Ubuntu Wiki

   1 [00:00] <cprofitt> #startmeeting -- Ubuntu Beginners Team --
   2 [00:00] <MootBot> Meeting started at 18:00. The chair is cprofitt.
   3 [00:00] <MootBot> Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
   4 [00:00] <cprofitt> Hello everyone
   5 [00:00] <cjohnston> o/
   6 [00:00] <Hellow> cprofitt, I thought we was waiting for nhandler?
   7 [00:00] <cprofitt> can I get a roll call of Beginners Team members
   8 [00:00] <jgoguen> o/
   9 [00:00] <Silver_Fox_> o/
  10 [00:00] <lukjad86> o/
  11 [00:01] <Hellow> (also, it's quite apparently I'm here - for once in a year)
  12 [00:01] <cprofitt> thank you all for being here
  13 [00:01] <cprofitt> [TOPIC] Vote on change in how we vote to a more inclusive method
  14 [00:01] <MootBot> New Topic:  Vote on change in how we vote to a more inclusive method
  15 [00:02] <cprofitt> We have had a test of a voting system
  16 [00:02] <cprofitt> and I would like to see if anyone had any feedback about that
  17 [00:02] <pedro3005> hi guys
  18 [00:02] <cprofitt> if not we can move to a vote
  19 [00:03] <jgoguen> I quite like being able to assign preferences on multiple outcomes
  20 [00:03] <cprofitt> I want to ensure that you all understand that this is not a vote on which system to use
  21 [00:03] <pleia2> sorry, here, am at work
  22 [00:03] <Silver_Fox_> Nothing from me.  Though I would like clarification.  Can a vote be made in private via this method ?
  23 [00:03] <cprofitt> but a vote on if the team would like to use a system that is more inclusive
  24 [00:03] <cprofitt> Silver_Fox_: we are not, at this time, picking a method
  25 [00:03] <Silver_Fox_> Okay cprofitt .
  26 [00:03] <cprofitt> just confirming a desire to move to an inclusive method
  27 [00:03] <nhandler> o/
  28 [00:04] <cprofitt> yes nhandler
  29 [00:04] <nhandler> cprofitt: No comment, just arrived for the meeting ;)
  30 [00:04] <cprofitt> k
  31 [00:04] <paultag> cprofitt, can we define inclusive?
  32 [00:04] <PabloRubianes> the meeting officialy started?
  33 [00:05] <cprofitt> paultag: allowing a greater number of members to vote
  34 [00:05] <paultag> I hate emotional terms
  35 [00:05] <jgoguen> PabloRubianes: Yes
  36 [00:05] <PabloRubianes> jgoguen: thanks
  37 [00:05] <cprofitt> using a 'system' that does not require attendance at a specified time
  38 [00:05] <paultag> cprofitt, OK. The goal is to increase voter turnout?
  39 [00:05] <cprofitt> yes... partially
  40 [00:05] <paultag> OK
  41 [00:05] <Silver_Fox_> o/
  42 [00:06] <Hellow> o/
  43 [00:06] <cprofitt> 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
  44 [00:06] <cprofitt> Silver_Fox_:
  45 [00:06] <Silver_Fox_> Ignore,  you just answered my query
  46 [00:06] <Silver_Fox_> :)
  47 [00:06] <cprofitt> Hellow:
  48 [00:06] <Hellow> I don't know if this would happen or not, but wouldn't such a system decrease turnout at meetings?
  49 [00:06] <PabloRubianes> I think also the method should secure only members voting
  50 [00:06] <cprofitt> Hellow: it might
  51 [00:07] <pleia2> o/
  52 [00:07] <Hellow> Which could be detrimental to the communication in the team.
  53 [00:07] <cprofitt> PabloRubianes: we are not picking the method tonight
  54 [00:07] <cprofitt> yes pleia2 ?
  55 [00:07] <pleia2> 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
  56 [00:07] <pleia2> so I'm wondering if there could be some kind of threshold for important/major decisions
  57 [00:07] <ibuclaw> o/
  58 [00:08] <cprofitt> 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.
  59 [00:08] <lukjad86> o/
  60 [00:08] <pleia2> because on the really important things I think we want voting from everyone possible
  61 [00:08] <cprofitt> pleia2: that has been discussed
  62 [00:08] <cprofitt> lukjad86:
  63 [00:08] <PabloRubianes> cprofitt: i just saying that...
  64 [00:08] <lukjad86> I would like to second pleia2's comment, since she basically said what I was thinking
  65 [00:08] <cprofitt> PabloRubianes: I agree...
