| Time | Nick | Message |
|---|---|---|
| 10:01 | SeanDaly | walterbender: don't forget I am only there 3 nights so upgrade to double room might not work either |
| 10:01 | walterbender | Welcome everyone |
| 10:01 | SeanDaly | is here :-) |
| 10:01 | walterbender | I'd like to start by asking if there were any additional topics people want to add the agenda. |
| 10:02 | SeanDaly | no |
| 10:03 | walterbender | The three topics outstanding are: mailing lists, positions, and dp |
| 10:03 | let's get started on the first topic. | |
| 10:03 | #topic the SLOBs mailing list | |
| 10:04 | I had sent a note to IAEP regarding the ad hoc nature of the membership of the list | |
| 10:04 | I think that the more people on the list, the more likely we will use it instead of the public lists, which is in my mind, a bad habit. | |
| 10:05 | IMHO (not so humble, perhaps) we should be using it rarely, only for the most confidential matters, which suggests a very tightly controlled list. | |
| 10:05 | SeanDaly | at the same time, I believe there is a need for a confidential list when discussing potential partners |
| 10:05 | walterbender | so I would propose it be ONLY board members, out ombudsman, and a representaive of SFC. |
| 10:06 | _bernie | waves |
| 10:06 | walterbender | SeanDaly: I agree. and we can invite people into discussions on an as needed basis. |
| 10:07 | but right now, I couldn't even tell yo who is on the list, so I am uncomfortable sending confidential materials, so I by-pass the list with private emails, etc. a terrible habit | |
| 10:07 | SeanDaly | or, as sometimes happens, there is an issue with a particular journalists, and as a rule I never refer to journalists by name on public lists... recipe for disastrous coverage |
| 10:08 | walterbender | I am simple-minded. I would like really needs to be private and everything else as my two options. |
| 10:09 | the gray zone is a problem for me. | |
| 10:10 | m_stone | walterbender: have you considered variations on a mailing list which are still email-friendly but which might offer more flexibility? |
| 10:11 | walterbender | m_stone: can you please elaborate? |
| 10:11 | CanoeBerry | Hiya, sorry I'm late. |
| 10:11 | walterbender | m_stone: bernie has a schema where by the list can be wite-only to the community... |
| 10:11 | hi adam | |
| 10:11 | m_stone | sure. some issue trackers like RT and Roundup have good email support. |
| 10:11 | CanoeBerry | If anybody has a pastebin of the past 10 min? |
| 10:12 | m_stone | so some people use them like funny mailing lists -- they collect email from anyone who wants to send it. |
| 10:12 | walterbender | CanoeBerry: http://pastebin.be/21779 |
| 10:12 | SeanDaly | waves to CanoeBerry |
| 10:12 | m_stone | however, subsequent distribution is controlled on a per-thread basis |
| 10:13 | walterbender | m_stone: I think collecting the input from anyone is important |
| 10:13 | _bernie | CanoeBerry: http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/s[…]0091106_1001.html |
| 10:13 | m_stone | walterbender: sure. you can configure it so that anyone can send. |
| 10:13 | walterbender | m_stone: yes. Bernie confirmed this |
| 10:14 | m_stone | walterbender: you then provide several mail aliases for each group of people you want to distinguish as recipients. |
| 10:14 | _bernie | walterbender: I can change it now |
| 10:14 | walterbender | _bernie: let's wait until we get the whole matter decided. |
| 10:14 | m_stone | walterbender: and you can add and remove them from per-ticket CC lists as needed. |
| 10:15 | walterbender | m_stone: I still think having a list that is known to be small and private is the heart of the issue. |
| 10:15 | m_stone | walterbender: known to be private over what period of time? |
| 10:15 | and known to be private indefinitely for every thread, or just known to be private /by default/, until a thread is declassified and made public? | |
| 10:15 | walterbender | m_stone: private always. |
| 10:16 | CanoeBerry | Who has long-term access to the archives? All futures board members and all future ombuds? |
