Oversight Board/2009/Meeting Log-2009-11-06


 *   #startmeeting
 *   Meeting started at 10:01 UTC. The chair is walterbender.
 *   Commands Available: #TOPIC, #IDEA, #ACTION, #AGREED, #LINK
 *  walterbender: don't forget I am only there 3 nights so upgrade to double room might not work either
 *   Welcome everyone


 * SeanDaly	is here :-)
 *   I'd like to start by asking if there were any additional topics people want to add the agenda.


 * SeanDaly	no
 *   The three topics outstanding are: mailing lists, positions, and dp
 *   let's get started on the first topic.
 *   #topic the SLOBs mailing list
 *   I had sent a note to IAEP regarding the ad hoc nature of the membership of the list
 *   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.
 *   IMHO (not so humble, perhaps) we should be using it rarely, only for the most confidential matters, which suggests a very tightly controlled list.
 *  at the same time, I believe there is a need for a confidential list when discussing potential partners
 *   so I would propose it be ONLY board members, out ombudsman, and a representaive of SFC.


 * _bernie	waves
 *   SeanDaly: I agree. and we can invite people into discussions on an as needed basis.

-->|	jsgotangco (n=JSG@ubuntu/member/jsgotangco) has joined #sugar-meeting
 *   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
 *  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
 *   I am simple-minded. I would like really needs to be private and everything else as my two options.
 *   the gray zone is a problem for me.

|<--	jsgotangco has left freenode (Client Quit) -->|	CanoeBerry (i=CanoeBer@dhcp-49-129.media.mit.edu) has joined #sugar-meeting
 *  walterbender: have you considered variations on a mailing list which are still email-friendly but which might offer more flexibility?
 *   m_stone: can you please elaborate?
 *  Hiya, sorry I'm late.
 *   m_stone: bernie has a schema where by the list can be wite-only to the community...
 *   hi adam
 *  sure. some issue trackers like RT and Roundup have good email support.
 *  If anybody has a pastebin of the past 10 min?
 *  so some people use them like funny mailing lists -- they collect email from anyone who wants to send it.
 *   CanoeBerry: http://pastebin.be/21779


 * SeanDaly	waves to CanoeBerry
 *  however, subsequent distribution is controlled on a per-thread basis
 *   m_stone: I think collecting the input from anyone is important
 * <_bernie> CanoeBerry: http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/sugar-meeting.log.20091106_1001.html
 *  walterbender: sure. you can configure it so that anyone can send.
 *   m_stone: yes. Bernie confirmed this
 *  walterbender: you then provide several mail aliases for each group of people you want to distinguish as recipients.
 * <_bernie> walterbender: I can change it now
 *   _bernie: let's wait until we get the whole matter decided.
 *  walterbender: and you can add and remove them from per-ticket CC lists as needed.
 *   m_stone: I still think having a list that is known to be small and private is the heart of the issue.
 *  walterbender: known to be private over what period of time?

|<--	FranXOphonie has left freenode (Read error: 145 (Connection timed out))
 *  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?
 *   m_stone: private always.

-->|	bertf (n=bertf@p57AD24C1.dip0.t-ipconnect.de) has joined #sugar-meeting
 *  Who has long-term access to the archives? All futures board members and all future ombuds?
 *  The independence of an ombuds is his/her strength, so we may want to think a bit.
 *   CanoeBerry: I think that would have to be the case.
 *   In any case, we seem to be talking about implementation details, not the basic quesiton.

-->|	lucian (n=lucian@77-98-240-65.cable.ubr09.newc.blueyonder.co.uk) has joined #sugar-meeting
 *   Is there any one opposed to the idea of a limited list?
 *   walterbender: I'm not sure yet
 * <CanoeBerry> bertf: any recommendations?
 *   cjb: please voice your concerns
 *   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
 *   Hey all, sorry I'm late - plane *just* touched down (I'm still sitting in it). /me reads backlog
 *   cjb: consider also the email not sent to slobs, but as private threads
 *   in particular, we talk about things like grants quite a lot on slobs
 *   CanoeBerry: I'm fine either way. I personally don't need archive access.
 *   walterbender: but I can only think of one or maybe two private threads this year
 *   walterbender: so I wouldn't optimize for those.
 * <SeanDaly> cjb: some mails I don't send to slobs, so confidential I send privately
 * <m_stone> cjb: only one or two private threads or only one or two private threads that you've been included on? :)
 *   SeanDaly: to me? I don't think I've received any from you.
 *   SeanDaly: so it seems like this change wouldn't affect that.
 *   cjb: in fact, one problem with the private emails is that don't tend to reach all of the board.
 * <SeanDaly> cjb: no not you yet... but in fact i would rather you did
 *   I send private email when I would rather send a message to the entire board
 * <SeanDaly> walterbender: +1
 *   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.
 *   but I don't always remember to do the 7 ccs and I always forget to include Bert
 *   and Karen
 *   s/by typing/but typing/
 *   fwiw I don't think the ombuds needs to be "kept in the loop" all that much, rather act when necessary
 * <CanoeBerry> walter's point that emails will end up in private threads without the (added) transparency of archiving is very relevant.


