Ubuntu Wiki

22:02  MootBot: Meeting started at 14:02. The chair is knome.
22:02  MootBot: Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
22:02  knome: [TOPIC] Xubuntu Governance
22:02  MootBot: New Topic:  Xubuntu Governance
22:03  j1mc: here's the wiki page: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Xubuntu/StrategyDocument#Xubuntu%20Governance%20&%20Team%20Structure
22:04  knome: [LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Xubuntu/StrategyDocument#Xubuntu%20Governance%20&%20Team%20Structure
22:04  MootBot: LINK received:  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Xubuntu/StrategyDocument#Xubuntu%20Governance%20&%20Team%20Structure
22:04  j1mc: did anyone have any comments based on reading it?
22:04  lmn: Other than agreement?
22:05  j1mc: lmn: correct
22:05  cody-somerville: Reading it again... do we need to even change it?
22:05  lmn: Then no.
22:05  knome: cody-somerville, i think we only need to append/modify the council part of ir
22:05  cody-somerville: It seems to be provide the necessary authority to form a council already.
22:05  knome: *it
22:05  cody-somerville: knome, ^^
22:05  j1mc: well, depending on what approach we take (team lead vs. council approach) certain items would need to be changed
22:06  j1mc: for example, "The Xubuntu council is a small group of people who have been designated as "movers and shakers" by the Xubuntu project lead"
22:06  j1mc: i would lthink that this would need to be changed to something like, "xubuntu contributors and xubuntu developers"
22:06  SiDi: I agree w/ what's there
22:06  lmn: SiDi: Yes, but j1mc's point is right - the point is to be without a "lead" - correct?
22:06  knome: well personally i think that even if we had a leader, we should move a bit towards less-authoritarian leader.
22:07  cody-somerville: I don't think we have that now.
22:07  cody-somerville: Maybe the leader should take more of a back seat though.
22:07  SiDi: I think a lead is needed only when two people definitely disagree and begin to misbehave
22:07  lmn: knome: You mean a face without veto power?
22:07  knome: cody-somerville, that's what i meant
22:07  SiDi: and this can be the role of the ubuntu community council
22:07  cody-somerville: Maybe mr_pouit will provide that?
22:07  j1mc: is mr_pouit willing to be project lead for lucid?
22:07  cody-somerville: What I really want to avoid is voting
22:08  cody-somerville: j1mc, yes
22:08  knome: SiDi, even if it's two people disagree, i don't know if it's directly a place for the leader. if we have the council, the council can/should sort stuff out, if possible
22:08  cody-somerville: Instead, I think consensus is much more favorable to voting.
22:08  mr_pouit: aren't people supposed to accept the decisions of the council? ;)
22:08  j1mc: cody-somerville: he confirmed that in #xubuntu-devel?
22:08  SiDi: i think we need leads per field of expertise, and decisions that affect several fields or that affect the overall direction of xubuntu should be decided by all the team leads
22:08  lmn: mr_pouit: That would be my understanding..
22:08  lmn: Majority rules, aye?
22:08  cody-somerville: No, majority doesn't rule
22:08  knome: cody-somerville, finding a consensus is kind of voting anyway
22:08  cody-somerville: Ubuntu has never been like this
22:08  lmn: When it comes to council it should.
22:08  cody-somerville: knome, voting is binary, yes or no. Consensus not so much.
22:09  cody-somerville: knome, there can be varying levels of consensus
22:09  SiDi: knome: consensus is implicit and means issues got sorted out, vote is explicit and means some issues are being disregarded  because people want to force a consensus
22:09  cody-somerville: I also disagree that "experts" should have full control of their area
22:09  lmn: Well, 9 times out of 10 something is either right or wrong and should be addressed as such..
22:09  knome: consensus doesn't mean no issues are disregarded.
22:10  j1mc: i think that people should be consulted before their "area" is changed by others, though.
22:10  cody-somerville: I think the people doing the work should have the authority to make decisions
22:10  cody-somerville: (except for artwork :P)
22:10  knome: cody-somerville, not full control, but if you want to think in binary, i think the expert should have more power than 1.