| 10:16 | The independence of an ombuds is his/her strength, so we may want to think a bit. | |
| 10:17 | walterbender | CanoeBerry: I think that would have to be the case. |
| 10:17 | In any case, we seem to be talking about implementation details, not the basic quesiton. | |
| 10:18 | Is there any one opposed to the idea of a limited list? | |
| 10:18 | cjb | walterbender: I'm not sure yet |
| 10:19 | CanoeBerry | bertf: any recommendations? |
| 10:19 | walterbender | cjb: please voice your concerns |
| 10:20 | cjb | I think it would be fine if just about every mail currently going to slobs@ moves to iaep@, but I'm having trouble working out whether that would actually happen.. I'll try to read over the archives and think some more |
| 10:20 | mchua | Hey all, sorry I'm late - plane *just* touched down (I'm still sitting in it). /me reads backlog |
| 10:20 | walterbender | cjb: consider also the email not sent to slobs, but as private threads |
| 10:21 | cjb | in particular, we talk about things like grants quite a lot on slobs |
| 10:21 | bertf | CanoeBerry: I'm fine either way. I personally don't need archive access. |
| 10:21 | cjb | walterbender: but I can only think of one or maybe two private threads this year |
| 10:21 | walterbender: so I wouldn't optimize for those. | |
| 10:21 | SeanDaly | cjb: some mails I don't send to slobs, so confidential I send privately |
| 10:21 | m_stone | cjb: only one or two private threads or only one or two private threads that you've been included on? :) |
| 10:21 | cjb | SeanDaly: to me? I don't think I've received any from you. |
| 10:21 | SeanDaly: so it seems like this change wouldn't affect that. | |
| 10:21 | walterbender | cjb: in fact, one problem with the private emails is that don't tend to reach all of the board. |
| 10:22 | SeanDaly | cjb: no not you yet... but in fact i would rather you did |
| 10:22 | walterbender | I send private email when I would rather send a message to the entire board |
| 10:22 | SeanDaly | walterbender: +1 |
| 10:22 | cjb | so the argument is "I send private e-mail to a random subset of the board, and would like to send it to all the board instead, by typing in their e-mail addresses is too hard"? It just all seems a bit confused. |
| 10:22 | walterbender | but I don't always remember to do the 7 ccs and I always forget to include Bert |
| 10:22 | and Karen | |
| 10:22 | cjb | s/by typing/but typing/ |
| 10:23 | bertf | fwiw I don't think the ombuds needs to be "kept in the loop" all that much, rather act when necessary |
| 10:23 | CanoeBerry | walter's point that emails will end up in private threads without the (added) transparency of archiving is very relevant. |
| 10:23 | mchua | all caught up now |
| 10:24 | CanoeBerry | bertf: thanks |
| 10:24 | walterbender | In any case, the SLOBs list as it stands is essentially useless. |
| 10:24 | mchua | I think there is a need for a list that is SLOBs and only SLOBs (to which I'd be fine adding ombuds and one SFC rep). I think other use cases we're discussing here may have their place, but independent of those and what they are and such, I think there /is/ a need for a list that is just SLOBs. |
| 10:24 | SeanDaly | cjb: well... not random... just the people I know well & trust. I'm saying I'd rather reach all the slobs on such issues |
| 10:24 | cjb | anyway, what I was going to say: we currently use slobs for things like talking about grants and stuff |
| 10:24 | and people who we've admitted to the list get to read that, offer their help with drafts and proofreading and so on | |
| 10:24 | and that seems useful to me. we don't have to trust them, but we are doing so, and that seems helpful. the people reading know that the material is confidential. | |
| 10:25 | tomeu | sorry, I'm late |
| 10:26 | SeanDaly | cjb: observer status... was my case starting from some point although I felt uncomfortable responding, as a nonSLOB at the time |
| 10:26 | cjb | so that's my reservation. it seems like we want to cut down on something that's seemed useful to me, and the justification is to help reduce private threads, but I haven't seen any private threads other than one that I can recall, but apparently there are more going on without me, and I'm to believe that I'd be included in them if only there were an easy alias. |
