Ubuntu Wiki

19:06 < Flannel> Alright, welcome everyone to our December 13th meeting, We've got a busy agenda tonight, and we'll make do the best we can. You can view that agenda here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CaliforniaTeam/Meetings/09December13
19:06 < Flannel> It currently consists of: Announcements, Dec 27 meeting (possible cancellation), Team organization, LoCo stories, Shirt design, Meeting cancellation procedure formalization
19:07 < phildini> is the Camp KDE item on the agenda just as an announcement, or will Ubuntu Cali have a presence?
19:07 < Darkwing-Netboo> I'll be there
19:07 < Darkwing-Netboo> handing out CDs ect
19:07 < Flannel> phildini: just an announcement
19:07 < phildini> thank you for clarification.
19:07 < Flannel> If there's anything anyone would like to add, please feel free to do so at any time, however if it's not time-sensitive, we can't guarantee it'll be covered tonight.
19:08 < Flannel> With that said, welcome again everyone. Our first topic is Camp KDE, Darkwing-Netbook, take it away :)
19:08 < Flannel> er, first announcement
19:09 < Darkwing-Netboo> Okay, Camp-KDE is going to be in San Diego in January from the 15-22nd
19:09 < Darkwing-Netboo> It's a free event however, due to limited seats only 100-150 will be allowed
19:09 < Darkwing-Netboo> So if you would like to attend you can sign up at http://camp.kde.org
19:10 < Darkwing-Netboo> there are only about 35 seats left and going fast
19:10 < Darkwing-Netboo> It will be at UCSD
19:10 < Darkwing-Netboo> it's about 15 miles north of downtown San Diego
19:10 < Darkwing-Netboo> Please, if you would like to go register.
19:11 < Darkwing-Netboo> Any questions can be directed at the site or myself
19:11 < Flannel> Darkwing-Netbook: What (in general) happens at camp KDE? Is it presentations? discussion? hacking?
19:11 < Darkwing-Netboo> Yes to all. They have everything from hacking and presentations to people wanting more information on what KDE is
19:11 < lunixgeek> For one the keynote speaker will be the author of the shell./
19:12 < Flannel> Darkwing-Netbook: so, knowing nothing technical about KDE, I'd still be able to enjoy it?
19:12 < Flannel> Good, thanks.
19:12 < Darkwing-Netboo> Of course
19:12 < Grantbow> anyone else plan to attend? sounds like fun
19:12 < rww> Flannel: only if you know it's technically awesome!
19:12 < rww> I really wish I could attend, but I'm busy :(
19:12 < Kr0ntab> I think it sounds like fun...
19:13 < dequire> i am 75 pct sure I'm coming from Ohio
19:13 < Darkwing-Netboo> I only when when I talked to Jeff yesterday he said it was almost full
19:13 < Grantbow> I doubt I'll be able to but I'm contributing some burned CDs
19:13 < Darkwing-Netboo> Oh that too, if anyone can get Kubuntu CDs to me for the event that would be awesome
19:14 < Darkwing-Netboo> with my desktop gone I have no way to burn ATM
19:14 < paultag> Darkwing-Netbook: Ohio may or may not be able to help, depending on Ohio presence
19:14 < Darkwing-Netboo> *nods* Thanks
19:14 < Grantbow> I'll send 49 discs - you have a color printer, right?
19:15 < Darkwing-Netboo> Yes Grantbow, I can print the sleeves
19:15 < Flannel> Any other questions for Darkwing-Netbook?
19:15 < Darkwing-Netboo> I am planning on doing a presentation for documentation as well
19:15 < Flannel> Darkwing-Netbook: Which day?
19:16 < paultag> Kubuntu-Netbook stuff Darkwing-Netbook?
19:16 < Darkwing-Netboo> Not sure yet.
19:16 < Flannel> Darkwing-Netbook: Be sure to let us know :)
19:16 < lunixgeek> I wish there was away to quantify and measure how many CDs' handed out were actually looked at. I talked an 89 year old guy 450 miles away into downloading and installing Ubuntu. I think he enjoyed the exercise.
19:16 < Darkwing-Netboo> Kubuntu Doc in general, and I will be there to show off Kubuntu Netbook Remix as well
19:16 < paultag> Nice :) Great work :)
19:17 < Flannel> Our next announcement is about testing, from Grantbow
19:17 < Grantbow> It's brief - the email to the list had all the details.
19:17 < Grantbow> https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-us-ca/2009-December/000993.html
19:17 < Grantbow> that's all
19:17 < Flannel> Grantbow: Can you please summarize for us?
19:18 < Grantbow> The testing team is reaching out for help in testing ISO images among other things this cycle.
19:18 < Grantbow> If you feel like contributing, please take a look.
19:18 < rww> lunixgeek: I once suggested that they should add spyware to Ubuntu CDs that would phone home on bootup and installation. For some reason, people didn't like the idea ;P
19:19 < phildini-netboo> the idea of this is to get as much bug-squashing as possible, yes?
19:19 < Grantbow> Alpha 1 was released, Alpha 2 is coming up next.
19:19 < lunixgeek> I can understand why. Gets lots of companies in to trouble.
19:19 < Flannel> Grantbow: This is just testing the isos themselves? to make sure they're all packaged up properly?
19:20 < Darkwing-Netboo> One note for Kubuntu Alpha training if I may
19:20 < rww> Flannel: it's doing specific tests on ISO images, yes
19:20 < Darkwing-Netboo> testing rather
19:20 < Grantbow> Flannel: mainly yes, but other types of testing is also encouraged.
19:20 < Grantbow> Lucid Lynx 10.04 schedule is here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LucidReleaseSchedule
19:20 < mparic> grantbow - is this just installs from iso or upgrade from last LTS?
19:20 < Darkwing-Netboo> KDE 4.3.4 is not yet stable in alpha form... Please be careful when testing
19:21 < lunixgeek> Grant: In the past Ubuntu has been excellent in that once you install any version you can keep up via the Update Manager. Does that work for this or is it preferred that one burns and installs a fresh CD with each release?
19:21 < Grantbow> mparic: as this is an LTS release both types of testing are going on now.
19:21 < Grantbow> Darkwing-Netbook: thanks for the warning.
19:21 < phildini-netboo> can i offer a suggestion for the group, or is there not enough time tonight?
19:21 < akgraner> The testing isn't about fixing bugs it's about testing the ISO's on as many platforms as possible and filing bugs on those problems...
19:21 < nhaines> lunixgeek: probably better to install from scratch for now. It's probably still pretty smooth but can get rough mid-cycle. They smooth it out again towards the end.
19:22 < Flannel> nhaines: I think he meant alpha to alpha
19:22 < Grantbow> akgraner: yes, thanks for the clarification
19:22 < mparic> will there be an official PPC version or just Intel?
19:22 < Flannel> mparic: PPC is community supported
19:22 < phildini-netboo> '
19:23 < Grantbow> PPC was dropped a few releases ago to community support, yeah
19:23 < mparic> ok - thanks;
19:23 < dragon> Is it equally good to "install" Lucid (or any alpha) on a USB instead of HDD and play around with it?
19:23 < akgraner> this is testing in VM's or bare metal hardware or live cd's or live usb's
19:24 < paultag> akgraner: I think the idea is to find Hardware bugs
19:24 < paultag> akgraner: ( from what I read )
19:24 < dragon> By install I didn't mean `usb-creator`, but the actual installation
19:24 < Flannel> dragon: I'm sure bugs from any installation method are appreciated
19:25 < nhaines> I'll be testing in VirtualBox, and about halfway through I'll start testing with my laptop.
19:25 < dragon> Flannel: yes. I'm wondering if one of those methods is more likely to encounter the bugs than the other.
19:25 < Grantbow> the more problems found the better the experience for end users come release time.
