19:01:06 #startmeeting 19:01:06 Meeting started Wed Dec 15 19:01:06 2010 UTC. The chair is henne. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 19:01:06 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. 19:01:08 suseROCKs: fashion victim 19:01:17 #meetingtopic openSUSE Board meeting 19:01:28 oh sure... coolo's statement gets entered into the record :-) 19:01:37 #chair AlanClark suseROCKs yaloki prusnak 19:01:37 Current chairs: AlanClark henne prusnak suseROCKs yaloki 19:02:00 the agenda for this meeting is: 19:02:01 The fun begins 19:02:23 * prusnak waves 19:02:28 1. openSUSE Foundation 19:02:28 2. Membership voting rules 19:02:28 3. Where do we need to improve ? 19:02:30 4. Questions & Answers 19:02:44 but first lest welcome AlanClark to the board :) 19:03:04 * suseROCKs welcomes AlanClark with great enthusiasm 19:03:10 Welcome 19:03:10 AlanClark do you want to say a few words? :) 19:03:11 Thanks henne. I'm excited to get to work with you guys directly 19:03:15 AlanClark welcome! 19:03:46 words: just excitment with much to get done 19:03:50 quickly. 19:04:16 as usual... 19:04:22 Since we've already been working together. Not much new to say. 19:04:44 alrighty. any general questions for AlanClark? 19:05:34 people are too excited to type, it seems 19:05:43 lol 19:05:45 there was one earlier wasn't there? 19:05:52 * warlordfff trembles 19:06:01 actually I was just about to say... 19:06:16 The question was "What are your goals for the openSUSE Project" 19:06:18 10.12.15-18:57:41: < rrutkowski> alan what are your goals for the opensuse project? 19:06:22 welcome Alan 19:06:28 stated by "Rrutkowski 19:07:02 Right now I see 4 goals. 19:07:32 First, The top goal is as a Board to get the Foundation up and operational. As we continue to work towards this, I'm sure that we will uncover other issues that we will need to address. 19:07:47 Second: Grow the Community 19:08:25 Third: Is a personal goal: Tune up my decoder ring for all these alias cloaking and get to know as many people as possible -simply because that is the fun part of being in a community. 19:08:45 LOL, some have more than one alias 19:09:10 Fourth: Let people get their work done; er "have alot of fun" 19:10:05 I gone through a few days. Figured AlanClark was good for now 19:10:24 I'd like to mention that if you'd like to meet AlanClark in person, there's a good chance of meeting him in Los Angeles when he joins the hip openSUSE Ambassador Crew showcasing openSUSE at SCALE February 25-27 19:10:47 I will be there with suseROCKs 19:11:10 okay any other questions? :) 19:11:14 My force will be with you :D 19:11:37 Good point suseROCKs: wardlordfff: Thanks 19:12:33 AlanClark: (no harm done if not) any foot steps in open source? 19:12:33 nothing else? then lets continue with the agenda :) 19:12:58 foot steps as in experience? 19:13:03 another question: can/will AlanClark fullfill michl positions? 19:13:17 yes, I tried to be colourful :) 19:13:34 yes. 19:13:46 Siju: please define positions 19:14:10 I and my team created one of the first open source projects within Novell - several years ago. 19:14:13 coolo, AlanClark is one of the OSRB members in Novell, the commitee which focuses on licensing and copyrights, usage of open-source software in Novell applications. 19:14:28 henne: boardpositions ... talking with novell 19:14:38 ah, okey 19:15:20 More recently worked with other open source projects outside Novell. Some were successful some not - for example Eclipse Aperi project 19:15:24 Siju, by filling the chairperson role, by definition, he is a communicator to Novell, along with the rest of us. 19:16:02 suseROCKs: fine :) 19:16:18 suseROCKs: what means "to Novell" here? 19:16:24 * dragotin feels Novell as well 19:16:37 so, I doubt that is a good explanation 19:16:39 AlanClark after the meeting I have some question about licensing and copyrights if you have some time 19:16:56 warlordfff: sure I have time 19:17:03 dragotin, depends on the nature of the communication. But in general, it would be Markus Rex 19:17:20 ok 19:17:22 * dragotin very often talks to Markus Rex as well :o) 19:17:33 dragotin, Hence the "us" :-) 19:17:35 and I think many of us could 19:17:36 Us as in community 19:18:00 yes, what my point is is that most Novell'is are simply community 19:18:21 point taken 19:19:09 A lot of text flew by; Did I hit the high points of the questions? 