| 10:26 | CanoeBerry | i'm _not_ proposing this as an answer, but am intrigued by ideas like m_stone's old suggestion to make slobs' subject lines (more) public |
| 10:26 | _bernie | cjb: at this time we can freely discuss our relationship with Canonical on SLOBs just because nobody from Canonical is subscribed. |
| 10:26 | m_stone | CanoeBerry: that was somebody else's suggestion. |
| 10:27 | _bernie | cjb: would you agree that we'd have to use private cc's if Canonical were reading our board list? |
| 10:27 | SeanDaly | waves to sdziallas |
| 10:27 | cjb | _bernie: well, I think at the moment someone from Canonical asked to join our board list, we'd say "Hm, better not, we might want to talk about you." |
| 10:28 | sdziallas | waves to SeanDaly an all |
| 10:28 | s/an/and ...sorry, I'm late. | |
| 10:28 | m_stone | I think that mchua is basically right that having an email address which gets things sent to The SLOBS and no one else is useful... |
| 10:28 | SeanDaly | cjb: I guess you mean "you" as "Canonical" and not the person ;-) |
| 10:28 | cjb | SeanDaly: :) |
| 10:28 | indeed | |
| 10:28 | m_stone | and still orthogonal from controlling the actual audience of these threads /and/ from controlling their archiving status. |
| 10:28 | cjb | although both are possible! |
| 10:28 | mchua | cjb: but we have folks from Red Hat and OLPC on SLOBs; what if we'd want to discuss the relationship with them? |
| 10:29 | _bernie | cjb: then why do we admit people from OLPC, Red Hat, Solution Grove... even L'Oreal? :-) |
| 10:29 | cjb | mchua: then a private thread would be fine. note that *I'm* on SLOBs, which means that mailing list would not be appropriate either! |
| 10:29 | walterbender | Personally, I am comfortable talking to board members, regardless for whom they work |
| 10:29 | SeanDaly | mchua: wouldn't that board member have a role as relay to their org? |
| 10:29 | cjb | you'd have to use a private receipient list in either case |
| 10:29 | walterbender | they have a responsibility as a board member to SL, not their employer. |
| 10:29 | _bernie | walterbender: me too |
| 10:29 | walterbender | if they feel conflicted, they can opt out |
| 10:30 | mchua | walterbender: +1 |
| 10:30 | cjb | that's fine too. |
| 10:30 | walterbender | when a board member act otherwise, they are viloating a trust |
| 10:30 | CanoeBerry | great discussion..just a time check en route: meeting is half over/half begun :) |
| 10:30 | cjb | anyway, I hope that was all some food for thought. |
| 10:31 | I think if the situation was like m_stone suggests, where we had some way of compensating for the decreased visibility of slobs work | |
| 10:31 | walterbender | cjb: so would you like to defer action on this topic for a week? |
| 10:31 | cjb | then I'd be happy about this proposal |
| 10:31 | walterbender: that would be great | |
| 10:31 | SeanDaly | here's a concrete example: we have been contacted by an EU institution willing to promote Sugar |
| 10:31 | cjb | I'll try and be more coherent about itby next week |
| 10:31 | walterbender | cjb: so can I nominate you to make a proposal for next week? |
| 10:31 | SeanDaly | Having lived in Brussels I know that as soon as word gets out, the high-pais lobbyists get into action |
| 10:31 | cjb | walterbender: yes, that sounds fair |
| 10:32 | mchua | So no voting on Walter's original proposal until it also includes "and what we're going to do to compensate for that list being membership limited is..." proposals? |
| 10:32 | cjb | SeanDaly: I think we could use some clarity on if/when slobs@ gets to hear about that |
| 10:32 | walterbender | #action cjb will propose a SLOBs list configuration at the next meeting |
| 10:32 | SeanDaly | I'd like the board to be on board with our approach |
| 10:32 | CanoeBerry | I think the idea of "alums" is important here too, as filthy as it sounds. EG. many people like David Farning are central, and they now partake (loosely) in the slobs@ mailing list. Some of that role will remain, no matter what we decide. |
