Oversight Board/2009/Meeting Log-2009-10-16

From Sugar Labs
Jump to navigation Jump to search
<mchua> We're starting in ~20 min, yes?
<SeanDaly> Yes, on information & belief :-)
  • mchua sets our virtual cookies, lemon squares, and trail mix while we're waiting
<mchua> nom
<bernie> mchua, SeanDaly, CanoeBerry, cjb, tomeu, walterbender:
<bernie> 'morning
<mchua> mornin' bernie!
<cjb> hola
<mchua> Any outgoing SLOBs here to hear us sing their praises? ;)
<SeanDaly> good "morning" all
<mchua> evenin', SeanDaly :)
<mchua> (afternoon?)
<bernie> mchua: are you still in DC, btw?
  • SeanDaly afternoon, sun still up
<tomeu> hi!
<mchua> bernie: For another 2 hours, approximately. Then I am flying to Boston for 1.5 days (family time, already fully booked, alas) and then back to DC.
<mchua> yay, it's a tomeu!
<mchua> it looks like everyone is here, are we just waiting for walterbender to #startmeeting?
<cjb> we might be waiting for a meeting bot, too
<SeanDaly> mchua: if meetbot awake (has been sleepy)
  • mchua willing to be a manual meetbot for this round if needed (take/post logs, grep to create meeting minutes) if it takes more than a few mins to unblock that.
  • SeanDaly for marketing meeting I've just been posting log to marketing list, and linking to that from wiki
<mchua> SeanDaly: I really appreciate that, btw - even if I can't come and chime in myself, I always read the logs
<walterbender> hi. sorry I am late
<walterbender> #startmeeting
<mchua> \o/ it's a Walter!
  • walterbender was busy writing up a proposal for Sugar Labs Pakistan...
  • SeanDaly methinks meetbot blinky blinky still
  • walterbender will just post the log
<walterbender> #topic kudos
<bernie> argh meetbot is down
  • bernie tries to fix it
<walterbender> let the record show that SL greatly appreciates the efforts of our departing board members
<mchua> hear, hear.
<CanoeBerry> Yikes, I'm finally here :)
<CanoeBerry> Hi all.
<mchua> and the efforts of our returning board members as well. :)
<walterbender> thanks for all your efforts to date Dave, Greg, and Marco. We hope you continue your involvement.
<walterbender> mchua: the gluttons for punishment :)
<walterbender> and welcome newbies (Sean, Mel, and Adam)
<CanoeBerry> Aside: my apologies to add a physical meeting does not appear to be happening for those 5 of us in Boston this morning!
<walterbender> not that any of you are really new to all of this.
<CanoeBerry> *all
  • mchua +1 to virtual meetings for transparency-fu anyway ;)
<walterbender> we are a somewhat Boston-centric group at the moment.
<SeanDaly> I want to particularly thank David for his ongoing advice to me as I came up to speed this year
<CanoeBerry> mchua: don't fear atoms :)
<mchua> and similarly, I to Greg
<SeanDaly> and Greg too our discussions at linuxTag very fruitful
<walterbender> I hope we continue to get global participation -- we had some very strong candidates for SLOBs from our various deployments and I hope they will be "shadow" members
<walterbender> and don't forget Mr. Sugar, Marco
<SeanDaly> very pleased to meet Marco at SugarCamp Paris
<walterbender> Hopefully he will have time to jump in again at some point...
<walterbender> so, we have some organizational business to conduct
  • bernie can't fix meetbot :-(
<walterbender> I don't know that we have any specific bylaws regarding certain things, so we will be establishing some precedents now
<walterbender> for example, do we need to reappoint certain SL positions? I am thinking specifically of ombudsman, treasurer, and executive director
<walterbender> we also have to make sure we have SLOBs liaisons to all of the SL teams
  • mchua thinks election time is a good time to reexamine all these positions, even if the people in them continue in their current role
<mchua> it's a nice cycle
<CanoeBerry> Isn't DFarning treasurer for a while going forward?