22:10  SiDi: cody-somerville: :P
22:10  knome: cody-somerville, i quit.
22:10  cody-somerville: who decides who experts are?
22:10  knome: :P
22:10  SiDi: knome: what is more than 1 in binary?
22:10  SiDi: 10?
22:11  cody-somerville: knome, lots of artwork people willing to contribute ::P
22:11  knome: cody-somerville, aren't that decided when team leaders are appointed
22:11  cody-somerville: Anyhow, thats all I wanted to say
22:11  SiDi: cody-somerville: by expert i mean people who have the most background on contributing to xubuntu in this field
22:11  lmn: knome: But wouldn't that introduce more complexity than needed? That concept is used in the Democratic party in America with "super delegates".
22:11  knome: cody-somerville, well, i haven't seen anybody ACTING yet.
22:11  SiDi: sorry for that word, it was badly chosen
22:11  cody-somerville: knome, agreed. which is why I tolerate you :P
22:11 * cody-somerville nudges knome 
22:11  cody-somerville: just joking, love you Pasi
22:11 * knome farts
22:11  knome: :P
22:11  cody-somerville: Anyhow, I must be going now.
22:11  j1mc: heh
22:11  knome: sure. i love you too
22:11  SiDi: lmn: I dont think we need to use the same systems as political parties :P
22:11  knome: see you cody-somerville 
22:12  j1mc: cody-somerville: have a good afternoon
22:12  lmn: So would the system be if you're an "expert" that you automatically get 2 votes?
22:12  knome: lmn, no.
22:12  j1mc: thanks for making the time to be here
22:12  lmn: Then how are we going to weight the opinion of an "expert"?
22:12  SiDi: There is no such thing as vote
22:12  cody-somerville: (experts are recognized w/o appointment)
22:12  j1mc: mr_pouit: did you confirm that you'd be willing to be project lead for lucid?
22:12  cody-somerville: (they are experts because they just are)
22:12  knome: but if we are talking about about documentation, for example, i think jim's voice should weigh more that, for example, mine.
22:13  SiDi: I think there is no need to weight opinions as long as everyone involved is conscious that some people may be more likely to take the good decision in a given field
22:13  charlie-tca: but who decides who the expert is?
22:13  cody-somerville: charlie-tca, each individual person
22:13 * lmn agrees with charlie
22:13  mr_pouit: j1mc: yes, if there's no other choice, I can do it until the council is fully functional
22:13  knome: expert is probably a wrong word.
22:13 * cody-somerville is gone.
22:13  Sysi: don't opinions weight themselfs trough people?
22:13  knome: jim leads the doc team. so he is responsible for getting good results on the doc front.
22:13  j1mc: i think we're a small enough group to know who the recognized "subject matter experts" are without formalizing what qualifies as an "expert."
22:14  SiDi: charlie-tca: i think we can each think on our own who we consider to be experts in their fields
22:14  j1mc: perhaps with the exception of artwork
22:14  lmn: It's becoming very clear we didn't discuss this well enough on the mailing list..
22:14  cody-somerville: hehe
22:14  SiDi: knome: expert is a wrong word. I use it for lack of a better one in my vocabulary :D
22:14  knome: j1mc, ugh? was there some kind of pn intended once again? :P
22:14  j1mc: SiDi: "team-lead"?
22:14  knome: i hate to talk about artwork all the time, BUT
22:15  j1mc: i don't want us to get bogged-down with semantics
22:15  raevol: can i ask a noob question? what does "artwork" consist of?
22:15  Sysi: people agree with people that they consider as experts, so they don't expecially need to have more weighed vote
22:15  j1mc: the important thing (to me) is that people's voices are heard with regard to important xubuntu-related decisions
22:15  knome: if i am the marketing (+artwork) lead, i suppose it does make a difference if i disagree with somebody
22:15  SiDi: raevol: it consists of the look and feel of Xubuntu and its marketing materials
22:15  lmn: raevol: Basically anything that's themeable.