19:25 < akgraner> paultag, yes but according to the interview i did with the canonial qa manager he said testing on all of the above is important
19:25 < Grantbow> *found and reported
19:25 < paultag> That's my point akgraner :)
19:25 < rww> mparic: The FAQ for Ubuntu on PPC is at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PowerPCFAQ . I've used Karmic on an iMac G3 and it worked pretty well :)
19:26 < Grantbow> rww: +1
19:26 < paultag> Well, VMs are emulated hardware, and emulated interfaces can be well tested anywhere, but if you have an exotic HD, or video card, it would be nice to figure that out
19:26 < paultag> VMs are important ( esp. to businesses ), but exotic hardware is harder to come by
19:26 < mparic> thanks rww - have an old MacMini with Hardy; looking to update it
19:27 < Grantbow> I think that's all for this
19:28 < lunixgeek> My test machine has removal harddrives from the front so I can easily do a test install.
19:28 < Flannel> Sounds good, thanks Grantbow.
19:29 < Flannel> Our next announcement is just a reminder: We got our LoCo CDs, be sure to speak up (not right now) if you want some. See robert's recent email for specifics (I don't have the link handy, sorry)
19:29 < Flannel> https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-us-ca/2009-December/000991.html
19:30 < Flannel> Anyone else have any other announcements that we missed?
19:31 < MarkDude> yes
19:31 < Kr0ntab> actually one question about the pressed CD's. I notice from the email it mentions they are for distribution by members.... whom do we ask about getting a few?
19:31 < MarkDude> this thursday in SF Creative commons is having their 7th
19:32 < rww> Kr0ntab: where abouts in California are you?
19:32 < Kr0ntab> Temecula, CA... just north of San Diego.
19:32 < Flannel> Kr0ntab: To ease distribution, rww has a bunch and I have a bunch. Between the two of us, it will hopefully be convienent to get one to you quickly/personally.
19:32 < rww> Kr0ntab: Flannel is closer to you, then :)
19:33 < MarkDude> CC is at PariSoMa
19:33 < rww> (so him)
19:33 < Kr0ntab> ;-)
19:33 < Flannel> MarkDude: Seventh ... birthday/anniversary?
19:33 < MarkDude> We need more CDs in general
19:33 < MarkDude> Flannel, Birthday.
19:34 < MarkDude> We go regularly- its sort of open- source.
19:34 < phildini-netboo> what time on the 7th?
19:35 < Flannel> phildini-netbook: It's this thursday, which is the 17th (it's their 7th birthday)
19:35 < MarkDude> 7 I think. let me check
19:35 < phildini-netboo> k.
19:35 < phildini-netboo> thanks.
19:37 < Grantbow> http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Events
19:37 < Grantbow> 7 - 9 http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CcSalon_SF_and_Bday_Party
19:38 *** MarkDude bows to Grantbow 
19:38 *** Grantbow is fast on the draw
19:38 < Flannel> Thanks guys. Are there any other announcements?
19:38 < MarkDude> Larry Lessig rocks
19:39 < MarkDude> Item 4 now
19:39 < Flannel> That moves us onto our first agenda topic:
19:39 < Flannel> Next week's meeting is scheduled for December 27th, which is right in the middle of holidays, relatives, etc. Last meeting we discussed the possibility of cancelling it (and postponing its agenda items). Does anyone have any objections to that?
19:39 < phildini-netboo> nope.
19:39 < dragon> What are the agenda items?
19:39 < Flannel> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CaliforniaTeam/Meetings/09December27
19:39 < rww> +0, I hang out in my batcave over Christmas, am not affected by it
19:39 < Grantbow> I do - even if meetings are small there are events coming up quite soon in Jan and Feb.
19:40 < Flannel> I don't see anything on there that needs to be covered this year
19:40 < lunixgeek> Ok by me.
19:40 < lunixgeek> I guess it doesn't hurt to try.
19:40 < Grantbow> consistent meetings are well established best practice
19:40 < dragon> SCaLE isn't too far. How many meetings do we get before that?
19:40 < MarkDude> Last meeting I suggested we were having only 1 meeting in a month. It appears that is true
19:41 < MarkDude> +1 regular meetings
19:41 < Flannel> dragon: We've got nine weeks from yesterday
19:41 < Flannel> so, there's still... three meetings before that if we cancel the 27th
19:41 < phildini-netboo> +1 weekly or bi-weekly.
19:41 < Grantbow> Camp KDE is coming up in mid-January
19:41 < nhaines> I think we should skip the meeting.
19:41 < Flannel> Grantbow: There's nothing to discuss for camp KDE
19:42 < Flannel> We have regular (biweekly) meetings already, this is just a discussion of whether we should cancel the 27th due to holidays/families/people travelling/etc
19:42 < MarkDude> Item 4 - Formerly Item 1 - touches on this sort of.
19:42 < phildini-netboo> yes, we should.
19:43 < MarkDude> It should be set aside for one of our *new * groups to have a meeting
19:43 < Flannel> From what I think I've heard, it sounds like we're in support for cancelling it, and postponing it's agenda items.
19:43 < MarkDude> sry *sub-groups*
19:43 < MarkDude> Dont be a dick
19:43 < Yasumoto__> I'm alright with postponing the meeting
19:43 < phildini-netboo> +1
19:43 < MarkDude> Take a vote leader
19:43 < Flannel> MarkDude: Excuse me?
19:43 < rww> For the record, we had one meeting in December, 2008, SCaLE 2008 was at the same distance, and everything worked out fine.
19:44 < MarkDude> You heard what I said. Take a vote. sry for my panguage.
19:44 < Flannel> MarkDude: If you want numbers, there's roughly two people opposed, and four or five in favor of cancellation.
19:44 < MarkDude> language.
19:44 < MarkDude> You have a history of pushing things thru
19:44 < MarkDude> VOTE
19:44 < nhaines> He's not pushing anything through. We just discussed it.
19:44 < MaskedDriver> Hey, sorry I'm late
19:44 < nhaines> MaskedDriver: welcome. :)
19:45 < mparic> tough to get new people involved it there isn't a consistent schedule, holiday or not
19:45 < Flannel> MarkDude: Please stop. We just had a discussion about it where people stated their opinions on the topic.
19:45 < nhaines> MaskedDriver: we're just talking about whether or not to meet on the 27th, or skip it because of holiday travel.
19:45 < MarkDude> Why are you leary of votes?
19:45 < nhaines> We just voted.
19:45 < MarkDude> BS
19:45 < nhaines> That's what this was.
19:45 < dragon> I understand there might be more people in favor of canceling it, but having exact numbers would be better for all.
19:46 < MaskedDriver> nhaines, I'm here from the Ohio LoCo, but I put 11 EST, not 10EST in my calendar... sorry
19:46 < eps> If this is a vote, I'm in favor of holding the meeting as originally scheduled.
19:46 < Flannel> mparic: We do have regular meetings, every two weeks. The 27th will be the second one we've cancelled this year. 50 in a year is pretty consistent.
19:46 < MarkDude> Facts be good
19:46 < Grantbow> tyrany of the majority is well understood in governance
19:46 < nhaines> MaskedDriver: don't worry about it. :)
19:46 < rww> Considering that I just looked up 2008 and we did fine then, I'm +1 cancellation.
19:47 < nhaines> Should we do a second count?
19:47 < Grantbow> ok, let's vote
19:47 < Grantbow> -1
19:47 < nhaines> +1
19:47 < lunixgeek> -1
19:47 < Flannel> rww: brings up a good point, we did this with SCaLE the same distance off, and SCaLE turned out fine (and we threw a bugjam that SCaLE too)
19:47 < MarkDude> -1
19:47 < dragon> -1
19:47 < mparic> -1
19:47 < eps> don't cancel
19:47 < MarkDude> sexycats is sick
19:47 < rww> Grantbow: I thought tyranny of the majority was a /bad/ thing =/
19:47 < Flannel> Grantbow: We've never voted like this before. Don't be rediculous.
