Web   ·   Wiki   ·   Activities   ·   Blog   ·   Lists   ·   Chat   ·   Meeting   ·   Bugs   ·   Git   ·   Translate   ·   Archive   ·   People   ·   Donate

#sugar-meeting, 2009-10-30

Index | Today     Channels | Search | Join

All times shown according to UTC.

Time Nick Message
10:00 walterbender welcome everyone
10:01 we have a fairly simple goal today: to decide on a decision making process
10:01 Mel and Tomeu have done most of the work for us.
10:01 mchua Is everybody here?
10:02 #link http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/O[…]ng_Log-2009-10-30
10:02 (agenda)
10:02 walterbender I think so... at least logged in
10:02 mchua #link http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/R[…]_a_SLOBs_decision
10:02 (decision making process proposal)
10:02 walterbender #topic decision-making procedure
10:03 mchua and tomeu: do you want to summarize (again) your work
10:03 mchua Sure. We generated a list of options for How SLOBs Makes What Decisions
10:03 walterbender there was a nice gist by Tomeu in email this morning
10:04 mchua can haz mail archive link?
10:04 for posterity
10:04 looks too
10:04 walterbender while Mel is looking, let me remind everyone of what we had been doing to date:
10:04 mchua I think this is it:
10:04 #link http://lists.sugarlabs.org/arc[…]tober/009175.html
10:05 walterbender majority vote with a majority of members present
10:05 SeanDaly_ grumbles about flaky 3G
10:06 tomeu SeanDaly: http://pastebin.be/21644
10:06 walterbender mchua, tomeu: do you have a specific recommendation we can discuss and vote on?
10:07 tomeu walterbender: well, if we answer the questions I added to the wiki, we'll be close to that
10:07 mchua Yes, I think the game plan was to step through http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/R[…]_a_SLOBs_decision and just get those options chosen real quick.
10:07 tomeu + 1
10:07 looks for appropriate sections of wiki page
10:07 walterbender let's do it then...
10:07 tomeu http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/R[…]_decision_is_made
10:07 mchua #link http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/R[…]_decision_is_made
10:07 that's essentially Tomeu's questions in "let's choose quickly" form, and imo the most important thing we need to set today.
10:08 walterbender #topic voting medium
10:08 mchua tomeu: wanna drive the voting/decision/discussion on this part?
10:08 tomeu let's follow walter's #topics
10:09 walterbender Since we post our logs, there is no difference in the media except immediacy
10:09 or am I missing something?
10:10 mchua I think we need to settle on one medium as the canonical record, but that's all
10:10 like if someone posts to the mailing list their vote, and a different one on the wiki, which one trumps.
10:10 walterbender I'd prefer irc, because we can move quickly, as long as we keep records, which we do
10:10 tomeu walterbender: maybe tamperability, but I personally don't find it important enough, given that this channel is public
10:10 mchua (admittedly, edge case.)
10:10 yeah, that too.
10:10 CanoeBerry And if we accept email votes, a clear deadline as to when that vote must be submitted.
10:10 mchua Basically, I just want One Place to look to find the voting record, and I don't care where that place is.
10:11 +1 deadlines
10:11 walterbender we are slipping into the next topic.
10:11 mchua Sorry.
10:11 walterbender but the point of letting someone who knows they cannot attend vote by proxy or email I support
10:11 mchua I propose the wiki as the final record, pulling from mailing lists and IRC channels as needed, but being The One Place we know things are going to be posted/accurate.
10:12 walterbender e.g. SeanDaly :)
10:12 tomeu SeanDaly: http://pastebin.be/21645
10:12 walterbender mchua: wiki is a good place to post the results
10:12 SeanDaly__ thanks for that tomeu grreatly appreciated
10:12 tomeu yw ;)
10:13 walterbender so far, we are converging on irc as the primary medium with email for absentee ballots and the wiki as the archive of record?
