Ubuntu Beginners Council Meeting Held June 21, 2011


The new mission statement will be worked on and adopted by Tuesday June 28th.

Meeting Log

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

BeginnersTeam/Meetings/20110621 (last edited 2011-06-22 01:05:20 by cprofitt)