Oversight Board/2019/meeting-log-2019-01-04

[06:53:35] <walterbender> hi
[06:53:40] <Quozl> hi
[06:53:51] <llaske> hi
[06:53:53] <walterbender> Am I in time for the meeting?
[06:54:04] <Quozl> walterbender: yes, another six minutes.
[06:54:24] <walterbender> Great. For once I calculated correctly
[06:58:26] --> pikurasa (~devin@fsf/member/pikurasa) has joined #sugar-meeting
[06:58:41] <pikurasa> hello
[06:58:49] <Quozl> pikurasa: hello.
[06:59:31] <samsongoddy> Hello
[07:00:43] <Quozl> #startmeeting
[07:00:44] <meeting> Meeting started Fri Jan  4 20:00:43 2019 UTC. The chair is Quozl. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
[07:00:45] <meeting> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #endmeeting
[07:01:12] <Quozl> i see we have walter, lionel, devin, james, and samson.  we do not have alex or claudia.  i'm in contact with claudia, standby.
[07:01:57] <pikurasa> Quozl: thanks. I am making coffee :p
[07:02:44] <Quozl> Claudia will be 15 minutes.  No answer from Alex yet.  Let's start.
[07:02:51] <Quozl> #agreed quorum
[07:03:24] <Quozl> #topic pending Motion 2019-01: preserve the unpaid GSoC 2018 stipend for marketing purposes, and thank the mentors who suggested this.
[07:03:45] <Quozl> pikurasa: could you please vote now on this motion, just so we can get through it?
[07:03:58] --> MrBIOS (~aperez@216.52.21.1) has joined #sugar-meeting
[07:04:34] <Quozl> MrBIOS: welcome, we have started.  first item is pending motion 2019-01, waiting for devin to vote.  claudia expected at quarter past the hour.  rest of us here.
[07:04:35] <MrBIOS> hello folks
[07:04:42] <MrBIOS> roger.
[07:04:51] <llaske> hi Alex
[07:05:00] --> perrie (~perrie@197.210.28.4) has joined #sugar-meeting
[07:05:25] <walterbender> Maybe he is making his coffee.
[07:05:33] <Quozl> welcome to observing members pro-panda and perrie.
[07:05:38] <MrBIOS> hello folks!
[07:05:44] <pro-panda> Hello
[07:05:50] <perrie> hello
[07:05:58] <pikurasa> -1 -- I just really would like to challenge us to have more detail.
[07:06:37] <Quozl> pikurasa: i respect your right to vote against it, but i think you are making a mistake, and we have no more detail yet.  what do you fear?
[07:07:00] <MrBIOS> this is for the marketing material, yes?
[07:07:18] <Quozl> MrBIOS: pending Motion 2019-01: preserve the unpaid GSoC 2018 stipend for marketing purposes, and thank the mentors who suggested this.
[07:07:23] <MrBIOS> right
[07:07:44] <Quozl> MrBIOS: it's an acknowledgement of what the mentors proposed, and binds us to no specific action.
[07:08:27] <pikurasa> I do not fear much. I just think we would be off to the right start if their were more detail, even "this is what I think it might look like"
[07:08:40] <walterbender> samsongoddy, if you cannot find the meeting log, I will also look for it. would be good to have the record of the decision.
[07:08:51] <pikurasa> I think we might use it for these types of things: a, b, c, and d
[07:09:23] <samsongoddy> walterbender, which meeeting?
[07:09:46] <walterbender> samsongoddy, the meeting where we (GSoC mentors) made this decision
[07:10:02] <samsongoddy> Oh I think we made that decision on email
[07:10:06] <samsongoddy> Not on IRC
[07:10:10] <samsongoddy> I think
[07:11:19] <samsongoddy> So "GSoC mentor stipend "
[07:11:27] <samsongoddy> On October 11th
[07:13:34] <samsongoddy> About 13 mentors made discussion about the stipends
[07:13:35] <walterbender> Quozl, can I make a meta observation?
