Ubuntu Beginners Council Meeting Held June 21, 2011
The new mission statement will be worked on and adopted by Tuesday June 28th.
20:00 <+cprofitt> MEETING STARTED 20:00 <+cprofitt> everyone who is here for the meeting pleace say here 20:01 <+cprofitt> ok, no one is present for the UBT Council meeting 20:02 <+DarkwingDuck> pong 20:02 <+cprofitt> hey DarkwingDuck here for the meeting? 20:02 <+DarkwingDuck> o/ 20:02 <+cprofitt> bodhi_zazen: are you attending? 20:03 <+bodhi_zazen> yes and no 20:03 [Users #ubuntu-beginners-council] 20:03 [@ChanServ ] [+cprofitt ] [+duanedesign] 20:03 [+bodhi_zazen] [+DarkwingDuck] [+ibuclaw ] 20:03 -!- Irssi: #ubuntu-beginners-council: Total of 6 nicks [1 ops, 0 halfops, 5 voices, 0 normal] 20:03 <+cprofitt> duanedesign: ping 20:03 <+DarkwingDuck> is it in ubuntu-meeting? 20:03 <+cprofitt> no, just in here 20:03 <+cprofitt> I did not schedule it for ubuntu-meeting 20:03 <+cprofitt> we likely should do that in the future 20:03 <+cprofitt> but with this being the first one I was a bit nervous to do that 20:03 <+bodhi_zazen> your sandbox looks like a good start though cprofit, thank you for doing that work 20:04 <+DarkwingDuck> Aye 20:04 <+cprofitt> so, my questions in regards to the sandbox are: 20:05 <+cprofitt> is it clear that we would allow the FGs to be open teams -- anyone could join to ask for help 20:05 <+cprofitt> the teams would be made up of both those giving help and those seeking help 20:05 <+bodhi_zazen> I think you need to start by re-writing the mission statement for the team 20:05 <+bodhi_zazen> and defining what it means to be an active member of the team 20:06 <+bodhi_zazen> I think if you do those two things, the rest will fall in place 20:06 <+cprofitt> of the UBT team bodhi_zazen ? 20:06 <+bodhi_zazen> yes 20:06 <+cprofitt> so not the FGs then 20:06 <+bodhi_zazen> I like the idea of a focus group, but as they are now they are all but non-active 20:07 <+cprofitt> I think you are likely correct, but I was finding it difficult to write the mission statement unless I had a common understanding of what those teams would be 20:07 <+DarkwingDuck> FGs should be directed, concentrated areas within the UBT. 20:07 <+bodhi_zazen> Well, leave teams "to be determined" 20:07 <+DarkwingDuck> Not a "seperate" group 20:07 <+bodhi_zazen> and develop those teams once you have: 20:07 <+cprofitt> DarkwingDuck: so a person seeking help would join what? 20:07 <+DarkwingDuck> But rather a topic in the "conversation" of the UBT. 20:08 <+bodhi_zazen> 1. Community support and active UFBT members 20:08 <+cprofitt> bodhi_zazen: I disagree with the idea that we develop them afterwards 20:08 <+DarkwingDuck> Depends on where (s)he wants to help. 20:08 <+cprofitt> perhaps I should ensure the sandbox accurately conveyed my thoughts 20:08 <+bodhi_zazen> Well cprofitt herd to define an inactive group ;P 20:08 <+cprofitt> it does not appear that they did. 20:08 <+DarkwingDuck> That's where teh FGs come from but, as it stands there is the UBT and there are FGs 20:09 <+cprofitt> bodhi_zazen: the FGs are not 'groups' as they were under the old BT 20:09 <+DarkwingDuck> There shouldn't be a defference 20:09 <+DarkwingDuck> IMO 20:09 <+bodhi_zazen> Who comprises what group now cprofitt ? 20:09 <+cprofitt> bodhi_zazen: did you read the sandbox? 20:09 <+cprofitt> if not I will try to give a more complete picture 20:10 <+cprofitt> ... in fact let me do that anyway 20:10 <+bodhi_zazen> yes, but I did not see the specification 20:10 <+cprofitt> please be patient 20:10 <+bodhi_zazen> IMO you are making the team top heavy / bureaucratic without an active user base 20:10 <+cprofitt> It was under the Poltential Team Structure section 20:10 <+cprofitt> I am not sure how you can say that if you do not understand what I am saying... 20:11 <+cprofitt> but that is fine. 20:11 <+cprofitt> I will step aside 20:11 <+DarkwingDuck> I like the new/potential team structer 20:11 <+DarkwingDuck> structure 20:11 <+cprofitt> what structure DarkwingDuck 20:11 <+DarkwingDuck> In he sandbox 20:12 <+cprofitt> in which the FGs are three 20:12 <+cprofitt> User 20:12 <+cprofitt> Contributor 20:12 <+cprofitt> Developer 20:12 <+cprofitt> ? 20:13 <+cprofitt> bodhi_zazen: I agree we do not have a 'user base' but I think that is because the team became too bureaucratic in allowing people to join seeking help 20:15 <+cprofitt> hello? did we have a netsplit? 