Differences between revisions 9 and 10
|Deletions are marked like this.||Additions are marked like this.|
|Line 5:||Line 5:|
|=== Agenda ===||=== Summary ===
a. [[UbuntuOpenWeek|Ubuntu Open Week]] starts tomorrow (Nov 2), runs in the morning/afternoon our time for the next week.
a. Ubuntu 9.10 (Karmic) released. [[http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/releasenotes/910overview|Overview of new features]]
a. [[UDS-L|UDS Lucid]] coming up
1. [[CaliforniaTeam/Projects/KarmicRelease]] Planning/Recap
a. Walnut Creek parties were very small (one person at one, five people at the other)
a. Bigger party will be Nov 12th at DNA Lounge in San Francisco
i. Jesse Zbikowski mentioned over email that he'll make an RSVP list
i. Mark will send an email to the list with more information tonight
a. Also upcoming: Felton on the 7th, Berkeley on the 8th
a. Southern California is still working on specifics (see thread on ML)
a. Discussion of how to get new people to come
i. Joe suggested printing out flyers and putting them up on campus (Chapman, UCI, maybe UCSD, CSUSM, SDSU)
i. Prize raffle
1. Microblogging logistics
a. No announcement was made on identi.ca/twitter for the last meeting (on the 18th)
i. Currently, Neal, Nathan, and Joe have access to the identi.ca account.
i. In the future, Robert or others will poke the relevant people if the identi.ca post isn't up an hour after the mailing list announcement
a. Discussion of what's ontopic for the identi.ca feed.
i. Original policy is announcements only, plus "noise" during events to coordinate the event
i. Some people wanted more "chitchat"/discussion, others thought that it should be limited to e.g. announcing Ubuntu releases
i. Discussion of other Ubuntu-related feeds on identi.ca and twitter; none found except the Fridge feed
1. IRC meeting length limit discussion
a. Options: current 60 minute limit from CT/Meetings, increase 60 minute limit to 90 minutes, no time limit
a. Decisions: increase current 60 minute limit to 90 minute soft time limit that we should shoot for but can go over if necessary; continue ordering topics so that important ones are discussed first
1. Facebook URL
a. Submissions: ubuntucalifornia, ubuntuusca, californiateamubuntu, variations thereof with punctuation
a. Discussion of the term "Ubuntu California" and whether it's confusing
a. Robert will summarize discussion thusfar and our options, and post to the mailing list. We'll discuss it again at the next meeting.
=== Original Agenda ===
|Line 10:||Line 42:|
|1. Your Agenda Item Here.|
Sunday, November 1st, 2009, 7:00pm (1900) PST
- Walnut Creek parties were very small (one person at one, five people at the other)
- Bigger party will be Nov 12th at DNA Lounge in San Francisco
- Jesse Zbikowski mentioned over email that he'll make an RSVP list
- Mark will send an email to the list with more information tonight
- Also upcoming: Felton on the 7th, Berkeley on the 8th
- Southern California is still working on specifics (see thread on ML)
- Discussion of how to get new people to come
- Joe suggested printing out flyers and putting them up on campus (Chapman, UCI, maybe UCSD, CSUSM, SDSU)
- Prize raffle
- Microblogging logistics
- No announcement was made on identi.ca/twitter for the last meeting (on the 18th)
- Currently, Neal, Nathan, and Joe have access to the identi.ca account.
- In the future, Robert or others will poke the relevant people if the identi.ca post isn't up an hour after the mailing list announcement
- Discussion of what's ontopic for the identi.ca feed.
- Original policy is announcements only, plus "noise" during events to coordinate the event
- Some people wanted more "chitchat"/discussion, others thought that it should be limited to e.g. announcing Ubuntu releases
- Discussion of other Ubuntu-related feeds on identi.ca and twitter; none found except the Fridge feed
- No announcement was made on identi.ca/twitter for the last meeting (on the 18th)
- IRC meeting length limit discussion
- Options: current 60 minute limit from CT/Meetings, increase 60 minute limit to 90 minutes, no time limit
- Decisions: increase current 60 minute limit to 90 minute soft time limit that we should shoot for but can go over if necessary; continue ordering topics so that important ones are discussed first
- Facebook URL
- Submissions: ubuntucalifornia, ubuntuusca, californiateamubuntu, variations thereof with punctuation
- Discussion of the term "Ubuntu California" and whether it's confusing
- Robert will summarize discussion thusfar and our options, and post to the mailing list. We'll discuss it again at the next meeting.