| 10:32 | SeanDaly | no meeting set yet, but |
| 10:32 | after meeting there will be topics to discuss... | |
| 10:32 | mchua | suggests the usual "get community brainstorm going" approach for SLOBs list configurations |
| 10:33 | walterbender | So, I think we should move on to the next topic |
| 10:33 | cjb | mchua: that would be useful |
| 10:33 | mchua | cjb: use the page tomeu and I made as a template if it helps |
| 10:33 | walterbender | we have an action plan re mailing lists |
| 10:33 | mchua | ready to move on |
| 10:33 | walterbender | #topic SL appointments |
| 10:34 | mchua | thinks we need to have these discussions on-list rather than in-meeting, honestly, so we can spend our time in meetings Voting Very Quickly |
| 10:34 | SeanDaly | mchua: which list? (joke) :D |
| 10:35 | CanoeBerry | mchua: "Listening" to people live helps me personally. |
| 10:35 | walterbender | Summary: we have a number of appointed positions and no policy re how to continue the appointments |
| 10:35 | mchua | Any proposals on such that we can vote on? |
| 10:35 | SeanDaly | walterbender: fixed terms, and vote by board to renew term or not? |
| 10:35 | mchua | If not, suggest we assign point person(s) like we just did for lists and regroup when there are proposals to select from |
| 10:35 | CanoeBerry | Not that term limits are required (I don't know) but we should have an annual review or such. |
| 10:36 | tomeu | should we ask other orgs about their experience? |
| 10:36 | SeanDaly | not a bad idea to formalize it... the usual scenario is someone longserving in post, and less effective, or less motivated; bring new blood in etc. |
| 10:37 | CanoeBerry | Yes |
| 10:37 | SeanDaly | "canonical" example: FDR in office 34 years, led to 2-term limit |
| 10:38 | walterbender | 34 years? |
| 10:38 | in a parallel universe, perhaps :) | |
| 10:39 | CanoeBerry | I haven't heard much from Farning in the last 2 weeks about the treasurer role.. does he wish to continue? |
| 10:39 | Was someone supposed to talk this over with him? | |
| 10:39 | SeanDaly | I must be mixed up with 1934... he did 3 terms and change |
| 10:39 | walterbender | I was late in getting in touch with him |
| 10:39 | I can sort things out in Bolzano with him. | |
| 10:39 | CanoeBerry | Great. |
| 10:40 | walterbender | No one was tasked with talking to me re ED :) |
| 10:40 | SeanDaly | walterbender: I didn't see his dates on the Bolzano page, hope he will be there |
| 10:40 | CanoeBerry | And http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board specifies "sysadmin" is a 4th role. |
| 10:40 | walterbender | He is there all week, I believe |
| 10:40 | cjb | CanoeBerry: that doesn't seem necessary anymore |
| 10:40 | walterbender | SeanDaly: BTW, I am staying at the hostel |
| 10:41 | SeanDaly | walterbender: ok, if they don't have tomato juice there pop over to the hotel bar :D |
| 10:41 | CanoeBerry | hostel has no wifi FYI |
| 10:41 | tomeu | SeanDaly: yes, he's coming |
| 10:42 | walterbender | CanoeBerry: :( |
| 10:43 | so regarding actions on this topic... | |
| 10:43 | CanoeBerry | They won't even allow us to plug into the wall. |
| 10:43 | walterbender | we have 2 issues: the policy and filling the roles |
| 10:43 | can we focus on the policy first | |
| 10:43 | tomeu | CanoeBerry: maybe you can catch up some sleep while there ;) |
| 10:43 | SeanDaly | canoeberry: my hotel has free wifi & if my 3G card roams at a decent rate I can loan |
| 10:43 | walterbender | personally, I think an annual review is a necessary requirement |
| 10:44 | CanoeBerry | SeadDaly: Don't get your card canceled! |
| 10:44 | Putting some meat on the annual review would be great. | |
| 10:44 | SeanDaly | canoeberry: no risk |
| 10:44 | CanoeBerry | I think m_stone & hhardy have helped me & Bert a lot here in the ombuds case. |
| 10:45 | mchua | time running out... what are we trying to accomplish at this meeting? lots of forward momentum here, but no resolutions yet. |
| 10:45 | CanoeBerry | 15min to go |
| 10:46 | tomeu | what is an annual review? |