20:15 <+DarkwingDuck> Sorry, dealing with family at same time. 20:15 <+cprofitt> no problem 20:15 <+bodhi_zazen> I like your vision for focus groups, but, I would sort of leave them as "to be done" and focus on building bridges with the community and a user base 20:15 <+cprofitt> all my channels were silent so I started getting worried 20:15 <+DarkwingDuck> The FGs will fall into place. 20:16 <+bodhi_zazen> can you define what the developers or wiki team would like to see of the BT ? 20:16 <+cprofitt> yes, the actual activities in those groups would 'just take place' 20:16 <+cprofitt> but do we agree with the areas of 'focus' 20:16 <+bodhi_zazen> +1 DarkwingDuck 20:16 <+DarkwingDuck> If we build the base then it will fall into place. 20:16 <+cprofitt> I am not trying to form FGs as we did in the old system 20:16 * DarkwingDuck nods 20:16 <+cprofitt> but areas of focus 20:17 <+bodhi_zazen> I would not create an area of foucs just yet, we need to define the purpose, with community input first, IMO 20:17 <+cprofitt> the developer FG may become both for people packaging (motu) and regular app developers 20:17 <+DarkwingDuck> We need a structure then let the filler fall into place. 20:17 <+cprofitt> ok... 20:17 <+DarkwingDuck> We need to set a path forward. 20:17 <+DarkwingDuck> A direction of what we want to accomplish. 20:18 <+bodhi_zazen> +1 DarkwingDuck 20:18 <+cprofitt> how should we move forward then? 20:18 <+cprofitt> I wish to be honest 20:18 <+cprofitt> I last edited that document on 6/4 20:18 <+DarkwingDuck> Aye, sorry, I've been out of it :/ 20:18 <+cprofitt> and no one has commented or suggested anything on it 20:18 <+DarkwingDuck> What do we as the UBT council want UBT to accomplish? 20:19 <+bodhi_zazen> I think you should start by identifying and meeting with representatives from the community 20:19 <+DarkwingDuck> Train the next-gen of devels and volunteers? 20:19 <+cprofitt> I could care less about 'what' but it frustrates me that meetings end up being a bunch of talking with little to no action 20:19 * DarkwingDuck nods 20:19 <+bodhi_zazen> cprofitt: that stems from the lack of a mission statement =) 20:19 <+cprofitt> bodhi_zazen: it stems from a lack of involvement from this council 20:20 <+cprofitt> no email feedback 20:20 <+cprofitt> no work on mission statement 20:20 <+cprofitt> UDS was a good opportunity to work with the communtiy 20:20 <+cprofitt> have either of you viewed the video? 20:20 <+cprofitt> have the other council members? 20:21 <+cprofitt> It is fine for you to state that "it is because of a lack of mission statement" 20:21 <+cprofitt> but it would be better if you had a suggestion towards building that mission statement 20:23 <+cprofitt> any suggestions on a mission statement? 20:24 * DarkwingDuck ponders 20:24 <+DarkwingDuck> I think that being a training ground for the next generation of contributers 20:24 <+DarkwingDuck> is sometihng that I believe that the UBT can do. 20:24 <+cprofitt> Jono called it an onboarding effort 20:24 <+bodhi_zazen> +1 20:25 <+bodhi_zazen> helping people move from users -> contributers 20:25 <+DarkwingDuck> The current contribution teams can send new people here so they can be trained properly 20:25 <+DarkwingDuck> Then we ship them back knowing whats going on. 20:25 <+bodhi_zazen> Again, we need buy in from the wiki team, I know they want help, and say MOTU , etc 20:25 <+cprofitt> what about people looking to get involved that do now know how to contact contribution teams? 20:25 <+DarkwingDuck> This way the heavy devels are not bogged down trying to explain what is going on. 20:26 <+bodhi_zazen> If we start with the wiki team, they need to give us a list of ecpextations 20:26 <+cprofitt> will we only allow people recommended by other teams or are they open? 20:26 <+bodhi_zazen> and at least one mentor who can teach us those expectations 20:26 <+DarkwingDuck> Same with any level 20:26 <+bodhi_zazen> From there you would defacto form a wiki FG 20:26 <+DarkwingDuck> Decumentation, MOTU, Wiki, Bug people, QA ect ect 20:26 <+cprofitt> bodhi_zazen: why have such targeted FGs? 20:26 <+bodhi_zazen> People can join at will 20:26 <+DarkwingDuck> *Documentation 20:27 <+cprofitt> they proved problematic before 20:27 <+bodhi_zazen> start a wiki page with task