 * mchua	all caught up now
 * <CanoeBerry> bertf: thanks
 *   In any case, the SLOBs list as it stands is essentially useless.
 *   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.
 * <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
 *   anyway, what I was going to say: we currently use slobs for things like talking about grants and stuff
 *   and people who we've admitted to the list get to read that, offer their help with drafts and proofreading and so on
 *   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.
 *   sorry, I'm late
 * <SeanDaly> cjb: observer status... was my case starting from some point although I felt uncomfortable responding, as a nonSLOB at the time
 *   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.
 * <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
 * <_bernie> cjb: at this time we can freely discuss our relationship with Canonical on SLOBs just because nobody from Canonical is subscribed.
 * <m_stone> CanoeBerry: that was somebody else's suggestion.
 * <_bernie> cjb: would you agree that we'd have to use private cc's if Canonical were reading our board list?

-->|	sdziallas (n=sebastia@fedora/sdziallas) has joined #sugar-meeting
 * SeanDaly	waves to sdziallas
 *   _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."


 * sdziallas	waves to SeanDaly an all
 *   s/an/and ...sorry, I'm late.
 * <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...
 * <SeanDaly> cjb: I guess you mean "you" as "Canonical" and not the person ;-)
 *   SeanDaly: :)
 *   indeed
 * <m_stone> and still orthogonal from controlling the actual audience of these threads /and/ from controlling their archiving status.
 *   although both are possible!
 *   cjb: but we have folks from Red Hat and OLPC on SLOBs; what if we'd want to discuss the relationship with them?
 * <_bernie> cjb: then why do we admit people from OLPC, Red Hat, Solution Grove... even L'Oreal? :-)
 *   mchua: then a private thread would be fine. note that *I'm* on SLOBs, which means that mailing list would not be appropriate either!
 *   Personally, I am comfortable talking to board members, regardless for whom they work
 * <SeanDaly> mchua: wouldn't that board member have a role as relay to their org?
 *   you'd have to use a private receipient list in either case
 *   they have a responsibility as a board member to SL, not their employer.
 * <_bernie> walterbender: me too
 *   if they feel conflicted, they can opt out
 *   walterbender: +1
 *   that's fine too.
 *   when a board member act otherwise, they are viloating a trust
 * <CanoeBerry> great discussion..just a time check en route: meeting is half over/half begun :)
 *   anyway, I hope that was all some food for thought.
 *   I think if the situation was like m_stone suggests, where we had some way of compensating for the decreased visibility of slobs work
 *   cjb: so would you like to defer action on this topic for a week?
 *   then I'd be happy about this proposal
 *   walterbender: that would be great
 * <SeanDaly> here's a concrete example: we have been contacted by an EU institution willing to promote Sugar
 *   I'll try and be more coherent about itby next week
 *   cjb: so can I nominate you to make a proposal for next week?
 * <SeanDaly> Having lived in Brussels I know that as soon as word gets out, the high-pais lobbyists get into action
 *   walterbender: yes, that sounds fair
 *   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?
 *   SeanDaly: I think we could use some clarity on if/when slobs@ gets to hear about that
 *   #action cjb will propose a SLOBs list configuration at the next meeting
 * <SeanDaly> I'd like the board to be on board with our approach
 * <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.
 * <SeanDaly> no meeting set yet, but
 * <SeanDaly> after meeting there will be topics to discuss...


 * mchua	suggests the usual "get community brainstorm going" approach for SLOBs list configurations
 *   So, I think we should move on to the next topic
 *   mchua: that would be useful
 *   cjb: use the page tomeu and I made as a template if it helps
 *   we have an action plan re mailing lists


 * mchua	ready to move on
 *   #topic SL appointments


 * 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
 * <SeanDaly> mchua: which list? (joke) :D
 * <CanoeBerry> mchua: "Listening" to people live helps me personally.
 *   Summary: we have a number of appointed positions and no policy re how to continue the appointments
 *   Any proposals on such that we can vote on?
 * <SeanDaly> walterbender: fixed terms, and vote by board to renew term or not?
 *   If not, suggest we assign point person(s) like we just did for lists and regroup when there are proposals to select from
 * <CanoeBerry> Not that term limits are required (I don't know) but we should have an annual review or such.
 *   should we ask other orgs about their experience?
 * <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.
 * <CanoeBerry> Yes
 * <SeanDaly> "canonical" example: FDR in office 34 years, led to 2-term limit

