19:04:04 #startmeeting 19:04:04 Meeting started Wed Nov 17 19:04:04 2010 UTC. The chair is henne. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 19:04:04 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. 19:04:06 henne: just waiting 19:04:10 +1 anaumov 19:04:15 #meetingtopic openSUSE Board Meeting 19:04:30 ahh my favorite topic 19:04:32 #chair rhorstkoetter suseROCKs michl yaloki prusnak 19:04:32 Warning: Nick not in channel: michl 19:04:32 Current chairs: henne michl prusnak rhorstkoetter suseROCKs yaloki 19:04:55 henne: we need to change the news.o.o calendar to 19 UTC for board meetings. may you please do it. I don't know how to deal with 19:05:32 rhorstkoetter, its a per instance thing which is why it needs to more than a quick change. 19:05:43 henne: we talked about recently to switch to 19 UTC during winter, i.e. to keep 8pm local time (CET in that case) 19:05:46 I'll do it thru end of December. Which ain'[t much. After that, its up to the new board 19:05:50 * henne already did that 19:06:06 but its moot as henne already did that 19:06:35 henne: AJaeger just asked me to take care as it still seems to mention 18 UTC 19:06:41 haven't checked myself 19:06:49 i just updated 19:06:57 :-) 19:06:58 ok, great 19:07:01 thanks 19:07:03 topic closed then :-) 19:07:14 okay the agenda for this meeting is: 19:07:26 1. openSUSE election / committee 19:07:27 2. openSUSE Foundation 19:07:27 3. Where do we need to improve ? 19:07:28 4. Questions & Answers 19:07:37 anything else? 19:07:45 * rhorstkoetter is hungry 19:07:47 not from me 19:07:58 is that an agenda item? 19:07:59 * suseROCKs slides brazilian pizza to rhorstkoetter 19:08:09 suseROCKs: much appreciated 19:08:35 alright then 19:08:58 #topic openSUSE Board election / election officials 19:09:14 where are we with the election officials? 19:09:21 afaik we have 3 people standing up so far 19:09:23 i have seen at least 3 people stepping up 19:09:26 So we have three victims... err volunteers so far, right? 19:09:41 ahh federico1 is volunteering :-) 19:09:51 suseROCKs: rofl 19:10:20 none are former members of the comittee, right? 19:10:35 tom is i think 19:11:05 might not be in the last round but i think he already helped out once 19:11:11 Tom just handled the tech stuff right? He didn't actually focus on the gears if I recall 19:12:08 so we need one tech guy to make sure the election setup is functional, and I'd like to have at least one former member on board to offer guidance to new members 19:12:08 digitltom? 19:13:18 ok so we re at a bit of a standstill here 19:13:18 i don't think tom only volunteered to be "the tech guy" 19:13:44 I could be wrong... first time for everything :-) 19:13:57 i actually think AJaeger should help 19:14:04 as he drafted up all those new rules 19:14:15 AJaeger_away: would that be possible for you? 19:14:31 except he has another commitment next month 19:14:40 ah true 19:15:19 hmm 19:15:19 henne: he just left the room prior to the meeting afaik 19:15:28 which leaves claes, FunkyPenguin ans Sascha 19:15:30 and* 19:15:30 henne: I also may ask sascha manns again 19:15:33 do we have a list somewhere of past members? 19:15:49 http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Board_election_results 19:15:50 suseROCKs: http://old-en.opensuse.org/Board_election/2009#Election_committee 19:15:56 hmmm? 19:15:59 ahh good 19:16:03 suseROCKs: what's up? 19:16:09 http://en.opensuse.org/Archive:Board_election_2008#Election_committee 19:16:32 oh no worries federico1 we were just drafting you to be on the election committee for the upcoming board. Wanna join? :-) 19:16:36 which add vuntz to the list 19:16:40 adds* 19:18:10 benJIman, how about you? You've always had a keen interest in how the election is run in the past 19:18:44 I wasn't really that active back then; I was mostly sharing my experience from the GNOME world, and the other people did all the hard work 19:19:28 vuntz, that's exactly what we're looking for here someone to advise as most of the volunteers now are saying we'd like to but we dont know what we re doing 19:20:34 anaumov, still there? Or silent during this "volunteerism" drive? :-) 19:20:40 jep 19:20:59 anaumov, so wanna join? 19:21:03 em... 19:21:08 * rhorstkoetter just called sascha manns 19:21:22 I can try 19:21:25 * suseROCKs seeks a foreign language in whcih "em" = "yes" :-) 19:21:31 wunderbar! 