19:19:18 i think so yes 19:19:38 lets get going with the agenda. we have an additional topic today 19:19:41 I think so as well 19:19:52 #topic openSUSE Foundation 19:20:39 I have a statement I'd like to enter into the record on this topic, if I may? 19:20:54 there are a couple of things we need to discuss i think 19:21:00 yes sure. go ahead 19:21:25 Do we have to say #info for on the record or just type away? 19:21:51 whatever you like 19:22:01 I welcome Novell's support for the creation of a Foundation with its selection of Alan Clark to sit on the Board and help us steer the course. I would like to take a moment to remind us all that this is a partnership endeavor between the Community and Novell. While, in the past, we have entertained the possibility of going it alone, I am excited to see that Novell agrees with us that a partnership is the way to go and we look forwa 19:22:01 rd to Novell's continued participation in our endeavors as we proceed in a transparent and open process. 19:22:42 (end) 19:23:45 i think we all look forward to that 19:23:47 suseROCKS: great point 19:24:09 now the last part is what i wanted to talk about first 19:24:18 transparent and open process that is 19:24:54 i think we have a disconnect there and need to close this 19:25:18 talk in one forum where everybody that needs to be involved is involved 19:25:42 and i would like to have this in the open 19:25:55 +1 19:25:59 because frankly, the foundation will only work if we find enough people willing to make it work 19:26:12 +1000 19:26:23 and i fear that we have lost the way a bit there 19:26:25 and to find enough people, we need to make the people feel that they have a vested interest 19:26:55 well not only that if I may 19:26:59 ? 19:27:16 sure 19:27:33 henne: so what you are proposing is to start an open mailing list e.g. foundation@opensuse.org or ... ? 19:27:49 we need to make people feel comfortable and that everything they shall do is for the common good 19:28:07 prusnak: yes. one small part would be to broaden the audience 19:28:17 so henne I understand your point, but let me raise a couple points they may be exceptions. 19:28:20 for example 19:28:21 many people just want someone to show the the way 19:28:42 many people just want someone to show them the way 19:28:44 henne: open is only a thing where the people can decide! 19:29:07 part of the work here will be with attorney's who charge by the hour. 19:29:16 to minimize our $$ spent. 19:29:47 +1 on suseROCKs statement 19:30:05 AlanClark: sorry, can you rephrase that, at least me can not really understand what that means 19:30:06 I propose that we prep materials and that a subset will present the materials to them - most likely not through a mailing list 19:30:17 ok guys, lets let AlanClark finish his statement before we proceed with our comments 19:30:35 sounds good to me :) 19:31:01 tigerfoot :-) 19:31:04 AlanClark: can you maybe outline a bit what going to the lawyers would involve? 19:31:21 my point being that there are cases where we are going to have to have a subset of people work through some topics and conversations 19:31:29 this sounds so scary for people who don't do this often... 19:31:55 doesn't mean that we don't communicate 19:32:01 or report 19:32:22 just means that we have to optimize people, time and $$ 19:32:28 exactly, having a subset of people working on something is not excluding openness 19:32:41 nope. no one thinks that... 19:32:47 alright 19:32:53 of course it doesn't 19:33:06 with all due respect, I don't think its the legal communication we're as concerned with, but rather that there is transparency in the conduit between all partners on this initiative. 19:33:47 and I'm concerened with the amount of people who i seen willing to carry the foundation once it exists 19:33:57 i mean the usual workflow is this: 19:34:20 1. some people find out that they want to do something together in some form of a NFP 19:34:21 the lawyers aren't partners. They're just simply doing what they're paid to do. But within our own initiative, we should ensure that all partners are open and communicative in a way that we all know up front what is happening. 19:34:49 henne: do you mean from the community in gerenal, the ambassador, what group? 19:35:02 lupinstein: everybody 19:35:32 2. they hash out bylaws 19:35:37 henne really everybody, or just opensuse member first ( so we keep control on it at the first time ? ) 19:35:43 henne you are talikng about support,right? 