10:13 mchua if that's a motion, I second it
10:13 CanoeBerry +1
10:13 tomeu I agree with that
10:13 walterbender OK. then, let's put it to a vote.
10:13 yea
10:13 mchua bernie, cjb: ^^
10:13 yea
10:14 tomeu I vote yes
10:14 SeanDaly__ yea
10:15 tomeu ok, how can we get the 2 missing votes?
10:15 walterbender realizes we have a chicken/egg problem
10:15 CanoeBerry Telephone them?
10:15 I'm stuck in a meeting, otherwise I would..
10:15 walterbender I'll try calling bernie
10:16 mchua ...do we need them? If we set the week timeout afterwards, and a timeout with no pass for the rest, we could dogfood our future procedures now-ish-like
10:16 er, I mean, if we... agh, I think you folks know what I mean. If we set a procedure that is not incompatible with having two people not on IRC right now, we can still move forward.
10:16 walterbender agrees. We can ratify this with consensus after the fact
10:16 tried calling bernie--his mailbox is full
10:17 SeanDaly__ prefers terms "catfood" or "birdseed"
10:17 tomeu edmcnierney: is cjb around you?
10:17 or I guess we can get their votes later by email?
10:17 walterbender #action get final sign off from bernie and cjb on today's actions.
10:17 tomeu or in this meeting later?
10:17 sounds good
10:17 mchua Good stuff.
10:17 edmcnierney tomeu: Hi!  No, but I'm working at home and would be surprised to find cjb here ;-)
10:17 walterbender so can we go to the next topic?
10:17 tomeu heh
10:18 mchua #info tentative - IRC as primary medium with email for absentee ballots and wiki as archive as record
10:18 walterbender #voting timeline
10:18 #topic voting timeline
10:18 mchua yayy! Ok, we have 3 options here, with variants.
10:18 1. immediate in-meeting
10:18 2. #
10:18 1.
10:18 # voting window opens one week before meeting, closes in meeting
10:18 argh, hate wiki copypaste
10:18 3. voting window opens at meeting, closes one week after meeting
10:19 CanoeBerry I like #3 but feel 1 week is too long.
10:19 As it bleeds into the next week's meeting.
10:19 mchua ooh, good point.
10:19 how about "opens at meeting, closes 48h after meeting end"?
10:19 walterbender it seems that 2 and 3 are the same... in that we use meetings to decide what to vote on
10:19 cjb hi all
10:19 walterbender hi cjb
10:19 SeanDaly__ hmmm some matters may be important & urgent needing quick votes; however most important decisions it would be good to have review period before vote
10:19 CanoeBerry 72hrs or 96hrs to accomodate the wkd?
10:20 walterbender cjb: could you read the backlog and cast a vote?
10:20 SeanDaly__ greets cjb
10:20 mchua cjb: http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/s[…]0091030_1000.html start at 10:13:14
10:20 cjb sure
10:20 walterbender SeanDaly: agreed. so maybe we keep two tools in our toolchest?
10:21 SeanDaly__ walterbender: yes
10:21 mchua how do we decide what gets what timeout period?
10:21 cjb sounds good to me, +1
10:21 walterbender cjb: thanks
10:21 tomeu SeanDaly: ok, I like the two speeds
10:21 walterbender mchua: it is the same question re levels of agreement.
10:21 SeanDaly__ mchua: perhaps higher bar for immediate vote? unanimous or almost?
10:22 CanoeBerry aside: can we change our votes over email during the followon 72-or-96-or-whatever-hours time period?
10:22 SeanDaly__ failed immediate vote could still pass review period 2nd vote
10:22 walterbender we can always revisit decisions
10:23 mchua CanoeBerry: I'd be good with that, if the person announced over email and changed on wiki for archive as record.
10:23 er, archive of record
10:23 SeanDaly__ CanoeBerry: votes do need a finality... we can always annul decisions if enough votes
10:23 walterbender no matter what the voting mechanism or timeline...