22:15  j1mc: in cases of disagreement, we need to be able to sort things out in a way that doesn't bog down the distribution
22:15  knome: artwork is always subjective to taste, and we have to take SOME path.
22:16  raevol: is it a short list of things? desktop/gdm/bootsplash/window manager/gtk? or a lot more?
22:16  lmn: knome: Yeah, I wanted to talk with you about some artwork *ducks*
22:16  knome: in the past i haven't proposed anything totally silly (except for laughs)
22:16 * SiDi proposes artwork specific discussions occur after the governance topic
22:16  j1mc: raevol: knome lmn ... can we sort out the governance stuff first?
22:16  knome: i remember a few situations where me and cody disagreed on some silly things
22:16  raevol: sorry
22:16  lmn: j1mc: Absolutely.
22:16  knome: (j1mc, i'm getting to that)
22:17  j1mc: knome: ok - if you need to talk about artwork to express a gov. issue... :)
22:17  j1mc: go ahead.  :)
22:17  knome: so in these situations, shouldn't my opinion weigh more? especially if the rest of the dev community agrees with me?
22:17  knome: why should the project leader have a VETO vote in a situation like this?
22:17  knome: "well i don't like that, let's throw it in the bin"
22:18  j1mc: knome: i agree.  how do we sort out such issues?
22:18  j1mc: perhaps... if project lead and other team member disagree...
22:18  knome: well if in the new governance we have the council
22:18  lmn: Well, a majority of the council should be able to over-ride a veto.
22:18  j1mc: it comes out to the xubuntu [insert group name here] for a vote?
22:18  knome: maybe we should find a consensus between the members
22:18  knome: not just asking the leaders opinion and blindly go forward with that
22:19  j1mc: s/vote/consensus
22:19  lmn: The council should have checks and balances so that no one branch is more powerful than any other.
22:19  lmn: E.g. leaders and etc.
22:19  Sysi: too much byrocracy kills all development
22:19  lmn: Yes but not enough kills creativity.
22:20  knome: Sysi, a veto possibility kills everything.
22:20  Sysi: true
22:20  SiDi: Would it be reasonable to say that when there is a disagreement that can't be solved on a particular issue, a vote occurs, and voters are the council + the regular members of the team responsible of the feature/field on which the disagreement occurs?
22:20  knome: [AGREED] Lionel will act as a temporary project leader until a council is formed.
22:20  MootBot: AGREED received:  Lionel will act as a temporary project leader until a council is formed.
22:20  lmn: SiDi: Exactly my thoughts.
22:20  SiDi: (with a max weight for the votes of the regular members to avoid them to outnumber the council)
22:20  mr_pouit: A council of ~5 people shouldn't kill anything, if people don't ask for it to decide something every hour.
22:21  knome: mr_pouit, i definitely do not want everything go through the council
22:21  mr_pouit: clearly
22:21  lmn: mr_pouit: Well the point is a person of 1 shouldn't be able to kill something without any way to repeal.
22:21  knome: there has been numerous of decisions in the two last cycles which are done without too much bureaucracy and i think that's totally fine
22:21  charlie-tca: Sidi hit it right on the head
22:22  lmn: Agreed.
22:22  cody-somerville: lmn, The community council is the elevation
22:22  Sysi: i just meant that in some point needs to make decisions
22:22  j1mc: SiDi: could you explain what you mean with "with a max weight..."
22:22  cody-somerville: SiDi, ^^
22:22  cody-somerville: Thats just all way to complicated SiDi
22:22  lmn: Is it?
22:22  cody-somerville: Yes it is
22:23  cody-somerville: We escalate to CC if we're not happy with Xubuntu council/project lead decision.
22:23  cody-somerville: and if that happens, you better have a good reason if you don't want to look foolish in front of them.
22:23  SiDi: Hm, okey
22:23  raevol: the council could exist to make decisions on issues that are causing disagreement? if there's no disagreement there's no need to put it by the council?