Backups for http://identi.ca/ubuntucalifornia for meeting announcements
- IRC meeting length limit discussion
- Custom username/shortURL for Facebook Page
19:03 < FlannelKing> Alright, so its 7pm, who thinks we ought to start? 19:03 < FlannelKing> Howdy troyready 19:03 < troyready> Howdy King Flannel! 19:03 < troyready> I'll support a start! 19:03 < Grantbow__> ready when you are, King. 19:04 < FlannelKing> troyready: Congratulations on your job and all that 19:04 < FlannelKing> Sorry for the oddball nick everyone, I'm on my alt because caltech won't let me ssh :( 19:04 < troyready> FlannelKing: Thanks; much appreciated! 19:05 < FlannelKing> Alright. Welcome everyone to today's meeting. If you haven't yet set your clock back, we're starting an hour late. If you have, we're right on time. 19:05 < nhaines> Hey everyone. :) 19:06 < FlannelKing> Our agenda can be found here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CaliforniaTeam/Meetings/09November01 19:06 < FlannelKing> It currently consists of : Karmic release planning, microblog logistics, meeting lengths, and facebook urls. 19:07 < FlannelKing> As always, if anyone has anything to add, feel free to do so. 19:07 < FlannelKing> Before we get started, as a reminder: 19:07 < FlannelKing> Ubuntu Open Week is this next week! (starting tomorrow) 19:07 < FlannelKing> It's a great chance to learn about a whole lot of stuff. Anyone have the schedule handy? 19:08 < eps> URL please 19:08 < rww> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuOpenWeek 19:08 < Grantbow__> +1 19:08 < rww> (the schedule is on there) 19:08 < FlannelKing> There's sessions about all sorts of stuff over next week, those times are all UTC, which puts it in the morning/afternoon for us. 19:08 < phildini> +1 19:09 < FlannelKing> If you can't attend in person, logs are available. Immediately at the regular irclogs location, and a bit later linked from the topics on the agenda itself 19:09 < Grantbow__> are you guys presenting again? 19:10 < FlannelKing> Not that I'm aware of. 19:10 < eps> Any sessions you particularly recommend (other than Jono's introduction, of course)? 19:10 < MarkDude> pleia2 has some good stuff planned 19:10 < FlannelKing> eps: Ask mark is always good to read in logs (unless you have a question for him) and then you can attend 19:11 < FlannelKing> Mark in this case is Mark Shuttleworth, sabdfl. 19:11 < FlannelKing> Not MarkDude :) 19:11 < MarkDude> next year 19:12 < MarkDude> I have more girl equals :( 19:12 < FlannelKing> Actually, that brings up a good point. They ask for people to volunteer (and then fill in the gaps with some of the same ones over and over agian) 19:12 < eps> What about ... "Getting People Involved in your LoCo/Team" ;-) 19:12 < FlannelKing> So, if you have a session you want to give for Lucid, be sure to speak up when they ask 19:13 < FlannelKing> Oh. Another announcement.. although it's hardto miss: Ubuntu 9.10 (Karmic) was released! 19:14 < FlannelKing> An overview of new features is available : http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/releasenotes/910overview 19:14 < FlannelKing> How's it treating everyone? 19:15 < rww> works for me 19:15 < MarkDude> Walnut Creek had parties so great; generations henceforth shall look back at it in awe. 19:16 < FlannelKing> Sounds good 19:16 < FlannelKing> Anyone else have any announcements that I forgot to mention? 19:16 < rww> Pretty much nothing I cared about in the new features apart from the kernel upgrade, though. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, I guess. 19:16 < Grantbow__> UDS is coming up in Dallas in a few weeks 19:17 < FlannelKing> Alright, so our first agenda item is Karmic Release stuff planning. 19:17 < troyready> I'm intrigued by the server stuff, but not playing with much other than the new NetbookRemix 19:17 < FlannelKing> oops, or not. 19:18 < troyready> Anyone going to UDS? 19:19 < FlannelKing> I suppose that's a no. 19:19 * Grantbow__ looks for the url 19:19 < FlannelKing> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UDS-L 19:20 < Grantbow__> bingo 19:20 < MarkDude> :) 19:21 < FlannelKing> So. Karmic was released. We've had some parties, and we still have some parties. Do we want to recap the parties we already had now? or wait to do everything at once afterwards? 19:21 < Grantbow__> The two events in Walnut Creek were very small. 19:21 < Grantbow__> MarkDude and rww were at the first one 19:22 < FashionGirl> techincally it was barely a get-together 19:22 < Grantbow__> The big one will be San Francisco https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CaliforniaTeam/Projects/KarmicRelease 19:23 < Grantbow__> November 12th at the DNA Lounge 19:23 < MarkDude> dancin robots 19:23 < eps> How are you coordinating volunteers? 19:23 < FlannelKing> Lets hold up 19:23 < Grantbow__> MarDude: talked to Jesse? 19:23 < FlannelKing> discuss what happened, and then move into what's going to happen. 19:23 < Grantbow__> oops, sorry 19:23 < Grantbow__> not much happened 19:23 < Grantbow__> hehe 19:24 < MarkDude> we fell asleep 19:24 < FlannelKing> There were two, right? 19:24 < FlannelKing> oh yeah, you said that 19:24 < FlannelKing> alright. Anyone else have anything to mention for either of those? 19:24 < MarkDude> we had to save our energy for the bike joust 19:25 < Grantbow__> planning now? 19:25 < FlannelKing> Alright. Now let's move onto future events, yeah. 19:26 < Grantbow__> They are planned: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CaliforniaTeam/Projects/KarmicRelease 19:26 < Grantbow__> Felton Saturday the 7th 19:26 < Grantbow__> Berkeley Sunday the 8th 19:26 < Grantbow__> San Francisco at the DNA Lounge Nov. 12th 19:26 < MarkDude> dancin' robots 19:27 < Grantbow__> how go plans for other events? 19:27 < FlannelKing> For Southern California we're still pinning down specifics, although we have a general idea of what we want to do. 19:28 < FlannelKing> There's a thread on the mailing list from Jess, and that'll liven up this week I imagine. 