  66 [00:08] <cprofitt> just wanted to make sure that you know we are not picking the method
  67 [00:08] <cprofitt> I agree... lukjad86
  68 [00:08] <cprofitt> and pleia2
  69 [00:09] <paultag> So we are having a vote to decide if we should vote to change the voting system
  70 [00:09] <cprofitt> tonight's vote is not on a specific method - but a desire to do so
  71 [00:09] <paultag> just so we are clear
  72 [00:09] <cprofitt> then my goal would be to form a small group to evaluate options...
  73 [00:09] <cprofitt> allow people to see them all and comment
  74 [00:09] <PabloRubianes> cprofitt: +1
  75 [00:09] <pleia2> 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)
  76 [00:09] <cprofitt> then potentially test the tops two out
  77 [00:09] <cprofitt> and make a final move
  78 [00:09] <lukjad86> cprofitt I agree, and I would like to offer my help in this matter
  79 [00:10]  * cjohnston still thinks if we move one vote we should move all votes
  80 [00:10] <Hellow> I second lukjad86 in offering my assistance in this.
  81 [00:10] <paultag> Again, to be clear -- we are having a vote to decide if we should vote to change the voting system
  82 [00:10] <Silver_Fox_> o/
  83 [00:10] <cprofitt> pleia2: what I suggested was major rules/format/strucutre votes be global
  84 [00:10] <cprofitt> new member approval still me meeting only
  85 [00:10] <Silver_Fox_> Ignore..
  86 [00:10] <cprofitt> yes, paultag
  87 [00:10] <pleia2> cprofitt: ok, that was somewhat unclear :)
  88 [00:10] <cprofitt> well... this is not a final type decision at this time pleia2
  89 [00:10] <cprofitt> so I would imagine we will flesh the details out more
  90 [00:10] <cprofitt> I would like to move to a vote
  91 [00:11] <cprofitt> any objections?
  92 [00:11] <nhandler> Nope
  93 [00:11] <lukjad86> nope
  94 [00:11] <Silver_Fox_> Non from me.
  95 [00:11] <PabloRubianes> no
  96 [00:11] <cprofitt> [VOTE] The BT team would like to move to a more inclusive method of voting on issues that concern team structure or leadership positions
  97 [00:11] <MootBot> 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.
  98 [00:11] <MootBot> 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
  99 [00:11] <MootBot> E.g. /msg MootBot +1 #ubuntu-meeting
 100 [00:11] <paultag> +0
 101 [00:11] <MootBot> Abstention received from paultag. 0 for, 0 against. 1 have abstained. Count is now 0
 102 [00:11] <cprofitt> +1
 103 [00:11] <MootBot> +1 received from cprofitt. 1 for, 0 against. 1 have abstained. Count is now 1
 104 [00:11] <lukjad86> +1
 105 [00:11] <MootBot> +1 received from lukjad86. 2 for, 0 against. 1 have abstained. Count is now 2
 106 [00:11] <Hellow> +1
 107 [00:11] <nhandler> +1
 108 [00:11] <MootBot> +1 received from Hellow. 3 for, 0 against. 1 have abstained. Count is now 3
 109 [00:11] <MootBot> +1 received from nhandler. 4 for, 0 against. 1 have abstained. Count is now 4
 110 [00:11] <ibuclaw> +0
 111 [00:11] <MootBot> Abstention received from ibuclaw. 4 for, 0 against. 2 have abstained. Count is now 4
 112 [00:11] <MootBot> Private -1 vote received. 4 for, 1 against, 2 have abstained. Count is now 3
 113 [00:11] <jgoguen> +1
 114 [00:11] <MootBot> +1 received from jgoguen. 5 for, 1 against. 2 have abstained. Count is now 4
 115 [00:12] <Silver_Fox_> +1
 116 [00:12] <MootBot> +1 received from Silver_Fox_. 6 for, 1 against. 2 have abstained. Count is now 5
 117 [00:12] <cprofitt> any last votes
 118 [00:12] <cprofitt> last call for votes
 119 [00:12] <cprofitt> [ENDVOTE]
 120 [00:12] <MootBot> Final result is 6 for, 1 against. 2 abstained. Total: 5
 121 [00:12] <cprofitt> [AGREED] The BT team would like to move to a more inclusive method of voting on issues that concern team structure or leadership positions
 122 [00:12] <MootBot> 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
 123 [00:13] <cprofitt> [ACTION] cprofitt will form a small group to investigate potential options and present those to the team via the email list
 124 [00:13] <MootBot> ACTION received:  cprofitt will form a small group to investigate potential options and present those to the team via the email list
 125 [00:13] <cprofitt> is anyone willing to volunteer to help with that?