22:23  raevol: err, yea what was just said
22:23  knome: cody-somerville, so basically, if the disagreement was about a silly thing, the leader could overrule any developer anyway?
22:23  mr_pouit: (unless it's on a technical matter, where the cc is useless)
22:23  lmn: mr_pouit: Agreed.
22:24  cody-somerville: In that case, we go to TB: )
22:24  SiDi: j1mc: meant that for instance the team members' vote counts for 25% of the final vote, or something like that, to make sure the decision belongs to the council, but the team members still have a word to say when it comes to something they work on
22:24  cody-somerville: knome, if you can build up a case that the leader does that often, that wouldn't be a silly problem
22:24  cody-somerville: It would be a huge problem
22:24  cody-somerville: It would be a clear case of micro management
22:24 * cody-somerville is gone again.
22:24 * charlie-tca agrees
22:24 * lmn also agrees
22:25  knome: agree as well.
22:25  charlie-tca: any micro manager as team leader should wind up in front of the cc
22:25  knome: maybe we should talk about what the team EXPECTS from the team leaders
22:26  lmn: That's a good question.
22:26  knome: if i'm the marketing lead, do people expect me to handle and lead marketing and make some decisions and manage a big picture of it?
22:26  knome: or just produce marketing material?
22:26  lmn: knome: I'd say at least be the "idea man".
22:26  j1mc: to do work, to provide direction for their portion of the project, to recruit and assist others who contribute to the project
22:27  lmn: What's the point in being a team lead if you're not going to have a strong idea for where you want to be and go.
22:27  lmn: It seems j1mc and I are on the same page with this.
22:27  knome: j1mc, okay, so doesn't the team leader have a bigger weight about his own area, if he is supposed to direct the team?
22:27  j1mc: i would say yes, unless you want me directing artwork.  ... of course what you suggest makes sense. :)
22:28  knome: j1mc, how can anybody direct a team if his decisions are not appreciated or they are overruled by project leader?
22:28  mr_pouit: (you can say that he has more experience on his topic, so it's easier to convince other people ;)
22:28  mr_pouit: (he/she, of course)
22:28  j1mc: in what cases should a project leader be able to overrule the team leader?
22:28  knome: this also concerns the documentation team and i'm so happy you, jim, are taking care of it, even if somebody might disagree.
22:29  j1mc: or in what cases should the project leader be able to overrule the team leader?
22:29  j1mc: that's what i meant to ask.
22:29  SiDi: j1mc: i'd say exclusvely when the majority of the council disagrees with the team lead, and when the people in the team also disagree with each other
22:29  knome: COMPACTLY: i know you know better.
22:29  lmn: j1mc: I'd say the project leader should organize a vote at that point, if it's necessary.
22:29  SiDi: ie. when the team leads acts on his/her own w/ nobody agreeing
22:29  charlie-tca: If the team leader is not the one to make the final decision on what's best for a team, what is he?
22:29  lmn: An organizer, basically.
22:29  knome: charlie-tca, well aren't we suggesting a governance with a council
22:30  knome: first go to council
22:30  knome: if council can't have consensus even what they do, ask the leader
22:30  lmn: The project leader should be the one managing the way things move, not deciding how they move, if that makes sense.
22:30  knome: if one guy disagrees in the council (even if he was the project leader) i don't think it should "break" the thing at that point.
22:31  knome: the council would probably find a consensus by theirselves if only one disagrees.
22:32  knome: if they really can't find a consensus, then i think the project leader definitely should have his voice heard.
22:32  knome: and in the end, make the decision
22:32  cody-somerville: The project leader isn't a project manager
22:32  cody-somerville: also, if there is a council, I feel the project leader should sit on it
22:32  knome: cody-somerville, of course
22:32  cody-somerville: and maybe even be the chairman (ie. tie breaker)
22:32 * j1mc agrees
22:33  lmn: I'll agree with that.
22:33 * j1mc agrees w/ the sitting on the council part
22:33 * charlie-tca agrees too
22:33  knome: cody-somerville, exactly. but in a non-tie situation he should just be one of the members.