10:23 mchua ...oh, good point.
10:23 changes mind, no changing votes.
10:23 CanoeBerry seems smart.
10:23 tomeu we aren't a parliament, so maybe we don't need to make things very complicated
10:24 mchua You can always tentatively say "I think I'll vote this way" and then do the final vote during the however-many-hours timeperiod
10:24 I would propose 96h to get a non-weekend day in for everyone
10:24 walterbender is there a motion in the works?
10:24 SeanDaly__ tomeu: agreed, but if rules are clear, we can get a lot of work done
10:24 tomeu if we have close sister organizations, we can ask someone there to give their opinions on the scheme we approve initially
10:24 so we benefit from their experience
10:24 mchua nods
10:24 tomeu but this shouldn't delay getting a first agreement
10:24 mchua walterbender: I think so, I'm queuing a motion up right now
10:25 CanoeBerry would that be 96hrs from end of meeting?
10:25 SeanDaly__ tomeu: there is a rich history of committee management theory :-)
10:25 mchua motion: voting window starts at meeting, closes 96h from end of meeting
10:25 (If we want a second voting window / level of meeting, we can specify this as "voting type 1" later in another motion)
10:26 CanoeBerry +1
10:26 cjb +1
10:26 walterbender CanoeBerry seconds the motion
10:26 mchua aye
10:26 SeanDaly__ yea
10:26 tomeu +1
10:26 walterbender any further discussion before the vote? I guess not :)
10:26 votes yes
10:26 mchua laughs
10:26 tomeu we can always revote it :p
10:26 mchua is that decided then? do we need to put in that second timeline, that second type of vote?
10:26 walterbender great. next topic ...
10:27 CanoeBerry #action bernie vote on 96hrs deadline for follow-on email votes
10:27 mchua #info voting window starts at meeting, closes 96h from end of meeting
10:27 walterbender #topic level of agreement
10:27 SeanDaly__ vote lever stuck
10:27 mchua "Should all decisions require the same level of agreement? Maybe changing the rules require a stronger agreement such as unanimity or a greater quorum?"
10:27 walterbender missing the old voting booths, hanging chads and all
10:28 SeanDaly__ saw news item about FLOSS voting system
10:28 walterbender I worry about requiring unanimity fo rthe reasons SeanDaly__ discussed earlier
10:28 mchua Personally, I think that right now, the answer is "yes." and if we come to a point where we need multiple levels of agreement, we can put it up for a proposal to amend later.
10:28 SeanDaly__ for US elections
10:28 mchua (er, yes to "require the same level of agreement for all decisions")
10:29 walterbender I think that majority of a majority is not broken
10:29 SeanDaly__ majority works since odd number of SLOBs
10:29 mchua Majority of a majority = 3, which is a minority of SLOBs, unless I do my math wrong here
10:29 CanoeBerry What about quorum?
10:30 mchua I favor 4 yeas = yes, everything else = no
10:30 tomeu hmm, but 3 vs 2 would be majority of a majority, would those 3 people be able to, for example, remove someone from the board?
10:30 walterbender mchua: if we say four then we guarantee both a majority and a quorum
10:30 mchua tomeu: yeah, that's the math I figured too
10:30 SeanDaly__ my building's coop has been stymied for years due to incapacity to assemble quorum...
10:30 mchua walterbender: I'd vote on that motion - majority + quorum = win
10:31 walterbender we can usually get 4 of the 7 here...
10:31 mchua: can you rephrase as a motion?
10:32 mchua MOTION: 4 yeas = yes, everything else = no
10:32 tomeu maybe changing governance rules require absolute majority? all the rest majority of majority?
10:32 as a middle-point
10:32 mchua: +1
10:32 CanoeBerry Email votes will help us reach eg. 4.
10:32 tomeu I'm fine with that
10:32 mchua tomeu: is that something we can add as an amendment later?
