== General Agenda Items and Proposals == PLEASE COME TO THE MEETINGS PREPARED. This means: 1. If there is an issue for the team, add it to the agenda. 1. Agenda items then should be discussed "informally" on #ubuntu-beginners. 90 % of the discussion should have taken place before the meeting. 1. Meetings are primarily for decision making/team votes. Read the agenda and discuss your thoughts before the meeting. 10 % (or less) of the discussion should happen during the meeting. 1. Agenda items that require more then 5 minutes of discussion may need to be deferred. ||Who || What || ||[[cprofitt]]||Vote on change in voting (see below for specifics)|| ||[[meindian523|Easwar]]||Decision on logging of #ubuntu-beginners|| || [[nhandler]] || [[https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-beginners/2010-February/000444.html|Re-purpose #ubuntu-beginners-team]] || || [[nhandler]] || Council and Focus Group Leader Elections || === Agenda discussion === == Log == {{{#!IRC [00:00] #startmeeting -- Ubuntu Beginners Team -- [00:00] Meeting started at 18:00. The chair is cprofitt. [00:00] Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE] [00:00] Hello everyone [00:00] o/ [00:00] cprofitt, I thought we was waiting for nhandler? [00:00] can I get a roll call of Beginners Team members [00:00] o/ [00:00] o/ [00:00] o/ [00:01] (also, it's quite apparently I'm here - for once in a year) [00:01] thank you all for being here [00:01] [TOPIC] Vote on change in how we vote to a more inclusive method [00:01] New Topic: Vote on change in how we vote to a more inclusive method [00:02] We have had a test of a voting system [00:02] and I would like to see if anyone had any feedback about that [00:02] hi guys [00:02] if not we can move to a vote [00:03] I quite like being able to assign preferences on multiple outcomes [00:03] I want to ensure that you all understand that this is not a vote on which system to use [00:03] sorry, here, am at work [00:03] Nothing from me. Though I would like clarification. Can a vote be made in private via this method ? [00:03] but a vote on if the team would like to use a system that is more inclusive [00:03] Silver_Fox_: we are not, at this time, picking a method [00:03] Okay cprofitt . [00:03] just confirming a desire to move to an inclusive method [00:03] o/ [00:04] yes nhandler [00:04] cprofitt: No comment, just arrived for the meeting ;) [00:04] k [00:04] cprofitt, can we define inclusive? [00:04] the meeting officialy started? [00:05] paultag: allowing a greater number of members to vote [00:05] I hate emotional terms [00:05] PabloRubianes: Yes [00:05] jgoguen: thanks [00:05] using a 'system' that does not require attendance at a specified time [00:05] cprofitt, OK. The goal is to increase voter turnout? [00:05] yes... partially [00:05] OK [00:05] o/ [00:06] o/ [00:06] the other goal is to make sure as we grow that people in more 'remote' timezones feel that they can have an impact on the vote [00:06] Silver_Fox_: [00:06] Ignore, you just answered my query [00:06] :) [00:06] Hellow: [00:06] I don't know if this would happen or not, but wouldn't such a system decrease turnout at meetings? [00:06] I think also the method should secure only members voting [00:06] Hellow: it might [00:07] o/ [00:07] Which could be detrimental to the communication in the team. [00:07] PabloRubianes: we are not picking the method tonight [00:07] yes pleia2 ? [00:07] we use voting for a lot, if we were to set up a voting thing like nhandler did for *every single decision* it would be a bit crazy [00:07] so I'm wondering if there could be some kind of threshold for important/major decisions [00:07] o/ [00:08] Hellow -- I think having a group of people feeling excluded from decisions is detrimental to the team as well. Given the mailing list we have multiple methods for communication. [00:08] o/ [00:08] because on the really important things I think we want voting from everyone possible [00:08] pleia2: that has been discussed [00:08] lukjad86: [00:08] cprofitt: i just saying that... [00:08] I would like to second pleia2's comment, since she basically said what I was thinking [00:08] PabloRubianes: I agree... [00:08] just wanted to make sure that you know we are not picking the method [00:08] I agree... lukjad86 [00:08] and pleia2 [00:09] So we are having a vote to decide if we should vote to change the voting system [00:09] tonight's vote