19:47 < phildini-netboo> +1
19:47 < MarkDude> you know where he would come down
19:48 < Yasumoto__> +1
19:48 < MarkDude> We need to start voting for *some* things its good
19:48 < dragon> Voting +1
19:48 < MarkDude> numbers look different
19:48 < Flannel> Guys, I ask again: what reasons do we have for holding the meeting? We don't have any concern regarding SCaLE
19:48 < phildini-netboo> excuse me gentlemen, but when a discussion devolves like this, i feel no inclination to continue. please enjoy your evening.
19:48 < paultag> I think this is getting off topic
19:49 < dragon> (07:48:49 PM) phildini-netbook left the room (quit: "Leaving").
19:49 < dragon> His netbook must have run out of battery.
19:49 < Grantbow> what's the threat in having an IRC meeting even if everyone isn't around?
19:49 < Flannel> Grantbow: There's no reason to make people feel like they ought to show up
19:49 < eps> The threat is we might have a _short_ meeting
19:50 < Flannel> No, it means people have to set aside time from their other activities to find internet connectvity or whatnot.
19:50 < Grantbow> I see +1 (4) -1 (6) with several abstentions
19:50 < jdeslip> Do people ever feel like they have to show up
19:50 < jdeslip> ?
19:50 < rww> jdeslip: yes
19:50 < dragon> I'd prefer a short meeting with low attendance rather than no meeting. People don't HAVE TO show up - they're free to do so.
19:51 < dragon> jdeslip: not me, never
19:51 < Flannel> dragon: What would that meeting accomplish?
19:51 < mparic> didn't look like pressing business, just ongoing discussion
19:51 < dragon> Flannel: depends on what goes in the agenda.
19:51 < Flannel> dragon: Whats the purpose of holding a meeting when you know productivity would be low/non-existent?
19:51 < eps> If you're worried about it, designate this meeting for nonbinding items only
19:52 < Grantbow> consistency
19:52 < Flannel> dragon: If significant things are on the agenda, people will feel compelled to attend
19:52 < dragon> Flannel: It could be low, but it would never hurt. It gives members a feeling that they're in the loop.
19:52 < Grantbow> fostering an environment where people can participate is important - canceled meetings isn't good even with advance notice
19:52 < Grantbow> even worse without advance notice
19:52 < nhaines> dragon: It'd give members who couldn't make it a feeling that they're out of the loop.
19:52 < rww> I find the argument that we should have a meeting simply so that we'll be having meetings once every two weeks to be very unconvincing.
19:52 < nhaines> rww: +1
19:53 < jdeslip> Flannel: I personally would probably not be able to make the meeting... but if any members of the group want to make the usual time/place and discuss current projects. Why not? Surely you and I don't need to be there.
19:53 < eps> I prefer consistency.
19:53 < dragon> nhaines: "some members out of loop" is better than "everyone out of loop".
19:53 < Flannel> If the meeting cancellation is announced in advance, I don't see any problem with the meeting being cancelled. It doesn't reflect poorly
19:53 < nhaines> dragon: if there's no meeting, no one's out of the loop.
19:53 < Yasumoto> I don't see any reason that people can't meet up in the chat room to hang out and discuss projects they're working on
19:54 < Yasumoto> dragon: If someone is out with family for the holidays without access to the network, then they will certainly be out of the loop
19:54 < Flannel> jdeslip: We constantly discuss things in IRC, that's what it's here for.
19:54 < eps> There are a couple of ways to deal with this. One is to establish a quorum.
19:54 < jdeslip> But setting a time for people to all gather (if they have time) provides something extra
19:54 < dragon> Yasumoto: I agree, but what about those who are able to attend and wish to discuss projects or other things?
19:54 < paultag> If I might interject, I think this has gotten way off topic. Why not comprimise? Update over Mailing List?
19:55 < MarkDude> Vote was taken it looks like it was close to a tie.
19:55 < jdeslip> And, keeping that going on 27th even if our leader can't make it, seems like a good idea.
19:55 < MarkDude> flannel breaks the tie - lets move on-
19:55 < eps> Put "discuss projects" on the agenda. This isn't complicated.
19:55 < Grantbow> we need to move on
19:56 < Yasumoto> dragon: there's nothing stopping them from getting together to chat and be awesome
19:56 < dragon> Yasumoto: then why cancel the meeting?
19:56 < nhaines> The channel and ML are here to discuss all the time.
19:56 < nhaines> The meetings are only for making decisions.
19:56 < jdeslip> Ok, so we'll send out an email announcing a "chat time" on the 27th at 7pm where people can discuss current projects. We won't call it a meeting since the leaders ain't going to be there.
19:57 < Yasumoto> dragon: because it'd be like the US Senate meeting to vote on legislation at below the required number to pass a bill
19:57 < Flannel> jdeslip: Fair enough.
19:57 < MarkDude> Sounds good jdeslip now to Item 4 Formerly Item 1
19:57 < dragon> jdeslip: sounds reasonable
19:57 < Grantbow> jdeslip: +1
19:58 < Flannel> Alright. The meeting on the 27th is cancelled with regard to travel and holiday things. It's agenda items will be pushed back to the next meeting of the new year. The 27th, at 7pm will be an organized time where you can discuss stuff, but will not be a meeting.
19:58 < rww> and will not be on [CaliforniaTeam/Meeting], /Menu, and the other places where meetings appear?
19:58 < MarkDude> Yay good vote.
19:58 *** eps deems it an unmeeting
19:58 < Flannel> This isn't to say that you can't discuss stuff any other time, of course.
19:58 < Flannel> rww: Correct. It's not a meeting.
19:58 < rww> Flannel: thanks, just checking.
19:59 < MarkDude> Put it in the meeting place - call it - not a meeting
19:59 < Flannel> So, moving on to our next topic: "California team organization, management structure, processes". I believe MarkDude has the first sub-topic ehre.
19:59 < MarkDude> We need to figure out how to draw more people to us. Different things draw different people. Sometimes it is a local identity. Other times it may be centered around an ideal - outreach for example.
19:59 < jdeslip> I meant that suggestion sarcastically - the idea that it isn't a "meeting" just because our "leader" isn't there is laughable
20:00 < MarkDude> We need to start with a roadmap
20:00 < Flannel> jdeslip: I'll likely be there, actually.
20:00 < MarkDude> Its ok - we can use it to *conspire*
20:00 < Flannel> MarkDude: I don't think anyone's opposed to a written roadmap, when you brought it up the other day, I felt silly no one had mentioned it before.
20:00 < MarkDude> You can help too Flannel
20:01 < nhaines> I have a few things we've done before that I'd like to make goals for the upcoming year.
20:01 < MarkDude> It is my view that we should ponder where we want to be in a year
20:01 < jdeslip> Flannel: then really confused why you care about the name of the event... but, give up caring myself
20:01 < rww> I want to be in San Jose or San Diego, personally.
20:02 < Flannel> jdeslip: Because I don't believe we should ask people to take time away during the holidays when there's no good reason to.
20:02 < MarkDude> Anything San rww?
20:02 < Flannel> jdeslip: but, we're now offtopic.
20:02 < Grantbow> http://www.jonobacon.org/2009/11/10/creating-a-roadmap-for-more-successful-teams/
20:02 < rww> MarkDude: I don't like serifs much :(
20:02 < nhaines> Please let's stay on topic.
20:03 < Flannel> That particular link would best fit with roadmaps for projects, not the team itself.
20:03 < Grantbow> it says "teams"
20:03 < MaskedDriver> Flannel, Jono mapped that out for teams in-particular
20:03 < Flannel> For most of our projects (not all of them), we tend to do most anyway (discussing goals, etc beforehand)
20:04 < Flannel> MaskedDriver: If you look at what he says, you'll see it fits well with project specific goals, "Have a booth at a conference" etc
20:04 < MarkDude> We need to be able to adapt. To be *fluid* is a good thing.