10:32 tomeu yeah
10:32 mchua: just a suggestion, I'm ok with your motion as-is
10:33 mchua ok, we have a second, I guess discussion and then walterbender calls a vote?
10:33 tomeu: yeah, I like that suggestion, but I want to get v.1.0 of decision-procedure package out the door before we add bonus patches :)
10:33 SeanDaly__ finger on lever waiting for vote text
10:33 mchua too
10:33 walterbender any more discussion?
10:33 let
10:34 's vote
10:34 CanoeBerry Clarification if possible.
10:34 walterbender sure
10:34 what is the question?
10:35 CanoeBerry: ping
10:35 mchua yea
10:35 (while we're waiting)
10:35 CanoeBerry Just the motion etc, if quorum is still relevant, and whether 1 person can run a meeting with all others voting later by email etc.
10:35 SeanDaly wonders what I missed
10:36 mchua Yeah, I'd say so, it says 4 votes, so as long as those votes are in by the timeout, sure
10:36 SeanDaly: not much, will send log
10:36 SeanDaly: http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/s[…]0091030_1000.html
10:36 tomeu SeanDaly: http://pastebin.be/21647
10:36 oh, cool
10:36 walterbender CanoeBerry: I get your point... hopefully a corner case.
10:37 sdziallas jumps in, is late.
10:37 SeanDaly thanks
10:37 CanoeBerry Seems like a quorum of 2 or 3 might be smart.
10:37 But I'm new here :)
10:37 walterbender CanoeBerry: to initiate a vote... I think four is good
10:38 mchua Oh, sorry. Should I amend the motion to say 4 is quorum /and/ minimum vote? Two birds, one stone?
10:38 SeanDaly the idea of a quorum is to avoid a vote getting sneaked past absent members
10:38 walterbender Anyone second the amended motion?
10:38 SeanDaly a problem when there are 2 factions
10:38 mchua AMENDED: meeting quorum is 4 SLOBs, vote approval is 4 SLOBs yeas, everything else a no.
10:39 (does that work?)
10:39 tomeu fine with me
10:39 walterbender works for me
10:39 CanoeBerry Quorum of 4 live irc participants?
10:39 mchua CanoeBerry: yeah.
10:39 SeanDaly seconded
10:39 walterbender discussion
10:39 3
10:39 2
10:39 1
10:39 vote
10:39 mchua yea
10:39 walterbender yes
10:39 mchua (I like the countdown!)
10:39 SeanDaly yea
10:39 tomeu yes
10:40 cjb yea!
10:40 CanoeBerry 4 is a high bar to set for quorum -- can we sustain this every week?  I'm in favor but jsut asking..
10:40 SeanDaly mchua: I end marketing meetings like auctions going once... twice
10:40 mchua #info meeting quorum is 4 SLOBs, vote approval is 4 SLOBs yeas, everything else a no.
10:40 walterbender CanoeBerry: I think we can
10:40 mchua (since I think we all said yes here)
10:41 cjb bernie and I will have to learn how to get up earlier reliably :)
10:41 mchua #action get bernie approval on quorum/voting
10:41 grins
10:41 walterbender CanoeBerry: we don't need to meet every week, bt we have a backlog of work
10:41 mchua If we have trouble with attendance we can always amend.
10:41 SeanDaly CanoeBerry: I don't think bar is high; is much lower than unanimity
10:41 mchua I think the key here is to go "we can amend, we can amend, it's better to have clear things we can amend"
10:41 CanoeBerry Let's give it a shot.
10:41 mchua rather than fuzzy things we aren't quite sure about.
10:41 woo!
10:41 walterbender we covered voting system as the same time as level of agreementr
10:42 mchua nods
10:42 There was one more note on tomeu's email
10:42 to make sure stuff doesn't build up
10:42 tomeu cjb: we can change time if people want
10:42 mchua (or in the same section as tomeu's email, anyway)
10:42 "the agenda is purged each week - it does not automatically roll over into the next week's agenda, that must be done explicitly and manually each time."