 126 [00:13] <nhandler> o/
 127 [00:13] <Hellow> o/
 128 [00:13] <cjohnston> o/
 129 [00:13] <cprofitt> thank you
 130 [00:13] <lukjad86> o/
 131 [00:13] <lukjad86> cprofitt sorry, for being so slow :)
 132 [00:13] <nhandler> I would like to suggest keeping it as a *small* group
 133 [00:14] <cprofitt> yes... the four people there should be good
 134 [00:14] <PabloRubianes> nice group
 135 [00:14] <cprofitt> [ACTION] nhandler Hellow cjohnston lukjad86 will form the small group with cprofitt
 136 [00:14] <MootBot> ACTION received:  nhandler Hellow cjohnston lukjad86 will form the small group with cprofitt
 137 [00:14] <cprofitt> [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.
 138 [00:14] <MootBot> 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.
 139 [00:14] <cprofitt> please note that this again is for structure/leadership votes only
 140 [00:15] <nhandler> o/
 141 [00:15] <cprofitt> to me this will be unnecessary if we move to an inclusive method
 142 [00:15] <cjohnston> o/
 143 [00:15] <lukjad86> Questions?
 144 [00:15] <cprofitt> but there is potentially some value to it
 145 [00:15] <cprofitt> hold Qs for a secon
 146 [00:15] <lukjad86> k
 147 [00:15] <cprofitt> I would not suggest 2/3rd majority or anything of that nature
 148 [00:16] <PabloRubianes> I think this is good if the team member's list is updated
 149 [00:16] <cprofitt> but perhaps 40% of all members must vote in a vote to make the vote count
 150 [00:16] <cprofitt> then a simple majority would be acceptable
 151 [00:16] <cprofitt> nhandler: go
 152 [00:16] <Silver_Fox_> o/
 153 [00:16] <lukjad86> PabloRubianes That has been taken care of with nhandler
 154 [00:16] <PabloRubianes> good...
 155 [00:17] <cprofitt> nhandler: ?
 156 [00:17] <nhandler> 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
 157 [00:17] <pleia2> nhandler: +1
 158 [00:17] <nhandler> I would hate to have to wait X *weeks* for certain non-active people to participate
 159 [00:17] <cprofitt> good idea nhandler
 160 [00:17] <cprofitt> cjohnston: go
 161 [00:17] <cjohnston> couple things
 162 [00:18] <cjohnston> If we are moving to a more inclusive method, it would be logical to require a certain amount to vote.
 163 [00:18] <cjohnston> You say 2/3rd majority.. Is that 2/3rds to make a vote valid or 2/3rds of +1 or -1...
 164 [00:18] <lukjad86> I would suggest that these good ideas be part of the group discussion and not be done here in the meeting for time reasons.
 165 [00:18] <cprofitt> I actually said 2/3 was a bad idea
 166 [00:18] <cjohnston> sorry.. missed the not.. :-/
 167 [00:18] <cprofitt> SilverFox: go
 168 [00:18] <Silver_Fox_> 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?
 169 [00:19] <ibuclaw> Silver_Fox_, we are already using a new method :)
 170 [00:19] <nhandler> ibuclaw: Not really. The LP member list is still the official list
 171 [00:19] <cprofitt> Silver_Fox_: no -- if we use a method that kept voting open for a week or so
 172 [00:19] <ibuclaw> well, the renewal process... which should see that number fall
 173 [00:19] <nhandler> We just changed the way renewals happen to try and get a better idea of who is active
 174 [00:19] <cprofitt> then 40% would be 26.8 people
 175 [00:19] <cprofitt> we have made inactive people expire though
 176 [00:20] <cprofitt> and LP will still be our 'source' list
 177 [00:20] <cprofitt> 40% may be too high
 178 [00:20] <Silver_Fox_> It is very easy to click a link in an email to renew.  Very little thought involved
 179 [00:20] <cprofitt> 30% might be better -- if people feel that is important
 180 [00:20] <cprofitt> the main reason I suggested the more inclusive member was to 'include' people
 181 [00:20] <lukjad86> Silver_Fox_ It no longer is like that though, it's a manual renewal with a launchpad admin
 182 [00:20] <Silver_Fox_> Oh good :)
 183 [00:21] <cprofitt> and I really do not want a 'rule' that invalidates votes based on inactivity
 184 [00:21] <nhandler> cprofitt: This percent or period of time to keep a vote open will probably depend on the method we choose to use for votes
 185 [00:21] <lukjad86> Silver_Fox_ I had to do it, so I remember :)
 186 [00:21] <cprofitt> I added it to the agenda because it was suggested
 187 [00:21] <cprofitt> nhandler: +1
 188 [00:21] <cprofitt> nhandler: it could even vary -- depending on the importance of the issue
 189 [00:21] <cjohnston> o/
 190 [00:21] <cprofitt> cjohnston: go
 191 [00:21] <persia> 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
 192 [00:22] <cjohnston> Can I recommend that this be ammended to be a part of the discussion for the group from the last vote and then presents?