19:21:31 he's on board and will announce this officially in a few minutes 19:21:33 * vuntz is fine advising, as long as it's 100% clear he won't do the work himself 19:21:53 * suseROCKs hugs vuntz 19:22:04 ok so we have 5 volunteers + advisor 19:22:05 (better to not trust me for important stuff ;-)) 19:22:53 henne, rhorstkoetter We like? 19:23:13 wunderbra 19:23:47 since you're the mailing list guy, can you take the next step, henne ? 19:23:51 have you two noticed that I just brought sascha back? 19:24:03 just wondering 19:24:12 rhorstkoetter, yes and that's what I counted in my sum 19:24:26 suseROCKs: ok, just to triple-check 19:24:38 seems solved 19:24:57 suseROCKs: what would I need to do? 19:24:57 we were productive :-) 19:25:36 federico1, make sure guidelines are met for eligibility, coordinate milestone dates for the election process. Resolve any disputes that might arise, etc. 19:25:48 * rhorstkoetter marks this deep-red in his calendar ;) 19:25:49 #action henne fill the election-officials ml with the right people again 19:26:30 im guessing that as this is already end of November, we'll probably not have elections until Jan? 19:27:37 lets see 19:27:55 oh one last question before we move on... 19:28:02 nah never mind, not important 19:28:03 who takes the action item of starting this once I took care of the technical stuff? 19:28:04 suseROCKs: can you please mail me some more details? I'd like to help, but don't have a whole lot of time right now 19:28:11 if it's in january, it may be ok 19:28:50 federico1, election is possibly january, but work starts pretty much ASAP now that the comittee is formed. Its okay, I'll draft you for something else with more time :-) 19:28:54 henne, which exactly technical stuff? 19:29:30 anaumov: subscribing the right people to the election-officials mailinglist 19:29:37 I wonder if "techy stuff" is now prusnak's thang if we're going to use Connect? 19:29:46 yes we are 19:30:06 ok 19:30:13 suseROCKs: thanks :) 19:30:45 henne, good question about who pushes it further after mailing list. 19:30:59 AJaeger, are you back? 19:31:41 henne, let's ask AJaeger to handle the next step at least, even if he won't be able to commit to the full round. If he can just handle the "turnover" period, that'd be great 19:32:32 okay 19:32:55 #action AJaeger push the election officials and teach them the new election rules 19:33:04 ok so we can move to next topic? 19:33:52 okay 19:34:04 before rhorstkoetter falls asleep :-) 19:34:05 #topic openSUSE Foundation 19:34:35 Hmm... there's nothing atm buuuuut.. umm.... 19:34:46 the questions from Alan on the mailinglist 19:34:57 * rhorstkoetter reads 19:35:00 oh I didn't see that one. 19:35:01 and to write the bylaws 19:35:06 subject line? 19:36:40 oh it just came in now :-) 19:36:59 yes 19:37:10 but i just scanned through them 19:37:18 hm 19:37:24 he doesnt ask questions that we didnt already answer in the pre-conf meeting 19:37:31 i'll answer him 19:38:04 yeah 19:38:49 okay any other progress with this? 19:39:06 none afaik 19:41:06 okay 19:41:18 so that leaves us with writing the bylaws 19:41:26 i don't see any progress except the stuff i did 19:41:35 whats up? :) 19:41:38 Do you have those posted somewhere henne ? 19:41:47 or are those just for the board members to review at this time? 19:42:04 henne, are you sure we're writing the bylaws or letting the lawyers handle it and we review what it looks like and agree or disagree with it? 19:42:05 they are on piratepad 19:42:06 http://piratepad.net/openSUSE-Bylaws 19:42:09 oh yeah 19:42:13 you posted that in the other meeting.. duh. 19:42:15 I was under the impression we'd let them do all the writing work. 19:42:17 this is our foundation. not the boards foundation :) 19:42:26 henne: hah yeah.. 19:42:28 suseROCKs: them? 19:42:44 bookmarked 19:42:46 them = lawyers 19:44:34 suseROCKs: they don't do that 19:44:44 you go to them with a proposal and they tell you if its okay or not 19:44:54 ok sir 19:44:57 how can they know what kind of foundation we want to