is not on a specific method - but a desire to do so [00:09] just so we are clear [00:09] then my goal would be to form a small group to evaluate options... [00:09] allow people to see them all and comment [00:09] cprofitt: +1 [00:09] I guess my point is that I'd like to see major decisions be more global-friendly, but small ones at meetings seem reasonable (so I can't realy vote fully one way or the other) [00:09] then potentially test the tops two out [00:09] and make a final move [00:09] cprofitt I agree, and I would like to offer my help in this matter [00:10] * cjohnston still thinks if we move one vote we should move all votes [00:10] I second lukjad86 in offering my assistance in this. [00:10] Again, to be clear -- we are having a vote to decide if we should vote to change the voting system [00:10] o/ [00:10] pleia2: what I suggested was major rules/format/strucutre votes be global [00:10] new member approval still me meeting only [00:10] Ignore.. [00:10] yes, paultag [00:10] cprofitt: ok, that was somewhat unclear :) [00:10] well... this is not a final type decision at this time pleia2 [00:10] so I would imagine we will flesh the details out more [00:10] I would like to move to a vote [00:11] any objections? [00:11] Nope [00:11] nope [00:11] Non from me. [00:11] no [00:11] [VOTE] The BT team would like to move to a more inclusive method of voting on issues that concern team structure or leadership positions [00:11] Please vote on: The BT team would like to move to a more inclusive method of voting on issues that concern team structure or leadership positions. [00:11] Public votes can be registered by saying +1/-1/+0 in the channel, private votes by messaging the channel followed by +1/-1/+0 to MootBot [00:11] E.g. /msg MootBot +1 #ubuntu-meeting [00:11] +0 [00:11] Abstention received from paultag. 0 for, 0 against. 1 have abstained. Count is now 0 [00:11] +1 [00:11] +1 received from cprofitt. 1 for, 0 against. 1 have abstained. Count is now 1 [00:11] +1 [00:11] +1 received from lukjad86. 2 for, 0 against. 1 have abstained. Count is now 2 [00:11] +1 [00:11] +1 [00:11] +1 received from Hellow. 3 for, 0 against. 1 have abstained. Count is now 3 [00:11] +1 received from nhandler. 4 for, 0 against. 1 have abstained. Count is now 4 [00:11] +0 [00:11] Abstention received from ibuclaw. 4 for, 0 against. 2 have abstained. Count is now 4 [00:11] Private -1 vote received. 4 for, 1 against, 2 have abstained. Count is now 3 [00:11] +1 [00:11] +1 received from jgoguen. 5 for, 1 against. 2 have abstained. Count is now 4 [00:12] +1 [00:12] +1 received from Silver_Fox_. 6 for, 1 against. 2 have abstained. Count is now 5 [00:12] any last votes [00:12] last call for votes [00:12] [ENDVOTE] [00:12] Final result is 6 for, 1 against. 2 abstained. Total: 5 [00:12] [AGREED] The BT team would like to move to a more inclusive method of voting on issues that concern team structure or leadership positions [00:12] AGREED received: The BT team would like to move to a more inclusive method of voting on issues that concern team structure or leadership positions [00:13] [ACTION] cprofitt will form a small group to investigate potential options and present those to the team via the email list [00:13] ACTION received: cprofitt will form a small group to investigate potential options and present those to the team via the email list [00:13] is anyone willing to volunteer to help with that? [00:13] o/ [00:13] o/ [00:13] o/ [00:13] thank you [00:13] o/ [00:13] cprofitt sorry, for being so slow :) [00:13] I would like to suggest keeping it as a *small* group [00:14] yes... the four people there should be good [00:14] nice group [00:14] [ACTION] nhandler Hellow cjohnston lukjad86 will form the small group with cprofitt [00:14] ACTION received: nhandler Hellow cjohnston lukjad86 will form the small group with cprofitt [00:14] [TOPIC]The BT team would like to move to a method of voting on issues that concern team structure or team leadership positions that requires a percentage of total team members. [00:14] New Topic: The BT team would like to move to a method of voting on issues that concern team structure or team leadership positions that requires a percentage of total team members. [00:14] please note that this again is for structure/leadership votes only [00:15] o/ [00:15] to me this will be unnecessary if we move to an inclusive method [00:15] o/ [00:15] Questions? [00:15] but