| 10:46 | CanoeBerry | Are elections annual, speaking of which? |
| 10:46 | walterbender | tomeu: feedback |
| 10:46 | tomeu | and who does the review? |
| 10:46 | walterbender | CanoeBerry: these are not elected positions: they are appointed by the board |
| 10:46 | tomeu: the board | |
| 10:47 | _bernie | notes that the sysadmin role is starting to become a full-time job. we need more volunteers on the Infrastruture Team. |
| 10:47 | walterbender | so I would propose an annyal review and as part of that review a discussion about mutual agreement to continue |
| 10:47 | CanoeBerry | Understood, but what if the appointed positions where required to report within 1-month of the completion each "annual" election? |
| 10:47 | m_stone | _bernie: or to be more careful about what demands are placed upon them. |
| 10:47 | _bernie | finding people who are at the same time skilled, trustworthy and free is a challenge. |
| 10:48 | tomeu | _bernie: how is icarito going? |
| 10:48 | _bernie | m_stone: I've been turning down any request that would make our infrastructure much more complex. |
| 10:49 | m_stone: outsourcing git, trac and business apps to hosted services is my attempt to reduce the burden and increase service reliability. | |
| 10:49 | CanoeBerry | Let's also formalize: how to remove appointed persons (without hurting feelings) |
| 10:49 | walterbender | so a concrete proposal would be: appoints are reviewed annually by the board; continuation subject to mutual consent. |
| 10:49 | _bernie | tomeu: he seems both skilled and trustworthy, but does not seem to have much time. I'll bug him a little more. |
| 10:49 | tomeu | ok |
| 10:49 | _bernie | tomeu: as I said, we need people with all 3 of these requisites AT THE SAME TIME :-( |
| 10:50 | tomeu | heh |
| 10:50 | mchua | Folks, this is great, but maybe we should discuss Infra stuff at an Infra meeting. |
| 10:50 | _bernie | mchua: there's no infrastructure meeting at this time, because it would go mostly deserted :-) |
| 10:51 | anyway, let's go on with the next point. sorry to interrupt. | |
| 10:51 | CanoeBerry | _bernie: can we talk by phone within 48hrs, since you refuse to come to Italy!? |
| 10:51 | Back to the agenda.. | |
| 10:51 | mchua | Are there any proposals we can vote on during this meeting, since our time is running short? |
| 10:51 | _bernie | CanoeBerry: haha ok :) |
| 10:52 | walterbender | mchua: any thoughts on my proposal |
| 10:52 | mchua | If not, perhaps we need to make sure we articulate a goal for our next meeting and make sure things happen between now and then so that we can decide then. |
| 10:52 | walterbender: I like it, is it a motion? ;) | |
| 10:52 | CanoeBerry | Any thoughts on my defining "annually" as within about 1 month of each election? |
| 10:52 | walterbender | mchua: I am happy to make it a motion... |
| 10:53 | mchua | adds date, and puts forth MOTION: appointed positions reviewed annually by the board within a month of the new board's appointment, continuation subject to SLOBs approval vote and position-holder consent |
| 10:53 | CanoeBerry | *within about 1 month of the completion of each election |
| 10:53 | walterbender | motion: so a concrete proposal would be: appoints are reviewed annually by the board; continuation subject to mutual consent. (where annually means within 1 month of the board elections) |
| 10:54 | mchua | seconded |
| 10:54 | walterbender | discussion? |
| 10:54 | SeanDaly | fixed date? |
| 10:54 | mchua | "mutual consent" == SLOBs vote, and the position holder's acceptance |
| 10:54 | CanoeBerry | I think a removal/impeachment process is important. |
| 10:54 | So feelings are not hurt, when someone's life inevitably moves on. | |
| 10:54 | cjb | CanoeBerry: maybe that can be a different motion :) |
| 10:54 | CanoeBerry | OK |
| 10:54 | mchua | how about "appointed positions can be appointed/removed by SLOBs vote" |
| 10:55 | that takes care of both motions | |
| 10:55 | SeanDaly | mchua: the idea is to have at least some barrier to quickly removing e.g. ombudsman |
| 10:55 | walterbender | sounds good. mchua: wanna restate the motion? |