<walterbender> mchua: I agree
<SeanDaly> yes David said he could continue with that
  • mchua also wonders if we have a firm procedure for what it means for SLOBs to make A Decision (unanimous consent needed? unanimous of those present? majority?)
<walterbender> CanoeBerry: I would recommend that, but we need to decide it
<CanoeBerry> I think DFarning would be great.
<walterbender> mchua: our precedent has been based on a majority of a quorum, but...
<SeanDaly> a good idea to restate formally who fills what position I think
<walterbender> mchua: if we felt it was an important decision, we would solicit votes by email for those not present
<walterbender> SeanDaly: right now, David is our treasurer
<walterbender> and I am ED
<walterbender> and Burt is our ombudsman
<walterbender> David and I are the primary liaisons to the SFC
<CanoeBerry> What work has our ombuds done this past year?
<SeanDaly> Burt=Bert?
<mchua> walterbender: could we put it up to a formal vote (since all of us are here) that +1s from N SLOBs, for some value of N, = decision?
<tomeu> CanoeBerry: he has been involved when he was invoked, a couple of times, I think
<walterbender> CanoeBerry: I am not aware that Bert's services have been needed... but I think it is an important position, nonetheless
<CanoeBerry> Indeed-- I'd love Bert's recommendation.
<SeanDaly> walterbender: agree ombudsman important
<walterbender> mchua: that seems to be important enough that we'd want N = 7 for that vote.
<cjb> well, perhaps we should at least send Bert mail asking if he'd like to continue as ombudsman again this year?
<cjb> walterbender: her point is that we can do that today :)
<mchua> Agreed, how do we deal with absentee/tardy/abstain votes though?
<walterbender> cjb: exactly.
<mchua> +1 to ombudsman continuing, and Bert continuing to fill that role as well if he wants to
<walterbender> mchua: we usually have a deadline to reply.
<tomeu> cjb: would be good to also ask him his opinion on the role itself
<walterbender> tomeu: +1
<cjb> yeah
<CanoeBerry> +1 to Bert as a great guy, but asking his opinion on strengthening a moral vocal ombudsperson role
<tomeu> what about having votes only on IAEP?
<mchua> +1 to votes on IAEP
<tomeu> and in slobs when it is confidential
<bernie> walterbender: I've been acting as an ombudsman a couple of times, but I guess the official position can't be covered a board member.
<walterbender> tomeu, mchua: I am not sure I follow you. This meeting is public and so is its log, so why defer the vote to email?
<walterbender> it just slows things down.
<CanoeBerry> Agreed.
<tomeu> walterbender: because the meeting lasts one hour but having a longer period may help have more quorum
<walterbender> tomeu: so this is for situations when we don't have a quorum?
<mchua> I would say that if we have 7 +1s for something in a SLOBs meeting, it gets posted to IAEP and the decision is done.
<walterbender> can I suggest we have a rules committee to write all of this down somewhere?
<SeanDaly> tomeu: yes, there can be cases where board member wishes to vote one way or another on an issue but cannot attend IRC meeting
  • mchua is happy to be wiki ninja.
<walterbender> and can I nominate Mel and Tomeu?
<tomeu> walterbender: I also like that people have more time to think about their vote
<CanoeBerry> tomeu: good points
<tomeu> ok, we can send a proposal
<walterbender> tomeu: OK. But presumably most of the topics we vote on are things we have already been discussing.
  • mchua proposes SLOBs decision timeout = 7 +1s or 1 week from posting on IAEP, whichever comes first.
<walterbender> can I get a second for my motion so we can vote on it? :)
<tomeu> walterbender: then sounds good, it depends wildly on the circumstances and the matter on vote
<mchua> if the latter, then the decision is a yes if there are at least 4 +1s and no -1's, else it's a no.