there is potentially some value to it [00:15] hold Qs for a secon [00:15] k [00:15] I would not suggest 2/3rd majority or anything of that nature [00:16] I think this is good if the team member's list is updated [00:16] but perhaps 40% of all members must vote in a vote to make the vote count [00:16] then a simple majority would be acceptable [00:16] nhandler: go [00:16] o/ [00:16] PabloRubianes That has been taken care of with nhandler [00:16] good... [00:17] nhandler: ? [00:17] I think even 40% might be a bit high. I would rather suggest that if we move to a more inclusive method of voting, we simply leave the vote open for X days to give people a chance to vote. If it looks like it has fallen off the radar, the vote creator sends out a reminder [00:17] nhandler: +1 [00:17] I would hate to have to wait X *weeks* for certain non-active people to participate [00:17] good idea nhandler [00:17] cjohnston: go [00:17] couple things [00:18] If we are moving to a more inclusive method, it would be logical to require a certain amount to vote. [00:18] You say 2/3rd majority.. Is that 2/3rds to make a vote valid or 2/3rds of +1 or -1... [00:18] I would suggest that these good ideas be part of the group discussion and not be done here in the meeting for time reasons. [00:18] I actually said 2/3 was a bad idea [00:18] sorry.. missed the not.. :-/ [00:18] SilverFox: go [00:18] Launchpad indicates that the team is 67 members strong. We will struggle to hit anything like 40% turnout for voting . Are you saying that we will use a different method to determine who is a team member? [00:19] Silver_Fox_, we are already using a new method :) [00:19] ibuclaw: Not really. The LP member list is still the official list [00:19] Silver_Fox_: no -- if we use a method that kept voting open for a week or so [00:19] well, the renewal process... which should see that number fall [00:19] We just changed the way renewals happen to try and get a better idea of who is active [00:19] then 40% would be 26.8 people [00:19] we have made inactive people expire though [00:20] and LP will still be our 'source' list [00:20] 40% may be too high [00:20] It is very easy to click a link in an email to renew. Very little thought involved [00:20] 30% might be better -- if people feel that is important [00:20] the main reason I suggested the more inclusive member was to 'include' people [00:20] Silver_Fox_ It no longer is like that though, it's a manual renewal with a launchpad admin [00:20] Oh good :) [00:21] and I really do not want a 'rule' that invalidates votes based on inactivity [00:21] cprofitt: This percent or period of time to keep a vote open will probably depend on the method we choose to use for votes [00:21] Silver_Fox_ I had to do it, so I remember :) [00:21] I added it to the agenda because it was suggested [00:21] nhandler: +1 [00:21] nhandler: it could even vary -- depending on the importance of the issue [00:21] o/ [00:21] cjohnston: go [00:21] Some time back the MOTU team set up a process by which everyone would have a chance to share their views and a decisions could be reached by rough consensus. A thread introducing the idea started at https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-motu/2008-June/004060.html [00:22] Can I recommend that this be ammended to be a part of the discussion for the group from the last vote and then presents? [00:22] This may or may not work, but it does tend to scale well, it there are real issues to be decided. [00:22] thanks persia [00:22] I will take a look at that [00:22] s/presents/presented [00:22] any objections moving to a vote? [00:22] cprofitt A vote on what? [00:22] Exactly [00:23] cjohnston: if it passes then we can ammend it to the previous groups task [00:23] persia: That process was only really used a few times iirc, do you remember the reason behind that? Was it that the meetings sort of stopped? [00:23] What is the vote question please [00:23] [VOTE]The BT team would like to move to a method of voting on issues that concern team structure or team leadership positions that requires a percentage of total team members. [00:23] Please vote on: The BT team would like to move to a method of voting on issues that concern team structure or team leadership positions that requires a percentage of total team members.. [00:23] Public votes can be registered by saying +1/-1/+0 in the channel, private votes by messaging the channel followed by +1/-1/+0 to MootBot [00:23] E.g. /msg MootBot +1 #ubuntu-meeting [00:23] -1 [00:23] -1 received from cprofitt. 