[07:13:52] <Quozl> walterbender: go ahead.  a point of order perhaps?
[07:14:11] <walterbender> just an oberservation that may offer some context
[07:15:07] <walterbender> we have a long history of bringing detailed plans and budgets to SLOBs for approval and nonetheless the SFC has persisted in asking us to approve each spending detail independently
[07:15:44] <walterbender> therefore, I have little worry about the Marketing team spending this money without a plan approved by SLOB
[07:16:05] <walterbender> but they should take comfort that their is an allocated budget they can work from.
[07:16:19] <MrBIOS> walterbender: are you saying SFC will not cooperate if we say “we allocate $xyz for printing t-shirts, mugs, and fidget spinners’?
[07:16:32] <MrBIOS> just want to make sure I understand the mechanics
[07:17:00] <walterbender> I am saying they will not approve spedning unless it is explicitly approved by this committee
[07:17:12] <MrBIOS> understood
[07:17:16] <MrBIOS> seems sane to me.
[07:17:32] <Quozl> walterbender: i agree, this behaviour by sfc is evident, but from talking to them the main reason is that members of the board have undermined decisions after they have been made, which brings into doubt the original decisions.
[07:17:59] <walterbender> Perhaps
[07:18:14] <MrBIOS> that’s just shitty behavior that we need to agree we will not do, in my opinion
[07:18:20] <walterbender> But it doesn't matter why. It is the fact on the ground.
[07:18:22] <Quozl> we are supposed to be bound jointly and severally by the decisions we make, and this means we must work to consensus rather than a majority.  so devin's objection will stop the motion in my view as chair.
[07:18:53] <MrBIOS> if we disagree, it’s an internal matter, and I believe we should all collectively agree that running to SFC to whine about it is something this iteration of the SLOBs will simply pledge not to do
[07:18:57] <MrBIOS> does that seem reasonable?
[07:19:27] <Quozl> so to progress the motion devin (alone) requires a marketing plan.  we can wait for that, but while we do we would have to be careful not to bring up other objections to the motion.  can we do that?
[07:20:23] <Quozl> MrBIOS: yes, whining to SFC is counter-productive; it's undermining the right of the board to deliberate.
[07:20:52] <MrBIOS> right, and if we collectively and unanimously pledge to SFC that we will not to that, I think that carries some weight
[07:21:01] <MrBIOS> s/to/do/g
[07:21:12] <walterbender> I don't follow the logic of the direction the conversation. Consensus vs majority is a big change, not to be taken lightly
[07:21:53] <walterbender> But we also have a spokesperson for the SFC and *all* communication should be routed through that person
[07:22:05] <walterbender> including whining
[07:22:33] <MrBIOS> +1
[07:23:03] <Quozl> MrBIOS: scope of your +1 is?  ;-)
[07:23:32] <MrBIOS> don’t whine to SFC if you disagree with a decision you don’t like as a SLOB
[07:23:44] <MrBIOS> they don’t care, they shouldn’t care, it’s not their role to care
[07:25:30] <MrBIOS> are we still just waiting for Devin?
[07:25:42] <Quozl> SFC have become very sensitive to everything we do, because it costs them so much.  While they want a liaison to work with, once an accounting ticket involves an individual they don't want the liaison poking in and micromanaging either.
[07:26:26] <Quozl> MrBIOS: yes, i'
[07:26:43] <samsongoddy> I think I am lost on the Consensus vs Majority
[07:26:52] <walterbender> me too
[07:27:01] <Quozl> MrBIOS: yes, i'm wanting to understand why devin wants a plan, and if he thinks we need a plan first, then we can do that.
[07:27:50] <walterbender> Another point of order: can we move to some other topics while we are waiting on Devin?
[07:27:55] <MrBIOS> please!
[07:28:19] <Quozl> samsongoddy: in consensus, every member of the board has the right to object and force us to act until they are happy and consent.  while this is new for you, it is how most organisations behave until they recognise that they have embedded positions based on political or ideological views that can't change, then they switch to majority.