<tomeu> mchua: what about urgent matters?
<walterbender> so our rules committee can make a set of proposals we can then vote on...
<tomeu> we also need some agility, as walterbender pointed out
<tomeu> walterbender: sounds good, the subject is just decision making, right?
  • mchua eager to get the "How Do We Declare Something A Decision" stuff out of the way so we can get on with making them
<walterbender> but we could vote today in #sugar-meeting to establish such a committee? Please? :)
<tomeu> the subject of the committee, I mean
<mchua> If we're fine with unanimous consent for now *and* everyone will be here next week and we agree to settle that question then,
<mchua> (howto make a SLOBs decision)
<SeanDaly> walterbender; Aye for me
<mchua> then I second walterbender's motion.
<walterbender> tomeu: well, we have other rules that need sorting out, such as terms of office, etc.
<CanoeBerry> aside: i may need to jet 11:30 EDT in 30min.
<walterbender> OK. all in favor of est. a rule commitee of Mel and Tomeu?
<walterbender> +1
<tomeu> +1
<CanoeBerry> +1
<SeanDaly> +1
<cjb> +1
<walterbender> Opposed?
<mchua> +1
<bernie> +1
<walterbender> Abstain? (well I guess everyone voted.)
<mchua> (er, +1 to the committee, not opposing it.)
<walterbender> The motion passes 6 to 1.
<walterbender> So you guys will present a proposal for a voting structure at the next meeting, please.
<mchua> #action mchua and tomeu to propose voting structure to be (hopefully) approved at next week's meeting
  • SeanDaly suggestion to avoid vote ambiguity of "+1": use "aye" or "nay"
<mchua> SeanDaly: +1
<cjb> aye!
<walterbender> Great. So maybe today, we can only make recommendations for things to vote on.
<bernie> SeanDaly: nay!
<bernie> :)
  • mchua has seen 5 things go by so far in this meeting
<mchua> * What is the process by which a SLOBs decision is made?
<mchua> * What are the things requiring a SLOBs decision?
<mchua> * SLOBs terms
<mchua> * SLOBs election procedures / turnover procedures
<mchua> * Other positions (treasurer, ombudsman, executive director) to fill, ways to fill them, terms
  • mchua notes that we mostly have these set informally, but might just want to solidify them so we don't have to re-figure them out again next time
<walterbender> sounds good to me
<CanoeBerry> If we can address some of Christoph's concerns of Sep 23, for those community folk that don't have time for irc, even better:
<CanoeBerry> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2009-September/008634.html
<walterbender> but we also have some work: contact Bert and Dfarning
<CanoeBerry> I can contact Bert.
<walterbender> (and someone should discuss with me the role of ED)
<mchua> #action CanoeBerry contact Bert re: wishing to continue role as ombudsman
<mchua> walterbender: I can do that.
<mchua> (though I'm not sure why exactly it's needed, but we'll... figure that out.)
<mchua> #action mchua discuss ED role with walterbender
<mchua> and dfarning?
<CanoeBerry> walter: you're not that old -- medical "ED" will affect all of us eventually -- bad joke ;)
  • walterbender will talk with Dfarning
<walterbender> ^#action^
<mchua> #action walterbender contact dfarning re: wishing to continue role as treasurer
  • mchua will grep logs and make meeting minutes from them when walterbender posts 'em to list ;)
<mchua> #action mchua to grep logs and make meeting minutes once said logs get posted to iaep
<mchua> #action walterbender to send meeting log to iaep
<mchua> there.
<tomeu> nice we have a mchua in the meetings!
<walterbender> OK. There are some other topics to discuss while we have everyone here
<mchua> CanoeBerry: re: Christoph's concerns - could we put that on the agenda for either next week or the week after? I think they're important and I'd like to have an efficient operational toolset so we can get through them rapidly when the time comes ;)
  • mchua shuts up and listens to walterbender
<walterbender> One is in regard to the decision panel
<CanoeBerry> mchua: i think it should be considered as rules are set in place -- for those who cannot grok irc
<walterbender> there seem to be two issues: the DP process itself, which some people have been outspoke about and the specifics of this DP
<walterbender> CanoeBerry: say what? all of our "rules" are in the wiki.