lists - check them off -> move on from BT 20:27 <+cprofitt> there are also two levels of 'bug people' 20:27 <+cprofitt> triage and actual patchers 20:28 <+cprofitt> at UDS-O and in subsequent conversations it sounded like triage was seen by the community as contributors 20:28 <+cprofitt> and patchers as developers 20:28 <+DarkwingDuck> Yeah, I know... Pete and i talked about bug people 20:29 <+cprofitt> I was actually thinking that bugs would be a good first area to focus on given the current drive to build that part of the community 20:29 * DarkwingDuck nods 20:29 <+cprofitt> I also hesitate to make FGs so focused as it leads to potential empty inactive FGs like we had before 20:29 <+DarkwingDuck> Aye 20:29 <+DarkwingDuck> Then just have three. 20:30 <+cprofitt> having a large umbrella FG - contributor / developer / user I thought would enable us to not need so many leaders 20:30 <+cprofitt> and allow us to avoid having 'inactive groups' 20:30 <+DarkwingDuck> Not about the leadership but, it's more that people wont get lost. 20:30 <+cprofitt> yep 20:30 <+cprofitt> but also leadership -- as in the position you volunteered for -- liason with community 20:30 <+DarkwingDuck> Yes. 20:31 <+cprofitt> each FG lead would be responsible for gathering those expectations for the teams 20:31 <+cprofitt> and making adjustments 20:31 <+DarkwingDuck> hang a sec... wife calling. 20:31 <+cprofitt> I do not want to have 10s of leaders doing that 20:32 <+DarkwingDuck> So, and they shouldn't 20:33 <+cprofitt> I would like to have a structure and the FG leads, liason in place by September 20:33 <+cprofitt> and would want to work on getting some of them to attend UDS 20:33 <+cprofitt> so that we can make contacts with these teams 20:33 <+cprofitt> and really get this going for next cycle 20:35 <+DarkwingDuck> I think it would be good if we could not the FG leads all at UDS 20:35 <+bodhi_zazen> gotta run 20:35 <+bodhi_zazen> start with concrete tasks 20:35 <+bodhi_zazen> if bugs, expect team members to triage bugs 20:36 * DarkwingDuck nods 20:36 <+cprofitt> bodhi_zazen: will you edit the sandbox with your ideas 20:36 <+cprofitt> thanks 20:36 <+bodhi_zazen> you can say you want to start with bug reports all you want, until you have someone from the bug team train, and volunteers to work on it , it is all smoke and mirrors 20:36 -!- bodhi_zazen [~bodhi_zaz@ubuntu/member/bodhizazen] has quit [Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.87 [Firefox 5.0/20110615151330]] 20:37 <+cprofitt> we have two strong bug squad and QA members on the team 20:37 <+cprofitt> charlie-tca and hggdh 20:37 <+cprofitt> hggdh actually works for Canonical too 20:37 <+DarkwingDuck> Agreed 20:37 <+cprofitt> they have been on the team since UDS-N 20:37 <+cprofitt> but due to resistance from previous council members nothing was done with them until recently 20:37 <+DarkwingDuck> And if I pick this job up I'll be another Canonical guy 20:37 <+cprofitt> yep 20:38 <+cprofitt> DarkwingDuck: I understand why you have been busy 20:38 <+DarkwingDuck> :) 20:38 <+cprofitt> but I want an honest answer here -- am I out of line to be upset that not one other council member added to or commented on the sandbox 20:38 <+cprofitt> I sent two emails out 20:38 <+cprofitt> nothing 20:38 <+DarkwingDuck> Not out of line at all... 20:38 <+cprofitt> then bodhi rips it 20:38 <+DarkwingDuck> I'm really sorry I have not either. 20:39 <+cprofitt> frustrating... even if I have screwed up ideas these things can not just wait until meetings 20:39 <+DarkwingDuck> This is status quo for UBT IMO 20:39 <+cprofitt> where we simply rip the ideas and then do nothing 20:39 <+DarkwingDuck> Yup 20:39 <+cprofitt> I think I am the only council member who has made all of the last four team meetings too 20:40 <+cprofitt> I am not looking for a pat on the back or anything, but the council is busted IMHO 20:40 <+cprofitt> we have to work hard to set a direction for this team 20:40 <+cprofitt> and not just debate about it 20:40 <+cprofitt> or worse be absent 20:41 <+cprofitt> duanedesign is working on a job with Canonical as well I think... 20:41 <+cprofitt> rant over 20:41 <+cprofitt> so -- can we put a stake in the ground to wordsmith a mission statement and get that done by Tuesday next week? 20:50 <+cprofitt> DarkwingDuck: ? 20:53 <+cprofitt> MEETING ENDED