[07:29:02] <Quozl> ... and i don't see that devin's position is embedded.  i'm trusting it is a real concern; a lack of plan for him blocks the mentor's choice.
[07:29:36] <Quozl> okay, i guess we lost devin.  i'll move on.
[07:29:55] <Quozl> #rejected to mailing list
[07:30:10] <Quozl> #topic gsoc 2019
[07:30:25] <Quozl> i've placed this first because it is coming up next.
[07:30:51] <walterbender> We need to decide whether or not to participate by I think Jan 23
[07:31:05] <Quozl> do we participate?  do we have enough project ideas?  who will be organisational administrator(s)?  i propose rahul as one.
[07:31:10] <walterbender> We cannot participate w/o SLOB approval
[07:31:26] <walterbender> and then we also need to scope out the context of participation
[07:31:33] <pikurasa> I am reading all of this. I am not "lost". Please read the email I sent nudging for a bit more detail.
[07:31:37] <llaske> I think we must participate.
[07:32:01] <MrBIOS> I believe we should as well
[07:32:20] <llaske> I ‘ve got some ideas that I need to formalize
[07:32:21] <pikurasa> I think we should participate.
[07:32:28] <Quozl> benefits are aligned with our mission, google send us money, we get new volunteers for a time who may stick around.  costs are our personal time, our board meeting time, and dealing with sfc and travel for summits.
[07:33:09] <llaske> btw we should have a clear process to select project and mentors
[07:33:28] <Quozl> llaske: have you reviewed the GSoC repository on sugarlabs?
[07:33:48] <Quozl> #link https://github.com/sugarlabs/GSoC
[07:33:51] <MrBIOS> agreed, the mentors need to be much more thoroughly vetted
[07:33:53] <llaske> seen it, it’s just a template
[07:34:16] <Quozl> but the template does have some process to select projects and mentors.
[07:34:29] <Quozl> in particular the ideas page.
[07:34:39] <walterbender> While I agree we have had some poor mentoring in the past, I strongly disagree that our process is "just a template"
[07:35:01] <walterbender> and I also disagree that the only benefit is $ and a few volunteers
[07:35:12] <MrBIOS> educate us :)
[07:35:35] <walterbender> We get exposure to a broader community through GSoC
[07:35:53] <llaske> it’s a good template for candidates not for mentors
[07:35:56] <walterbender> and it keeps us as part of the FOSS community
[07:36:33] <walterbender> And it keeps us connected to Google, which is not a trivial player in the industry
[07:36:56] <walterbender> IMHO, it would be foolish to not seize on this opportunity.
[07:36:56] <samsongoddy> I agree with Walter Bender on that
[07:37:05] <Quozl> samsongoddy: on what?
[07:37:21] <walterbender> That said, we have been sloppy re mentors.
[07:37:22] <samsongoddy> Exposure to broader community
[07:37:41] <pikurasa> At least for Music Blocks, a lot of the major development advances (eg temperament) has been done by GSoC students.
[07:37:43] <walterbender> And that is something we can fix
[07:37:54] <samsongoddy> But the mentoring part is what I have no comment on
[07:38:33] <pro-panda> llaske: I avoided _possible_ mentor selection criteria from the repository. I expected the audience to be interested students
[07:38:48] <walterbender> FWIW, we discuss (and vet) projects in this forum and in email
[07:38:48] <MrBIOS> my knowledge of GSoC as it relates to Sugar Labs is near zero at this point, and I’d like to fix that.
[07:39:08] <walterbender> and from participation in those discussions, mentors emerge
[07:39:15] <walterbender> we can tighten up that process
[07:39:27] <walterbender> but I don't think it is horribly broken
[07:39:29] <llaske> yes pro-panda we should do it elsewhere
[07:40:02] <Quozl> MrBIOS: in my opinion the biggest negative impact of gsoc and gci is the hiding of our development conversations inside google infrastructure; open only to the mentors and students.  we lost participants in our normal channels.