<walterbender> CanoeBerry: and all of our meeting logs are also in the wiki
  • mchua is confused - CanoeBerry, what is it that you're suggesting?
  • bernie was in *favor* of the rule commitee (it looked like I was opposed because my +1 came when walterbender had already asked "Opposed?")
<SeanDaly> re the DP process, I think the time-limit issue is worth resolving. Does time limit get set for each DP, or or what?
<CanoeBerry> If I recall, Christoph was asking for a bit more mailing list warning, that's all -- embedding that as a tradition would help.
<walterbender> SeanDaly: I had recommended a two-week window, but it was not ratified.
  • SeanDaly bernie: which is why I thought it was an "nay" not an "aye"
<cjb> SeanDaly: I'd be in favor of just "ask the DP how long they want to think about the problem, and tell them to hurry up if they're taking a long time, and cancel the whole thing if it times out"
<cjb> walterbender: two weeks seemed extremely short to me; I'm glad we didn't force that
<walterbender> cjb: seems reasonable. maybe the rules committee can add that to their list
<bernie> walterbender, CanoeBerry: a simple measure to get the list notified is registering a user IAEP in the wiki and subscribing it to the oversight board pages
<mchua> cjb: do we have a length we want to set for that timeout if they can't decide on one?
<SeanDaly> cjb: it's true there are precedents for fact-finding commissions to take the time they take, but
<SeanDaly> what if it drags on?
<cjb> SeanDaly: hence the timeout
<CanoeBerry> bernie: great ideas
<cjb> mchua: perhaps two months?
<bernie> SeanDaly: +1 or -1 would have worked too... we just need to avoid asking "Opposed?"
<cjb> with the idea being that after one month or so we say "it would be great if you could finish this up now"
<SeanDaly> cjb: or countdown from last message on the DP topic?
<walterbender> cjb: I think your suggestion of asking the DP to set a timeout upfront is a good one.
<cjb> SeanDaly: that's a nice idea, but it's covered by the part where we ask them how much time they want to take
<bernie> CanoeBerry: please do it yourself, I can't access our wiki from home due to a stupid Comcast anti-DoS filter that I triggered last week
<walterbender> we can recommend as well
<cjb> SeanDaly: if they're still going, they can keep telling us how much longer they need, and they won't timeout
<cjb> SeanDaly: the timeout is for no signs of life from the panel
<CanoeBerry> bernie: i will need help, let's discuss later yes
<walterbender> in any case, I think this DP is pretty close to wrapping up
<SeanDaly> cjb: yes, so ping first?
<cjb> SeanDaly: yes, that's what my suggestion was
<SeanDaly> walterbender: in fact as DP member I've not said my word on 2 questions yet, been overbooked and overdosed on SoaS controversy
<mchua> MOTION: that a DP's main contact person be asked to set a timeout date upon convening of the DP, with the default timeout date being 2 months from DP start
<walterbender> we'll need to be prepared to vote on ratifying the decision or forming a new DP if they are deadlocked.
<SeanDaly> walterbender: I agree, need to resolve stalemates & inconclusive results
<walterbender> mchua: DISCUSSION: I think 2 months is way to long for most issues
<CanoeBerry> 1 month?
<mchua> counter-motions welcomed, I'm just trying to get some ratifyin' going here ;)
<walterbender> mchua: most of these things will have been in play for a logn time, hence the need for a DP
<walterbender> I think 2 weeks was pretty reasonable... light a fire... but the DP should decide up front as their first task
<tomeu> won't depend on the issue at hand?