-->|	erickTutorius (n=erick@132.210.76.198) has joined #sugar-meeting
 *   34 years?
 *   in a parallel universe, perhaps :)
 * <CanoeBerry> I haven't heard much from Farning in the last 2 weeks about the treasurer role.. does he wish to continue?
 * <CanoeBerry> Was someone supposed to talk this over with him?
 * <SeanDaly> I must be mixed up with 1934... he did 3 terms and change
 *   I was late in getting in touch with him
 *   I can sort things out in Bolzano with him.
 * <CanoeBerry> Great.
 *   No one was tasked with talking to me re ED :)
 * <SeanDaly> walterbender: I didn't see his dates on the Bolzano page, hope he will be there
 * <CanoeBerry> And http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Oversight_Board specifies "sysadmin" is a 4th role.
 *   He is there all week, I believe
 *   CanoeBerry: that doesn't seem necessary anymore
 *   SeanDaly: BTW, I am staying at the hostel
 * <SeanDaly> walterbender: ok, if they don't have tomato juice there pop over to the hotel bar :D
 * <CanoeBerry> hostel has no wifi FYI
 *   SeanDaly: yes, he's coming
 *   CanoeBerry: :(
 *   so regarding actions on this topic...
 * <CanoeBerry> They won't even allow us to plug into the wall.
 *   we have 2 issues: the policy and filling the roles
 *   can we focus on the policy first
 *   CanoeBerry: maybe you can catch up some sleep while there ;)
 * <SeanDaly> canoeberry: my hotel has free wifi & if my 3G card roams at a decent rate I can loan
 *   personally, I think an annual review is a necessary requirement
 * <CanoeBerry> SeadDaly: Don't get your card canceled!
 * <CanoeBerry> Putting some meat on the annual review would be great.
 * <SeanDaly> canoeberry: no risk
 * <CanoeBerry> I think m_stone & hhardy have helped me & Bert a lot here in the ombuds case.
 *   time running out... what are we trying to accomplish at this meeting? lots of forward momentum here, but no resolutions yet.
 * <CanoeBerry> 15min to go
 *   what is an annual review?
 * <CanoeBerry> Are elections annual, speaking of which?
 *   tomeu: feedback
 *   and who does the review?
 *   CanoeBerry: these are not elected positions: they are appointed by the board
 *   tomeu: the board


 * _bernie	notes that the sysadmin role is starting to become a full-time job. we need more volunteers on the Infrastruture Team.
 *   so I would propose an annyal review and as part of that review a discussion about mutual agreement to continue
 * <CanoeBerry> Understood, but what if the appointed positions where required to report within 1-month of the completion each "annual" election?
 * <m_stone> _bernie: or to be more careful about what demands are placed upon them.
 * <_bernie> finding people who are at the same time skilled, trustworthy and free is a challenge.
 *   _bernie: how is icarito going?
 * <_bernie> m_stone: I've been turning down any request that would make our infrastructure much more complex.
 * <_bernie> m_stone: outsourcing git, trac and business apps to hosted services is my attempt to reduce the burden and increase service reliability.
 * <CanoeBerry> Let's also formalize: how to remove appointed persons (without hurting feelings)
 *   so a concrete proposal would be: appoints are reviewed annually by the board; continuation subject to mutual consent.
 * <_bernie> tomeu: he seems both skilled and trustworthy, but does not seem to have much time. I'll bug him a little more.
 *   ok
 * <_bernie> tomeu: as I said, we need people with all 3 of these requisites AT THE SAME TIME :-(
 *   heh
 *   Folks, this is great, but maybe we should discuss Infra stuff at an Infra meeting.
 * <_bernie> mchua: there's no infrastructure meeting at this time, because it would go mostly deserted :-)
 * <_bernie> anyway, let's go on with the next point. sorry to interrupt.
 * <CanoeBerry> _bernie: can we talk by phone within 48hrs, since you refuse to come to Italy!?
 * <CanoeBerry> Back to the agenda..
 *   Are there any proposals we can vote on during this meeting, since our time is running short?
 * <_bernie> CanoeBerry: haha ok :)
 *   mchua: any thoughts on my proposal
 *   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.
 *   walterbender: I like it, is it a motion? ;)
 * <CanoeBerry> Any thoughts on my defining "annually" as within about 1 month of each election?
 *   mchua: I am happy to make it a motion...