20:04 < Flannel> That maps directly to our projects, and I think the process would be best suited to taking care of 'within' the confines of the project (which is mostly semantics)
20:04 < MaskedDriver> Flannel, imho, a reorganization is a project in and of its self
20:04 < MarkDude> It also aplies to subgroups
20:05 < lunixgeek> I think a prioritized list would be good. So why not just have people on this list make suggestions and then the group prioritize it.
20:05 < Flannel> MarkDude: We haven't decided anything regarding subgroups eyt.
20:05 < nhaines> I agree, I think we're already doing what that link suggests for our projects page.
20:05 < Grantbow> Flannel: it talks about teams having goals and ways for new people to participate
20:05 < Flannel> Actually, quoting from that page: It is important to note that not every contribution has to be on the roadmap. Roadmaps are great for larger projects and goals.
20:05 < MarkDude> I feel a vote coming on......
20:05 < Grantbow> nhaines: I disagree
20:05 < Grantbow> example?
20:06 < nhaines> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CaliforniaTeam/Projects/Scale7x
20:06 < rww> Personally, I'm a fan of the "make a wiki page, brainstorm on it, see what sticks" approach to roadmaps, but perhaps I'm too fond of chaos :)
20:06 < Grantbow> "one of the biggest complaints teams often report is a lack of direction. If a team gets into the habit of creating a roadmap at the beginning of a cycle, it gives the team a sense of focus and direction for the coming cycle."
20:06 < Flannel> The spirit of that "create a roadmap" document is: close the loop, evaluate your work and make adjustments
20:07 < jdeslip> Flannel: that sounds like half the purpose - I think there is also a benefit in giving people an idea of where things are goign
20:07 < MarkDude> Sounds good - that would be why I asked you to take the lead on establishing subgroups Flannel .
20:07 < jdeslip> setting goals definitely gets people involved
20:07 < Grantbow> nhaines: good example, but that doesn't negate the need for a full team roadmap
20:08 < Flannel> jdeslip: I agree, and that's why I think that creating a written roadmap is a good suggestion and one that's already in the works.
20:08 < Grantbow> Flannel: where?
20:08 < MarkDude> Lead us to it. Or we got to find a different process
20:08 < Flannel> jdeslip: (because MarkDude suggested it a few weeks ago, so I've been working on it)
20:08 < MarkDude> He is right.
20:08 < Grantbow> without input?
20:09 < Flannel> Grantbow: No, not without input
20:09 < MarkDude> I was sort of thinking of a different direction.
20:09 < Grantbow> Flannel: where?
20:09 < Flannel> Grantbow: MarkDude and I had a discusison here, and other people provided input and things.
20:09 < MarkDude> But he has started a process. He is being slow. Hence the fire being lit under his butt now.
20:10 < Flannel> MarkDude: nonsense.
20:10 < MarkDude> Huh?
20:11 < MarkDude> I am agreeing that you have started to do stuff.
20:11 < Flannel> Grantbow: we already had the beginnings of a roadmap from the approval app, and we've had a few things that have been disucssed over the past years/whatever too. They've all been in my head, MarkDude brought up the benefit of documenting it for others to see.
20:11 < Flannel> MarkDude: right, but there's no fire.
20:11 < MarkDude> Slowly is OK. We just want you to start
20:11 < nhaines> MarkDude: he has.
20:12 < MarkDude> Faster
20:12 < MarkDude> :)
20:12 < jdeslip> :)
20:12 < dragon> nhaines: would like to see some results
20:12 < Grantbow> Documentation of the team has been brought up in past meetings linked from the agenda as well. That's wonderful.
20:12 < rww> MarkDude: "Slowly is OK. We just want you to start." contradicts "But he has started a process. He is being slow. Hence the fire being lit under his butt now.". Which is it?
20:12 < dragon> actually,
20:12 < dragon> Flannel: would like to see some results
20:13 < MarkDude> slowly is ok - I dont want ok - I want *great* no problem with statementas
20:13 < Flannel> MarkDude: did we cover the roadmap stuff? is it time to move on?
20:13 < lunixgeek> I keep waiting for something to come across this screen that I can sink my teeth into.
20:13 < dragon> I'd rather see a link to a written document before moving on.
20:13 < Flannel> dragon: What do you mean?
20:14 < dragon> Flannel: an incomplete Roadmap document perhaps?
20:14 < MarkDude> Roadmap subgroup
20:14 < lunixgeek> Seems like lots of words and little substance in terms of floating action items for the group.
20:14 < MarkDude> Thats how to start it lunixgeek
20:14 < Flannel> dragon: There's nothing appropriate to post yet, holding this meeting would be silly.
20:15 < Flannel> (holding as in, not proceeding)
20:15 < lunixgeek> Ok, lets see what happens.
20:15 < MaskedDriver> dragon, imo, they are just bringing up the idea of STARTING a Roadmap. Not that a Roadmap has been started
20:15 < dragon> MaskedDriver: it has been started
20:15 < MarkDude> Yay we started a rodmap.
20:15 < dragon> that's what I got from the discussion above
20:16 < Grantbow> started somewhere
20:16 < MarkDude> We have 3 more items
20:16 < Flannel> are we ready to move on?
20:16 < MarkDude> We have some Ohio people here - lets get their input
20:16 < lunixgeek> Yes.
20:17 < MarkDude> move to the next
20:17 < paultag> MaskedDriver, dequire, are Ohio Reps. I'll be here to comment on my Blog's content, and not as an Ohio Contact
20:17 < Flannel> Alright, so the next topic is also MarkDudes, I believe regarding subgroups
20:17 < MarkDude> Paultag - how do you see thing there in Ohio
20:18 < MarkDude> as a member of a group
20:18 < Flannel> MarkDude: Please state your proposal/idea/whatever before we discuss it? Many people here don't know what you're proposing
20:18 < rww> Flannel: or Ohio in general and subgroups as something that Ohio does. Or something.
20:18 < paultag> OK. Clear that up a bit MarkDude
20:18 < Flannel> rww: Right, or something related to Ohio
20:18 < MarkDude> My proposal was re written by others
20:18 < paultag> MarkDude: In what way did I move the team, or what?
20:18 < MarkDude> You are part of a big state
20:19 < MarkDude> as we are. How needed are subgroups?
20:19 < paultag> gilbert: MaskedDriver, dequire, would you mind fielding how we handle the team?
20:19 < Flannel> MarkDude: Now's your chance to state your proposal without other people rewriting it.
20:19 < MaskedDriver> paultag, sure
20:19 < paultag> MaskedDriver: :) thank you
20:19 < MaskedDriver> MarkDude, I'll answer any questions you have. I'll start with your question: "How needed are subgroups?"
20:19 < Grantbow> because it's been rewritten? great chance
20:19 < nhaines> MaskedDriver, dequire: We need MarkDude to clarify his proposal first.
20:19 < MaskedDriver> nhaines, kk
20:20 < dequire> ok nhaines
20:20 < nhaines> MaskedDriver: thank you. We want to have things clear for the logs and summary. :)
20:20 < MaskedDriver> nhaines, copy that. carry on :)
20:20 < gilbert> from my perspective, its pretty lax; paultag found some guys in different cities that want to head things up, they have get togethers at places like panera; hang out and chat; its all pretty simple and laid back
20:21 < gilbert> no need for roadmaps and grand plans, just get together and see how things go
20:21 < MaskedDriver> gilbert, hold up.. MarkDude is going to lay out his proposal
20:21 < MarkDude> We need to have sub groups
20:21 < MarkDude> 1st
20:21 < rww> For the record, "rewritten" and "rww added a subitem without editing the existing line based on what MarkDude said in IRC so that people would have any idea of what MarkDude was talking about" are two entirely different things.