<walterbender> tomeu: yes, which is why I don't think we need to hardwire a number
<CanoeBerry> What about 2+2 weeks, with a mandated checkpoint halfway thru the month?
<tomeu> ok, I agree with that and with asking the DP to decide a timeout as the first thing
<tomeu> weekly status emails may be good
<walterbender> tomeu: +1
<CanoeBerry> +1
  • mchua would actually love to see DPs just be a single IRC meeting with 100% DP member attendance (if you don't show up, you forfeit your seat) and either a consensus decision passed up to SLOBs to ratify or a vote passed up to SLOBs to decide at the end of it
  • mchua is just musing out loud though
<mchua> tomeu: is that a formal motion?
<walterbender> mtd was pressing to get us a status report in time for today's meeting...
<cjb> mchua: the point of the DP, I think, is that some decisions can't be decided in a single IRC meeting, and take research and consensus-finding among the larger group
<SeanDaly> mchua: I disagree, important topics need reasoned arguments, not hurriedly typed ones
<bernie> cjb: wasn't there an idea in the air to scrape the whole DP business?
<bernie> cjb: I'd side with neuralis on this
<tomeu> mchua: sorry, what is a formal motion?
<cjb> bernie: I think I may have ranted something like this once :)
<walterbender> bernie: that was my other topic.
  • bernie is +1 for scraping the DP paragraph from our bylaws
<tomeu> cjb: agree with you on that
<walterbender> bernie: I remain in favor of DPs, if we get the rules sorted out.
<mchua> cjb, SeanDaly: the idea would be that that meeting would be scheduled far enough out (2 weeks, 1 month, etc) that discussion would happen on the lists and such beforehand - that would more or less be "that's what happens on the timeout date"
<mchua> (er, the meeting would happen on the timeout date or before)
<walterbender> I think it is good to have us appoint committees to investigate sticky problems and make recommendations
<cjb> so I guess I'd want to propose a motion for that
<bernie> My rationale: the DP sounds like a nice democratic idea in the beginning, but the very same people who asked the OB to make a decision complained about it
<mchua> tomeu: sorry, I meant is "a DP's first task is to give itself a timeout" a motion?
<SeanDaly> I feel DP structure shouldn't be scrapped; current one is dealing with a vital issue, and other vital issues will appear down the line
<tomeu> mchua: walterbender proposed it first, but yes, I think it would be good if we could agree on that
<cjb> SeanDaly: the fact that a vital issue exists doesn't mean that a DP is the best way to solve it
<cjb> no-one's suggesting leaving vital issues unsolved :)
<walterbender> mchua: can we defer voting on these details until the rules committee makes it recommendations? Then we can fly through a bunch of votes next time.
<cjb> would people like to hear an argument against DPs, or might that take too long?
<tomeu> bernie: so far, the DP seem to have been doing progresses
<mchua> cjb: I would like to hear it.
<cjb> ok
<walterbender> cjb: I would like to hear it.
  • mchua looks at the agenda Walter sent out to make sure we get to cover everything
<SeanDaly> cjb: sure, but we need replacement procedure then; scrap & replace not just scrap I say
<cjb> argument: people vote for SLOBs because they think that SLOBs have spent and will spend a lot of time thinking about what's a sensible future for SL
<walterbender> mchua: we are OK.
<cjb> the current DP process makes those people unable to assist in doing any of that
<cjb> and leaves the most important decisions up to whoever volunteers to be on a mailing list
<walterbender> cjb: maybe we should let SLOBs member be on DPs?
<tomeu> hmm, I thought slobs were voted by their dedication, not by their capacity to solve all SLs issues
<cjb> I think it's precisely backwards, and that what the community would want is for their SLOBs to be a calm and strong voice in shaping strategy
<walterbender> cjb: but SLOBs members can certainly voice their opinions to DPs
<CanoeBerry> ombuds role fits in here too..