 193 [00:22] <persia> This may or may not work, but it does tend to scale well, it there are real issues to be decided.
 194 [00:22] <cprofitt> thanks persia
 195 [00:22] <cprofitt> I will take a look at that
 196 [00:22] <cjohnston> s/presents/presented
 197 [00:22] <cprofitt> any objections moving to a vote?
 198 [00:22] <lukjad86> cprofitt A vote on what?
 199 [00:22] <lukjad86> Exactly
 200 [00:23] <cprofitt> cjohnston: if it passes then we can ammend it to the previous groups task
 201 [00:23] <nhandler> 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?
 202 [00:23] <cjohnston> What is the vote question please
 203 [00:23] <cprofitt> [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.
 204 [00:23] <MootBot> 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..
 205 [00:23] <MootBot> 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
 206 [00:23] <MootBot> E.g. /msg MootBot +1 #ubuntu-meeting
 207 [00:23] <cprofitt> -1
 208 [00:23] <MootBot> -1 received from cprofitt. 0 for, 1 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now -1
 209 [00:23] <nhandler> -1
 210 [00:23] <MootBot> -1 received from nhandler. 0 for, 2 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now -2
 211 [00:23] <lukjad86> -1
 212 [00:23] <MootBot> -1 received from lukjad86. 0 for, 3 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now -3
 213 [00:23] <cjohnston> +0
 214 [00:23] <Silver_Fox_> +0
 215 [00:23] <MootBot> Abstention received from cjohnston. 0 for, 3 against. 1 have abstained. Count is now -3
 216 [00:23] <MootBot> Abstention received from Silver_Fox_. 0 for, 3 against. 2 have abstained. Count is now -3
 217 [00:23] <PabloRubianes> +0
 218 [00:23] <MootBot> Abstention received from PabloRubianes. 0 for, 3 against. 3 have abstained. Count is now -3
 219 [00:23] <MootBot> Private abstention received. 0 for, 3 against. 4 abstained. Count is now -3
 220 [00:23] <ibuclaw> +0
 221 [00:23] <MootBot> Abstention received from ibuclaw. 0 for, 3 against. 5 have abstained. Count is now -3
 222 [00:24] <pleia2> -1
 223 [00:24] <MootBot> -1 received from pleia2. 0 for, 4 against. 5 have abstained. Count is now -4
 224 [00:24] <lukjad86> I'm voting -1 because I think we can't decide on this before we actually decide how we are voting
 225 [00:24] <cprofitt> any more votes?
 226 [00:25] <paultag> -1
 227 [00:25] <MootBot> -1 received from paultag. 0 for, 5 against. 5 have abstained. Count is now -5
 228 [00:25] <MootBot> Private -1 vote received. 0 for, 6 against, 5 have abstained. Count is now -6
 229 [00:25] <cprofitt> last call for votes
 230 [00:25] <cprofitt> [ENDVOTE]
 231 [00:25] <MootBot> Final result is 0 for, 6 against. 5 abstained. Total: -6
 232 [00:25] <persia> 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).
 233 [00:25] <nhandler> persia: Alright, thanks a lot
 234 [00:25] <cprofitt> [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.
 235 [00:25] <MootBot> 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.
 236 [00:26] <cprofitt> would anyone like to address the topic easwar put on the agenda?
 237 [00:26] <nhandler> o/
 238 [00:26] <cprofitt> [TOPIC] Decision on logging of #ubuntu-beginners
 239 [00:26] <MootBot> New Topic:  Decision on logging of #ubuntu-beginners
 240 [00:26] <cprofitt> go nhandler
 241 [00:26] <nhandler> Basically, #ubuntu-beginners is now our support channel
 242 [00:27] <nhandler> 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
 243 [00:27] <nhandler> It is also no longer a "social" channel
 244 [00:27] <nhandler> As a result, I see no reason why we can not make public logs available of it
 245 [00:27] <paultag> I'd agree with nhandler at this point
 246 [00:27] <nhandler> The logs of a support channel can often prove to be very valuable references
 247 [00:27] <lukjad86> o/
 248 [00:27] <nhandler> Go ahead lukjad86
 249 [00:28] <ibuclaw> nhandler, I thought logs went live circa Mid-February.
 250 [00:28] <ibuclaw> or was that procrastinated?
 251 [00:28] <lukjad86> 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.
 252 [00:28] <cjohnston> I believe it was put off
 253 [00:28] <nhandler> ibuclaw: No, we held off on making a decision due to changing the irc structure
 254 [00:28] <cprofitt> any other comments before we move to a vote?