[07:40:35] <walterbender> Also, FWIW, we always require multiple mentors per project and never have pair of nubie mentors paired
[07:40:50] <pikurasa> Quozl: not too much of the development is hidden, I think.
[07:40:54] <walterbender> that still has not prevented all problems
[07:41:23] <walterbender> Quozl, we cannot do anything about that for GCI
[07:41:40] <walterbender> but with the exception of reviews, we make everything public in GSoC
[07:42:31] <walterbender> Quozl, I have held public meetings for every project at least 1x per week every year we have participated
[07:42:36] <walterbender> nothing hidden
[07:42:40] <walterbender> nothing secret
[07:42:49] <MrBIOS> so it sounds like it’s more of an awareness problem
[07:42:57] <walterbender> but just because I have a meeting, doeesn't mean people attend
[07:42:58] <MrBIOS> awareness (that this is happening openly, and where it’s happening)
[07:43:07] <MrBIOS> right
[07:43:36] <walterbender> MrBIOS, I announce the meeting schedule, which hasn't changed in years, on the mailing lists
[07:44:08] <walterbender> I think people are not interested
[07:44:10] <pro-panda> I remember private contact from mentors in GSoC' 18. One of them was to ask what my project was about. It was disheartening.
[07:44:12] --> Claudia_ (421f8612@gateway/web/freenode/ip.66.31.134.18) has joined #sugar-meeting
[07:44:33] <Quozl> Claudia_: welcome, we are discussing participation in GSoC 2019.
[07:44:41] <MrBIOS> pro-panda: that is really a shame.
[07:44:41] <walterbender> pro-panda, we had a particular problem with your mentor situation
[07:44:53] <Claudia_> Hi, Quozl
[07:45:15] <MrBIOS> Will that mentor not be welcomed back as a mentor this next cycle, as a result, or?
[07:45:41] <Quozl> Claudia_: do you have any opinions on participating in GSoC?  So many opinions so far, about ready to draw it together.
[07:45:50] <walterbender> which I tried to address in 2 ways: (1) pointing you to Quozl (the resident expert who was not a mentor for personal reasons) and (2) trying unsuccessfully to get your mentors to participate
[07:46:16] <walterbender> ^^ pro-panda
[07:46:16] <pikurasa> I do not know if this helps anyone make the decision about SL's involvement in GSoC, but in an email sent on 10/20 on a thread to mentors, Cat Allman of Google says "While we're thinking about experiments, if 2019 we're the last year of gsoc would you still want to experiment?" This, in conjunction with what I heard here and there at the summit makes me think that there is some consideration of cutting GSoC after 2019--that it may be the last ye
[07:46:47] <pikurasa> no "hard evidence", but it seemed to be "the tone"
[07:46:48] <pro-panda> walterbender: I agree with the steps you took
[07:47:05] <MrBIOS> walterbender: do you have any documentation on mentor engagement, so it can be used to inform mentor selection this cycle (GSoC ’19)?
[07:47:08] <samsongoddy> I had a discussion with the team in London
[07:47:13] <Quozl> every opportunity is the last though.  we can only decide on this year, not next.
[07:47:22] <walterbender> pro-panda, there is no guarantee the mentoring will always work out, but your experience was atypical
[07:47:39] <Claudia_> I apologize to those waking up in the middle of the night, but the meeting has happened for a while at 4 PM EST
[07:47:46] <Quozl> i had a discussion with the google open source team in sydney.
[07:48:06] <walterbender> Claudia_, 20UTC
[07:48:11] <samsongoddy>  the problem is their team are getting smaller
[07:48:39] <samsongoddy> But they just hired some people so I think they may change their plans or make Gsoc even bigger
[07:48:54] <Quozl> Claudia_: i only used UTC, and convert it to my local.  i think perhaps your location has shifted in respect to UTC since?
[07:49:03] <MrBIOS> well, we can’t do anything about that, so I’m not sure worrying about it is going to do much.