19:36:09 guys, let henne finish his list :-) 19:36:28 ok 19:36:43 3. they have an inauguration meeting 19:36:55 and the same people afterwards do the work 19:37:21 i think we slipped into 2. without bringing in all people that we need to support the foundation 19:37:48 people that afterwards fill the foundation with life 19:37:58 Actually, I think there's a subset to 1 that has occured which slipped into 2 19:38:03 a.k.a. doing the work 19:38:28 suseROCKs: yes. a bit too far for my taste 19:38:30 what kind of works will be needed? 19:38:47 except what we are already do? 19:38:49 warlordfff: thats something we need to find out in phase 2. 19:38:52 how we can help 19:39:01 henne: you have a good point. I agree that we slipped into 2, which is a point that I have on list to raise 19:39:03 In 1.a. (so to speak) People who have been doing some work didn't communicate with others, and others took the ball without the rest of us knowing and in the end a chaotic and disconnected process that no longer felt like a board initiative 19:39:37 suseROCKs: yeah that too. but thats spilled milk i think... 19:39:56 well the trouth is that we live in some chaos 19:39:57 sure, but we'd like to not spill milk again henceforth. :-) 19:40:04 I am willing to jump in to help out. 19:40:06 AlanClark: what are you experiences with this? how did this work out for the OSDL for instance? 19:40:51 henne OSDL? 19:40:52 so if I'm understanding henne I think that we need to spin a discussion on what I would call a "governance model" discussion 19:41:35 so let's take this 1a. turn into an action item to have a longer discussion. 19:41:50 and walk through this. 19:42:25 warlordfff: use the force (google) ;) 19:42:29 warlordfff, opensourcedevelopmentlabs (alan's earlier venture) 19:42:42 AlanClark: you mean now? 19:42:45 sooory 19:42:48 I believe that discussion will help close the issue and make sure we've got everybody involved 19:43:13 that sounds like we should discuss what the functions of the foundation will be 19:43:17 not now. Create a separate thread or IRC meeting 19:43:45 as I think governance is a topic for the community as a whole, not neccessarily bound to the foundation 19:44:18 for the community as a whole? 19:44:37 well isn't the forming of the foundation the next step for the community? 19:44:43 But the foundation effects the community and hennes point is that we need all the relevant stake holders to be part of the communication 19:45:03 thats true 19:45:14 let's be careful not to distract from the very specific point of this discussion which is to ensure that the process of creating the foundation is in fact open and transparent. Broader issues of governance should most certainly be discussed, but in a different context from this one. 19:45:35 suseROCKs: right, sorry for disturbing 19:46:00 so who are the relevant stake holders? 19:46:09 how do we identify that? 19:46:31 warlordfff, That is the current step. :-) The issue is how to be aware of who is doing what and why and that we all can speak our support/concerns easily. 19:46:48 not to start a fight, but you do me true open and transparent, not the current white house calls open transparent 19:47:12 :-) 19:47:29 suseROCKs we are at the same page 19:47:34 ok I think we all got the point now. And I think we should address the question of henne's.... "Who are the stake holders" 19:47:51 henne: as always: pick people who are interested, willing to do work and maybe have experience already 19:47:52 +1 19:48:26 but need to be seperated in sectors of inderest 19:48:39 Stakeholders are those who have an interest and or will be effect by this. 19:48:39 the people 19:49:04 AlanClark what kind of interest? 19:49:28 * lupinstein raise his hand to help out 19:49:36 If the board controls the funds - those who want $$ 19:49:55 If hte board controls the trademark - those who want to use the trademark 19:50:47 And if Novell doesn't plan to give the trademark ownership outright, then --- Those who own the trademark :-) 19:50:54 what about those who haven't any of those interests? 