 255 [00:28] <nhandler> lukjad86: That would be what would happen
 256 [00:29] <lukjad86> I would also like to suggest a short, maybe week long "cooldown" period
 257 [00:29] <nhandler> lukjad86: What do you mean?
 258 [00:29] <lukjad86> Just where we warn everyone several times that the channel will be logged as of [DATE]
 259 [00:29] <lukjad86> And put it in the topic
 260 [00:29] <nhandler> lukjad86: It will take a while to get the bot in the channel to do the logging ;)
 261 [00:30] <nhandler> So that cool down period will happen anyway
 262 [00:30] <lukjad86> nhandler Yeah, but I mean that we should actively mention this :)
 263 [00:30] <nhandler> I have no objections to that
 264 [00:30] <nhandler> Any other comments?
 265 [00:30] <lukjad86> Nope :)
 266 [00:31] <nhandler> cprofitt: Shall we vote?
 267 [00:31] <cprofitt> [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
 268 [00:31] <MootBot> 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.
 269 [00:31] <MootBot> 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
 270 [00:31] <MootBot> E.g. /msg MootBot +1 #ubuntu-meeting
 271 [00:31] <cprofitt> +1
 272 [00:31] <MootBot> +1 received from cprofitt. 1 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 1
 273 [00:31] <cjohnston> +1
 274 [00:31] <MootBot> +1 received from cjohnston. 2 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 2
 275 [00:31] <pleia2> +1
 276 [00:31] <MootBot> +1 received from pleia2. 3 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 3
 277 [00:31] <lukjad86> +1
 278 [00:31] <MootBot> +1 received from lukjad86. 4 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 4
 279 [00:31] <MootBot> Private +1 vote received. 5 for, 0 against, 0 have abstained. Count is now 5
 280 [00:31] <ibuclaw> +1
 281 [00:31] <MootBot> +1 received from ibuclaw. 6 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 6
 282 [00:31] <nhandler> +1
 283 [00:31] <MootBot> +1 received from nhandler. 7 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 7
 284 [00:31] <cprofitt> last call for votes
 285 [00:31] <Silver_Fox_> +0
 286 [00:31] <MootBot> Abstention received from Silver_Fox_. 7 for, 0 against. 1 have abstained. Count is now 7
 287 [00:31] <cprofitt> any more votes?
 288 [00:32] <MootBot> Private +1 vote received. 8 for, 0 against, 1 have abstained. Count is now 8
 289 [00:32] <PabloRubianes> +1
 290 [00:32] <MootBot> +1 received from PabloRubianes. 9 for, 0 against. 1 have abstained. Count is now 9
 291 [00:32] <cprofitt> [ENDVOTE]
 292 [00:32] <MootBot> Final result is 9 for, 0 against. 1 abstained. Total: 9
 293 [00:32] <nhandler> cprofitt: Please give me the action to get this stuff sorted out
 294 [00:32] <cprofitt> [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
 295 [00:32] <MootBot> 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
 296 [00:32] <cprofitt> [ACTION]nhandler will craft a message to the team and sort out how the channel will be logged
 297 [00:32] <MootBot> ACTION received: nhandler will craft a message to the team and sort out how the channel will be logged
 298 [00:33] <cprofitt> [ACTION] nhandler will manage the topic for the channel to ensure that notice is given that the channel is logged
 299 [00:33] <MootBot> ACTION received:  nhandler will manage the topic for the channel to ensure that notice is given that the channel is logged
 300 [00:33] <cprofitt> [TOPIC] Re-purpose #ubunt-beginners-team
 301 [00:33] <MootBot> New Topic:  Re-purpose #ubunt-beginners-team
 302 [00:33] <cprofitt> nhandler: go
 303 [00:33] <nhandler> 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)
 304 [00:33] <cjohnston> +1
 305 [00:34] <lukjad86> I'd support that
 306 [00:34] <lukjad86> If fact, I pretty much treat it as such. :)
 307 [00:34] <nhandler> It didn't really have any criticism or objections on the ML. Are there any now?
 308 [00:34] <Silver_Fox_> I miss the chatter from the channel.
 309 [00:34] <pleia2> lukjad86: yeah, me too
 310 === bladernr_ is now known as bladernr-away
 311 [00:34] <jgoguen> +1 Silver_Fox_, it's not as lively as it once was
 312 [00:34] <Silver_Fox_> Now very few speak :( Not a community atmosphere in my opinion
 313 [00:35] <nhandler> If there are no objections/comments/questions, we can move to a vote
 314 [00:35] <PabloRubianes> Silver_Fox_: +1
 315 [00:35] <cprofitt> +1 to needing more community atmosphere
 316 [00:35] <cprofitt> will this channel be logged?
