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 |