20:21 < MarkDude> we are disfunctional
20:21 < Flannel> rww: It's alright.
20:22 < MarkDude> anyone disagree?
20:22 < Flannel> MarkDude: What benefit do you see coming from subgroups?
20:22 < jdeslip> Hurray for disfunctional!
20:22 < MarkDude> true rww lets move on the *order* was rewritten
20:22 < MarkDude> Less of your ego Flannel
20:23 < Flannel> Or anyone else: What benefit do you see coming from subgroups?
20:23 < MarkDude> If you want an honest answer
20:23 < jdeslip> Flannel: *cough we don't have to run things by you *cough
20:23 < jdeslip> Flannel: but seriously, locals not better what is best for their community
20:23 < jdeslip> not = know
20:23 < MarkDude> Like I have said I support you as leader just relax a little Flannel
20:23 < gilbert> Flannel: in terms of how things are don in ohio, its nice because cities are so far apart; one guy can be in charge of local stuff; otherwise how do you handle a state as big as ca with cities so far apart?
20:23 < Flannel> jdeslip: How has being a team without subgroups affected your ability to do things for your community?
20:23 < lunixgeek> I now have lucid-desktop-i386.iso
20:24 < jdeslip> Flannel: No - because I just did whatever I wanted and didn't call it a LoCo activity
20:24 < rww> I don't think this team would benefit from subgroups. I believe they'd be used to increase politicking in the team, would be used to further a North/South split, would add unnecessary overhead, and am against them. While they may work in other states, I don't believe they're right for this one, at this time, with this dynamic.
20:24 < MarkDude> I am still not sure about the whole *local group* edits. I just remeber thinking - let him edit a frickin' page. He's not gonna trash it.
20:24 < jdeslip> (like tabling at UC Berkeley, Solano Stroll etc) - gaining statewide approval for these things is a pain in the ass
20:24 < Flannel> MarkDude: That's another matter entirely.
20:25 < MarkDude> It relates.
20:25 < Grantbow> making anyting related to this LoCo is a federal task - the barriers are artificially high
20:25 < nhaines> I hope we are moving to a point where if we keep growing we might need subgroups. But I don't see that need at this time.
20:25 < Flannel> Grantbow: Do you have any examples of high barriers?
20:25 < Grantbow> people work around them now
20:25 < Grantbow> this is a volunteer group
20:25 < Grantbow> driving people away is not good
20:25 < nhaines> Grantbow: do you have any examples of high barriers?
20:25 < MarkDude> This would be the reason - you were asked to lead on this. Let me do my local stuff- just relax a little Flannel _- Im begging you.
20:26 < Grantbow> your questions
20:26 < Grantbow> for one
20:26 < Grantbow> endless reiteration
20:26 < Flannel> MarkDude: No one said you can't do your local stuff. Nor do I think you attempting to do it within the LoCo would cause any problems.
20:26 < Flannel> MarkDude: I don't honestly believe there have been any events that were done poorly/not done due to the "restrictive statewide system"
20:27 < MarkDude> It is a critical point for our group - what do other people think? Speak out, your opinion needs to be heard.
20:27 < Flannel> Grantbow: what questions?
20:27 < eps> I'd like to point out that our membership is on the low side ... I think subgroups might be useful if we had a lot more people involved. This discussion may be a bit premature?
20:27 < nhaines> eps: I happen to agree.
20:27 < Flannel> eps: I agree, we're still small enough that we don't need to cross that bridge yet.
20:27 < Grantbow> membership is low because of a lack of, for lack of a better word, Ubuntu
20:28 < MarkDude> Am I the only one that thinks that Flannel & I have the biggest egos in the room? The difference is - I am not in charge
20:28 < MaskedDriver> Flannel, what is your total member count currently (active and inactive)?
20:28 < jdeslip> The problem I mainly have - is I don't understand how I or anyone else fit into the LoCo. As far as I can tell, there is no democratic structure (or any structure at all) despite my begging. I don't feel motivated to do much in the name of the LoCo. Particularly when it involves your projects having to pass some leaders arbitrary approval.
20:28 < nhaines> MarkDude: I don't believe that..
20:28 < MarkDude> eps people that have left have cited Flannel s ego
20:28 < Grantbow> My ego is pretty massive, dude
20:28 < Flannel> jdeslip: There's no leader's approval, it's the approval of the team.
20:28 < jdeslip> Flannel: we are NOT a small gruop
20:29 < dragon> Flannel: one of the examples of projects "poorly/not done" would be pressed CD distribution. Most of those CDs will reach the potential users no earlier 4 months after the Karmic was released, due to the "restrictive statewide system".
20:29 < MarkDude> Grantbow, does not argue with anyone else
20:29 < Flannel> MaskedDriver: We probably have about 10 people actively active, and 20 total when everyone's active.
20:29 < paultag> o/
20:29 < jdeslip> Flannel: please then document the structure of the group. Because I have seen cases where it is only your (or possibly your rww, nhaines and grantbows) opinion that matter
20:29 < MarkDude> We have more than that
20:29 < MarkDude> Gidget Kitchen has that many
20:29 < eps> Flannel: that's the "problem"
20:29 < paultag> If I might interject betwixt this frenzy
20:29 < MarkDude> IRC participants
20:29 < MarkDude> yay common sense
20:30 < rww> paultag: please do :)
20:30 < eps> Hey, I show up in RL, not just on IRC.
20:30 < Grantbow> the previous talk about even the meeting cancelation is a key example of lack of a dispute process where a sarcastic comment was the final decision
20:30 < paultag> Here is what I'll say about my structure. We had a very large community that was becoming stale very fast. OhioTeam has always been Massive, and established. Ohio is so spread apart that it made sense for me to rewrite how the LoCo conducted it's self. I created ReLoCos ( Really Local Communities ) and gave each ReLoCo, Ubuntu Member and Canonical Member a say in the direction of the team. I changed the Contact role from that of leaders
20:30 < paultag> This was done because of our situation. Every team is different. I think that the real discussion is the pros / cons of doing this
20:30 < Grantbow> jdeslip: you value my opinion!? thanks!
20:31 < nhaines> paultag: clearly your decision was a success. Do you think you'd have done anything differently?
20:31 < paultag> Great question nhaines
20:31 < rww> paultag: (one of your messages ended at "Contact role from that of leader"; I dunno if that was intentional or if you got cut off)
20:31 < nhaines> paultag: or was there anything that worked better than you suspected? :)
20:31 < Flannel> Everyone, it's now 8:30, and this discussion is still going strong, so it's unlikely we'll reach a consensus anytime soon. Might I suggest we take it to the mailing list?
20:31 < eps> I value _all_ opinions. I'd be worried if we were all in agreement.
20:32 < paultag> I think that some of what I did worked, and some of it was poor. I think it ended up creating two zones where there was a lot of activity. I would also reward my leads a bit more, and try and force people active.
20:32 < MarkDude> or talk in a month?
20:32 < MarkDude> Take a leadership role -
20:32 < eps> +1
20:32 < paultag> I did this because we had a very idle population. 300+ members, and about 5 on IRC
20:32 < MarkDude> ok subgroups
20:32 < MarkDude> LEAD Flannel
20:32 < paultag> rww: It was intentional :)
20:33 < nhaines> paultag: excellent. Did that increase participation?
20:33 < MarkDude> let us figure out the details later. stop this now
20:33 < sexycatsinhats> MarkDude: I believe we have more members, but let's face it.. how much communication between members is going on outside of LoCo meetings? It seems like a lot of different California LoCo members don't even care to come in this channel or communicate elsewhere when there's no events going on
20:33 < paultag> Yes nhaines, however I do not think Ohio is the best example for a global LoCo. We have a lot of odd things that just happened to work out. I credit my ReLoCo leads
20:33 < MaskedDriver> paultag, and if I might add something... The ReLoCo's gave people, who otherwise weren't able to meet face-to-face with people a chance to do so. Upping participation both in IRL and IRC
20:33 < MarkDude> sexycatsinhats, its the ego thing
20:33 < Flannel> Does anyone think we should continue this right now, instead of on the ML?
