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

#sugar-meeting, 2009-11-06

Index | Today     Channels | Search | Join

All times shown according to UTC.

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

Index | Today     Channels | Search | Join

Powered by ilbot/Modified.
Webmaster