Oversight Board/2009/Meeting Log-2009-11-13

From Sugar Labs
Jump to: navigation, search

Oversight Board Meeting Log 2009-11-13

<walterbender> FWIW, I may be a few minutes late to the SLOBs meeting. The conference is scheduled to end at 4, but it is running late. (I am the last talk.)
<walterbender> But please get started without me.

|<-- sdziallas has left freenode ("Ex-Chat")

<walterbender> I will definitely by about 15 - 20 minutes late.

-->| SeanDaly (n=chatzill@static-241102.xdsl.raiffeisen.net) has joined #sugar-meeting

<cjb> morning.
<tomeu> hi all
<SeanDaly> hi Sean here
<tomeu> SeanDaly: is walterbender speaking now?
<SeanDaly> I am in SFScon auditorium, Walter is up next
  • tomeu is hidden in a hole coding
<SeanDaly> Federico is onstage now re Zeitgeist
<walterbender> looks like I am not up next... so I can start meeting and just break when I have to get on stage
  • SeanDaly a bit nervous about getting my plane
<walterbender> SeanDaly: the airport is 10 minutes away
<walterbender> shall we have a quick meeting?
<SeanDaly> walterbender: my brain says no problem, my heart says 900 roros if I miss it
<walterbender> OK. with me.
<cjb> bernie: ping
<cjb> someone able to poke Adam?
<walterbender> mel cannot join us. nor Adam
<tomeu> cjb: adam is traveling now
<cjb> oh, ok
<tomeu> fortunately, they can vote by email later
<tomeu> ok, should I go through the agenda items?
<cjb> sure
<walterbender> #start-meeting
<SeanDaly> yes pls
<walterbender> #topic cjb report on email list
<cjb> walterbender: no hyphen
<walterbender> #startmeeting
<meeting> Meeting started at 10:05 UTC. The chair is walterbender.
<meeting> Commands Available: #TOPIC, #IDEA, #ACTION, #AGREED, #LINK
<walterbender> #topic email list
<cjb> ok, here's what I was able to come up with, don't know if anyone will like it :)
<cjb> a) new list: slobs-members@. goes only to slobs.
  • bernie waves
<walterbender> ciao bernardo
  • SeanDaly hi bernie
<walterbender> cjb: is there a b) ?
<cjb> yes, moment
<bernie> cjb: I have a counter-proposal: creating a teams@ list for all team leaders and slobs, and unsubscribing non-slobs from slobs@
<cjb> bernie: wait for me to finish, though.
  • walterbender is waiting for part b
<cjb> b) slobs@ becomes the proper list for SLOBS business.
<cjb> .. SLOBS business includes questions from the community about policy ..
<walterbender> cjb: for adding agenda items...
<cjb> yeah!
<walterbender> an open list, presumably
<walterbender> seems orthogonal to Bernie's suggestion
<SeanDaly> I thought we had said an agenda proposal went thru a SLOB?
<cjb> yes. and, I think most of the mail currently on slobs@ can stay on that open list
  • tomeu doesn't understand what team leaders have to do in all this
<cjb> not everyone will want to subscribe to it
<cjb> most of it will be organizational minutia, after all
  • SeanDaly also would hesitate to add team leader layer...
<walterbender> cjb: I guess the only question is whether we couldn't just use iaep for the same purpose
<cjb> walterbender: only for the reason I just gave
<bernie> tomeu, SeanDaly: currently, we have almost all team leaders subscribed to slobs@. and it helps for coordination.
<tomeu> bernie: how it helps to coordinate anything?
<cjb> there may be people who want to read iaep@ and don't want to read boring financial details or policy questions
<SeanDaly> bernie: ok but they are all on IAEP too, no?
<walterbender> I am genrally in favor of fewer lists and more sunject-line tags
<SeanDaly> maybe iaep with a subject slobs business?
<walterbender> ^sun^sub
<walterbender> [SLOBS]
<bernie> SeanDaly: teams@ would not be open. it would be the same of the current slobs@, in my mind.
  • SeanDaly imagines Mel reacting to phrase "would not be open" ;-)
<walterbender> bernie: what team business needs to be private? hypathetical, pelase>
<walterbender> please?
<tomeu> bernie: team coordinators are chosen by a criteria that is not too related to their suitability to be aware of confidential matters
<cjb> SeanDaly: we should probably ask the people on iaep whether they'd like that or not, if we go this route
<tomeu> cjb: do you think we have sent too much administrative stuff already?
<SeanDaly> cjb: I certainly agree governance minutiae boring for many, but then again, the day a complaint about e.g. finances comes in, financial discussions clear
<cjb> tomeu: to iaep? no