0 for, 1 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now -1 [00:23] -1 [00:23] -1 received from nhandler. 0 for, 2 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now -2 [00:23] -1 [00:23] -1 received from lukjad86. 0 for, 3 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now -3 [00:23] +0 [00:23] +0 [00:23] Abstention received from cjohnston. 0 for, 3 against. 1 have abstained. Count is now -3 [00:23] Abstention received from Silver_Fox_. 0 for, 3 against. 2 have abstained. Count is now -3 [00:23] +0 [00:23] Abstention received from PabloRubianes. 0 for, 3 against. 3 have abstained. Count is now -3 [00:23] Private abstention received. 0 for, 3 against. 4 abstained. Count is now -3 [00:23] +0 [00:23] Abstention received from ibuclaw. 0 for, 3 against. 5 have abstained. Count is now -3 [00:24] -1 [00:24] -1 received from pleia2. 0 for, 4 against. 5 have abstained. Count is now -4 [00:24] I'm voting -1 because I think we can't decide on this before we actually decide how we are voting [00:24] any more votes? [00:25] -1 [00:25] -1 received from paultag. 0 for, 5 against. 5 have abstained. Count is now -5 [00:25] Private -1 vote received. 0 for, 6 against, 5 have abstained. Count is now -6 [00:25] last call for votes [00:25] [ENDVOTE] [00:25] Final result is 0 for, 6 against. 5 abstained. Total: -6 [00:25] nhandler: IT was two things: 1) the meetings sort of stopped, and 2) many things were considered not important enough to need formal agreement so the process was used in abbreviated form (in that we reached consensus without needing to have led discussions to formalise it). [00:25] persia: Alright, thanks a lot [00:25] [AGREED]The BT team would NOT like to move to a method of voting on issues that concern team structure or team leadership positions that requires a percentage of total team members. [00:25] AGREED received: The BT team would NOT like to move to a method of voting on issues that concern team structure or team leadership positions that requires a percentage of total team members. [00:26] would anyone like to address the topic easwar put on the agenda? [00:26] o/ [00:26] [TOPIC] Decision on logging of #ubuntu-beginners [00:26] New Topic: Decision on logging of #ubuntu-beginners [00:26] go nhandler [00:26] Basically, #ubuntu-beginners is now our support channel [00:27] It should be all CoC compliant and appropriate. There should be no behavior in there that would reflect poorly on any individual or the team [00:27] It is also no longer a "social" channel [00:27] As a result, I see no reason why we can not make public logs available of it [00:27] I'd agree with nhandler at this point [00:27] The logs of a support channel can often prove to be very valuable references [00:27] o/ [00:27] Go ahead lukjad86 [00:28] nhandler, I thought logs went live circa Mid-February. [00:28] or was that procrastinated? [00:28] nhandler I agree with you that since this is now a support channel, the logs should be published, but only as of the decision made at this meeting and not from before. [00:28] I believe it was put off [00:28] ibuclaw: No, we held off on making a decision due to changing the irc structure [00:28] any other comments before we move to a vote? [00:28] lukjad86: That would be what would happen [00:29] I would also like to suggest a short, maybe week long "cooldown" period [00:29] lukjad86: What do you mean? [00:29] Just where we warn everyone several times that the channel will be logged as of [DATE] [00:29] And put it in the topic [00:29] lukjad86: It will take a while to get the bot in the channel to do the logging ;) [00:30] So that cool down period will happen anyway [00:30] nhandler Yeah, but I mean that we should actively mention this :) [00:30] I have no objections to that [00:30] Any other comments? [00:30] Nope :) [00:31] cprofitt: Shall we vote? [00:31] [VOTE] #ubuntu-beginners will be logged and there will be a one week notice to team members - the fact that the channel is logged will also be included in the /topic [00:31] Please vote on: #ubuntu-beginners will be logged and there will be a one week notice to team members - the fact that the channel is logged will also be included in the /topic. [00:31] Public votes can be registered by saying +1/-1/+0 in the channel, private votes by messaging the channel followed by +1/-1/+0 to MootBot [00:31] E.g. /msg MootBot +1 #ubuntu-meeting [00:31] +1 [00:31] +1 received from cprofitt. 