[07:49:20] <walterbender> MrBIOS, I will try to pull together some records of mentor interactions
[07:49:25] <MrBIOS> (about resource allocation within Google for GSoC)
[07:50:12] <Quozl> Okay.  Order.  Motion 2019-02: Sugar Labs will apply for GOogle Summer of COde 2019.
[07:50:26] <Quozl> Motion 2019-02: Sugar Labs will apply for Google Summer of Code 2019.
[07:50:27] <pikurasa> +1
[07:50:29] <samsongoddy> +1
[07:50:30] <MrBIOS> +1
[07:50:31] <llaske> +1
[07:50:39] <walterbender> +1
[07:51:02] <Quozl> Claudia_: your vote?
[07:51:18] <Claudia_> +1
[07:51:19] <llaske> I can help to administrate if need
[07:51:35] <walterbender> llaske, that would be great
[07:51:36] <Quozl> +1.   Consensus.
[07:51:52] <Quozl> The motion is passed.  Next ...
[07:51:59] <Quozl> #topic GCI 2018 travel
[07:52:03] <Quozl> walterbender: yours, go ahead.
[07:52:11] <walterbender> I just wanted to give the board a heads up
[07:52:17] <Quozl> (i picked this also because it is time related).
[07:52:43] <walterbender> Google has given us $2200 ($2000 after the SFC processing fee) towards sending a mentor to the GCI summit
[07:53:10] <walterbender> I am not sure yet who will be going... we usually let the grand prose winner choose.
[07:53:19] <Claudia_> Thanks, Walter... Nov and Dec reminders of the meeting had 20 UTC and (4 pm)... my mistake I did not catch the change
[07:53:41] <walterbender> It may be that this year the choice will be traveling from either Africa or India
[07:53:46] <Quozl> Claudia_: my mistake as chair, i could have made it more clear, sorry.
[07:53:52] <walterbender> which may exceed $2000.
[07:54:16] <walterbender> Google offer to "try" to help if we go over.
[07:54:29] <walterbender> But I wanted the board to be aware of the situation
[07:54:35] <Claudia_> walterbender: can we allocate some funding from SLB to cover the difference?
[07:55:00] <Quozl> my opinion; you may ask google to try to help, and you may dip into our $95k savings, up to $2k if needed.
[07:55:05] <walterbender> we'll know more after the 7th when the GPWs are announced and I can ask them for their prference
[07:55:25] <walterbender> I agree with Quozl ...
[07:55:32] <Claudia_> me too
[07:56:02] <Quozl> sfc may push back and require us to make a specific decision once the costs are better known.  so perhaps we can do that later by mail, with this forewarning.
[07:56:14] <walterbender> I am sure we need to do that
[07:56:32] <walterbender> but I wanted to get the feel from the board for their appetite
[07:57:03] <walterbender> I will tell whomever we choose that the guarranteed budget is just $2000 for the moment
[07:57:06] <Quozl> llaske: as our regular africa travel objector, what's your opinion?  ;-)
[07:57:10] <walterbender> with a possibility of more
[07:57:30] <pikurasa> I think that Quozl's proposal sounds reasonable.
[07:57:47] <-- llaske (~llaske@80.214.157.73) has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
[07:57:55] <Quozl> noted that lionel has left.
[07:58:05] <walterbender> I guess that is a subtle answer :)
[07:58:24] <Claudia_> I think the trip is important, if we can make it happen, no?
[07:58:28] -*- pikurasa is not at all privy to what is going on
[07:58:29] <samsongoddy> From both side the earlier the better
[07:59:09] <walterbender> @samsongoddy, I will consult with the GPWs on Monday evening
[07:59:13] <Quozl> But we don't have a winner yet.  Draft Motion 2019-03: Sugar Labs matches the Google Code-In Summit travel budget of up to $2k once a winner is known?
[07:59:23] <walterbender> I cannot discuss it with them sooner than that
[07:59:28] <MrBIOS> it should happen if possible, When will we have a winner?