20:33 < MarkDude> +1
20:34 < Flannel> MarkDude: Leading isn't about making decisions yourself, it's about paying attention to what people are saying, and then making decisions.
20:34 < MarkDude> or you can lead
20:34 < paultag> nhaines: as a metric, we have about 20 on IRC now, actively
20:34 < jdeslip> I am really frustrated that the we have operated under the same problems for nearly 6 months. I have been begging for a structure to be put into place that guarantees equality (or an earned eqaulity system) for members. And, as far as I can tell, nothing has been done.
20:34 < Flannel> MarkDude: Please stop being inflammatory.
20:34 < rww> Flannel: I do. From previous experience, discussing structure on the ML turns into even more of a mess than this.
20:34 < MarkDude> If you say subgroups exist -they do its simple
20:34 < nhaines> I am open to discussion, but I believe we do not need subgroups at this time.
20:34 < MarkDude> I gave you fair warining about this Flannel - dont act shocked
20:35 < Flannel> MarkDude: I don't believe there has been a single good reason for subgroups to exist at this time.
20:35 < Grantbow> I think subgroups would be very helpful
20:35 < MarkDude> Lets try 1 or 2
20:35 < Flannel> MarkDude: You have failed to give me a good reason, other than "we don't like talking to the rest of the state" which doesn't seem like a good reason.
20:35 < dragon> Subgroups +1
20:35 < sexycatsinhats> subgroups makes sense in my perspective
20:35 < Grantbow> subgroups +1
20:35 < MarkDude> outreach
20:35 < jdeslip> I can understand MarkDude. I am frustrated with the LoCo. I have no idea whether it is worth investing time in. In one year, when Flannel, nhaines leave will it be over? Even if they don't, what if they flake? What if I disagree with them?
20:36 < MarkDude> outreach would sidestep regional issues
20:36 < gilbert> in terms of ohio, i have to say that its nice that someone is in charge of putting together local stuff; otherwise it would be very hard to *actually* get to know the people who are interested in the area...which may lead to stagnation
20:36 < nhaines> I think splitting into subgroups would result in balkanization and be detrimental at this time.
20:36 < Flannel> jdeslip: The fact that I've signed the code ofconduct means I won't flake. Whichever leader takes over when I leave also would have agreed to that, and won't flake.
20:36 < MaskedDriver> gilbert, +1. It's very nice to be able to put faces to names
20:36 < MarkDude> balkanization over outreach group?
20:36 < jdeslip> Flannel: I don't want to depend on your oath. I want the group to stand for itself.
20:37 < Flannel> jdeslip: No one depends on me.
20:37 < MarkDude> nhaines, that is an *iffy* word to use.
20:37 < Grantbow> code of conduct doesn't trump reality despite intentions
20:37 < Flannel> jdeslip: This group *does* stand on its own, and requires a 'leader' only when consensus can't be reached.
20:37 < Flannel> jdeslip: Or when there's a "tyranny of the majority" as was mentioned earlier
20:37 < MarkDude> There is a concesus for trying groups it looks like.
20:37 < nhaines> It doesn't look like that to me at all.
20:37 < Flannel> jdeslip: some of the best decisions go against popular demand
20:38 < Grantbow> Flannel: laughable, my inbox says otherwise
20:38 < MarkDude> Are we masters of our own destiny? Or are we destined to be mastered by a process?
20:38 < Kr0ntab> I can say one of the reasons why I've not been very active here is that everyone feels very far away. I end up communicating more with the regional Linux groups. Only trouble with those is that they're not very well structured and it's more of a social gathering.
20:38 *** MarkDude smiles
20:38 < Flannel> Grantbow: What?
20:38 < jdeslip> Flannel: When you put the two of those together, don't you have arbitrary power? (i.e. breaking ties and overruling majority?)
20:38 < MarkDude> Most of us up here have met
20:39 < Flannel> jdeslip: If you're uncomfortable with a BD, then sure, if you want to read it that way.
20:39 < MaskedDriver> did you have any questions you wanted to ask? It's almost midnight here in Ohio and I have to get up early in the morning
20:39 < jdeslip> Flannel: Anyway, I am really confused by how the group is even supposed to run. Why don't we have a well defined structure?? We have been talking about the need for this for months.
20:39 < paultag> Look. You are all approved as a real, honest to goodness LoCo. You are clearly capable of meeting all the criteria. You guys to a lot of good, I think that you should keep in mind that you guys are doing well, but from my ( paultag's ) perspective, there is a lot of in-fighting here. Just remember that the focus is _still_ a coherent LoCo
20:39 < rww> MarkDude: what do you have in mind when you say "subgroups"? Regional ones, or topic-based ones (e.g. outreach, etc)?
20:39 < mparic> seems like there needs to be the structure - state-wide "directors" who meet and are the leaders of their RegionalLoCos; that way locals can get involved and the regional directors can discuss / decide things without the chaos
20:39 < paultag> MaskedDriver: I'll stay, feel free to shove off
20:39 < MaskedDriver> paultag, ty
20:39 < MarkDude> Jono did ask you to *outline* things -
20:39 < Grantbow> documented structure +1
20:39 < dragon> what's a BD?
20:39 < Yasumoto> MarkDude: thank you very much for stopping by, have a great night :)
20:39 < MarkDude> ty MaskedDriver
20:39 < Yasumoto> ack.
20:39 < rww> dragon: benevolemt dictator, I assu,e
20:40 < MaskedDriver> you too Yasumoto
20:40 < nhaines> MaskedDriver: Thank you for being here.
20:40 < MarkDude> to you too joe
20:40 < Yasumoto> MaskedDriver: thank you very much for stopping by, have a great night :)
20:40 < dequire> MaskedDriver: I'm here as well
20:40 < MaskedDriver> kk cool
20:40 < MaskedDriver> later all
20:40 < Yasumoto> MarkDude: thanks in general :)
20:40 < MarkDude> Stop by a later meeting - we'll be grownups
20:40 < MarkDude> we are at half
20:41 < Grantbow> half what?
20:41 < jdeslip> Half drunk
20:41 < nhaines> half of the meetings.
20:41 < MarkDude> Grown- up at half the meetings
20:41 < mparic> unless one is cancelled
20:41 < MarkDude> :)
20:42 < dragon> I strongly believe that a documented team structure will help us be more productive as a team.
20:42 < Flannel> jdeslip: We do, it's been outlined at a number of meetings: We are a consensus based group, with a leader to make decisions when consensus can't be reached.
20:42 < MarkDude> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PennsylvaniaTeam/CommunityOutreachTeam
20:42 < MarkDude> let me create that page on our wiki.
20:42 < paultag> I have one humble suggestion -- Why not go over some of the things that I went through. I made my call to use sub-teams because of Physical Distance, Inactivity, and Me not being able to control the team.
20:42 < Grantbow> rww started documenting it after an October meeting
20:43 < dragon> Flannel: "make decisions when consensus can't be reached" works very well for small groups.
20:43 < paultag> The way I see if is that you have one of these problems right _now_
20:43 < MarkDude> There are team control issues
20:43 < paultag> I'd say Physical Separation is a huge deal, but right now, inactivity and control are not _as_ critical. ( the way I see it )
20:43 < MarkDude> https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-us-ca/2009-September/000813.html
20:43 < MarkDude> rww s letter on the issue
20:44 < Flannel> dragon: When everyone is discussing things honestly, consensus isn't difficult at all. In general, good ideas stand on their own.