 * 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
 * <CanoeBerry> *within about 1 month of the completion of each election
 *   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)
 *   seconded
 *   discussion?
 * <SeanDaly> fixed date?
 *   "mutual consent" == SLOBs vote, and the position holder's acceptance
 * <CanoeBerry> I think a removal/impeachment process is important.
 * <CanoeBerry> So feelings are not hurt, when someone's life inevitably moves on.
 *   CanoeBerry: maybe that can be a different motion :)
 * <CanoeBerry> OK
 *   how about "appointed positions can be appointed/removed by SLOBs vote"
 *   that takes care of both motions
 * <SeanDaly> mchua: the idea is to have at least some barrier to quickly removing e.g. ombudsman
 *   sounds good. mchua: wanna restate the motion?
 * <CanoeBerry> But not too quickly.
 *   SeanDaly: the barrier's a SLOBs vote
 * <CanoeBerry> Ombuds should not be removable with 4 votes.
 * <CanoeBerry> Ombuds needs independence, by definition.
 *   CanoeBerry: I agree
 *   CanoeBerry: unanimous vote for ombuds, then?
 *   +1
 * <CanoeBerry> Or perhaps a hypermajority.
 * <SeanDaly> CanoeBerry: exactly. Impeachment <> voting somebody out; level of justification higher
 *   someone restate motion?
 *   MOTION: for the special case of removing the ombudsman, a unanimous SLOBs vote is required

-->|	tuukkah (i=tuukka@tuukka.iki.fi) has joined #sugar-meeting
 *   MOTION:appointed positions can be appointed/removed by
 *   SLOBs vote
 *   argh
 *   shall we vote through them now?
 * <CanoeBerry> Can treasurer and ED be removed by 4 votes?
 *   CanoeBerry: treasurer can
 *   ED's a little unclear
 *   speaking as ED, I am willing to be subject to a majority removal from office.
 * <CanoeBerry> OK, we have consensus, let's vote.
 *   that settles that, then :)
 * <CanoeBerry> +1
 * <CanoeBerry> On both motions.
 *   all in favor of the motion(s) which I will write up in the minutes:
 *   likewise, +1 on both
 * <SeanDaly> can someone restate motion??
 *   motion 1: appointed positions can be appointed/removed by
 *   SLOBs vote
 *   motion 2: for the special case of removing the ombudsman, a unanimous SLOBs vote is required
 *   motion 3: positions are reviewed annually
 * <SeanDaly> yea to both then
 * <SeanDaly> yea to all three
 *   within 1 month of elections
 * <CanoeBerry> (with annual reviews required for all appointed positions, subject to majority vote in each case..)
 * <SeanDaly> i would just add that should take place after SLOBS elections not before
 *   oh, yes, we already scheduled that motion


 * walterbender	votes yes to all three
 * <CanoeBerry> +1 on all 3


 * cjb	too.
 *   mchua and _bernie?


 * mchua	yea on all 3
 *   +1 on all 3
 *   bernie?
 *   bernie's going to get a reputation for doing all his voting in e-mail :)
 *   while we are waiting on Bernie (the motion has passed in any case :) let me wrap up:

-->|	BryanWB (n=BryanWB@c-68-48-36-68.hsd1.md.comcast.net) has joined #sugar-meeting
 * <CanoeBerry> Anything else?
 * <CanoeBerry> Time's up..
 *   we haven't heard back from the DP, so that discussion needs to be deferred :(
 * <CanoeBerry> OK
 *   Next meeting's goal: decision on mailing list?
 *   cjb to drive?
 *   let's plan to meet again next week, some time, same channel?
 * <SeanDaly> at Bolzano?
 * '''<--|	BryanWB has left #sugar-meeting ("Ex-Chat")


 * mchua	thinks we're doing pretty well at taking one topic at a time
 *   (I think it will work re the Bolzano agenda for most of us)
 * <CanoeBerry> Next week I may be a bad citizen, but will try my best.


 * mchua	in Singapore and may be also, but will try as well.
 *   In any case you only need 4 for quorum anyway :)
 *   and Bolzano should suffice
 *   if the meeting is done in IRC despite everyone being physically together.
 *   thanks for all the feedback today.
 * <CanoeBerry> I will be traveling back from Europe thru Germany at that time..
 *   mchua: absolutely--in IRC.


 * mchua	queries about next meeting's goal - is "the list thing" it?
 *   forward motion, one concrete little step at a time. :)
 *   mchua: we'll have a proposal from CJB re the list thing
 *   and we'll have a DP report (I hope)
 *   and I think some other topics looming.
 *   so, I will end the meeting... thanks again everyone.
 *   #endmeeting
 *   Meeting finished at 11:05.
 *   Logs available at http://meeting.laptop.org/