[07:59:37] <Claudia_> sounds good to me, Quozl
[07:59:42] <walterbender> Google announces on the 7th
[07:59:54] <walterbender> I know the winners, but have not communicated with them
[07:59:57] <pikurasa> At any rate, this all sounds fine.
[08:00:54] <pikurasa> Do we know which mentors *do not want to travel* to avoid their being voted on?
[08:01:03] <pikurasa> (and wasting time)
[08:01:10] <Quozl> Order.  Motion 2019-03: Sugar Labs matches the Google Code-In Summit travel budget, by paying from our own funds up to $2k.
[08:01:16] <walterbender> pikurasa, let's see what the kids decide first
[08:01:21] <Quozl> (i don't think it is a waste to be prepared).
[08:01:28] <walterbender> seconded
[08:01:31] <samsongoddy> +1
[08:01:38] <pikurasa> +1
[08:01:39] <Claudia_> +1
[08:01:48] <Quozl> MrBIOS: ?
[08:02:04] <MrBIOS> +1
[08:02:11] <walterbender> +1
[08:02:18] <Quozl> +1.  thanks.  consensus of those present.
[08:02:23] <Quozl> Motion is passed.
[08:02:30] <Quozl> Order.  Our time has expired for the meeting.
[08:03:14] <Quozl> Does anyone need to go?  I'm happy to end there.  Any urgent issues for right now?
[08:03:27] <samsongoddy> I don't think this is urgent
[08:03:34] <Claudia_> I can stay a few more min...
[08:03:39] <samsongoddy> But Sugar Labs goals 2018 need to be discussed
[08:04:10] <Quozl> Our next formal meeting is next month.  Can Sugar Labs goals for 2019 be discussed on the mailing list?
[08:04:15] <pikurasa> I can stay, but I think SL 19 (19??) goals will take more time.
[08:04:27] <Claudia_> agree, pikurasa
[08:04:27] <walterbender> I can stay too
[08:04:32] <pikurasa> Yes, I agree we can discuss on mailing list.
[08:04:42] <Claudia_> what can we prepare over email between now and the next meeting?
[08:04:45] <pikurasa> samsongoddy: did you have any particular ideas?
[08:04:47] <samsongoddy> mailing lost sure
[08:04:56] <samsongoddy> All the ideas are on the wiki
[08:05:10] <samsongoddy> MrBIOS created
[08:05:47] -*- walterbender will send email about ideas for marketing goals/plans as well to seed further discussion
[08:05:51] <pikurasa> I have seen it, but can you repost the link here now, please
[08:06:07] <Quozl> Okay, as there is nothing urgent, and we agree we can use e-mail for the goals discussion, let's vote to close the meeting; all in favour?
[08:06:12] <samsongoddy> https://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Goals/2018_Submissions
[08:06:32] <samsongoddy> +1 from me for closing
[08:06:41] <MrBIOS> +1
[08:06:44] <walterbender> +1
[08:06:46] <Claudia_> +1
[08:06:54] <-- pro-panda (75dcafe2@gateway/web/freenode/ip.117.220.175.226) has quit
[08:07:03] <Quozl> pikurasa: 
[08:07:12] <pikurasa> +1
[08:07:20] <Quozl> +1
[08:07:30] <Quozl> Thanks for the meeting!  I'll write up the decisions.
[08:07:45] <Claudia_> thanks, Quozl
[08:07:50] <Claudia_> I will update my calendar
[08:08:05] <Quozl> #endmeeting
[08:08:07] <meeting> Meeting ended Fri Jan  4 21:08:05 2019 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. (v 0.1.4)
[08:08:08] <meeting> Minutes: http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/sugar-meeting/meetings/2019-01-04T20:00:43.html
[08:08:09] <meeting> Log:     http://meeting.sugarlabs.org/sugar-meeting/meetings/2019-01-04T20:00:43
[08:08:35] <pikurasa> Thanks Quozl
[08:11:23] <walterbender> thanks all... ttyl