20:44 < Grantbow> rww's wiki page on the issue: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CaliforniaTeam/Policies
20:44 < Grantbow> draft
20:44 < rww> <-- rww
20:44 *** Grantbow sees the math book put aside
20:45 < dragon> Flannel: imho, the following didn't sound like we were unable to reach a consensus as a team, but a decision was made by the leader beforehand:
20:45 < dragon> (07:43:21 PM) Flannel: From what I think I've heard, it sounds like we're in support for cancelling it, and postponing it's agenda items.
20:45 < nhaines> Oh, I forgot I was an op.
20:45 < dragon> this is just a minute example
20:46 < MarkDude> your top-op nhaines
20:46 < rww> For the record, the useful parts of that wiki page are the "who has admin access to what" parts. The more theoretical stuff is much better expressed in Neal's later document. (and even the who has access to what part is out of date)
20:46 < Flannel> dragon: At that point, there were five people who said yes, and two people who said no.
20:46 < rww> And as far as letters go, I don't think subgroups would solve the problems I outlined in that email :(
20:46 < dragon> Flannel: I wasn't asked for a vote at that time, so I didn't say no yet.
20:46 < Grantbow> MarkDude: create the page somewhere, anywhere.
20:47 < jdeslip> Flannel: When your group has grown as big as this: consensus doesn't work. Or isn't a structure I can understand. The whole point of "structure" is how to ensure fairness when everyone doesn't agree.
20:47 < nhaines> jdeslip: that's we have have a Benevolent Dictator model.
20:47 < MarkDude> This meeting proved we have a lack of structure
20:47 < jdeslip> Saying our structure is "consensus" is like saying "we don't need a strucuture because always agree about everything"
20:48 < Grantbow> Flannel: incorrect
20:48 < MarkDude> Flannel is not Guido - yet. I am rooting for him tho.
20:48 < Flannel> jdeslip: Everyone doesn't have to agree. consensus is defined as "something everyone can get behind" not agree with. If nathan has an idea that's good, and I don't see anything wrong with it (even if I disagree), that's fine. That's consensus.
20:48 < jdeslip> nhaines: so then our structure isn't "consensus" - it is "benevolent dictator"
20:49 < dragon> Flannel: in this example of yours, two people run the LoCo without public participation.
20:49 < Flannel> dragon: What?
20:49 < Grantbow> dictator is the a word used in extremely specific cases
20:49 < dragon> It cannot be called consensus when everyone else is entirely ignored.
20:49 < dragon> Flannel: ^
20:49 < nhaines> Grantbow: "benevolent dictator" is the current model of the Ubuntu community at large.
20:49 < Flannel> dragon: Who is being ignored?
20:50 < Grantbow> nhaines: you aren't sabdfl
20:50 < Grantbow> neither am I
20:50 < Grantbow> neither is Flannel
20:50 < dragon> Flannel: "If nathan has an idea that's good, and I don't see anything wrong with it (even if I disagree), that's fine. That's consensus."
20:50 < jdeslip> Flannel: that paragraph is a bunch of nonsense. Can we please make a real structure with well defined rules, and voting etc... I have no idea what the difference between "agreeing with" and "getting behind" are...
20:50 < dragon> Flannel: there was no mention of other team members - how could that be consensus?
20:50 < jdeslip> nhaines: Yes, MS is a benevolent dictator
20:50 < jdeslip> that does not mean the LoCo should have one
20:51 < Grantbow> most Ubuntu communities are run by councils, not dictators
20:51 < nhaines> dragon: Are you being serious right now?
20:51 < Flannel> dragon: The theory was that *I* agree to consensus, personally. Everyone else makes the decision based on those criterion
20:51 < Grantbow> there's a good book on the topic
20:51 < Grantbow> maybe you have heard of it
20:51 < Flannel> dragon: It was an example
20:51 < dragon> nhaines: I'm discussing an example given by Flannel.
20:51 < Grantbow> Art of Community by Jono Bacon
20:51 < jdeslip> MS funds the Ubuntu project and stands to personally gain or lose a lifes worth of investment. And, if people don't like his decisions they can fork the project.
20:52 < MarkDude> Jono effin rocks!
20:52 < dragon> Flannel: yes, an example. I'm not saying that only you and Nathan are making decisions at all times - but I am claiming that decisions are often made without due public participation.
20:52 < Flannel> dragon: They shouldn't be.
20:52 < jdeslip> As far as I can tell, if I don't like the way Flannel runs things, I can't fork the LoCo (this is hypothetical) because there is only one allowed per state. And the only mandate for the current leadership is that they got there first. It is not the same situation at all.
20:52 < Grantbow> Flannel: you haven't read Art of Community I take it
20:52 < Flannel> Grantbow: I have.
20:53 < dragon> Flannel: yes, that's the point of this entire discussion.
20:53 < Grantbow> then you wouldn't say that
20:53 < Flannel> Grantbow: Wouldn't say what? That big decisions shouldn't be made in private?
20:53 < Grantbow> lol - how's that for spin in the middle of a discussion! wow.
20:53 < nhaines> Grantbow: please be specific and not rhetorical.
20:54 < Flannel> Grantbow: That's what dragon and I were discussing. If you're mentioning something else, please clarify.
20:54 < MarkDude> Has every one in the channel read rww 's letter on this?
20:54 *** rww ponders shaving his head and writing a book so people can use him as gospel
20:54 *** MarkDude would call rww *cult leader*
20:54 < dragon> ...
20:54 < Grantbow> rww: writing and music publishing help
20:54 < Flannel> dragon: Some of the big decisions aren't being made in public because the people involved think discussing them in public is too troublesome.
20:55 < jdeslip> This is totally ridiculous. It is clear to me that having a democratic (or council like republic) structure would basically make everyone in the group feel empowered and do an enumberalbe amount to reduce the ill-will among members of the group. The lack of well-defined and FAIR structure is the root cause of our troubles.
20:56 < dragon> Flannel: it'd make more sense if there was a specific criteria of how decisions are made.
20:56 < Flannel> dragon: I agree, we should put together some guidelines.
20:56 < MarkDude> Flannel> dragon: Some of the big decisions aren't being made in public because the people involved think discussing them in public is too troublesome.
20:57 < MarkDude> did you really just say that?
20:57 < MarkDude> messy - following the group wishes is messy. That is going to *haunt* you
20:57 *** MarkDude says haunt
20:57 < Flannel> dragon: Lets work on it (along with anyone else) and see if we can come up with something for the next meeting.
20:57 < rww> ( Meeting is coming up on 2 hours length, for those of you too involved to keep track of time :)
20:57 < Flannel> dragon: Sound like a plan?
20:58 < nhaines> MarkDude: well, you did refuse to clarify the subgroups agenda item, and asked Flannel to close discussion and make a decision.
20:58 < MarkDude> Anyway I move for a vote on trying out 1 or 2 subgroups
20:58 < Grantbow> meetings are a test of strength and bladder control only, didn't you get the memo?
20:58 < dragon> Flannel: this is something the entire group needs to work on...
20:58 < Flannel> dragon: Indeed, that's why I said everyone should.
20:58 < rww> MarkDude: You never did answer my question on whether those subgroups would be regional or topical, and what specific divisions you would like to make.
20:58 < MarkDude> nhaines - I asked him to show he has a pair- and read the room
20:58 < MarkDude> I suggested
20:59 < MarkDude> Outreach group - check log
20:59 < Flannel> MarkDude: So, topical?
20:59 < MarkDude> outreach avoids nhaines balkanization
20:59 < nhaines> MarkDude: You came up with that well after the agenda item ended.
20:59 < Grantbow> let's make the meeting so long nobody cares about the outcome, how about that?
20:59 < Flannel> MarkDude: Having committees in charge of various things is a fine idea.
20:59 < MarkDude> yay
21:00 < MarkDude> TY for being a leader
21:00 < MarkDude> I was not trying to be inflamatory
21:00 < MarkDude> We have a a chance to do what the group wants
21:00 < dragon> MarkDude: I wonder what'd happen when you start trying...