22:33  j1mc: tiebreaker, too
22:33  cody-somerville: knome, agreed.
22:33  knome: i don't see we are going to have a lot of need for tie-breakers, really
22:33  charlie-tca: just a member or a non-voting member except in ties
22:33  SiDi: I think the tiebreaker should be the most relevant team lead for the thing involved
22:34  knome: even if we have disagreed, it's mostly being either me or you (cody) disagreeing the rest ;)
22:34  lmn: knome: Failsafes are rarely used, but when they are, you're glad they're there.
22:34 * cody-somerville is gone again.
22:34  knome: maybe the team leader and the project leader should be the tiebreakers.
22:34  knome: and if they disagree, project leader is the tiebreaker.
22:34  knome: what do you think of that?
22:34  cody-somerville: Lets get rid of team leaders
22:35  charlie-tca: can't have two tiebreakers. That creates more issues.
22:35  cody-somerville: let the teams organize themselves
22:35  cody-somerville: just an idea
22:35 * cody-somerville is really gone now.
22:35  knome: cody-somerville, tbh, the teams usually consist of one or two people
22:35  knome: cody-somerville, the marketing+artwork team is knome.
22:35  knome: atm
22:35  lmn: Well, knome - as I've mentioned on the mailing list I have wordpress experience..
22:36  lmn: just throwing that out there
22:36  knome: lmn, yes.
22:36  SiDi: knome: eeew, evil you
22:36  SiDi: i'm in the art team
22:36  knome: but in the past, even if there were people interested in contributing
22:36  SiDi: and im not a knome
22:36  knome: they rarely have contributed
22:36  knome: SiDi, yes you are. just generalizing :P
22:37  knome: so that leaves me still being on my own in the marketing team
22:37  SiDi: I agree that we could trash the team leaders. But then we need to ensure each team is represented by at least a council member
22:37  j1mc: SiDi: that makes sense
22:37  j1mc: assuming we don't have 12 teams
22:37  charlie-tca: yup
22:37  knome: what about my suggestion in cutting the teams down to four?
22:38  charlie-tca: Council gets much bigger than about 5 for us, we are in trouble
22:38  j1mc: charlie-tca: i agree
22:38  SiDi: j1mc: a council member could be in several teams
22:38  j1mc: yes
22:38  SiDi: and the creation of new teams would require agreement of the council + dedication of a member
22:39  knome: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/xubuntu-devel/2009-December/007225.html
22:39  knome: charlie-tca, won't get bigger than 5. we barely have more contributors than five >:|
22:40  j1mc: in the current structure, there's contributors, documentors (which includes the website group... which i don't often think about), developers, council & project lead
22:40  knome: no, there's no council
22:40  knome: it's in the strategy document, but none has been formed yet.
22:40  j1mc: it's in the current governance doc
22:40  knome: the council is project leader.
22:40  knome: as for now.
22:40  j1mc: ok
22:40  SiDi: I think we can leave to Council, Contributors, Users
22:41  knome: we DO have a core developer group
22:41  knome: or contributor, to be more exact
22:41  charlie-tca: yes, and developers should be involved
22:41  knome: charlie-tca, developers are contributors.
22:42  knome: if we split contributors into contributors and developers, that somewhat makes me feel that the people working with code are somewhat more important than the ones doing documentation or qa.
22:42  j1mc: developers and contributors should be part of the council... with the aim (but not requirement?) of having the council made up of "core functional areas" of the project... ?
22:42  SiDi: i agree to have a single group for devs + contributors
22:43  knome: which they kind of are, but should not be in the governance thing
22:43  SiDi: especially considering that the majority of the work is not related to code in Xubuntu
22:43  charlie-tca: without the developers, you have nothing
22:43  SiDi: charlie-tca: and the developers are the GNOME + XFCE + Ubuntu + Kernel + Xorg + w/e ones
22:43  j1mc: knome: i think it may draw in more "developers" if we have a separate group... a mkting tool?
22:43  knome: charlie-tca, that's true. but really, a QA guy is not less important when it comes down to governance.