10:42 or rephrasing, "   1. everything that isn't made into a motion is dropped from the agenda
10:42 is that a motion we want to go for too?
10:42 CanoeBerry 2 weeks might be better.
10:43 SeanDaly also, if several critical decisions, more than one meeting in a week is a possibility
10:43 mchua True to both. Suggestions?
10:43 walterbender I think we want to encourage action... which this proposal prompts
10:43 mchua My criteria: old stuff doesn't build up in the queue.
10:43 SeanDaly agree with start-from-scratch weekly agenda
10:44 mchua how about "agenda items / proposals / etc time out 2 weeks after they are first posted"?
10:44 SeanDaly some old stuff requires several weeks resolution; others are dropped because less urgent
10:44 walterbender can do maintain a  list of topics of interest,...
10:44 CanoeBerry Can we also have something like agenda-setting late additions during the first 5 min of each meeting?
10:44 SeanDaly yes a punch list useful
10:44 mchua walterbender: already do to some extent on http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/O[…]ht_Board/Meetings
10:45 woefully out of date, that list
10:45 which prompted that addition :)
10:45 SeanDaly CanoeBerry: I like that idea, but best to add at end of meeting perhaps
10:45 mchua CanoeBerry: I'd rather say topics should be announced before the meeting
10:45 CanoeBerry I like encouraging ppl to arrive on time.
10:46 mchua so last minute additions to the agenda on the wiki 1 minute before meeting start = cool, but once that time is locked, it's locked
10:46 That way folks can't have a secret agenda item and then not tell anyone (so nobody shows up for the discussion) and then spring it in meeting
10:46 CanoeBerry Live agenda discussion can be extremely useful at the beginning of each meeting.
10:46 walterbender as an aside, it would be good to settle on one format/place for all of this in the wiki...
10:46 CanoeBerry: I agree. We need some flexibility
10:47 SeanDaly mchua: we shouldn't restrict ourselves too much...
10:47 walterbender we have 12 minutes left...
10:47 SeanDaly we are in fast-paced environment
10:47 mchua reckons we can move that to an amendment
10:47 walterbender mchua: we don't need to accept agenda additions
10:48 but we can leave the door open to them
10:48 mchua walterbender: since we're short on time, I think http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/R[…]sion_is_requested is the last key piece remaining
10:48 the rest can be amendments
10:48 we have a way of working through the queue, now we just need a way for things to get onto it
10:49 SeanDaly topic triage in 4 categories: Important and Urgent, Urgent, Important, Routine
10:49 cjb that sounds overly complicated, I think
10:49 walterbender cjb: agreed
10:50 everything we do is important :)
10:50 it is just a matter of urgency
10:50 mchua can we just assign the meeting chair to do topic triage for that meeting, for now
10:50 and add amendments if needed later?
10:50 (in terms of "what gets on the queue")
10:50 walterbender sounds good. KISS
10:50 mchua I'd rather focus on http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/R[…]sion_is_requested with the "Decision requests should include" list
10:50 to keep life simple for our triager
10:51 tomeu is half here now
10:51 mchua MOTION: meeting chair triages and has final say on topics to be decided on at meeting
10:51 (just to get that out of the way, we can amend more later)
10:51 walterbender mchua: I think any SLOBs member can put a topic into the agenda unilaterally
10:51 I presume this is for community members
10:52 mchua walterbender: Yep. Amended motion?
10:52 ...or wait, if any SLOBs member can put a topic
10:52 then a community member can ask any SLOBs member.
10:52 UNMOTION previous motion
10:53 walterbender motion: slob members can unilaterally propose agenda items (to be handed off to the chair); community members can proposal agenda items to be triaged by the chair.
10:53 mchua MOTION: any SLOBs member can put an item on the agenda; community members get a SLOB to put their motion up if they have one
10:53 walterbender's phrasing is better
10:53 CanoeBerry Who is the chair?
