[21:03] <mdke> hi sabdfl, Technoviking
[21:03] <sabdfl> hello everybody
[21:03] <Technoviking> hello
[21:03] <sabdfl> my firefox is crashing, can't see the agenda
[21:03] <mdke> it's empty
[21:03] <Technoviking> sabdfl: did you file a bug :)
[21:04] <sabdfl> empty!
[21:04] <sabdfl> i love this delegation thing
[21:04] <sabdfl> Technoviking: hoping apport will do it for me soon
[21:04] <mdke> yes, the membership boards seem to be working well
[21:04] <Technoviking> :)
[21:05] <sabdfl> is there anything we'd like to discuss, now that we're here?
[21:05] <sabdfl> how are the IRC folks shaping up?
[21:05]  * mdke doesn't know
[21:06] <sabdfl> i haven't heard anything either way, since the flurry of activity
[21:06] <sabdfl> when we made the last round of appointments
[21:06]  * mdke nods
[21:06] <sabdfl> Technoviking: was there a decision at UDS about creating a "irc members" team?
[21:06] <mdke> perhaps we can ask the IRC Council to report on progress in a few weeks once the new members have settled in
[21:07] <sabdfl> +1
[21:07] <Technoviking> sabdfl: I believe so
[21:07] <sabdfl> Technoviking: a +1 or -1?
[21:07] <Technoviking> +1
[21:07] <sabdfl> same for forums, right?
[21:08] <mdke> what would the team be made up of?
[21:08] <mdke> operators?
[21:08] <Technoviking> yes
[21:08] <sabdfl> not necessarily, i think we should make it possible to be a respected contributor while not also shouldering ops
[21:08] <mdke> so what's the point of the team? just recognition of contribution to irc?
[21:09] <sabdfl> same as the point for ubuntumembers :-)
[21:09] <jpds> We have an "official" operator team for #ubuntu at: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-irc
[21:09] <sabdfl> contribution to ubuntu through irc participation
[21:09] <mdke> ok, so it would be a subgroup of ubuntumembers
[21:09] <sabdfl> yes, same as ubuntu-dev
[21:10] <mdke> ok, I suspect you can guess my opinion then :)
[21:10] <sabdfl> -1?
[21:10] <sabdfl> "send 'em to the regionals!"
[21:11] <sabdfl> i hear you from here :-)
[21:11] <mdke> :)
[21:11] <mdke> yeah, I think ubuntu membership should be conferred by the membership boards
[21:11] <sabdfl> from the perspective of "everyone who is interested", surely reporting is the key?
[21:12] <mdke> I think there are lots of advantages to having the process centralised, now that the centralised process is running smoothly
[21:12] <mdke> it's probably not the right time to rehash them though, I rant about them often enough
[21:13] <sabdfl> do you think someone should be an ubuntu-dev without being an ubuntumember?
[21:13] <sabdfl> i'm just trying to get a sense of whether you think some of the existing functional-delegation bits are broken
[21:13] <mdke> I'm in two minds whether -dev is a special case or not, I can see the practical convenience of the MOTU Council being able to push that through
[21:14] <Technoviking> I know some people who like to contribute to Ubuntu without the pressure of being an Ubuntu member
[21:14] <mdke> Technoviking: that's perfectly possible, either way
[21:15] <sabdfl> ok, well, let
[21:15] <mdke> sabdfl: I certainly don't think anything is broken, I just think it would be better to have membership a centralised process
[21:15] <sabdfl> 's not rehash it here
[21:15] <Technoviking> some people are not joiner, for various reason
[21:15] <mdke> +1 for not rehashing the discussion :)
[21:15] <sabdfl> is there anyone on the FC or IRC-C who is also on a regional membership board, i wonder?
[21:15] <mdke> I'm happy to be in the minority
[21:15] <sabdfl> to address consistency?
[21:16] <mdke> Mike :)
[21:16] <mdke> not sure about the IRC-C
[21:16] <alex_mayorga> sabdfl: I'm an ubuntu-mx member in theory
[21:17] <Rafik> I think elkbuntu is both in IRC-C and Asia Oceania RMB
[21:17] <Technoviking> well, I think the regional board have a good feel for how the different area in Ubuntu work now, forums,irc, dev, loco, etc...