<tomeu> pushing an issue forward doesn't need to mean that you are going to do all the work
<cjb> tomeu: I think what I just described *is* a function of dedication
<cjb> SeanDaly: I agree totally that we would need a replacement mechanism, just to make that clear.
<walterbender> cjb: and I don't think SLOBs has all the breadth of knowledge for all of our issues.
<walterbender> cjb: I think that DPs should
<cjb> walterbender: but neither do the people on the DP, necessarily
<SeanDaly> cjb: I agree DP self-selection could be improved
<mchua> I think that if SLOBs does not have the breadth of knowledge that it needs, it can ask for advice on those issues, but still make the final decision.
<walterbender> cjb: that is our fault if the DP is not adeqaute
<walterbender> cjb: we appoint the DP.
<cjb> the DP isn't that much bigger than SLOBs. In the case of this DP, I think for example Caroline isn't on it
<cjb> yet she's very involved in the result. So I think in both cases, the DP has to go out and talk to people
<mchua> There is a difference between responsibility to do the work to get the expertise that's needed, and accountability in terms of who's accountable for the results of the final decision.
<cjb> whether it's staffed by SLOBs or by volunteer not-SLOBs
<walterbender> mchua: that is what the DP does, essentially. We have to ratify the decision
<cjb> mchua: right, agree
<tomeu> cjb: well, but if the slobs decide that for reaching the best conclusions, people better informed need to get involved, isn't that the same as creating a DP?
<tomeu> only that DPs are formally defined
<cjb> tomeu: no, because the SLOBs are forbidden from taking part
<mchua> Right. So in effect, SLOBs /makes/ the final decision - the DP is proposing options for that decision, yes?
<tomeu> cjb: ok, that I also find debatable
<cjb> mchua: I don't think anyone's said that the output of the DP is a set of options
<cjb> mchua: I think it's a recommendation
<cjb> that SLOBs can either adopt or reject
<tomeu> cjb: though I think everyone can present their opinions to the DP?
<mchua> Ok - but what that means to me is that the DP says "we think X should be the case," and SLOBs decides yes or no (usually yes, one would hope).
<CanoeBerry> I'm learning a lot -- while sentimentally I favor some DP independence.
<walterbender> cjb: maybe need to conscript people for the DP... but I don't think anyone has been left out from expressing their opinion
<cjb> tomeu: that's a little unclear; the rules make it clear that SLOBs shouldn't be involved in the DP
<cjb> walterbender: yes, but your point was stronger -- you said the need for the DP was for everyone involved to be on it, which is why it shouldn't be SLOBs
<walterbender> cjb: not members, but not uninvolved, as far as giving input.
<cjb> walterbender: now you're saying that it's okay if everyone gets to present their opinion
<cjb> walterbender: but they'd have that if SLOBs were making the decision
<cjb> walterbender: so there's no difference.
<tomeu> cjb: hmm, I think all decisions should have road community participation, I see the DP as helping the SLOBs when the waters are too muddied
<tomeu> s/road/broad
<mchua> Here's my question: if *any* member of SL can submit a proposal to SLOBs for a vote, why do we need DPs?
<walterbender> cjb: I think the bug may be barring SLOBs from membership on DPs, not the DP mechanism itself
<mchua> Aren't they just collections of SL members who are submitting a request for a SLOBs vote together?
<walterbender> DPs should be the best people for making the decision, whereever they come from
<--| dsd_ has left #sugar-meeting
<walterbender> the barring of SLOBs members was a safe-guard that is probably more extreme than we need
<CanoeBerry> walterbender: strong point
<SeanDaly> walterbender: more like recommending a decision, no? SLOBs make final decision?
<tomeu> mchua: well, some questions are very hard to answer because too many related aspects are not clear
<cjb> SeanDaly: right
<tomeu> mchua: I see the DP as helping SLOBs clear up the situation
<mchua> walterbender: What scenario do you envision that would happen without DPs that we would not want to have?