22:43  SiDi: Who writes code in Xubuntu? Cody, Lionel and I write patches, thats all
22:43  knome: j1mc, i think that has worked against us, really
22:44  SiDi: +1 knome
22:44  knome: j1mc, (having a separate dev group)
22:44  lmn: SiDi: How many patches and repackaging usually go into a single release?
22:44  charlie-tca: I agree. Developers are the only group that is required by the distribution
22:44  SiDi: charlie-tca: your opinion, the one of knome and j1mc, the one of vincent, and anyone willing to seriously contribute weights just as much as the one of those whow rite the code
22:44  SiDi: lmn: cant say, i've only worked on a single release cycle
22:44  knome: charlie-tca, ^ +1 billion for SiDi 
22:44  SiDi: but i wrote more than 50 patches
22:44  lmn: Hm, fair enough.
22:45  knome: charlie-tca, that's what i meant. i didn't mean that developers are not in a special status. they sure are. (thanks cody and lionel)
22:45  j1mc: i wouldn't want to "weight" someone's opinion
22:45  knome: (and steve)
22:45  SiDi: charlie-tca: i dont think there can be a distro only with developers
22:46  SiDi: devs often dont see the shortcomings of their own work without support teams to fetch feedback from users
22:46  knome: j1mc, that was just justifying that even developers should be counted as "contributors", not a separate group
22:46  charlie-tca: Of course there can, that is what started xubuntu
22:46  knome: charlie-tca, tbh, i don't think it would have lasted long if there wasn't somebody who was interested in something else than development
22:47  j1mc: knome: i think part of the "developers" is that there is a separate lp group... which gives certain permissions?  i think it also recognizes them a bit more.
22:47  j1mc: knome: i think we disagree on this a bit, but that's ok
22:47  knome: j1mc, i agree with developers having certain permissions.
22:47  SiDi: Of course devs can start a distro as long as they also know a bit about system administration and packaging
22:48  knome: j1mc, but i don't agree one developer being any more important in the council than one "contributor"
22:48  SiDi: but a good distro also needs a documentation and support team
22:48  j1mc: knome: i agree w/ you on tha tpoint
22:48  SiDi: + some designer effort for the desktop settings
22:48  knome: j1mc, also, there would be no idea in letting me have push rights to universe. i'd just mess everything up.
22:49  knome: j1mc, developers need special permissions to be able to do their part.
22:49  j1mc: knome: +1 billion.  every app would have a special "unicorn" button if it were up to you.
22:49  knome: j1mc, ...and a pink kitten
22:49  j1mc: what can we agree on for now.
22:49  j1mc: i think we're coming to some agreement
22:49  knome: sure
22:50  j1mc: we have PL for now - mr_p  :)
22:50  j1mc: we know we want a council...
22:50  j1mc: 4 or 5 people...
22:50  SiDi: knome: and binary birds
22:50  j1mc: we know we want votes to be equal
22:50  knome: 5, to have a tiebreaker.
22:50  j1mc: but PL can over-rule
22:50  knome: j1mc, that's where we disagree.
22:50  j1mc: as tie-breaker
22:50  knome: or at least haven't agreed yet
22:50  j1mc: sorry... not over-rule
22:50  j1mc: bad choice of words
22:51  j1mc: in cases where the PL and the subject matter expert disagree - we need special considerations
22:51  j1mc: that have yet to be determined
22:51  j1mc: (not sure we can decide on formal lanague in this mtg)
22:52  j1mc: am i on the right track?
22:52  j1mc: what else can we agree on?
22:52  knome: j1mc, but if the council votes 3-2 for the TL (PL disagrees), wouldn't the TL's idea go through anyway?
22:52  j1mc: no, because then there is no tie
22:52  j1mc: wait... yes
22:53  knome: :D
22:53  SiDi: yes
22:53  j1mc: sorry, i misread
22:53  knome: so if there is 5 members
22:53  knome: and one of them is the PL
22:53  SiDi: PL would break the tie when there is a 2-2 (+ 1 abstention or absence)
22:53  knome: yes.