| 10:55 | CanoeBerry | But not too quickly. |
| 10:55 | cjb | SeanDaly: the barrier's a SLOBs vote |
| 10:55 | CanoeBerry | Ombuds should not be removable with 4 votes. |
| 10:56 | Ombuds needs independence, by definition. | |
| 10:56 | walterbender | CanoeBerry: I agree |
| 10:56 | cjb | CanoeBerry: unanimous vote for ombuds, then? |
| 10:56 | walterbender | +1 |
| 10:56 | CanoeBerry | Or perhaps a hypermajority. |
| 10:56 | SeanDaly | CanoeBerry: exactly. Impeachment <> voting somebody out; level of justification higher |
| 10:56 | mchua | someone restate motion? |
| 10:57 | cjb | MOTION: for the special case of removing the ombudsman, a unanimous SLOBs vote is required |
| 10:57 | mchua | MOTION:appointed positions can be appointed/removed by |
| 10:57 | SLOBs vote | |
| 10:57 | argh | |
| 10:58 | cjb | shall we vote through them now? |
| 10:58 | CanoeBerry | Can treasurer and ED be removed by 4 votes? |
| 10:58 | cjb | CanoeBerry: treasurer can |
| 10:58 | ED's a little unclear | |
| 10:59 | walterbender | speaking as ED, I am willing to be subject to a majority removal from office. |
| 10:59 | CanoeBerry | OK, we have consensus, let's vote. |
| 10:59 | cjb | that settles that, then :) |
| 10:59 | CanoeBerry | +1 |
| 10:59 | On both motions. | |
| 10:59 | walterbender | all in favor of the motion(s) which I will write up in the minutes: |
| 10:59 | cjb | likewise, +1 on both |
| 10:59 | SeanDaly | can someone restate motion?? |
| 11:00 | cjb | motion 1: appointed positions can be appointed/removed by |
| 11:00 | SLOBs vote | |
| 11:00 | motion 2: for the special case of removing the ombudsman, a unanimous SLOBs vote is required | |
| 11:00 | walterbender | motion 3: positions are reviewed annually |
| 11:00 | SeanDaly | yea to both then |
| 11:00 | yea to all three | |
| 11:00 | walterbender | within 1 month of elections |
| 11:01 | CanoeBerry | (with annual reviews required for all appointed positions, subject to majority vote in each case..) |
| 11:01 | SeanDaly | i would just add that should take place after SLOBS elections not before |
| 11:01 | cjb | oh, yes, we already scheduled that motion |
| 11:01 | walterbender | votes yes to all three |
| 11:01 | CanoeBerry | +1 on all 3 |
| 11:01 | cjb | too. |
| 11:01 | mchua and _bernie? | |
| 11:01 | mchua | yea on all 3 |
| 11:01 | tomeu | +1 on all 3 |
| 11:02 | walterbender | bernie? |
| 11:02 | cjb | bernie's going to get a reputation for doing all his voting in e-mail :) |
| 11:02 | walterbender | while we are waiting on Bernie (the motion has passed in any case :) let me wrap up: |
| 11:03 | CanoeBerry | Anything else? |
| 11:03 | Time's up.. | |
| 11:03 | walterbender | we haven't heard back from the DP, so that discussion needs to be deferred :( |
| 11:03 | CanoeBerry | OK |
| 11:03 | mchua | Next meeting's goal: decision on mailing list? |
| 11:03 | cjb to drive? | |
| 11:03 | walterbender | let's plan to meet again next week, some time, same channel? |
| 11:03 | SeanDaly | at Bolzano? |
| 11:03 | mchua | thinks we're doing pretty well at taking one topic at a time |
| 11:03 | walterbender | (I think it will work re the Bolzano agenda for most of us) |
| 11:03 | CanoeBerry | Next week I may be a bad citizen, but will try my best. |
| 11:03 | mchua | in Singapore and may be also, but will try as well. |
| 11:04 | In any case you only need 4 for quorum anyway :) | |
| 11:04 | and Bolzano should suffice | |
| 11:04 | if the meeting is done in IRC despite everyone being physically together. | |
| 11:04 | walterbender | thanks for all the feedback today. |
| 11:04 | CanoeBerry | I will be traveling back from Europe thru Germany at that time.. |
| 11:04 | walterbender | mchua: absolutely--in IRC. |
| 11:04 | mchua | queries about next meeting's goal - is "the list thing" it? |
| 11:04 | forward motion, one concrete little step at a time. :) | |
| 11:04 | walterbender | mchua: we'll have a proposal from CJB re the list thing |
| 11:05 | and we'll have a DP report (I hope) | |
| 11:05 | and I think some other topics looming. | |
| 11:05 | so, I will end the meeting... thanks again everyone. | |
| 11:05 | #endmeeting |