19:29 < Grantbow__> It would help to have a date if anyone needs to make travel plans 19:29 < FlannelKing> One thing I would like to mention about it now though, is we're really looking to push to get "strangers" at the event. Which will be an installfest and a party (at separate times). So if you have any good ideas on how to do that, please speak up. 19:29 < FlannelKing> Or even bad ideas, for that matter. 19:30 < FlannelKing> Oh, another thing related to this somewhat: We did get confirmation on our LoCo CD packs. 19:31 < Yasumoto_laptop> I don't think I've really had flyers printed out/put on campus, so I'd like to do that this time around 19:31 < FlannelKing> They'll get here "within a few weeks" and then we'll figure out how to redistribute appropritaely. 19:31 < Yasumoto_laptop> (and putting them up at UCI would be another good idea) 19:31 < MarkDude> the dancin robots need some CDs 19:31 < rww> Yeah, more advertising than usual would probably help a lot. 19:31 < FlannelKing> Yasumoto_laptop: Yeah, I'd like to hit up UCI as well as Chapman 19:31 < phildini> I would be very interested in building the UCSC community. 19:31 < rww> People have to know it's happening to attend it, after all :) 19:32 < FlannelKing> Heck, we can do UCSD, CSUSM, and SDSU too. But that's a bit of a drive for them. 19:32 < Yasumoto_laptop> FlannelKing: awesome 19:32 < Grantbow__> hard to advertise without setting a date and location 19:32 < rww> Do you have any prospective prizes? Could do a raffle or something, people tend to like them. 19:32 < FlannelKing> Yasumoto_laptop: We can discuss this more on the ML, but I think a few weeks for coordination of that might be good... might push it from the 14th to the 21st 19:33 < aaditya> meeting time? 19:33 < FlannelKing> aaditya: Indeed 19:34 < FlannelKing> I think we've exhausted release parties for tonight? How's everyone feel about moving on? 19:34 < troyready> Fine by me 19:35 < rww> I think y'all need to make that ML thread have more than one post in it ;P 19:35 < Grantbow__> 2. Backups for http://identi.ca/ubuntucalifornia for meeting announcements 19:35 * eps still wants to know how you're planning to coordinate volunteers for SF 19:35 < FlannelKing> eps: Good question! 19:35 < FlannelKing> How are we planning on coordinating volunteers for SF? 19:36 < Grantbow__> MarkDude? 19:36 < FlannelKing> eps: sorry that I forgot about that from a few minutes ago 19:37 < FlannelKing> eps: I'll make sure it's explained somewhere soon (probably the ML). MarkDude might be AFK at the moment. 19:37 < MarkDude> sry 19:37 < rww> Jesse Zbikowski said something about making an RSVP list for volunteering. I don't know if that actually got done. 19:38 < MarkDude> sexycatsinhats & FashionGirl are eating pizza 19:38 < MarkDude> i was distracted. 19:38 < MarkDude> we are coordinating on this side of the hill at least 5 people 19:39 < MarkDude> more by midweek, anyone else talk to me or Grantbow 19:39 < FlannelKing> MarkDude: You mind sending out an email to the ML saying that? For the people who aren't here tonight 19:39 < rww> MarkDude: Can you or Jesse or Grant or something post to the ML giving a summary of what's planned out so far, and what still needs working out? 19:40 < MarkDude> annelKing, I will do that after i get back from a party tonite 19:40 < phildini> is there anyone here (other than me) planning on going to the Felton party? I emailed lcafiero, but have so for gotten no repson. 19:40 < rww> I don't know if it's just me having my head in the clouds, but I'm having a hard time figuring out where we're up to with the SF party. 19:40 < FlannelKing> MarkDude: Include it with rww's content too if you don't mind 19:41 < MarkDude> will do boss 19:41 < FlannelKing> MarkDude: Much oblidged 19:41 < rww> ty 19:41 * MarkDude stand at attention 19:41 < MarkDude> .stands 19:41 < FlannelKing> phildini: Did you have specific questions? or... 19:43 < FlannelKing> phildini: We'll move on for now, you can ping me about it after the meeting and We'll see what we can do. 19:43 < FlannelKing> Our next topic is: microblog logistics 19:44 < FlannelKing> From what I understand, no announcement was made regarding the last meeting. 19:44 < Grantbow__> it was a month, yeah 19:45 < FlannelKing> Hmm? 19:45 < Grantbow__> 4 weeks = about a month 19:45 < Yasumoto_laptop> I'm definitely in favor of getting a few more people access to that, I see no reason not to 19:45 < FlannelKing> The 18th was omitted, the 4th was posted, right? 19:46 < Grantbow__> yes 19:46 < FlannelKing> If the meeting email goes out and its been a significant period of time and no uBlog post, be sure to mention it. 19:47 < FlannelKing> I could've posted, but I had no idea it wasn't already. 19:48 < FlannelKing> That goes with everything, for that matter. 19:48 < rww> I just started using identi.ca again, so I'm somewhat more likely to notice if it doesn't get done and poke someone about it in future. 19:48 < Grantbow__> how about the other requests made to the mail list this week? 19:49 < troyready> That's good question: is it worth discusses who currently had access? (I may be the only person who doesn't know) 19:50 < rww> Grantbow__: you don't have access to the identi.ca account? 19:50 < Grantbow__> no 19:50 < FlannelKing> I do, and nhaines does. I dont know who else does. 19:50 < FlannelKing> I thought there was a third person. 19:50 < Yasumoto_laptop> I think that both of those are certainly "dentable" and would be beneficial to put out there 19:50 < Yasumoto_laptop> (the BBC story and the release) 19:51 < nhaines> I thought Joe did. 19:51 < troyready> I agree Joe; microblogging has a high threshhold for noise 19:51 < Yasumoto_laptop> *doh* I do? 19:52 < FlannelKing> We actually originally said no noise, except during events when relevant to that event. 19:52 < nhaines> Yup. 19:52 < FlannelKing> (like, "we need a person at the booth to do X and Y") 19:52 < MarkDude> noise is good sometimes 19:52 < troyready> Not to sound contrarian, but it it is a microblog 19:52 < nhaines> Ubuntu has news microblogs specifically for identi.ca and I think for twitter. 