<mchua> tomeu: I see SL members as being able to do that regardless of whether or not they're on DPs - DPs just add extra overhead.
<walterbender> mchua: I don't understand the question
<tomeu> mchua: yes, the DP is the formalization of something that will exist anyway
<mchua> walterbender: "what horrible thing will happen if we don't have the formal notion of DPs?"
<tomeu> mchua: like creating teams and appointing leaders can be a strong means, DP is just like that but for a transient subject
<CanoeBerry> mchua: like an ombuds, some fresh air coming into decisionmaking seem very useful
<walterbender> tomeu, mchua DPs give us a mechanism. and they explicitly tell the community that there is a mechanism
<cjb> walterbender: that doesn't say anything about DPs, it just says sometihng about mechanisms
  • mchua notes that we are almost out of time this week unless folks want to extend the meeting time
<cjb> "SLOBs will decide with a vote" is also a mechanism
<cjb> and we can also tell the community that it's a mechanism
<tomeu> the ombudsman figure could also exist informally, but we see some advantages in having a formal role
  • mchua would either like to give DPs the power to make decisions *without* SLOBs ratification, or scrap DPs altogether
<tomeu> same with the DPs
<mchua> because right now what DPs are is "gather evidence for SLOBs to make a decision" and that can be done - and is being done - outside of the DP itself
<walterbender> tomeu: good point.
<walterbender> mchua: Why do you want to skip the step of SLOBs ratification? I think it is very important
<bernie> mchua: +1
<cjb> mchua: I think I'm with you
<cjb> mchua: I'd also want to remove the SLOBs limitation on the DP, if we gave them decision making power
<tomeu> I'm not sure if slobs can defer responsibility in such a way
<mchua> walterbender: Because if we trust the community to make a decision via DPs, we should just grant them that power outright.
<SeanDaly> I wouldn't rush into scrapping DPs until the current one has completed its work, and the SLOBs have taken the recommendations
<cjb> tomeu: we can appoint Executive Directors, but we can't let other people have any authority? ;-)
<mchua> walterbender: rather than saying, in effect, "We trust you to make a decision but reserve the right to say no just in case we don't like it."
<cjb> tomeu: of course we can defer it
<walterbender> mchua: (1) I think that the process of gathering information was much more focused once we est. the DP. (thanks in large part to mtd)
<CanoeBerry> SeanDaly: +1
<tomeu> cjb: the ED is not for taking such decisions, AFAIK
<cjb> SeanDaly: yes -- I would agree that this isn't retroactive
<bernie> cjb: we need to be careful how we tweak the DP rules as we might very well make it fall into an undemocratic system where decisions are made by people who have not been elected directly or indirectly.
<mchua> MOTION: extend meeting time 10min to finish DP discussion, line up work for the next week, and wrap up
<cjb> mchua: or perhaps extend meeting 10min for any other business, think about DPs over the next week and continue then
<walterbender> (2) I think the buck has to stop with the SLOBs, the community elected comittee, hence the need for ratiifcation
<cjb> if this was our last agenda item, then your motion is better
<cjb> but I don't know that it was
<bernie> I'd like to discuss Overseers too
<bernie> do we have time?
<tomeu> if we continue next week with DPs, which is the next item in the agenda?
<walterbender> I would like to talk Trademark policy too, but this is a long discussion
<mchua> MOTION: make DPs final agenda item for today; have everyone list agenda items they'd like SLOBs to get through at Some Point on the wiki so we can pick a few each week to go through
<bernie> following the election, I should be subscribing and unsubscribing people to the slobs list... so we need to decide how we pick Observers
<mchua> (that would include Overseers, Trademark, etc)
<walterbender> bernie: I added mel and adam yesterday, but did not remove anyine
<cjb> mchua: since we can easily talk about DPs for more than ten minutes, not sure how much it helps to spend the extra time on that
<walterbender> cjb: I agree.