-->| andresambrois (n=aa@r190-135-149-15.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy) has joined #sugar-meeting

<cjb> tomeu: but I'm talking about moving ~80% of SLOBs list traffic there
<cjb> and it seems like that would be too much
<tomeu> don't think we have much traffic in slobs
<SeanDaly> slobs fairly low-volume in my view
<cjb> I guess that's true
<tomeu> also, while some admin stuff could be boring, the discussions that could ensure could be very interesting
<walterbender> cjb: the original motivation for my request for a private list was to keep the slobs traffic lower
<tomeu> and chances are people would forget to forward to iaep and keep the discussion there
<cjb> walterbender: could you elaborate?
<cjb> you mean, keep the slobs@ traffic lower?
<walterbender> cjb: it is easy to ignore email with suitable [BORING SLOBS BUSINESS] subject tags :)
<walterbender> cjb: less slobs traffic and less private list traffic both
<cjb> ok
<cjb> so, perhaps we have a MOTION
<walterbender> Anyway, I think we are really trying to decide between a new list and using [TAGS] on iaep
<tomeu> tags++
<cjb> MOTION: close the slobs@ list to just SLOBs, move current slobs@ traffic to iaep@ with a [SLOBS] subject line tag where at all possible
<walterbender> cjb: second
<walterbender> discussion?
  • tomeu likes that motion as-is
<cjb> we'll have to explain this well. people will hear the "you can't be on slobs@ part" and think it's a negative for transparency.
<cjb> s/ part"/" part/
<SeanDaly> discussion: we need to explain policy to bootees
<cjb> bootees?
<walterbender> cjb: I'll try to explain it (and take the heat)
<SeanDaly> bootee: somebody removed from list
<cjb> oh :)
<walterbender> any more discussion?
  • SeanDaly not from me
<cjb> I'm interested in what Mel and Adam think
<walterbender> cjb: me too. we will get their votes.
<walterbender> (by email withing 96 hours?)
<cjb> the problem with all voting now is that we'll pass it without them, and then they'll point out the giant flaw in our strategy :)
<walterbender> (I hope my talk goes better than my typing)
<cjb> would people be opposed to having all of us postpone our vote until they've had a chance to join in the discussion?
<walterbender> cjb: I am fine with it.
<SeanDaly> or, could be amended
<cjb> excellent. okay, I'd like to do that.
<walterbender> we can vote on it first thing next week...
<cjb> shall we move on for now, then, with that MOTION suitably transcribed?
<walterbender> OK.
<SeanDaly> ok
<walterbender> #task write up the motion with the minutes
<walterbender> next topic?
<walterbender> #topic lists for teams
<walterbender> bernie: can you explain a bit more?
<walterbender> bernie: ping?
<walterbender> friends, I am going to be called to the podium in a moment and Sean will need to take off.
<walterbender> can I propose a #task?
<cjb> ok. maybe that's our short meeting. :)
<cjb> sure
<walterbender> #task: bernie: write a note about your proposal

|<-- andresambrois has left freenode (Remote closed the connection)

<walterbender> #task: carlo has a nice document re the next topic I can circulate (to IAEP with suitable [TAG] when I get back to Boston
<walterbender> #task: I'll bug the DP for closure.
<walterbender> end meeting?
<tomeu> ok with me
<SeanDaly> ok with me
  • tomeu goes listen to the talk
<walterbender> Sorry about the awkward timing...
<cjb> np
<walterbender> the conference gods weren't cooperating :(
  • SeanDaly knows how much "fun" it is to miss a plane
<walterbender> thanks for coming everyone. Same time next week.
<SeanDaly> :-)
<walterbender> SeanDaly: I'll tell you a Seymour/Piaget story some time :)
<walterbender> ok.
<walterbender> #endmeeting
<meeting> Meeting finished at 10:29.
<meeting> Logs available at http://meeting.laptop.org/