have? :) 19:45:21 henne, Here in the US.... it's the reverse... cuz bylaws are so SOP 19:45:47 so hence my confusion, but not a big deal, buddy 19:46:04 oh there are parts that you also want to have rewritten here 19:46:11 but the general content you have to deliver 19:46:17 i'm sure its the same in the US 19:46:48 please check with alan and tell him about the bylaws, he might be preparing a version as well 19:46:53 well there's no point in arguing experiences. We're going with an e V and this is the way to do it so we do it that way :-) 19:47:04 yeah not much there is there henne with the bylaws 19:47:13 some good starting points, but the 'meat' is truly missing still 19:47:32 AJaeger: i don't understand what he's doing 19:47:43 AJaeger: but i try to clear that up in the mails... 19:47:44 henne: ASK him :) 19:48:26 i already did 19:48:55 my understanding is that he's going to talk to andy upgroove (sp?) a lawyer that sat up already some open surce foundations... 19:49:28 yes 19:49:51 and for that he writes everything up... 19:50:08 let's just verify who's doing what for now so we're not doing double work. Obviously there's confusion (at least my part) because of the way its handled differently in different regions 19:50:44 I suffer from the same confusion 19:51:22 but anyway. there is one thing we can discuss now 19:51:23 therefore... cease until we identify what all parties are doing before we move forward 19:51:53 alan asks about the voting model for the board 19:52:02 and"suggests" a cumulative voting model 19:52:11 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumulative_voting 19:52:13 If there's still confusion with alan, let's have a meeting asap with him. 19:52:18 honestly that sounds like he's already drafting bylaws if he's asking those kinds of questions :-) 19:53:03 suseROCKs: i think so too yes. at least v0.0001 of the bylaws to present to andy 19:53:14 but anyway 19:53:23 do we want to change the voting system? 19:53:30 vuntz mentioned the GNOME board also have another kind of voting and when revisiting the election rules, I prefered not to touch it. 19:54:03 IMO either we find an expert that can give advise or to not touch it. I'm not an expert and therefore stayed out of the business for now ;) 19:54:09 and i also don't think that you need to define these in the bylaws 19:54:32 henne: I guess you need to define the voting scheme but I'm not 100 % sure 19:54:32 at least you usually don't for an e.V. 19:54:57 in fact we have a cumulative voting model. we just haven't several votes 19:55:03 * rhorstkoetter is confused 19:55:24 My proposal: Tell Alan to ask whether there is any recommended method by Andy on how to do it - otherwise no change. 19:55:50 as far as i know andy doesnt know shit about e.V.'s ;) 19:56:14 i think we (board) need to have a meeting with Alan to close this disconnect 19:56:15 ugh here we go again 19:56:27 yes, simple as that 19:56:36 rhorstkoetter: can we do that? 19:56:50 rhorstkoetter: with we I mean you and me :) 19:56:55 henne: can we do what? 19:57:09 dance naked under the moonlight? 19:57:12 have a meeting with him? 19:57:12 rhorstkoetter: have a phone call with Alan sometime this week 19:57:24 henne: fine by me 19:57:29 umm 19:57:41 suseROCKs: you want too? :) 19:57:43 every time we have phone calls, the details don't trickle back well to the board 19:57:52 henne: not sure if I can be that helpful there though 19:57:59 suseROCKs: yeah true 19:58:13 rhorstkoetter: you can at least hit me when i talk shit ;) 19:58:16 I don't understand why we can't just send an email on this subject of who's doing what 19:58:28 henne: hehe 19:58:38 I second what Bryen said 19:58:42 suseROCKs: because Alan is a phone guy... 19:58:49 easier to keep everyone in the loop 19:59:02 he's an email guy too 19:59:16 okay 19:59:22 henne: email should be straight forward for everyone 19:59:23 fine with me :) 19:59:24 IMO 19:59:40 then i use my answer to the second mail and ask. 19:59:41 okay? 19:59:54 Muito Bem 19:59:55 I guess we need both an email discussion with Alan and then a phone call for the remaining open questions 20:00:04 but if you can avoid the phone call -fine! 20:00:05 henne: lemme know if you decide the phone call approach. I'll be in. I quick notice in advance via cell would be great. # in PM 20:00:55 anything more on this topic? 