10:53 mchua wait, chair != SLOBs
10:53 jumping the gun on reading stuff again
10:53 CanoeBerry: yeah, that's why I sidestepped that question with "any SLOB can..."
10:54 cjb confused.  what's this chair thing?
10:54 mchua cjb: walterbender, right now
10:54 walterbender is the ED, but has been acting as the chair as well
10:54 mchua whoever generally presides over a meeting
10:54 cjb always a SLOB, right?
10:54 mchua cjb: yes
10:54 walterbender cjb: yes
10:54 cjb ok
10:54 mchua reposts motion sans "chair" thing
10:55 MOTION: any SLOBs member can put an item on the agenda; community members get a SLOB to put their motion up if they have one
10:55 cjb yeah that one!
10:55 CanoeBerry so the chair is whoever types "#startmeeting" or something like that?
10:55 cjb I don't think the chair's necessary for this stuff
10:55 mchua any seconds on that motion?
10:55 cjb second
10:55 mchua remember, we can always amend
10:55 walterbender mchua: I am fine with your motion, but the requests should be triaged
10:56 mchua walterbender: I think they can be triaged by SLOBs not putting stuff on the agenda, and if we run into a problem (which I reckon we shall soon) we have a procedure to amend
10:56 walterbender revised motion proposal:
10:56 mchua (amend and put the chair stuff in)
10:56 walterbender MOTION: any SLOBs member can put an item on the agenda; community members get a SLOB to put their motion up if they have one that will be triaged by the SLOBs member
10:57 mchua Basically, "the approval of a SLOB is needed to put an item on the agenda queue"?
10:57 and if it doesn't come up in a meeting within two weeks of its posting, it expires?
10:57 CanoeBerry Will community members get a public pre-queue to post suggestions?
10:57 mchua CanoeBerry: If we do that, yes they should.
10:57 notes we have 5m left
10:58 notes that if we decide this question, v.1.0 of Decision Making will be done and almost shipped, pending bernie's +1 on all
10:58 walterbender anyone second the motion?
10:58 mchua everything else on http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/R[…]_a_SLOBs_decision can be proposed as an amendment, but "how to get stuff on queue" is a prerequisite to this working at all
10:58 CanoeBerry Indeed, let's wrap up and circle around next week with appointed positions etc.
10:58 mchua walterbender: I second it.
10:58 walterbender discussion
10:59 3
10:59 2
10:59 1
10:59 vote
10:59 mchua yea
10:59 walterbender yes
10:59 cjb yea
10:59 walterbender (we'll review for SeanDaly)
11:00 CanoeBerry I don't fully understand the motion but vote yes anyway :)
11:00 tomeu +1
11:00 walterbender OK
11:00 I will follow up with Bernie and then post the minutes.
11:00 SeanDaly__ arrrgh
11:00 mchua #info MOTION: any SLOBs member can put an item on the
11:00                         agenda; community members get a SLOB to put their
11:01 walterbender Mel, can you take a stab at putting these rules into the wiki?
11:01 mchua                         motion up if they have one that will be triaged by the
11:01                         SLOBs member
11:01 walterbender: yes, but can't get to it until later tonight so if someone beats me to it, great
11:01 action me!
11:01 has to run
11:01 walterbender SeanDaly: we missed your vote :(
11:01 we should wrap up. Glad to have this settled (pending Bernie's vote)
11:02 CanoeBerry Thanks all for the great v1.0 rulemaking.
11:02 walterbender #action get bernie's input
11:02 #action get the rules written up in the wiki
11:02 #action get the community informed
11:02 #action put it all into action
11:02 #action rock and roll
11:03 any last minute discussion before I #end
11:03 thanks everyone for attending and being decisive :)
11:03 and thanks tomeu and mchua for the preparatory work
11:03 3
11:03 2
11:03 1
11:03 #endmeeting

Index | Today     Channels | Search | Join

Powered by ilbot/Modified.