19:52 < Grantbow__> a month without noise is a bit worse than too much on identi.ca and twitter 19:53 < nhaines> Grantbow__: can you explain why? 19:53 < FashionGirl> hi this is fashion girl 19:53 < FlannelKing> Grantbow__: I don't think posting for the sake of posting is appropriate. 19:53 < FashionGirl> small talk is ok guys 19:53 < FlannelKing> I agree that we missed the 18ths meeting, but I dont see a point on posting "just because" 19:53 < rww> I believe I was told at some point that the microblogs were equivalent to an "announce" list, i.e. lower volume than the mailing list, and only important stuff. 19:53 < rww> I might be wrong on that, though; my memory isn't the best. 19:53 < FlannelKing> rww: Right, except during events, when people may have access to uBlogs but not email 19:53 < nhaines> rww: we've also used it for misc. local events too, I believe. 19:54 < Grantbow__> would not at least the release count as "signal"? 19:54 < MarkDude> its called smalltalk FlannelKing 19:54 < nhaines> MarkDude: there's no person on the other end of the account, though. 19:54 < FlannelKing> Grantbow__: I agree that the release should've been announced 19:54 < nhaines> I use my own microblog accoutn for small talk. 19:55 < MarkDude> Im not just just being a smartass - --- anecdotes 19:55 < MarkDude> other facts about Ubuntu 19:56 < Grantbow__> how often do Ubuntu stories hit national/International media outlets? 19:56 < tlfloyd> Anyone else having some issues with an in-place upgrade from Jaunty to Karmic? Or is this not the proper forum for bug talk? 19:56 < troyready> Not enough, obviously :) 19:56 < troyready> tlfloyd: one of the right forums, but not the exact right time 19:56 < Yasumoto_laptop> If we're trying to keep things relatively low-key on the twitter/identi.ca thing, then I can agree with that 19:57 < rww> Okay, so problems here are that: 1) identi.ca isn't getting updated with announcements (that everyone agrees we should be posting) because we forget; 2) people don't know who has access; 3) people disagree on what "non-essential" (not sure if that's the right phrase) should be posted? 19:57 < tlfloyd> Understood. Thx 19:57 < nhaines> tlfloyd: check back in 45 minutes? :) 19:57 < nhaines> I think I"d like to see local California events and news announced there. 19:57 < Yasumoto_laptop> Grantbow__: yeah, that is really cool 19:57 < Yasumoto_laptop> rww: sounds right to me 19:57 < troyready> tlfloyd: I think #ubuntu-help might provide more immediate assistance 19:57 < nhaines> [Inter]national stuff not quite so much. 19:57 < FlannelKing> troyready, tlfloyd: #ubuntu 19:58 < eps> what nhaines wrote 19:58 < rww> #ubuntu-help forwards to #ubuntu, in case anyone else was curious. 19:58 < tlfloyd> Thanks. I already reported one of the two issues I've had, but will follow up in the forums. Or check back in 45. 19:58 < Grantbow__> that means adding #4 to rww's list 4) adding more announcements for California news 19:58 < rww> Grantbow__: that's what I meant by (3) 19:59 < troyready> The rationale is good and mostly followed, but for the record I disagree with it: microblogging is transient and can take more things passing through, while e-mail stays in the inbox 19:59 < Grantbow__> rww: kk 19:59 < FlannelKing> Grantbow__: No, there's no volume requirement. If nothing is relevant, nothing is going to be posted 19:59 < Grantbow__> FlannelKing: that's not at all what I said 19:59 < Yasumoto_laptop> so more keeping with the ubuntu _california_, basically? 19:59 < Yasumoto_laptop> I think that's cool, though personally I wouldn't mind a slightly blurrier spectrum for "important announcements" (only slightly blurrier) 20:00 < Grantbow__> Can we go back to rww's #1 before moving on? 20:00 < rww> probably-bad idea: set up ubuntucalifornia-nonannounce ;P 20:00 < MarkDude> we need a microblogginig sub-comittee those that care can be involved 20:01 < rww> Indeed. Figuring out the more concrete "how do we get meeting notices posted on time, and who should be doing it" sounds like a good idea. 20:01 < FlannelKing> Grantbow__: We already covered it. If something isn't posted, make noise about it so the rest of the people with access can. 20:01 < nhaines> Yasumoto_laptop: I think blurry for super important announcements would be okay, although I didn't think the Karmic release was appropriate. 20:01 < FlannelKing> Akin to reporting bugs, if it's not reported (no one knows about it), it doesn't exist. 20:02 < Grantbow__> again it depends on the assumptions of who is reading the dents and tweets 20:02 < nhaines> Only to a certain extent. 20:02 < rww> FlannelKing: alright. When on Saturday/Sunday should one start poking people if it isn't already up? 20:02 < Grantbow__> if we are targeting newcomers the stream should be different than targeting only our own activities 20:02 < nhaines> rww: an hour after the email on the ML. 20:02 < MarkDude> committee might be more appropriate for this 20:02 < FlannelKing> rww: I believe nhaines posts due to my email. Which should be early sunday/late saturday 20:02 < Yasumoto_laptop> Grantbow__: as well as who is posting them, and what they (in this case the group) wants to have posted from them 20:02 < Grantbow__> part of the mission of a LoCo is to be the public point of contact within the state of California 20:03 < rww> FlannelKing, nhaines: oh, okay. Thanks :) 20:03 < FlannelKing> rww: If it's Sunday afternoon, I've likely forgotten to email, and ping me because I've lost track of time/day/whatever 20:03 < nhaines> rww: yeah, if I'm not ready to go Sunday morning, I've entirely lost track of time. :) 20:03 * rww nods 20:04 < Yasumoto_laptop> Grantbow__: yeah, I agree with that, but I'd like them to follow @ubuntu (for instance) to read about cool stories affecting everyone, and then for those in CA, to read @ubuntucalifornia to local stuff 20:04 < MarkDude> can we form a committee on this? 20:04 < nhaines> There is no need for a committee. 