19:51:22 suseROCKS: your question is off base 19:51:24 but care and are willing to work and be a part of it? 19:52:12 warlordfff, that depends on what the community considers the role of the foundation to be. At this point in time, funding and trademark are definite roles we wish to exercise. Other roles are not so clear yet and the community needs to speak up what it wants the Foundation to do. Ex. community governance 19:52:41 these are all good questions and points. My recommendation is that we setup a date/time outside of this meeting, so that we can get on with the agenda, to work this. 19:52:59 ok,I agree 19:53:01 well. we also want to transfer all the "interests" the current board has to the foundation 19:53:39 AlanClark: okay but that leaves the question where 19:53:43 and with whom 19:53:55 Is there a separate, periodic private meeting for the board members ? 19:53:56 henne +1 19:54:01 so give the action item to set the discussion and to return to the board with a result 19:54:04 psankar: no 19:54:14 henne, hmm okay. thanks. 19:54:18 typo - so give me the ... 19:54:18 open meetings here in the channel along with a foundation mailing list? or use existing mailing list (e.g. -project ML?) 19:54:51 typo - so give me the action item to setup the discussion and return to the next board meeting iwth a result 19:55:10 anyway you decide to make it ,it has to be PUBLIC 19:55:22 right we do it this channel 19:55:41 hm 19:55:42 AlanClark: what would be a result to come back with? 19:55:51 a list of people interested? 19:55:52 project m-l is prone to too much of noise. I ebleive the board members are enough representatives for the community. so involving them alone is sufficient (imho :) ) and the results can be announced in project instead of discussing in public 19:56:11 or a different channel - we just need to publish the where / when 19:56:17 psankar: that is exactly what we are trying to get out of 19:56:21 dragotin a list of people interested is not enough I believe 19:56:32 psankar: because the board isnt the only stakeholder 19:56:35 henne, hm okay 19:56:56 psankar, avoiding project may be good, especially as the discussions grow more technical. But keeping it within the board isn't helpful. That prevents transparency. Especially when there will be more than just the board involved 19:56:58 warlordfff: thats why I am asking 19:57:03 psankar I dissagre with that 19:57:15 suseROCKs, okay 19:57:37 warlordfff, :) 19:57:53 why not set up a -foundation ml and invite all people interested in the discussion there? 19:58:12 we'll certainly be very involved, and hopefully you trust our leadership as we shape the direction of discussion and implementation. 19:58:13 dragotin +1000 19:58:19 yeah i think ml is better then IRC 19:58:26 sure, it is 19:58:48 its archived, none-realtime, easier to deal with 19:59:08 especially with all the different timezones 19:59:10 yes I believe a ML is a great idea 19:59:18 henne: for a discussion yes, but how find out the result? 19:59:37 results of? 19:59:37 i'm sure HeliosReds would agree if he would be awake 8) 19:59:41 gnokii from the whole discution 19:59:45 there needs to be a good moderation, ie. summarizing regularly, asking people for discussion discipline and such 20:00:16 dragotin: agree 20:00:16 wikipage for the results and updates? 20:00:17 as we have to make sure to make progress and constructive discussions 20:00:27 CarlosRibeiro: good idea 20:00:29 dragotin I agree too 20:00:44 I fear we're still not addressing the real issues of transparency breakdown 20:00:44 I like the idea of posting updates and results to a wiki page 20:00:58 CarlosRibeiro: yes a write protected one 20:01:13 gnokii +1 20:01:26 only one writes 20:01:33 why would it be write protected? 20:01:37 sure we have a wiki page, and mailing list that's archived and all that jazz and its just great. But the problem we've had is when we hand off a task and we don't know what's going on after that. For a loooong time. 20:01:40 you can trace any change to a wiki page... 20:01:53 so that someone writes the conclutions 20:01:57 this is where the transparency broke. 20:02:02 we might also need to actively invite people to the list, as some of experienced people already have given up on that topic 20:02:04 suseROCKs: you mean in the past? 20:02:11 henne: because I can watch th discussion on the ML or on the Wiki if u open it u have to watch both 20:02:21 so we should kind of relaunch the discussion (carefully ;-) 20:02:27 correct henne and what we're proposing now doesn't alleviate what happened from not happening again 20:03:10 ?? 20:03:11 suseROCKs: can you maybe elaborate on that a bit? 20:03:21 suseROCKs: which handed off tasks are you talking about? 