22:53  j1mc: yes
22:53  SiDi: but i'd prefer having the "subject expert" as a tie breaker
22:53  knome: i kind of have to agree with SiDi here
22:53  SiDi: because if he has more experience in the field hes more likely to know which decision is better
22:54  knome: at least if the voting is tied.
22:54  knome: (and there has been a vote)
22:54  charlie-tca: project lead should be thinking of the overall best for the project; team leader is only looking at his part
22:54  SiDi: charlie-tca: i think we're all looking for the best of the project
22:54  knome: charlie-tca, how to find out when the decision really matters for the best of the whole project?
22:54  SiDi: and we all want to work together and have a global vision of the project
22:54  knome: or when it is only about agreeing and disagreeing
22:55  charlie-tca: A a team leader, you want what "you" do first. As project lead, you are looking at everything
22:55  knome: if it's about certain artwork (eg. wallpaper), can you really say that an another WP would be better for "the project" ?
22:56  charlie-tca: yes
22:56  knome: i can't say that.
22:56  charlie-tca: look at Ubuntu and how many times their choices have been hated
22:56  j1mc: WP is certainly subjective
22:56  knome: charlie-tca, if i create a consistent theme for, let's say, lucid with the marketing team
22:57  charlie-tca: Even the karmic gdm screen is still being debated as to quality
22:57  knome: charlie-tca, and it includes a wallpaper, which is as well consistent
22:57  knome: charlie-tca, and the PL disagrees
22:57  raevol: this seems like a really silly thing to get stuck on, since all themed things can be changed by the user
22:57  knome: charlie-tca, should we change to a WP that is not consistent with the rest of the artwork?
22:57  SiDi: raevol: its the main point of disagreement in Xubuntu :D
22:57  charlie-tca: That is not what I said, knome
22:57  raevol: that's kind of ridiculous
22:57  knome: charlie-tca, that's what i meant.
22:58  SiDi: raevol: we usually start epic wars that involve nuclear bombing when it comes to the default wallpaper
22:58  raevol: and things like the login manager or media player get left on the wayside?
22:58  knome: raevol, we usually just agree on those.
22:58  SiDi: the login manager is out of our control
22:58  SiDi: the media player is what i've been working on in the last cycle
22:58  knome: charlie-tca, can you try to be more verbose on what you meant, then?
22:59  raevol: i'm sorry but froma  1st time user at this meeting, if all this governance drama is over wallpaper, that's really sad
22:59  SiDi: raevol: it was a (big) caricature from me
23:00  knome: [IDEA] Council of 4 or 5 members. Votes are equal, except if we need a tie-break. Who will tiebreak?
23:00  MootBot: IDEA received:  Council of 4 or 5 members. Votes are equal, except if we need a tie-break. Who will tiebreak?
23:00  knome: raevol, it's not that we only argued over wallpapers.
23:00  raevol: how about a council of 5 and ties are not allowed
23:00  charlie-tca: I'm saying that in any project, the individual team leaders will always push hardest for their team items, especially when they came up with the idea.
23:00  knome: raevol, these are just examples.
23:00  raevol: k
23:00  charlie-tca: The project leader should not be involved in those team projects individuallym, and will look at the whole project instead
23:01  knome: charlie-tca, of course. is that bad for the project, if the team leader wants the best for the project?
23:01  knome: charlie-tca, i mean, COME ON, has anybody really suggested anything THAT SUCKY?
23:01  SiDi: charlie-tca: we all get personal about what we do, its normal. But we also are adult persons and we're capable of thinking about what's best for the project
23:01  knome: (in any team)
23:01  charlie-tca: The project leader shfould be able to look at all the items, to see the biggest picture
23:02  knome: raevol, even in a 5 member council one can be absent and then there's the possibility of having a tie.
23:02  SiDi: charlie-tca: then what can the project leader do apart from waiting and vetoing/distributing white cards?
23:02  raevol: put the vote on hold until the 5th returns?