20:04 < FlannelKing> Grantbow__: It's not targetting new Ubuntu users, it's for LoCo people to stay up to date on LoCo stuff 20:04 < rww> Doing it Saturday instead of Sunday might be better for people who don't check their email/uBlogs 5 times a day, but I guess that's a different topic. 20:04 < Grantbow__> it's a matter of volume - only partially interested people in the state of California won't follow @ubuntu 20:04 < nhaines> rww: Saturday's probably better, yes. 20:04 < Yasumoto_laptop> MarkDude: I think we are the committee :) 20:04 < nhaines> Grantbow__: that is entirely their decision. 20:04 < FlannelKing> rww: Yeah, I have gotten tardy with it recently and have been meaning to get better abou tit 20:05 < Grantbow__> FlannelKing: this is the same discussion about the wiki/web page assumptions and readership. 20:05 < FlannelKing> Grantbow__: When we created the microblogs, we specifically said what it's content would be 20:06 < Grantbow__> nhaines: I view not sending a dent about the release as ignoring a responsibility of the LoCo to inform people within the state of California about Ubuntu. 20:06 < FlannelKing> That was, LoCo announcement things, plus real-time stuff during big events 20:06 < MarkDude> Yasumoto_laptop, sry I was thinking others might not be interested in this. I was just trying to move to next subject 20:06 < Grantbow__> Is the release not an announcement? 20:06 < nhaines> Not a LoCo announcement, specifically. 20:06 < FlannelKing> Grantbow__: I really want to get away from specific instances. 20:06 < MarkDude> Grantbow___ +1 20:06 < Grantbow__> of course you do 20:06 < FashionGirl> +1 20:07 < Grantbow__> too clear with specific instances 20:07 < Yasumoto_laptop> MarkDude: haha, yeah dude, I feel ya 20:07 < Yasumoto_laptop> FlannelKing: I think the specific in this case is alright 20:07 < FlannelKing> Grantbow__: I agree that an Ubuntu release is appropriate. I don't see how that discuss furthers *this* discussion at all. 20:07 < Grantbow__> FlannelKing: I was responding to nhaines 20:07 < Yasumoto_laptop> was the BBC story posted on any other accounts? 20:07 < Yasumoto_laptop> like an @ubuntu? 20:08 < rww> Another probably-bad idea: make a survey asking what sort of thing people would like to see on the microblogs, and post it to the microblogs, then adjust microblog content accordingly. 20:09 < Yasumoto_laptop> proposal: someone says why we should post "announcements", followed by someone who says we shouldn't, followed by a vote? 20:09 < Yasumoto_laptop> if there's still disagreement, then a vote on the ML? 20:09 < FlannelKing> Lets not decide on anything tonight. 20:09 < Yasumoto_laptop> rww: that could also be helpful 20:09 < Grantbow__> Yasumoto_laptop: what's the url for @ubuntu? identi.ca and twitter don't show what I expect 20:10 < MarkDude> good idea Yasumoto_laptop can we post them to the wiki? 20:10 < Yasumoto_laptop> Grantbow__: I have no idea :( I was vaguely using @ubuntu for some semi-official ubuntu news accounts .. 20:10 < Grantbow__> we are talking, again, about loco announcements vs. a wider set of announcements 20:10 < FlannelKing> Lets stop this discussion, give everyone a period of time to think it over and all that good stuff, discuss, etc. And come back. 20:10 < Grantbow__> Yasumoto_laptop: if you know of specifics, let me know. I follow people but no general accounts for that kind of info. 20:11 < FlannelKing> Grantbow__: Lets create one then. 20:11 < FlannelKing> If there isn't one that is. 20:11 < rww> There's http://identi.ca/ubuntunews , which forwards from The Fridge. 20:11 < nhaines> FlannelKing: +1 20:11 < Yasumoto_laptop> Grantbow__: I don't unfortunately, but that sounds like something we should have 20:11 < MarkDude> table this item & put it on wiki we vote in IRC -- or ML 20:11 < rww> that's the only one I know of, anyway 20:11 < Yasumoto_laptop> I think there's an ubuntunews or something on twitter, but it's just a bot 20:11 < FlannelKing> Fridge is meh. 20:11 < Grantbow__> rww: cool, thanks 20:11 < rww> I haven't checked Twitter at all, though 20:12 < Yasumoto_laptop> here's the twitter one: http://twitter.com/ubuntunews 20:12 < Yasumoto_laptop> I haven't found it helpful in the 6months+ or whatever that I've followed it 20:12 < FlannelKing> Yasumoto_laptop: It copies from fridge, which isn't very good (although they are trying to fix that) 20:12 < Yasumoto_laptop> it'd be cool to have a separate "HandPickedUbuntuNews" or something to post sweet stuff that was in a nice, retweet/redentable format 20:12 < rww> that's the same as its identi.ca counterpart, by the look of it 20:13 < FlannelKing> I agree. If there's a void, it ought to be filled. 20:13 < MarkDude> #bored 20:13 < FlannelKing> But, lets move on for tonight. 20:13 < Yasumoto_laptop> hm.. a new project? :) 20:13 < Yasumoto_laptop> kk 20:14 < Grantbow__> 3. IRC meeting length limit discussion 20:14 < FlannelKing> Our next topic is even relevant! 20:14 < Grantbow__> lol 20:14 < Yasumoto_laptop> haha, yeah 20:14 < MarkDude> i resemble that 20:14 < eps> In the interest of time, we should limit discussion on item #3 and move forward 20:15 < MarkDude> time limit a discussion about time limits? 20:15 < MarkDude> Im trying to create an inclusive environment 20:16 < Yasumoto_laptop> I don't recall an "official" time limit, but 1hr-1.5 hours sounds alright to me 20:16 < MarkDude> 90 is perfect 20:16 < Yasumoto_laptop> I don't think it helps when people (like me..) stroll in a few minutes late 20:16 < rww> Alright. I put this on here because I think there's some confusion/disagreement/whatever about whether we actually have a time limit on meetings or not. I've heard they last one hour from some people; I've heard they don't have one from others, and it's odd. 20:16 < MarkDude> not 91 - 60 would be good if the ML carries the ability to vote 20:16 < rww> Personally, I think if there is one of an hour, it needs to be raised to 90 minutes, because we go over 60 every. single. meeting. 