20:03:36 suseROCKs: talking to "novell"? 20:03:37 as we are saying now that we are all partners in this, all partners (or stake holders) should be actively part of the communication. No more closed door stuff 20:03:53 henne, yes 20:04:22 +1 20:04:26 yes i have to agree. this whole thing needs to happen from now on on whatever medium we decide here today 20:04:37 and nowhere else 20:05:14 +1 20:05:24 but i don't think anyone is in disagreement about that... 20:05:32 right? 20:05:36 correct 20:05:51 alan raises his hand 20:05:58 I don't either. My point is not whether we agree on that. but whether the mehanisms we are proposing today will ensure that 20:06:00 I'm typing a long note 20:06:09 AlanClark: is that an aye or a nay? ;) 20:06:23 it's a we need to clarify... 20:06:29 k 20:06:42 please go ahead 20:08:50 I'm not sure what is being referred to with "closed door stuff". But let me make a clear point. I agree that the communication from the stake holders should in the open and clear. Novell is a stakeholder for example. Inside Novell there are many voices. There will be many different discussion,arguments, etc. inside Novell. 20:08:55 still typing... 20:09:21 What the community needs to see is not those voices but a clear statement from the stakeholder. 20:11:00 AlanClark: and the problem is that this has not worked very good so far 20:11:07 Well I am personally more concerned about the community part 20:11:09 thats why people here bring it up 20:11:32 yes, the statements from the Novell stakeholder are one part 20:11:52 Which why I raise, and Markus has asked me to help make sure that Novell is speaking with a open clear voice 20:11:53 but there is more: as the foundation is there to support the community 20:12:11 there is a lot to discuss/decide within the community 20:12:24 I think here's where we need to identify. Clear statements from any stakeholder is important, indeed. But we also want us all involved together in the thought process, because in the end, that is what will build true consensus. Rather than political jockeying or what-have-you 20:12:42 suseROCKS: Alan agrees 20:12:50 dragotin and vice versa 20:13:45 ok here's a proposal from me... 20:14:25 we've all stated our case here, and really in a nutshell, we all pretty much seem to agree on the same points. We're just wondering how to get from here to there. Let's just take a step back and let our minds work and at the next meeting, we'll have a definite answer to it all. 20:14:51 uhm to what all? 20:14:56 you've lost me 20:15:02 I don't think a meeting is enough 20:15:17 I am lost too a bit 20:15:44 AlanClark expresses his desire to also keep the process open. He also has to ensure that the statements from his stakeholder (Novell) is clear. Those two don't always mesh that well easily 20:15:46 I also think that part of the point here is that we, as a board, are going to have to proactively seek out community members input and thoughts 20:16:03 give him a chance to mull it over and come up with a solution for his interested party 20:16:14 warlordfff: so.. because this... In my opinion we need to have wikipage and ML working asap 20:16:37 CarlosRibeiro +1000 already ;-) 20:16:53 okay so what, except waiting for the next meeting, are we going to do now? 20:17:10 open presents :-) 20:17:29 wikipage and ML as we already said? 20:17:39 and agreed 20:17:42 ???? 20:17:45 the community should get their needs/concerns documented in bullets, after discussioin in the mailling list ? 20:17:47 good to do now or open to volunters to make sure some was done before next meeting 20:17:50 that's easy enough to do 20:18:15 but the questions and issues need to be broken down into directed topics 20:18:25 yes 20:18:28 ok 20:18:33 so henne let me propose this: 20:18:34 so we need to organize. 20:18:56 henne +1 20:19:32 let me start some on the wiki page. 20:19:55 2. We have the board review it, briefly 20:20:55 3. We then send out a post to the relevant stake holders, etc. with directed questions (generated from the #2) 20:21:36 4. at the subsequent board meeting we review the progress of steps 2 and 3 20:21:40 and how do we know who the relevant stakeholders are? :) 20:21:42 meeting(s) 20:22:03 I think that it will become evident as we talk through the pieces 20:22:16 okay 20:22:24 henne, we post widely and broadly the community. People who feel they have a stake will speak up. Those who don't won't. :-) 20:22:30 can we have everybody review it? 20:22:41 and the wiki is readable so if we miss somebody they can jump in 20:22:59 henne: +1, and also everybody have input on it 20:23:02 What about role of the communityon all that? 20:23:14 What about role of the community on all that? 20:23:25 we are the community 20:23:27 we can have everybody review it. i was believing the board could look first to save people time 20:23:29 warlordfff, I think that was already stated. Isn't community a stake holder? 