21:00 < nhaines> MarkDude: you were doing a good job of it nevertheless.
21:01 < Flannel> Alright guys, we're well over time here.
21:01 < Flannel> Lets wrap his up officially. We've got some things we need to discuss for the next meeting.
21:01 < MarkDude> Where should we start the roadmap?
21:01 < eps> Flannel: Like T-Shirts?
21:01 < MarkDude> what part of the wiki?
21:01 < jdeslip> Can we wrap up with a official vote on the subgroups idea?
21:01 < rww> eps: yeah
21:01 < MarkDude> +1
21:01 < Grantbow> +1
21:02 < nhaines> eps: definitely t-shirts.
21:02 < nhaines> I need to get a design in there soon.
21:02 < Flannel> jdeslip: We need a well defined definition of subgroup before we can vote
21:02 < dragon> before we close the meeting
21:02 < MarkDude> Oureach group + or - /
21:02 < Flannel> jdeslip: Considering after this long we've only now got some ethereal definition, I'd like to let everyone think about it and brainstorm beforehand.
21:02 < Grantbow> we can vote but only after 52 hoops first
21:02 < MarkDude> or we can call it marketing
21:02 < dragon> we should really figure whether next meeting should be cancelel
21:03 < dragon> canceled*
21:03 < nhaines> I am not comfortable voting on an idea thrown out during the meeting.
21:03 < nhaines> I like the idea of outreach groups and would like to study it further.
21:03 < MarkDude> nhaines, sry you did not read the agenda
21:03 < jdeslip> Flannel: If I (with suggestions from members of the LoCo) write up a structure for the group including subgroups for next meeting (January) can we put it up for an official vote that everyone (yourself, nhaines, rww, grantbow) included will stand by?
21:03 < eps> nhaines: agreed. Stuff that's voted on should appear on an agenda first.
21:03 < Grantbow> dragon: the sarcastic comment had the consensus - officially canceled but discussion at that time anyway.
21:03 < Flannel> jdeslip: They're separate issues, and I think treating them separately is important.
21:04 < MarkDude> Flannel has already said ML counts for input
21:04 < rww> Example questions that need answering before this is votable, imho: what would this group do, who would be on it, how would the various processes work for it, how would this subgroup work better than the existing system, etc.
21:04 < jdeslip> Flannel: I think they are intertwined issues. They both stem from the same root cause - we have no fair structure.
21:04 < MarkDude> nhaines, Ohio has subgroups
21:04 < rww> ("this" being outreach thing)
21:04 < paultag> We have ReLoCos
21:04 < MarkDude> I said we should be like them. Are you not able to do the math?
21:04 < nhaines> MarkDude: you need to decide if you want subgroups or outreach groups.
21:05 < Grantbow> we have a model
21:05 < jdeslip> nhaines: nobody has mentioned outreach groups before
21:05 < Flannel> jdeslip: If that's the root problem, lets work to address the problem. Let's not propose solutions first.
21:05 < nhaines> jdeslip: yes, MarkDude did.
21:05 < rww> MarkDude: Ohio's groups are region based. Your suggestion is not. This, I feel, is an important difference.
21:05 < Grantbow> Ohio has subgroups
21:05 < Flannel> Alright guys, this discussion needn't take place at the meeting, and the log is going to be long enough as it is.
21:05 < MarkDude> Dont care if you call it silly groups. I want less Flannel ego
21:05 < jdeslip> Flannel: isn't proposing a solution a way to address the problem?
21:06 < MarkDude> I heard the word balkanization.
21:06 < nhaines> MarkDude: crying "ego" gets less constructive the more you say it.
21:06 < MarkDude> I would support regional
21:06 < Flannel> jdeslip: Proposing solutions isn't the best way. We don't submit patches when something's wrong, we file bugs.
21:06 < MarkDude> nhaines, have you ever disagreed with Flannel ?
21:06 < Flannel> jdeslip: (as a horrible analogy)
21:06 < MarkDude> Wipe your nose
21:06 < dragon> Flannel: so we identify the problem first?
21:06 < jdeslip> Flannel: We have nothing to patch! I.e. the root problem is we have no well defined and fair structure. We have to create one!
21:07 < dragon> (09:06:58 PM) MarkDude left the room (requested by Flannel: "Inappropriate").
21:07 < dragon> I see the decision to kick him as inappropriate, as indicated by Flannel himself.
21:07 < dragon> I assume we're on the same page then.
21:07 < Grantbow> did you just censor MarkDude by kicking him?
21:08 < Flannel> dragon: Tonight was the first time those problems have been vocalized. The past few months there have been inklings of problems, where people dance around issues, but no one communicates the problems effectively.
21:08 < Grantbow> that's worse than mail list moderation
21:08 < Grantbow> for which the LoCo council voted against
21:08 < rww> For the record, the only reason I didn't do that first was because of my stupid connection's lag. Making brown-nosing references is insulting and inappropriate.
21:08 < Flannel> dragon: We can't be a team without proper communication.
21:08 < dragon> Flannel: I disagree. We've been through these loops before.
21:08 < Flannel> Grantbow: That's inaccurate.
21:08 < Flannel> dragon: What do you disagree on?
21:09 < dragon> Flannel: "Tonight was the first time those problems have been vocalized"
21:09 < dragon> on this
21:09 < jdeslip> Flannel: And, I have been "filing bugs" - telling you guys that not having a structure is a major problem that leads to people feeling uncomfortable, disempowered and nervous for the future. It also leads to ill-will and jealousy between benevolent-dictators and those not in the elite. Nothing has been done to address my bug report.
21:09 < dragon> Flannel: and on the following sentence of yours as well.
21:09 < Flannel> dragon: In the past when I attempt to discuss these things with people, they dance around the issue and refuse to ever specify what the problems are.
21:10 < dragon> Flannel: it's easy enough to say that they're doing the same tonight.
21:10 < MarkDude> sry nhaines - I just thought it was related
21:10 < Grantbow> when there's no bug system it's hard to file bugs
21:10 < Grantbow> or patches
21:10 < Grantbow> but ignoring everything preserves the status quo
21:10 < MarkDude> I named the problem - your ego - dont kick me agian
21:10 < nhaines> MarkDude: I rarely care if I agree with Flannel.
21:11 < Flannel> dragon: I don't disagree, some people tonight were less than forthcoming as well. But progress was made, now we've got a few issues we can address.
21:11 < jdeslip> So, I propose that we write a structure (I'll do it and send it out over mailing list) - then we can vote on my final version next time. People could come up with competing structures. I just don't want to spend the time writing this up and carefully thinking things through if it won't even get a vote.
21:11 < Flannel> dragon: It's a process, unfortunately things can't be made perfect overnight.
21:11 < dragon> Flannel: I'd love to see those issues listed clearly in the meeting summary.
21:12 < nhaines> Is Robert still summarizing or is it Joe?
21:12 < paultag> jdeslip: I'll be available if you need me, for insight into a team that uses a cell based system.
21:12 < paultag> I'll be happy to help as a resource.
21:12 < Flannel> dragon: We're now offtopic and discussing meta-meeting.
21:12 <@ rww> nhaines: Meeting summaries? Me and anyone else who'd like to.
21:12 < paultag> Just remember It's Cali, not Ohio :)
21:12 < nhaines> paultag: thank you for your gracious offer. :)
21:12 < Flannel> Lets go ahead and end this meeting. And we'll continue discussion over the next few weeks I'm sure.
21:13 < paultag> nhaines: it's no problem
21:13 < jdeslip> paultag: Thanks - I'd love to hear about the details
21:13 < dragon> Flannel: are we? How we fix things is a part of the solution.
21:13 < Flannel> Thank you all for coming, our next meeting is on January 10th. See you there.

Ubuntu Wiki

09December13

Sunday, December 13th, 2009, 7:00pm (1900) PST

Summary

Original Agenda

Log