20:17 < rww> and it appears that viewpoint is popular :) 20:17 < FlannelKing> I'd much prefer no limit. If we're having a healthy debate, there's no reason to limit ourselves. 20:17 < nhaines> Meetings have traditionally been 90 minutes long. 20:17 < FlannelKing> *we* know when we want to stop 20:17 < nhaines> I don't even know where 60 minutes came from. 20:17 < rww> But yes, I'm fine with there not being a limit, as long as we don't end up having ten hour long meetings ;P. 20:17 < Grantbow__> there's no law that says discussion needs to take place and be logged on the wiki page during the meeting 20:18 < Grantbow__> discussions can and do take place at other times 20:18 < rww> Grantbow__: what's your opinion on this? Do you think we need a time limit on meetings? 20:18 < MarkDude> I am being uppity about making sure we can vote on ML 20:18 < Grantbow__> I think having a limit is respectful of those participating and would like to see some kind of at least target of a meeting limit 20:18 < FashionGirl> it's hard to make these meetings 20:19 < FlannelKing> "Which usually take about 90 minutes" would be appropriate wording -- Gives people a rough estimate of how long it'll take. They're always open to stepping out early, or asking for topics to be covered early so they can be around, etc. 20:19 < Grantbow__> I think a limit would be helpful 20:19 < MarkDude> grantbow__ you are right 90 is good OR we can put the important items at #1 20:19 < Yasumoto_laptop> Grantbow__: yeah, I totally agree on that one 20:19 < FlannelKing> (or 60 minutes, except for the previous 60->90) 20:20 < FlannelKing> I don't think we've had a meeting recently where we didn't stop early when the natives were getting restless 20:20 < rww> Alright. Would everyone agree with a 90 minute soft time limit, with the note that we're not required to stop right at 90 minutes if we need to go longer? 20:20 < Yasumoto_laptop> FlannelKing: that's true 20:20 < Yasumoto_laptop> rww: totally 20:20 < Grantbow__> can we maybe have a 60 target? after meeting discussions might be more interesting and more people would participate with shorter meetings. 20:21 < MarkDude> rww+1 20:21 < MarkDude> and plan the important items first 20:21 < rww> Grantbow__: I don't think that 60 minutes is feasible, given that we somehow got that limit at some point and have constantly gone over it.; 20:21 < FlannelKing> MarkDude: We can always shuffle during the meeting (and have) 20:21 < MarkDude> Just making sure we dont have any filibusters that put off items that need to be solved - we tend to post important items at the end they sometimes dont get solved 20:22 < sexycatsinhats> I think the length of these meetings are comparable to podcasts, we should shoot for 60 minutes but over that is acceptable as long as it doesn't get too lengthy 20:22 < Grantbow__> just because we have had long meetings in the past doesn't make it good or desirable for many people who participate less actively than the group of us who stick in for the entire length 20:22 < FlannelKing> MarkDude: We try and order things (by default) by time-requirements. Things that happen in less than 14 days need to be covered this meeting, etc. 20:22 < nhaines> I think 60 minutes is pretty unlikely. 20:22 < rww> Saying the limit is 90 minutes and lasting about 90 minutes seems better than saying the limit is 60 minutes and consistantly being at least a quarter hour over. 20:22 < FlannelKing> MarkDude: but like I said, we've shuffled sutff out of that order inthe past for people who have toleave after 30 and stuff. 20:23 < Grantbow__> likely or not, I think 60 is a good goal or target 20:23 < FlannelKing> rww: Oh, soft limit of 90 is a yay from me too. 20:23 < Yasumoto_laptop> Grantbow__: that's a good point, I'd like 60, but I don't see us hitting that in the future 20:23 < FlannelKing> Grantbow__: Except that's a lie. 20:23 < nhaines> rww: +1 20:23 < Grantbow__> not a lie if it's a goal 20:23 < rww> Grantbow__: Well, that's like saying that I need to cut my budget, so I should cut my candy allowance to 0, because that would be a good target. It's not going to happen, and is disingenuous. 20:23 < Grantbow__> long meetings tire people out - myself included 20:23 < FlannelKing> I'd rather see a descriptive time constraint rather than a proscriptive one. 20:24 < rww> It makes more sense to be realistic about it, so people understand what's likely to happen. imho, anyway. 20:24 < MarkDude> can we vote on items using the Mailing List? The bonus would be less ramblin' from me 20:24 < nhaines> FlannelKing, rww; +1 20:24 < sexycatsinhats> 90 minutes seems fair 20:24 < FlannelKing> Yeah, there's no good that comes from being deceptive 20:24 < Grantbow__> I'd go with 90 minutes 20:24 < eps> I'd like to see anything crucial covered in the first hour, and an end to the formal part of the meeting at 75 minutes ... but if there's a long agenda, we might extend that to 75/90 20:24 < Grantbow__> deception was never mentioned except by you 20:24 * MarkDude eps +1 20:24 < FlannelKing> rww: I think that means your 90 minute soft proposal carries 20:25 < Yasumoto_laptop> hey, if we finish early, that's sweet too 20:25 < nhaines> Yasumoto_laptop: yeah, we've never been afraid to cancel meetings for lack of topics. 20:25 < FlannelKing> Yasumoto_laptop: We're always happy to finish early :) 20:25 < phildini> 20:25 < Yasumoto_laptop> I think that a general priortization of the agenda by whoever's, running the meeting would be alright, btw 20:26 < FlannelKing> Is that topic settled then? (we're in the home stretch!) 20:26 < rww> Alright, so any -1 to 1) soft 90 minute limit, 2) able to go over if we need to, but try to stay under, 3) continue our current practise of rearranging topics to put the important ones first, and to suit people who need to talk on a particular topic? 20:27 < rww> If not, I think we're settled. 20:27 < Yasumoto_laptop> +1 20:27 < MarkDude> sry I will edit the wiki to propose that we allow voting for SOME items using email list. Jessica would like participate. 