 317 [00:35] <nhandler> cprofitt: Not right now
 318 [00:35] <Silver_Fox_> o/
 319 [00:35] <nhandler> I don't think many people would appreciate it being logged if it is more social
 320 [00:35] <nhandler> Go Silver_Fox_
 321 [00:35] <cprofitt> + 1 nhandler
 322 [00:36] <cprofitt> that is why I was asking
 323 [00:36] <Silver_Fox_> RE:  Logging this channel.  will this be made into another item to vote on in a different meeting if needed?
 324 [00:36] <lukjad86> nhandler +1 to the no logging
 325 [00:36]  * cjohnston thinks it should be logged for when official things are spoken of... 
 326 [00:36] <nhandler> Silver_Fox_ If it seems that people wish for it to be logged, it might get voted on in the future.
 327 [00:36] <Silver_Fox_> Thank you for clarification nhandler  :)
 328 [00:36] <nhandler> cjohnston: We have private logs if necessary
 329 [00:37] <nhandler> Can we vote on the proposal?
 330 [00:37] <cprofitt> any more comments before moving to a vote
 331 [00:37] <lukjad86> non
 332 [00:37] <cprofitt> [VOTE] #ubuntu-beginners-team will be a more social environment - #cabaret will be deprecated - #ubuntu-beginners-team will not be logged
 333 [00:37] <MootBot> Please vote on:  #ubuntu-beginners-team will be a more social environment - #cabaret will be deprecated - #ubuntu-beginners-team will not be logged.
 334 [00:37] <MootBot> 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
 335 [00:37] <MootBot> E.g. /msg MootBot +1 #ubuntu-meeting
 336 [00:38] <cjohnston> +1
 337 [00:38] <MootBot> +1 received from cjohnston. 1 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 1
 338 [00:38] <cprofitt> +1
 339 [00:38] <MootBot> +1 received from cprofitt. 2 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 2
 340 [00:38] <pleia2> +1
 341 [00:38] <MootBot> +1 received from pleia2. 3 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 3
 342 [00:38] <Silver_Fox_> +1
 343 [00:38] <MootBot> +1 received from Silver_Fox_. 4 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 4
 344 [00:38] <lukjad86> +1
 345 [00:38] <nhandler> +1
 346 [00:38] <MootBot> +1 received from lukjad86. 5 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 5
 347 [00:38] <MootBot> +1 received from nhandler. 6 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 6
 348 [00:38] <MootBot> Private +1 vote received. 7 for, 0 against, 0 have abstained. Count is now 7
 349 [00:38] <MootBot> Private abstention received. 7 for, 0 against. 1 abstained. Count is now 7
 350 [00:38] <cprofitt> any more votes
 351 [00:38] <cprofitt> last call for votes
 352 [00:38] <cprofitt> [ENDVOTE]
 353 [00:38] <MootBot> Final result is 7 for, 0 against. 1 abstained. Total: 7
 354 [00:39] <nhandler> I'll talk to bodhi to sort out ##cabaret. Does someone want to send out an email to the ML.
 355 [00:39] <cprofitt> [AGREED] #ubuntu-beginners-team will be a more social environment - #cabaret will be deprecated - #ubuntu-beginners-team will not be logged
 356 [00:39] <MootBot> AGREED received:  #ubuntu-beginners-team will be a more social environment - #cabaret will be deprecated - #ubuntu-beginners-team will not be logged
 357 [00:39] <cjohnston> o/
 358 [00:39] <cprofitt> [ACTION] cjohnston will send a message to the list about the irc channel changes
 359 [00:39] <MootBot> ACTION received:  cjohnston will send a message to the list about the irc channel changes
 360 [00:39] <cprofitt> thanks cjohnston
 361 [00:39] <cjohnston> yup
 362 [00:39] <cprofitt> [TOPIC] Council and Focus Group Leader Elections
 363 [00:39] <MootBot> New Topic:  Council and Focus Group Leader Elections
 364 [00:39] <cprofitt> go nhandler
 365 [00:40] <nhandler> Basically, it is time for Council elections. I sent a basic plan to the ML
 366 [00:40] <nhandler> CIVS pretty much has to be used until LP gains more features for votes
 367 [00:40] <nhandler> The only item of my plan that is still getting sorted out is how to generate the short list of nominees
 368 [00:40] <cprofitt> nhandler: I would like to hold on the elections until we have settled the method for voting
 369 [00:41] <nhandler> cprofitt: This is separate from the other voting stuff
 370 [00:41] <cprofitt> I am hoping we can do that by the next meeting -- is that enough time?
 371 [00:41] <nhandler> CIVs *needs* to be used
 372 [00:41] <cjohnston> I would like to see elections happen with release cycles.. so it needs to be started
 373 [00:41] <Silver_Fox_> o/
 374 [00:41] <cprofitt> go Silver_Fox_
 375 [00:41] <nhandler> cjohnston: bodhi proposed Coucnil elections with each LTS release
 376 [00:41] <cprofitt> nhandler: how can we say CIVS must or needs to be used if the team has not decided to use it?