20:00:56 s/I/a 20:01:13 brb in a minute 20:04:27 okay 20:04:35 so nothing else on the topic of the foundation 20:04:37 next topic? 20:04:53 re 20:05:13 yes 20:05:13 si 20:05:19 please 20:05:22 #topic Where do we need to improve? 20:05:43 this topic is about fixable thing where we could do something about it NOW 20:05:48 I have a suggestion for that one 20:05:53 shoot :) 20:06:13 just to clarify before the question.... 20:06:14 shouldn't we take this agenda topic as an opportunity to get more input from the community 20:06:20 Shoot doesn't mean your solution is to shoot him, right? :-) 20:06:28 they may tell us best where they like improvement 20:07:05 rhorstkoetter, that's exactly what it is;. But I guess the bigger question is should we ask the question more broadly than just during this meeting which is open to the public? 20:07:27 suseROCKs: that's what I meant 20:07:33 lets please not make this unactionable 20:07:43 we should maybe introduce kind of "beschwerdebriefkasten" 20:07:52 and in that sense.... how would this differ from say openFATE which is something of a mega-suggestion box 20:07:53 what is that? 20:07:57 we introduced this topic to have at least one thing "done" by the end of the meeting :) 20:08:17 beschwerdebriefkasten ? 20:08:22 suseROCKs: openFATE is for techy stuff only afaik 20:08:28 one productive thing where we, as board, can do something about it 20:08:45 rhorstkoetter, not really. IMO :-) 20:08:52 CarlosRibeiro: something like openFATE for non-techy things regarding the project/community 20:08:58 thanks 20:09:19 henne, but he's got a valid point. We can ask the question, but since we're not bringing in enough people here to observe, we're not getting the answers 20:09:26 like "I like the forums but they may fix the catcha thing" 20:09:29 so how do we find more without becoming too inactionable? 20:09:42 a place where the community may file minor annoyances 20:10:09 that would be a great addition to stepping up during the "where to improve?" meeting topic 20:10:11 yes 20:10:13 just an idea 20:10:15 fixable annoyances 20:10:20 yes 20:10:26 I think we have to make level of member (who get membership) more high. 20:10:50 And make exactly (clear) who is active and who's passive member. 20:10:50 anaumov, why? 20:10:58 minor things people are concerned about and don't have a central place to voice there opinion 20:11:20 s/there/their 20:11:21 I think if we start to spread the same questionary in many languages as possible using ambassadors influence with magazines could give us nice results 20:11:22 suseROCKs, I think we have many *passive* members 20:12:05 well before we could argue the mertis of passive vs. active, we would also have to address the question of "are we doing enough to motivate them to be active?" :-) 20:12:25 erm what do you mean by passive? 20:12:42 I think its just too arbitrary at this point in time since we're still building up and starting to really get a foothold on things 20:13:01 henne, don't do something for project 20:13:15 anaumov: we have a membership status which is granted upon contributions 20:13:25 you can't do nothing for the project and be a member 20:13:30 suseROCKs, do you really think, that we have to motivate people? :) 20:13:42 anaumov: sure 20:13:50 henne, Ithink he's talking about ok you're a member now... but 2 years from now you haven't contributed since... you become "passive" then 20:13:58 henne, exactly. I think we have to change it 20:13:59 CarlosRibeiro: the exact translation (according to gtranslate) is "complaint box", just as a follow-up 20:14:16 anaumov: we have to change what? 20:14:16 anaumov, wellllll... that's kind of an important function of the Board to drive the community :-) 20:14:22 anaumov: make an example please 20:14:46 so before we can mark people as active or passive, we have to ask... Are we, the board, doing enough to motivate, push, whip, whatever... ? :-) 20:14:48 rhorstkoetter: thanks 20:14:57 henne, I don't want call names, but know members, who do nothing :/ 20:15:26 whew. he's not going to call my name :-) 20:15:34 CarlosRibeiro: yw 20:15:51 I spoke about it with yaloki, he said, that we have to have 2 groups of members, and I think... so too :) 20:16:00 suseROCKs, :))) 20:16:12 anaumov: yes. for now you never loose your membership status again 20:16:33 I remember some discussion from osc10: Require that members take part in an election. 