20:27 < Grantbow__> +1 20:27 < rww> MarkDude: As far as Mailing List input goes, emails from the mailing list have always been a valid way to contribute ideas and make decisions. I'm not sure what you feel is the problem here, and would love an example. 20:28 < Grantbow__> err, that +1 was for rww 20:28 < MarkDude> she is resentful on voting only being sundays 7 20:28 < MarkDude> irc is not her thing 20:28 < FlannelKing> MarkDude: Meetings are where we conduct our official business. If she wants to have input, there are ways to do that at meetings without being present. 20:29 < MarkDude> spell them out please 20:29 < rww> (Incidentally, I just asked !ubuntu on identi.ca if there's a hand-picked Ubuntu news account already; I'll let y'all know if I get any replies) 20:29 < Yasumoto_laptop> MarkDude: perhaps she can write her thoughts via email, and you can help to bring them up during the meeting, with comments/replies being sent out on the email? 20:29 < FlannelKing> MarkDude: Can I do that at a latertime? 20:29 < MarkDude> filibuster 20:29 < FlannelKing> MarkDude: I've spelled them out many timees in the past. Can I do it exactly following the meeting? 20:30 < MarkDude> or are we ok with being 99% men 20:30 < eps> The time is now 8:30 p.m. PST 20:30 < MarkDude> i would like it logged 20:30 < FlannelKing> MarkDude: How about next meeting then? 20:30 < MarkDude> just call me leary king 20:30 < FlannelKing> MarkDude: Lets get through our last agenda item, and then we'll do it. 20:30 < MarkDude> ty 20:30 < rww> MarkDude: I am not seeing the gender-specific parts of existing policy, and would appreciate it if you didn't play the sexism card for issues that have nothing whatsoever to do with it. 20:31 < troyready> MarkDude: be respectful 20:31 < rww> Just because the person you know who dislikes IRC happens to be female, this does not mean that IRC is inherently anti-female or problematic for female or otherwise sexist. 20:31 < MarkDude> sry troyready there have been issues before - i dont want ant repeats 20:31 < MarkDude> rww never said that 20:32 < FlannelKing> So, our last topic is the Facebook short URL (for our team page). Which I believe is something akin to facebook.com/something/OurShortURLHere 20:32 < MarkDude> it was not until recently that ML was given any weight 20:32 < FlannelKing> MarkDude: Please stop 20:32 < rww> facebook.com/OurShortURLHere 20:32 * MarkDude stands at attention 20:32 < rww> I've brought this up outside meetings in the past, but we didn't get a decision on it, so I figured I'd throw it on there. 20:33 < FlannelKing> rww: In the past, UbuntuCalifornia was suggested 20:33 < rww> The guidelines are that we can use A-Za-z0-9 and periods . It'll redirect to what is presently http://www.facebook.com/pages/Ubuntu-California-Local-Community-Team/134414293173 20:34 < nhaines> Why not UbuntuCalifornia ? 20:35 < MarkDude> silenced? 20:35 < FlannelKing> MarkDude: Hmm? 20:35 < rww> nhaines: I'm fine with that. I think Grantbow isn't because of his general concerns about the name "Ubuntu California" 20:35 < Yasumoto_laptop> wow, that's a brutal url.... 20:35 < FlannelKing> Yasumoto_laptop: That's why we want a short one :) 20:35 < MarkDude> lagtime -- /californiaTeam 20:35 < Grantbow__> I explained my position about it last meeting I think. 20:35 < nhaines> rww: been our name for a long time. 20:35 < FlannelKing> Grantbow__: No you didn't. Mind explaining it? 20:35 < Grantbow__> The feedback I get when I use UbuntuCalifornia is negative. 20:36 < Grantbow__> I'll find the URLs later 20:36 < Yasumoto_laptop> Grantbow__: I think I remember talking about it, but I don't recall, sorry :( 20:36 < troyready> Californiateam is nice and small, but almost seems too general 20:36 < rww> Californiateam doesn't relate to Ubuntu or LoCos, so I think it's too general 20:36 < Grantbow__> The confusion that comes up is... 20:36 < FlannelKing> CaliforniaTeam has nothing to do with Ubuntu, this is facebook.com/CaliforniaTeam 20:36 < Yasumoto_laptop> Grantbow__: really? brutal.. 20:36 < FlannelKing> Not wiki,ubuntu.com/CaliforniaTeam 20:37 < FlannelKing> On all of our stuff, we're branded "Ubuntu California" 20:37 < rww> there's a facebook policy to the effect that usernames should make it relatively obvious what you are. so you can't have facebook.com/pizza or something 20:37 < nhaines> rww: that would be an awesome username. 20:37 < FlannelKing> rww: good, or we'd already be facebook.com/turtles I imagine 20:37 < Grantbow__> confusion with working with Canonical, and then I have to re-explain that I don't work for the company 20:37 < Grantbow__> I have tried several approaches. 20:37 < Grantbow__> Sometimes it works OK, most of the time it doesn't. 20:38 < eps> I'm not seeing the problem here ... ask for their blessing, if need be 20:38 < Grantbow__> UbuntuCalifornia 20:38 < FlannelKing> Grantbow__: That's going to happen regardless if we have Ubuntu in the title 20:38 < Grantbow__> For my part, I think UbuntuCalifornia is a bad choice 20:38 < Grantbow__> I don't know of a good universal alternate. 20:38 < Grantbow__> we have different names in different mediums already 20:39 < rww> We use ubuntu-us-ca for the mailing list. Would "ubuntu.us.ca" (since we can't use -) work? 20:39 < Grantbow__> IRC channel, mail list, wiki page, forum name, etc. 20:39 < Grantbow__> launchpad, etc. 20:39 < eps> Too much confusion between California and Canada 20:39 < Yasumoto_laptop> Grantbow__: mmmm, I see that 20:39 < FlannelKing> rww: It wouldn't solve the "do you work for canonical?" bit. And I don't think people from California will search for "ca" 20:39 < nhaines> rww: anywhere we're not branded as Ubuntu California is a bug. 20:39 < Grantbow__> eps: right 20:40 < rww> FlannelKing: usernames don't affect searching on Facebook as far as I can tell 20:40 < FlannelKing> rww: Good to know 20:40 < rww> sorry, I should have mentioned that 20:40 < Yasumoto_laptop> eps: yeah 20:40 < Yasumoto_laptop> rww: really? 