<cjb> maybe that's an argument that we should just finish up now :)
<walterbender> can we set the date for the next meeting?
<mchua> MOTION: Meeting hard stop in 6 minutes
<cjb> but I'm curious to know if there was anything else that it makes sense to deal with today
<cjb> mchua: +1
  • mchua wants to get in the habit of doing these efficiently
<walterbender> I am in Peru next Friday... not sure if I will be on-line.
<CanoeBerry> (5) general goal-setting
<CanoeBerry> for the year.
<CanoeBerry> (from Walter's agenda)
<bernie> CanoeBerry: that's a good one
<mchua> I don't think we have time right now.
<walterbender> Can we meet in 2 weeks, 14 UTC?
<bernie> CanoeBerry: too good for today
<mchua> CanoeBerry: Can we start that as a thread in IAEP?
<CanoeBerry> Great.
<bernie> walterbender: why not next week?
<walterbender> with the first order of business a report from the Rules Committee?
<cjb> bernie: he just said he'll be in Peru
<bernie> walterbender: ah ok I see... you're in peru
<mchua> walterbender: I think that until we hit our stride in terms of efficiently getting through meetings, we should try to meet as frequently as possible.
<mchua> I think for most of us that's probably weekly.
<CanoeBerry> mchua: +1
<walterbender> bernie: let's try for next week, but if I cannot get on line, I'll let people know on Thursday evening, some how
<cjb> perhaps meet on a non-friday day next week?
<tomeu> +1 to start threads in IAEP about the pending issues
<walterbender> cjb: I leave on Wednesday...
<mchua> MOTION: set 2 weeks from today, 14 UTC as a future meeting date
<bernie> walterbender: +1
<SeanDaly> walterbender: OK for pencilled-in Friday 1400 UTC
<walterbender> DISCUSSION: 1 week from today with a possible deferment
<walterbender> if I cannot get online
<CanoeBerry> I prefer weekly meetings at a set time, whatever that time is, habit-formation helps :)
<mchua> MOTION: have walterbender send out a doodle poll to SLOBs for dates between now and 2 weeks from now 1400 UTC that we can meet, and set meeting date/times as people can make it
<mchua> CanoeBerry + 1
<walterbender> mchua: I prefer a regular time so we can plan around it...
<walterbender> picking times each week is tedious
<walterbender> in general, does Friday 14UTC work?
<mchua> I do as well, but 2 weeks is a long way out.
<tomeu> +1 to regular times, with timezones is easy to get mistaken
  • mchua proposes doing this via doodle.
<CanoeBerry> walterbender: works for me
<mchua> or whenisgood, or something.
<walterbender> mchua, I think we are proposing next week
<mchua> next week this time worksforme.
<SeanDaly> walterbender: Friday 1400 UTC good as regular timeslot
<CanoeBerry> +1
<walterbender> would Sean and Tomeu prefer earlier? UTC13 or 12?
<CanoeBerry> I need to run in 60sec exactly!
<SeanDaly> No 1400 is OK even if earlier would work for me
<CanoeBerry> Thank you all for this tremendous opportunity over the coming year.
<walterbender> OK. le't wrap uip
  • mchua too; has plane to catch
<walterbender> I'll post minues
<walterbender> #end-meeting
<SeanDaly> Many thanks
<tomeu> walterbender: it's good for me
<walterbender> thanks all.
<tomeu> I'm now one hour earlier
<cjb> thanks :)
<mchua> walterbender: I'll grep the logs and make up meeting notes and post them to the wiki when you send the logs to iaep.
<CanoeBerry> SeanDaly: can we talk by phone tonight or tomorrow?
<CanoeBerry> Hit me on irc later if poss :)
<CanoeBerry> Bye!
<tomeu> mchua: that's great, thanks
<tomeu> bye CanoeBerry
<SeanDaly> CanoeBerry: iffy Internet access for VoIP, but we can try my GSM