20:16:40 anaumov: everything else we work on in the foundation. and there, indeed, we want to have two types of members 20:16:46 but I want to see, who really do something and who... just member 20:16:52 If they did not participate in two years time, they become passive members... 20:16:57 anaumov, I do see your points and I agree they are valid points... But I don't think now is the right time to confront it simply because we have other major initiatives going on and doing a membership overhaul in the midst of that will just create serious chaos 20:17:06 AJaeger: not really 20:17:19 henne: How do you remember the discussion? 20:17:27 AJaeger: if they did not participate (in the board election) in two years time they become passive 20:17:44 its not about participation in the project 20:17:53 huh? 20:17:54 suseROCKs, ok, but we can't forget about it 20:17:55 henne: That's what I meant 20:17:56 we can measure who is passive or not based on reports 20:17:59 that's a rule now, henne? 20:18:14 CarlosRibeiro: for ambassadors but not for others. 20:18:18 suseROCKs: thats a proposal for the bylaws 20:18:28 The election participation rule is a nice rule that can be verified. 20:18:29 AJaeger ok 20:18:35 CarlosRibeiro, I can think of groups of people that will refuse to do reports. For example, packagers. 20:18:38 Everything else is a bureaucracy nightmare... 20:18:53 I don't like the election particfipation rule 20:19:12 suseROCKs: why is that? 20:19:13 in fact I oppose it if that is a proposal. And if it actually exists now, I'm overlooked it. 20:19:22 I think this came from the KDE team, you sometimes need 50 % of the members - and if the majority is passive, you never reach that.... 20:19:34 henne, because your freedom of speech is impacted if you are required to vote 20:19:52 AJaeger, +1 20:20:09 We need to be able to change the bylaws and that might only be doable by the members, so we need to define the bylaws in such a way that passive members do not block us to a complete stillstand 20:20:09 suseROCKs: we're not building a country... 20:20:18 no 20:20:33 but we're building a community and the community has the right to voice itself by either voting or not voting 20:20:42 suseROCKs: At KDE it was no automatic process but still members get asked : areyou stillactive? 20:21:20 at GNOME, I believe you are required to renew your membership, but that seems also daunting for the membership committee. 20:21:30 Although I got approved within 3 days when I applied there. That's FAST 20:21:33 suseROCKs: here in Germany it's more a "you should vote" ;) 20:22:13 we need to solve that issue in a way that is simple... 20:22:24 suseROCKs: we had this discussion in the pre-conf meeting... 20:22:25 AJaeger, Don't get me wrong. I think it is a responsible thing to vote. But there's a difference between apathy and consciously not voting. And that proposed rule doesn't identify the distinction 20:22:39 henne, then my interpreters sucked :-) 20:22:45 heh 20:22:50 and they did. I wasn't happy with them 20:22:53 suseROCKs: you can not vote 20:23:17 anyway, this isn't a "fixable topic" 20:23:20 suseROCKs: if you do that 2 times in a row the board will contact you and ask whats wrong 20:23:25 yes 20:23:26 true 20:23:30 suseROCKs:see my addition: People get asked before removal. Alternative is a voting where you can say "abstain" 20:23:42 AJaeger, then I agree :-) 20:24:16 okay but lets get back to topic 20:24:41 what do we want to do? 20:24:47 AJaeger I like the abstain idea in brazil we also have a /dev/null vote that is little different from abstain 20:25:34 henne, taiti? 20:25:42 :) 20:25:47 eheh 20:25:54 so we don't have anything to fix? 20:26:01 we're official bug-free? 20:26:28 We can never be bug-free as long as I'm here :-) 20:26:30 that can't be so lets fix this topic 20:26:32 I AM a bug! 20:26:43 suseROCKs, +1 :) 20:26:44 rhorstkoetter: what would you propose? 