20:23:37 oh 20:23:40 ok 20:23:59 kindo of like a code review ;-) 20:24:02 the community are all stakeholders together... 20:24:03 although I am a bit olst here 20:24:19 I was going to say henne the same thing 20:24:36 yes all are stake holders but not all care about all issues 20:24:51 I agree with that 20:24:54 but that was the issue the last 90 minutes: the missing transparency and if again "the board" reviews, its still not there imo 20:25:12 sorry that I have to say that 20:25:13 so let AlanClark work on the wiki page 20:25:18 I'm not saying that they do it in isolation 20:25:27 in the meanwhile i setup opensuse-foundatio@opensuse.org 20:25:37 and announce it 20:25:44 it's missing an n 20:25:48 and once AlanClark has finished we review it on that list 20:25:53 foundation 20:25:55 dragotin, it'll be on the wiki which isn't private anyway. and with history, you can see what was put in there 20:25:56 good, so the discussion that you, alan, use as an important input, happens on @foundation? 20:27:07 i think this would be the right direction to get all stakeholders that care together 20:27:22 I'm happy with it 20:27:24 henne: should the address be this opensuse-foundation@opensuse.org? 20:27:30 I hope you do not see me as a trouble maker, all I want to avoid is that there forms another group outperforming us and be quicker in founding a foundation ;-/ 20:27:33 if it all happens in the ML I totally agree 20:27:39 and not opensuse-foundatio@opensuse.org? 20:27:55 lupinstein: yes of course. simple type 20:27:57 typo 20:28:02 dragotin: I don't see you as a trouble maker 20:28:09 hah! he typo'ed typo :-D 20:28:13 np, sorry was just checking 20:28:19 I just don't want people to see us as spamming them 20:28:20 dragotin I am with you on that 20:28:35 with every little change in the wiki 20:28:39 AlanClark: as we all agree this is the most important issue at the moment 20:28:44 AlanClark: we can spam a bit :) 20:28:51 hahaha 20:29:12 I can see my new title in 2 months "King of Spam" 20:29:17 haha 20:29:27 you'd be rich! 20:29:33 The sash is already at the tailor's being made up 20:29:39 living in nigeria 20:29:47 you have to come from the Greek channel to speak about spamming 20:30:11 okay so are we in agreement now? 20:30:25 I think so, let me summarize 20:30:35 1. Alan is going to create a wiki page 20:31:17 2. Alan will then announce the new content on the page, with some directed request for review from those who susbcribe to @foundation 20:31:49 3. We then report updates and progress at subsequent board meetings 20:32:08 did i miss anythng? 20:32:26 discussing on @foundation 20:32:39 that was numbe 2 20:32:54 2a 20:32:56 henne me too I don't understand not @opensuse instead of @foundation 20:33:00 hehe. fine with me :) 20:33:40 CarlosRibeiro: sorry I don't understand. why not on the project list? 20:33:41 4. Send a Geeko plush for Christmas to everyone o:-) 20:33:50 @foundation is opensuse-foundation@opensuse.org 20:33:54 * AlbertoP hides 20:34:14 prusnak: thanks I got 20:34:44 AlbertoP +1255 20:34:46 AlbertoP: I rather have a openSUSE Hoodie Sweatshirt 20:34:57 okay then we have a couple of action items 20:35:16 #action AlanClark write an initial foundation process wiki page 20:35:32 #action henne create opensuse-foundation@opensuse.org and announce its purpose 20:35:54 lupinstein: sell the plush then...they are as rare as diamonds :P 20:36:08 AlbertoP: pls! 20:36:15 dragotin: you also said we need to invite specific people. can you identify them please :) 20:37:16 henne: sure 20:37:18 or anyone else that thinks he knows someone who should be on opensuse-foundation 20:38:31 I think we should have some of the ambassadors there 20:38:59 we aren't board members but we should have a say since we go around for opensuse 20:39:01 I have a list. Do you want it now? 20:39:19 henne: 2c -> the less the better at this point... 20:39:19 aka a list in my head 20:39:42