20:40 < Grantbow__> rww: are periods acceptable? 20:40 < rww> Grantbow__: yes 20:41 < rww> Searching is based on the page title and other info on the page. The page title is set to "Ubuntu California Local Community Team 20:41 < rww> " and is immutable. 20:41 < FlannelKing> We could be ubuntu.us.ca, but again, Grant's dislike for UbuntuCalifornia stems from confusion with Canonical, and ubuntu.us.ca won't help in that regard 20:41 < Grantbow__> One thing I like about using Ubuntu US CA is that it's internationally specific and clear, though no name that I know of is ideal. 20:41 < nhaines> I've always found "No, I'm part of the Ubuntu community" to be clear enough at SCaLE. 20:42 < Grantbow__> FlannelKing: please don't recharacterize my remarks 20:42 < rww> I note also that this is just a "short URL" for accessing the page. Once they get there, they see the page title anyway, which (considering the "Local Community" part) might alleviate any confusion with Canonical. 20:42 < FlannelKing> Grantbow__: As far as I can tell, that's what you said. If that's wrong, please correct me. 20:43 < Grantbow__> FlannelKing: your summaries of what I say often carry very very different meanings from what I say - please don't. 20:44 < troyready> How cheery! 20:44 < eps> Unless there's some sort of trademark usage issue, UbuntuCalifornia seems preferable 20:44 < Grantbow__> no name is good since our names across the different mediums are already inconsistent - email list, IRC channel, wiki page, forum name, etc. 20:44 < Grantbow__> launchpad 20:44 < FlannelKing> eps: We don't need to worry about that 20:45 < eps> Is there any sort of [informal] precedent or official guidance here? 20:45 < mcpancakes> what are the IRC channels for other state LoCos like? that is, what do they call themselves. 20:45 < nhaines> Grantbow__: are you declining to clarify? 20:46 < rww> mcpancakes: the IRC channel standard for US state LoCos is #ubuntu-us-SS, where SS is the state shortname (PA, ID, etc.) 20:46 < FlannelKing> mcpancakes: People call themselves all sorts of things. "Country/State Ubuntu LoCo Team" "Ubuntu Country/State" and other variations 20:46 < Grantbow__> nhaines: ? 20:46 < MarkDude> californiateam is our wiki name right? lets roll with that 20:46 < rww> mcpancakes: We own #ubuntu-us-ca and it redirects here 20:46 < mcpancakes> rww: isn't that the obvious solution, then, for us to be #ubuntu-us-CA ? 20:46 < rww> MarkDude: CaliforniaTeam is too vague, as mentioned above 20:46 < FlannelKing> MarkDude: Our launchpad is Ubuntu California 20:47 < rww> mcpancakes: that's a whole 'nother discussion. We're talking about the Facebook page, not the IRC channel. 20:47 < mcpancakes> ahh alright 20:47 < Grantbow__> rww: +1 20:47 < MarkDude> Welcome to the Ubuntu California Local Community (LoCo) Team! | Webpage: http://wiki.ubuntu.com/CaliforniaTeam (has links to mailing list, forum, and more!) 20:47 < rww> MarkDude: what about it? 20:48 < FlannelKing> So, there's two suggestions on the table: ubuntu.us.ca and UbuntuCalifornia, is that accurate? 20:48 < MarkDude> californiateam_ Ubuntu 20:48 < rww> FlannelKing: as far as I can tell, yes 20:48 < FlannelKing> What do we feel about a vote between those two? 20:48 < MarkDude> californiateam_Ubuntu 20:49 < FlannelKing> Alright 20:49 < FlannelKing> How about we give people time to think it over, discuss, etc 20:49 < rww> MarkDude: we can't use _, so that would be "californiateam.ubuntu", I guess 20:49 < FlannelKing> and then decide in two weeks? 20:49 < Grantbow__> +1 for ending this topic tonight 20:49 < rww> FlannelKing: so vote on it in two weeks and set it to whatever gets decided then? 20:50 < FlannelKing> The question is is there new discussion that'll happen over the next two weeks 20:50 < MarkDude> +1 for ending meeting - I want to clarify my remarks after the meeting 20:50 < FashionGirl> this is stupid just pick a name, they all sound about the same 20:50 < mcpancakes> the inability to use _'s and -'s a facebook limitation, eh? 20:50 < rww> mcpancakes: yes 20:50 < FlannelKing> or have we discussed it? 20:50 < nhaines> mcpancakes: yes. 20:51 < rww> Here are the relevant guidelines from Facebook, for anyone who doesn't have one that's pondering this: http://paste.ubuntu.com/307244/ 20:52 < FashionGirl> I think it should be www.facebook.com/californiaubuntuteam 20:52 < rww> ... dang it, that doesn't wrap right. http://www.facebook.com/help.php?page=900 and then hit up the Guidelines link (fourth down the list, right now) 20:52 < rww> fifth ** 20:53 < FlannelKing> rww: Would you mind summarizing for the ML and then we can decide in two weeks? 20:53 < rww> FlannelKing: works for me 20:53 < FlannelKing> Alright. 20:53 < FashionGirl> I like to cut to the point! this is all bullshit, everyone keeps arguing on a fucking facebook name.......SRFU 20:53 < rww> !guidelines | FashionGirl 20:53 < Eureka> FashionGirl: The guidelines for using the Ubuntu channels can be found here: http://wiki.ubuntu.com/IrcGuidelines 20:53 < FlannelKing> FashionGirl: please mind your language 20:54 < MarkDude> :-? 20:54 < nhaines> FashionGirl: if people feel that strongly about it, it probably bears some discussion. 20:54 < FlannelKing> So, that's it for the agenda for tonight. 20:54 < eps> Somebody should update https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CaliforniaTeam/Projects/Shirts 20:54 < MarkDude> I'll tell her some of the nuances of chat 20:54 < nhaines> eps: +1 20:54 < FlannelKing> eps: Yeah, that's my bad. 20:55 < FlannelKing> MarkDude: did you want the what-if-I-can't-make-a-meeting in the meeting logs? or just afterwards? 20:55 < Grantbow__> eps: I'll mail the list within the week, ok? 20:55 < MarkDude> +1 -- good meeting 20:55 < MarkDude> either 20:55 < FlannelKing> Alright, let's end this as it's 9 20:55 < MarkDude> everything I say is public 20:56 < FlannelKing> Thank you all for coming. Our next meeting will be in two weeks, on the 15th. At 7pm. Be sure to check out open week!