[21:17] <mdke> Rafik: good point
[21:18] <sabdfl> so we have *some* cross coverage
[21:18] <mdke> Technoviking: yep, they definitely do. It's great to have a mix of backgrounds on those boards
[21:18] <sabdfl> that's enough for now, let's see how it goes, re-evaluate in a few months, or if it blows up
[21:18] <mdke> ok
[21:18] <sabdfl> but for the moment, i'm happy
[21:18] <mdke> sabdfl: one point we could discuss is whether the existing meeting times for the CC are working, and whether the CC needs a new member to replace Jerome. That has been kicking around the mailing list for a while
[21:18] <alex_mayorga> err I'm on the Mexico loco, never mind
[21:19] <Technoviking> sabdfl: I think are working well, +1
[21:19] <sabdfl> mdke: what's not on the list are nominations :-)
[21:19] <sabdfl> so let's start with times
[21:19] <mdke> sabdfl: that's your prerogative
[21:20] <sabdfl> i'd like to have nominations from the existing CC to consider
[21:20] <sabdfl> and would discuss them with the CC before proposing them formally
[21:20] <mdke> sabdfl: as I understand it, you make nominations. But we could discuss whether it's a good idea in principle to have another member on the CC
[21:20] <sabdfl> yes, i'd like more, and more non-Canonical, ideally too
[21:20] <sabdfl> let's start with the times
[21:20] <sabdfl> the TB has stopped trying to cover all timezones
[21:20] <mdke> ok
[21:21] <sabdfl> i'm tempted...
[21:21] <sabdfl> i don't know that our morning slot gets us much love in the far east, as it is
[21:21] <sabdfl> what do you guys think?
[21:21] <sabdfl> would a single, day-us-evening-eu time, be better?
[21:22] <alex_mayorga> what are the other options?
[21:22] <mdke> I don't really have a view, I've missed so many meetings recently so I don't have a feel for whether people would like different times
[21:22] <Technoviking> sabdfl: That would work for me, maybe we can be flexible for issues in other timezones
[21:22] <mdke> I know that I can only make -eu evenings, but I suspect that other members of the CC wouldn't be able to make that time so easily
[21:23] <sabdfl> alex_mayorga: if we're going to pick a time, we should try to pick one that covers as many tz's as possible
[21:24] <sabdfl> which usually means evening eu
[21:25] <sabdfl> given that we're the "buck stops here" point, it seems wrong to have a blanket policy that flat-out doesn't work for someone in australia
[21:25] <alex_mayorga> morning us works as longs as it is possible to access from behind corporate firewalls, I for one are behind one at that time with no IRC
[21:25] <sabdfl> we did the regional groups to avoid that
[21:25] <mdke> yeah, I agree. I think two times is reasonable, and we should be able to cover those with members in different TZs
[21:26] <mdke> especially if we add a new member or more than one
[21:26] <Seeker`> i dont think it is possible to get reasonable worldwide coverage with 1 fixed time
[21:26] <sabdfl> so that would suggest nominations from asiapac, especially, with a plan to do earlier in the morning eu + asia, and evening eu + usa
[21:27] <mdke> yes, although I guess the nominations shouldn't necessarily be conditional on TZ
[21:27] <sabdfl> well, we are replacing jerome
[21:27] <mdke> true
[21:28] <sabdfl> ok, i'll ask now that we talk on the list about candidates
[21:28] <sabdfl> i';m not going to do a wider call for them
[21:28] <sabdfl> anything else?
[21:28] <Technoviking> nothing here
[21:29] <mdke> sabdfl: does the TB have enough members? I recall reading about a call for nominations, but that must be a couple of releases back
[21:29] <sabdfl> we have two candidates, i will o ahead and nominate
[21:29] <sabdfl> wanted more to do a bakeoff
[21:29] <mdke> cool
[21:29] <Technoviking> mdke: I know Matt Z was feeling over worked on the TB
[21:29] <sabdfl> ok
[21:30] <sabdfl> thanks all!
[21:30] <mdke> thanks
[21:30] <Technoviking> thanks
[21:30] <sabdfl> night night

MeetingLogs/CC/20090106 (last edited 2009-02-08 03:40:16 by cpe-069-134-119-070)