 377 [00:42] <cjohnston> nhandler: right.. what im saying is if we hold off, it wont happen with the lts imo
 378 [00:42] <Silver_Fox_> @ cjohnston would that be the new council begins the election process when new LTS released or is up and running ?
 379 [00:42] <nhandler> 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
 380 [00:42] <cprofitt> nhandler: I agree...
 381 [00:42] <cjohnston> 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
 382 [00:42] <nhandler> Silver_Fox_: The new council's term would start with the LTS release
 383 [00:42] <cprofitt> but until the team has agreed -- can we really force the issue?
 384 [00:43] <Silver_Fox_> Then election needs to happen now then :)
 385 [00:43] <Hellow> cprofitt, There's not a better option than CIVS, from what I can tell.
 386 [00:43] <cjohnston> Silver_Fox_: agreed.. next month
 387 [00:43] <nhandler> cprofitt: Due to technical limitations of the others, I believe there is no decision to vote on wrt voting method
 388 [00:43] <cprofitt> by May 1st then?
 389 [00:43] <cprofitt> nhandler: I agree...
 390 [00:43] <cjohnston> vote to happen the week of the april meeting imo
 391 [00:43] <nhandler> cjohnston Silver_Fox_: It is more than a simple vote, it will take a few weeks to do
 392 [00:44] <cprofitt> just curious if the team needs to accept that or if we have the authority as the council to make a decision
 393 [00:44] <Hellow> nhandler, Indeed, I believe we need to at least begin starting it now.
 394 [00:44] <Silver_Fox_> I imagine it would do nhandler
 395 [00:44] <cprofitt> Council to assume by May 1st with April meeting for vote?
 396 [00:44] <nhandler> Hellow: If my plan is approved, I would get the ball rolling after the meeting
 397 [00:44] <nhandler> cprofitt: The vote will not be at a meeting
 398 [00:44] <Silver_Fox_> Sooner the better as far as I am concerned in getting it sorted out
 399 [00:45] <cprofitt> so -- as a group we need to decide to use CIVS
 400 [00:45] <cprofitt> that is the vote for tonight; correct?
 401 [00:45] <cjohnston> its just for one vote
 402 [00:45] <cprofitt> ok... CIVS for Council and FG lead vote
 403 [00:45] <cjohnston> there doesnt need to be a decision on what to use
 404 [00:45] <cprofitt> that the right vote?
 405 [00:45] <Hellow> cprofitt, I don't think there's another option currently.
 406 [00:45] <nhandler> +1 Hellow
 407 [00:45] <cprofitt> actually cjohnston nhandler is saying we do have to choose
 408 [00:45] <cprofitt> tonight
 409 [00:45] <cprofitt> to make the time
 410 [00:46] <nhandler> Basically, the vote is for my plan on the whole process
 411 [00:46] <cprofitt> if I am following
 412 [00:46] <cprofitt> this would be a one-time vote decision
 413 [00:46] <cjohnston> the vote is to go forward with the plan
 414 [00:46] <cjohnston> not voting how to vote
 415 [00:46] <nhandler> The short list details will get sorted out by the council
 416 [00:46] <cprofitt> from then after the officially adopted solution would be used
 417 [00:46] <cprofitt> nhandler: please confirm
 418 [00:46] <cprofitt> we would vote on using CIVS for electing the new council and FG leads for usein an April vote
 419 [00:47] <cprofitt> yes?
 420 [00:47] <nhandler> cprofitt: No. CIVS needs to be used for these types of elections. The normal decision making vote is completely separate
 421 [00:47] <nhandler> We are voting to approve https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-beginners/2010-February/000445.html
 422 [00:47] <cprofitt> ok... so we are just voting to have a vote
 423 [00:48] <cprofitt> and the method will be chosen later
 424 [00:48] <lukjad86> Again? hah
 425 [00:48] <cprofitt> (even though there are no options)
 426 [00:48] <nhandler> cprofitt: We are voting to go forward with the proposed process
 427 [00:48] <cjohnston> We are voting to go ahead with the plan of how to do this..
 428 [00:48] <cjohnston> The plan has not been voted on yet..
 429 [00:48] <cprofitt> 1) Users nominate people by sending an email to
 430 [00:48] <cprofitt> ubuntu-beginners-council@ or PMing a current council member. Only
 431 [00:48] <cprofitt> current BT members can make nominations, and the BT Council will
 432 [00:48] <cprofitt> confirm that any users who are nominated by another person accept the
 433 [00:48] <cprofitt> nomination.