1 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 1 [00:31] +1 [00:31] +1 received from cjohnston. 2 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 2 [00:31] +1 [00:31] +1 received from pleia2. 3 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 3 [00:31] +1 [00:31] +1 received from lukjad86. 4 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 4 [00:31] Private +1 vote received. 5 for, 0 against, 0 have abstained. Count is now 5 [00:31] +1 [00:31] +1 received from ibuclaw. 6 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 6 [00:31] +1 [00:31] +1 received from nhandler. 7 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 7 [00:31] last call for votes [00:31] +0 [00:31] Abstention received from Silver_Fox_. 7 for, 0 against. 1 have abstained. Count is now 7 [00:31] any more votes? [00:32] Private +1 vote received. 8 for, 0 against, 1 have abstained. Count is now 8 [00:32] +1 [00:32] +1 received from PabloRubianes. 9 for, 0 against. 1 have abstained. Count is now 9 [00:32] [ENDVOTE] [00:32] Final result is 9 for, 0 against. 1 abstained. Total: 9 [00:32] cprofitt: Please give me the action to get this stuff sorted out [00:32] [agreed] #ubuntu-beginners will be logged and there will be a one week notice to team members - the fact that the channel is logged will also be included in the /topic [00:32] AGREED received: #ubuntu-beginners will be logged and there will be a one week notice to team members - the fact that the channel is logged will also be included in the /topic [00:32] [ACTION]nhandler will craft a message to the team and sort out how the channel will be logged [00:32] ACTION received: nhandler will craft a message to the team and sort out how the channel will be logged [00:33] [ACTION] nhandler will manage the topic for the channel to ensure that notice is given that the channel is logged [00:33] ACTION received: nhandler will manage the topic for the channel to ensure that notice is given that the channel is logged [00:33] [TOPIC] Re-purpose #ubunt-beginners-team [00:33] New Topic: Re-purpose #ubunt-beginners-team [00:33] nhandler: go [00:33] Basically, I proposed turning #ubuntu-beginners-team into how the old #ubuntu-beginners channel used to be. The only exception would be that it would be CoC-compliant. We could then shut down ##cabaret (or break all ties to it) [00:33] +1 [00:34] I'd support that [00:34] If fact, I pretty much treat it as such. :) [00:34] It didn't really have any criticism or objections on the ML. Are there any now? [00:34] I miss the chatter from the channel. [00:34] lukjad86: yeah, me too === bladernr_ is now known as bladernr-away [00:34] +1 Silver_Fox_, it's not as lively as it once was [00:34] Now very few speak :( Not a community atmosphere in my opinion [00:35] If there are no objections/comments/questions, we can move to a vote [00:35] Silver_Fox_: +1 [00:35] +1 to needing more community atmosphere [00:35] will this channel be logged? [00:35] cprofitt: Not right now [00:35] o/ [00:35] I don't think many people would appreciate it being logged if it is more social [00:35] Go Silver_Fox_ [00:35] + 1 nhandler [00:36] that is why I was asking [00:36] RE: Logging this channel. will this be made into another item to vote on in a different meeting if needed? [00:36] nhandler +1 to the no logging [00:36] * cjohnston thinks it should be logged for when official things are spoken of... [00:36] Silver_Fox_ If it seems that people wish for it to be logged, it might get voted on in the future. [00:36] Thank you for clarification nhandler :) [00:36] cjohnston: We have private logs if necessary [00:37] Can we vote on the proposal? [00:37] any more comments before moving to a vote [00:37] non [00:37] [VOTE] #ubuntu-beginners-team will be a more social environment - #cabaret will be deprecated - #ubuntu-beginners-team will not be logged [00:37] Please vote on: #ubuntu-beginners-team will be a more social environment - #cabaret will be deprecated - #ubuntu-beginners-team will not be logged. [00:37] Public votes can be registered by saying +1/-1/+0 in the channel, private votes by messaging the channel followed by +1/-1/+0 to MootBot [00:37] E.g. /msg MootBot +1 #ubuntu-meeting [00:38] +1 [00:38] +1 received from cjohnston. 