bexelbie: I think it's worthwhile to wait for the community feedback
14:42:38 <robyduck> +1 to socialize, public this before january, because otherwise people get back to Fedora when elections are over
14:42:40 <langdon> mattdm: re: picking qs.. i think fesco needs to pick theirs, mindshare theirs, etc right
14:42:48 <jwf> I really think that's valuable to do before opening it up
14:42:59 <jwf> Some trust was eroded, and we need to be considerate of that
14:43:00 <langdon> *right?
14:43:28 <mattdm> jwf agreed
14:43:30 <jwf> I want to socialize the elections through this CommBlog article to gather feedback, and then we could follow the proposed schedule above, unless we want to make changes
14:43:34 <bexelbie> jwf, yep
14:43:58 * langdon still wants to see commblog added to the "default home page" somehow
14:44:23 <mattdm> langdon: I guess? I have in my mind pretty general questions.
14:44:28 <jwf> #action jwf Write a CommBlog article that (1) asks community for feedback on next election, (2) explains options we're considering, and (3) explains the difficulties we faced in the last election (to build understanding for why the decisions we made, were made)
14:44:36 <jwf> Ahh, let me put a deadline on that too
14:44:38 <jwf> #undo
14:44:41 <jkurik> may I ask anyone to take care of the scheduling then ? I am out of the office since Friday Dec 15 to January 4th, which mean I will not have a time to drive the discussion and come up with some conclusion then
14:44:41 <langdon> mattdm: ohh.. you don't plan to use the list(s)?
14:44:51 <jwf> #action jwf Write a CommBlog article that (1) asks community for feedback on next election, (2) explains options we're considering, and (3) explains the difficulties we faced in the last election (to build understanding for why the decisions we made, were made) (due: 2017-12-20)
14:45:08 <jwf> jkurik: I can tag-team this with you for December.
14:45:16 <langdon> jwf: do you really wnt to do this about the jan election? or future elections? can we really change anything if we get feedback?
14:45:16 <mattdm> langdon: maybe. was going to to back to first principles :)
14:45:45 <jwf> langdon: That's the question. I want to make it clear that we're considering long-term solutions too, beyond F27. The feedback is especially helpful for the CommOps FAD
14:46:11 <langdon> jwf: ahh ok .. your (1) was interpreted by me to mean "january"
14:46:13 <jwf> Maybe making it clear we can't promise to use all feedback, but will try to use for F27 and ideally follow up for F28
14:46:18 <bexelbie> jkurik, I'll work with you to cover the scheduling
14:46:20 <bexelbie> ok?
14:46:28 <mattdm> bexelbie: thanks!
14:46:34 <jkurik> bexelbie: ok, thanks
14:46:35 <jwf> langdon: Yeah, fair point. I'll make it clear in the article for "all elections", thanks for pointing that out
14:46:39 <bexelbie> Let's meet and make sure I know how to push the write buttons and the secret codes to the launch sites
14:46:39 <mattdm> let's move on to the next ticket for now
14:46:39 <bexelbie> :D
14:46:42 <mattdm> because of time
14:46:49 <bexelbie> s/write/right/
14:46:50 <jwf> +1
14:47:03 <mattdm> that was the diversity team charter
14:47:15 <mattdm> #topic 3. Diversity Team
14:47:18 <mattdm> #link https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/157
14:47:22 <mattdm> wheee pagure is down
14:47:26 <mattdm> at least for me
14:47:46 <jkurik> mattdm: for me as well
14:47:54 * langdon loaded them all during agenda period.. resists the temptation to hit f5
14:47:54 <jwf> Timing out for me
14:47:59 <jwf> I can give a tl;dr if needed
14:48:05 <mattdm> jwf: that would be awesome
14:48:13 <jwf> Two major points:
14:48:47 <jwf> (1) The Diversity Team preferred a six month charter for the position because of difficulties in our team members making a year-long commitment, since it's all volunteer work
14:49:08 <bexelbie> fpaste of ticket text: https://paste.fedoraproject.org/paste/DVrWkptDSHG9wjNSFA72jQ
14:49:10 <jwf> (2) Amita Sharma (amsharma / Amita) was selected by our team for the F27 charter to the Council
14:49:12 <bexelbie> I had it in an open window
14:49:14 <jwf> bexelbie++ Thanks.