20:27:20 I do think its valid to wonder how we can ask more broadly. But henne's initial reaction was "let's not make it inactionable" 20:27:39 so the new sub-question here is... under what scenario were you seeing it as inactionable? let's work our way down from there. 20:27:55 henne: I also dislike, just as suseROCKs, the need to vote 20:28:14 suseROCKs: i'm trying to make this into something actionable now :) 20:28:17 oh wait which question are we on now? 20:28:28 rhorstkoetter: i mean about the kummerkasten 20:28:31 voting or asking "what needs to be fixed?" 20:28:32 members should have an opportunity not to vote without losing active membership 20:28:43 hey FOUL! no german words here! 20:28:47 suggestion box 20:28:54 :-) 20:29:13 I think rhorstkoetter needs catching up so let's briefly summarize for him... 20:29:28 we are on the topic if "Where do we need to improve?" 20:29:41 and now try to improve this topic in this meeting 20:29:42 as of active/passive members: I think anaumov brought up a vaild point but as the membership commitee just starts to work nicely, we shouldn't introduce a new mechanism NOW + we have other things to concentrate on atm 20:29:44 rhorstkoetter, We talked about novoters.. then we suggested to add if you haven't voted for a while, we contact you... then we agreed this is not appropriate topic for this topic so we tabled it ... :-) 20:29:47 recursive. i know... 20:30:17 rhorstkoetter: we are not going to change anything except the bylaws of the foundation 20:30:20 Caught up now? :-) 20:30:39 my suggestion for the foundation would be to have somebody to a bit of research how others handle the problems that a large number of not participating members can block a foundation... 20:30:50 they don't 20:31:50 oh that they do 20:31:51 henne: ok, caught up. you want my input for what now? 20:31:59 with different member states 20:32:07 henne, theoretically, it could, depending on the laws governing it. For example, a major funding issue may require that a super-majority of community approve it, etc. (I can't give specific examples) but AJaeger';s point is to make sure we don't fall into that trap 20:32:12 but can we please leave this topic now? 20:32:31 and stay on topic with "Where do we need to improve?" 20:32:35 yes! 20:32:36 :-) 20:32:44 henne: Mark an action to raise this with alan 20:33:24 AJaeger: we already raised this and just need to discuss this more which will come naturally once we have this as paragraph in the bylaws 20:33:42 henne: ok,then I agree to move on 20:33:55 :-) 20:34:12 rhorstkoetter: you suggested to make something like a suggestion box 20:34:23 rhorstkoetter: i wanted to know your ideas on how to do that 20:34:24 henne: that be great yes 20:34:58 why can't openFATE be considered the suggestion box? 20:35:00 haven't thought about the exact implementation but I'd feel a kummerkasten a good addition to that particular agenda item 20:35:18 if we keep telling people to go here for this type of thing and there for that type of thing, we'll be back where we started 20:35:35 some opportunity where members may explain some complaint in advance, in the public, prior the meeting with community feedback possibility 20:35:57 oh, the project mailing list? :-) 20:36:06 that way we may get more suggestions for "community papercuts" of non-techy sort 20:36:41 ok here's my thought 20:36:47 "community feedback possibility" means comments on the complaint? 20:36:54 I do't think we need to "implement" a system somehwere... 20:36:58 henne: yes 20:37:19 I think we need to go out and TELL people to tell us. We need to shout loudly that we have this topic and its their chanc to speak up 20:37:23 suseROCKs: no, we just need to think of the smartest way to do it 20:37:32 that's what I meant with implementation 20:37:52 a ml would work, or a forum or something not in my mind atm 20:38:09 okay but these days smart means not putting in too many systems... So again, I ask, why not openFATE? 20:38:23 this is, so far, a very raw idea and I just wanted to hear your general feeling about it 20:38:49 but we don't discuss ideas in this topic 20:38:53