1 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 1 [00:38] +1 [00:38] +1 received from cprofitt. 2 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 2 [00:38] +1 [00:38] +1 received from pleia2. 3 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 3 [00:38] +1 [00:38] +1 received from Silver_Fox_. 4 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 4 [00:38] +1 [00:38] +1 [00:38] +1 received from lukjad86. 5 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 5 [00:38] +1 received from nhandler. 6 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 6 [00:38] Private +1 vote received. 7 for, 0 against, 0 have abstained. Count is now 7 [00:38] Private abstention received. 7 for, 0 against. 1 abstained. Count is now 7 [00:38] any more votes [00:38] last call for votes [00:38] [ENDVOTE] [00:38] Final result is 7 for, 0 against. 1 abstained. Total: 7 [00:39] I'll talk to bodhi to sort out ##cabaret. Does someone want to send out an email to the ML. [00:39] [AGREED] #ubuntu-beginners-team will be a more social environment - #cabaret will be deprecated - #ubuntu-beginners-team will not be logged [00:39] AGREED received: #ubuntu-beginners-team will be a more social environment - #cabaret will be deprecated - #ubuntu-beginners-team will not be logged [00:39] o/ [00:39] [ACTION] cjohnston will send a message to the list about the irc channel changes [00:39] ACTION received: cjohnston will send a message to the list about the irc channel changes [00:39] thanks cjohnston [00:39] yup [00:39] [TOPIC] Council and Focus Group Leader Elections [00:39] New Topic: Council and Focus Group Leader Elections [00:39] go nhandler [00:40] Basically, it is time for Council elections. I sent a basic plan to the ML [00:40] CIVS pretty much has to be used until LP gains more features for votes [00:40] The only item of my plan that is still getting sorted out is how to generate the short list of nominees [00:40] nhandler: I would like to hold on the elections until we have settled the method for voting [00:41] cprofitt: This is separate from the other voting stuff [00:41] I am hoping we can do that by the next meeting -- is that enough time? [00:41] CIVs *needs* to be used [00:41] I would like to see elections happen with release cycles.. so it needs to be started [00:41] o/ [00:41] go Silver_Fox_ [00:41] cjohnston: bodhi proposed Coucnil elections with each LTS release [00:41] nhandler: how can we say CIVS must or needs to be used if the team has not decided to use it? [00:42] nhandler: right.. what im saying is if we hold off, it wont happen with the lts imo [00:42] @ cjohnston would that be the new council begins the election process when new LTS released or is up and running ? [00:42] cprofitt: The other proposed options were LP or a bot. Neither of which would work for the type of vote required to elect a council [00:42] nhandler: I agree... [00:42] Silver_Fox_: my recomendation would be that the vote happen the meeting the month of the release.. and then release time is when the actual change happens [00:42] Silver_Fox_: The new council's term would start with the LTS release [00:42] but until the team has agreed -- can we really force the issue? [00:43] Then election needs to happen now then :) [00:43] cprofitt, There's not a better option than CIVS, from what I can tell. [00:43] Silver_Fox_: agreed.. next month [00:43] cprofitt: Due to technical limitations of the others, I believe there is no decision to vote on wrt voting method [00:43] by May 1st then? [00:43] nhandler: I agree... [00:43] vote to happen the week of the april meeting imo [00:43] cjohnston Silver_Fox_: It is more than a simple vote, it will take a few weeks to do [00:44] just curious if the team needs to accept that or if we have the authority as the council to make a decision [00:44] nhandler, Indeed, I believe we need to at least begin starting it now. [00:44] I imagine it would do nhandler [00:44] Council to assume by May 1st with April meeting for vote? [00:44] Hellow: If my plan is approved, I would get the ball rolling after the meeting [00:44] cprofitt: The vote will not be at a meeting [00:44] Sooner the better as far as I am concerned in getting it sorted out [00:45] so -- as a group we need to decide to use CIVS [00:45] that is the vote for tonight; correct? [00:45] its just for one vote [00:45] ok... CIVS for Council and FG lead vote [00:45]