 434 [00:48] <cprofitt> 2) All nominees should update their wiki pages and collect
 435 [00:48] <cprofitt> testimonials (preferably from BT members) during this time.
 436 [00:48] <cprofitt> 3) The BT Council will create a short list of nominees (We can
 437 [00:48] <cprofitt> determine the size of this short list later).
 438 [00:48] <cprofitt> 4) The Council will create a poll for all BT members to vote (we can
 439 [00:48] <cprofitt> use CIVS like they did for the CC election)
 440 [00:48] <cprofitt> so that is the plan nhandler?
 441 [00:49] <nhandler> cprofitt: Yes
 442 [00:49] <cprofitt> k
 443 [00:49] <Silver_Fox_> Please don't do that again cprofitt :)
 444 [00:49] <cprofitt> can you update the meeting page please -- that was not on there and it should have been
 445 [00:49] <cprofitt> make it #3
 446 [00:49] <nhandler> cprofitt: The plan was sent to the ML to be discussed at it should have been
 447 [00:49] <cprofitt> did everyone get a chance to read the link?
 448 [00:49] <cjohnston> yes
 449 [00:49] <cprofitt> nhandler: we also need to add that to the meeting page
 450 [00:49] <Silver_Fox_> I have read it.
 451 [00:50] <cprofitt> ok...
 452 [00:50] <lukjad86> eyah
 453 [00:50] <cprofitt> [VOTE] The BT team will hold elections for Council and FG Leadership positions using the system included on the Fri Feb 5 23:12:36 GMT 2010 mail to the mailing list
 454 [00:50] <MootBot> Please vote on:  The BT team will hold elections for Council and FG Leadership positions using the system included on the Fri Feb 5 23:12:36 GMT 2010 mail to the mailing list.
 455 [00:50] <MootBot> 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
 456 [00:50] <MootBot> E.g. /msg MootBot +1 #ubuntu-meeting
 457 [00:50] <cprofitt> +1
 458 [00:50] <MootBot> +1 received from cprofitt. 1 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 1
 459 [00:51] <lukjad86> +0
 460 [00:51] <MootBot> Abstention received from lukjad86. 1 for, 0 against. 1 have abstained. Count is now 1
 461 [00:51] <Hellow> +1
 462 [00:51] <MootBot> +1 received from Hellow. 2 for, 0 against. 1 have abstained. Count is now 2
 463 [00:51] <pleia2> +1
 464 [00:51] <MootBot> +1 received from pleia2. 3 for, 0 against. 1 have abstained. Count is now 3
 465 [00:51] <cjohnston> +1
 466 [00:51] <MootBot> +1 received from cjohnston. 4 for, 0 against. 1 have abstained. Count is now 4
 467 [00:51] <Silver_Fox_> +1
 468 [00:51] <MootBot> +1 received from Silver_Fox_. 5 for, 0 against. 1 have abstained. Count is now 5
 469 [00:51] <nhandler> +1
 470 [00:51] <MootBot> +1 received from nhandler. 6 for, 0 against. 1 have abstained. Count is now 6
 471 [00:51] <cprofitt> any more votes?
 472 [00:51] <lukjad86> I don't think so
 473 [00:51] <cprofitt> last call for votes
 474 [00:51] <cprofitt> [ENDVOTE]
 475 [00:51] <MootBot> Final result is 6 for, 0 against. 1 abstained. Total: 6
 476 [00:52] <nhandler> I can get the ball rolling for this
 477 [00:52] <cprofitt> [AGREED] The BT team will hold elections for Council and FG Leadership positions using the system included on the Fri Feb 5 23:12:36 GMT 2010 mail to the mailing list
 478 [00:52] <MootBot> AGREED received:  The BT team will hold elections for Council and FG Leadership positions using the system included on the Fri Feb 5 23:12:36 GMT 2010 mail to the mailing list
 479 [00:52] <cjohnston> nhandler: do you need help with it?
 480 [00:52] <cprofitt> [ACTION] nhandler will communicate with the team about  elections for Council and FG Leadership positions using the system included on the Fri Feb 5 23:12:36 GMT 2010 mail to the mailing list
 481 [00:52] <MootBot> ACTION received:  nhandler will communicate with the team about  elections for Council and FG Leadership positions using the system included on the Fri Feb 5 23:12:36 GMT 2010 mail to the mailing list
 482 [00:52] <nhandler> cjohnston: We'll see
 483 [00:52] <cprofitt> thanks nhandler
 484 [00:52]  * nhandler goes to dinner
 485 [00:53] <cprofitt> thanks everyone for attending the meeting
 486 [00:53] <cprofitt> #endmeeting
 487 [00:53] <MootBot> Meeting finished at 18:53.