14:49:20 <mattdm> pagure is loading now
14:49:31 <mattdm> Anyway: I think the 6 month thing is fine.
14:49:39 <mattdm> I would normally have some concerns about continuity...
14:49:52 <mattdm> but as we've set this up now, the role is supposed to be a team representative
14:49:52 <jwf> We also identified two candidates for the next two cycles in F28 and F29
14:49:54 <langdon> jwf is the "6 months" for "rep to council" or "on the diversity team"?
14:50:00 <mattdm> and as long as there's continuity on the team that's fine
14:50:11 <jwf> langdon: Hmm, not sure if I understand the question. Could you re-phrase?
14:50:39 <mattdm> I understand. It is "rep to council"
14:50:41 <langdon> "he Diversity Team preferred a six month charter for the position" < what is the "position" in this sentence
14:50:42 <bexelbie> langdon, I read it as rep from team to council
14:50:53 <bexelbie> reps continue to be members of the team before and after council service, aiui
14:50:55 <langdon> ahh ok... i think i read it backwards and it confused the whole tihng for me...
14:50:56 <jwf> langdon: Ahh. Rep from team to Council
14:50:59 <langdon> that makes much more sense
14:51:05 <jwf> bexelbie: +1
14:51:15 <mattdm> I do have one question -- is there a _separate_ Charter document you want us to approve?
14:51:29 <jwf> Oh, compared to what you all already wrote up?
14:51:43 <bexelbie> I believe this ticket's real goal is to get consent of council as required for the rep .. so for amsharma for F27
14:52:01 <bexelbie> and we can consent recognize the next person when F28 ships (to allow them to confirm availability at the time)
14:52:03 <jwf> mattdm: It wasn't anything that came up when we discussed it, so no, I don't think we have an issue with the charter definition
14:52:08 <mattdm> okay, good
14:52:11 <mattdm> that confused me :)
14:52:28 <mattdm> yeah. bexelbie's plan is good.
14:52:38 <mattdm> let's call for consensus on this by next meeting
14:52:43 <jwf> bexelbie: +1
14:52:47 <bexelbie> suggested agreed The council recognizes amsharma as the diversity team rep for the F27 release
14:52:55 <bexelbie> ahh, lazy consensus works too :)
14:53:07 <langdon> is there any term limit?
14:53:20 <jwf> langdon: We did not come up with one.
14:53:21 <langdon> or can amsharma do it for the next 6 cycles?
14:53:26 <bexelbie> langdon, I read it as none - the team can put forward the same person each cycle
14:53:33 <bexelbie> but will need to submit a name and a time period for council consent
14:53:39 <langdon> like is it encouraged that the 6month change? or discouraged?
14:53:45 <langdon> cause i kinda read it as the latter
14:53:59 <bexelbie> so council could say you can't have bob for 8 years, but we'll give you bob for 2 releases, for example (then ask again, maybe even with bob again)
14:54:00 <langdon> im +1 either way.. but i think it is important to know for the diversity team
14:54:22 <jwf> langdon: My personal view is that it depends on team bandwidth. We split it the way we did now because each six month cycle is when the team member expects to have time. Since we're a smaller team, I think it will likely cycle between whoever has the most bandwidth on our team to represent us on the Council
14:55:20 <mattdm> I think it's fine if the diversity team wants to keep sending the same person
14:55:25 <langdon> sure .. like i said.. +1 either way.. but.. it is not w/o cost to transition every 6 months... :)
14:55:30 <mattdm> and that person keeps wanting to be sent :)
14:56:18 * jwf nods
14:56:18 <mattdm> okay, let's do consensus in the ticket
14:56:35 <mattdm> and I need to go. talk to you all soon!
14:56:52 <bexelbie> thanks everyone
14:57:09 <mattdm> #endmeeting