23:02  knome: charlie-tca, then the project leader should not take part on any team
23:02  SiDi: And, more important, why would there be a single person to have a whole picture of xubuntu ?
23:02  knome: charlie-tca, because then he would get things in his team always pushed through anyway.
23:02  SiDi: raevol: the 5th can disappear. It happens
23:03  knome: charlie-tca, or things HE DID.
23:03  raevol: if they dissapear for more than a few weeks they shouldn't be on council, wouldn't you think? and a vote could wait a few weeks?
23:03  knome: raevol, they can disappear completely.
23:03  knome: raevol, this is voluntary work.
23:03  charlie-tca: raevol: a vote can't wait if a decision has to be made by tomorrow
23:03  raevol: could you then have a time limit on absence before they are replaced?
23:03  SiDi: raevol: a vote can't be on hold. Deadlines are already so short
23:03  charlie-tca: Which does happen
23:04  knome: +1 on charlie-tca and SiDi 
23:04  raevol: or perhaps each council member has a person to stand in for them?
23:04  SiDi: we dont even have 10 contributors :D
23:04  charlie-tca: Sure
23:04  SiDi: So we can't do that
23:04  charlie-tca: knome, can you be my stand in?
23:04  knome: do we agree that if council gets something to decide on, they should decide on the thing in the first meeting they have.
23:05  knome: charlie-tca, of course. especially when we disagree :P
23:05  charlie-tca: Thanks
23:05  knome: j1mc, did you fall off your chair already?
23:05  charlie-tca: Of course, that still leaves the council short that member, doesn't it
23:05  j1mc: knome: :)
23:05  charlie-tca: I agree the council has to decide quickly
23:05  knome: charlie-tca, well i think, if i was your stand in, wouldn't i have two votes?
23:06  charlie-tca: Yup
23:06  j1mc: i'm ok with 5 members... do not have a preference on how ties are situated
23:06  charlie-tca: One for qa and one for marketing?
23:06  knome: charlie-tca, my own vote and your vote, if i stand for you.
23:06  knome: regardless of the teams.
23:06  charlie-tca: Sounds right
23:07  knome: should we vote on team size?
23:07  knome: or do we just agree on five?
23:07  knome: eh
23:07  knome: council size
23:07  charlie-tca: Shouldn't there be a minimum number show up to have a decision made?
23:07  knome: (let's kick charlie-tca out, he's not a REAL developer)
23:07  j1mc: i think five is good
23:07  knome: just a joke.
23:07 * j1mc hugs charlie-tca 
23:07  j1mc: :)
23:07 * charlie-tca is gone
23:07  knome: charlie-tca, 50%+, so if the council is 5, 3 would be wnough.
23:07 * knome hugs charlie-tca as well :)
23:07  charlie-tca: right
23:08  SiDi: Sorry, wifi crashed
23:08  knome: if the council is 4, you'd still need 3 to be able to decide
23:08  knome: and the size would leave a possibility for more ties
23:08  charlie-tca: so if we get 3, 4, or 5 show up, a decision would be made at that meeting.
23:08  knome: charlie-tca, yes.
23:08  j1mc: yup
23:08  knome: UNLESS
23:08  knome: there are four people in
23:08  charlie-tca: no UNLESS
23:08  knome: but the PL is away
23:08  knome: then there's a tie
23:08  knome: and no tie-breaker
23:08  knome: if a TL can't tiebreak.
23:09  SiDi: Ok
23:09  charlie-tca: That may be the exception to the TL breaking the tie
23:09  SiDi: i propose Fair Roll Dice for ties
23:09  knome: then it's 2-2 but no tiebreaker.
23:09  knome: SiDi, fair roll dice? :F
23:09  SiDi: dice roll
23:09  knome: lol
23:09  SiDi: Sorry, i'm tired
23:09  knome: i was already wondering what a fair dice was
23:09  charlie-tca: knome: that does make sense. PL is a tiebreaker unless he is not there, then TL is
23:09  knome: (one with 6 6's?)=
23:10  knome: charlie-tca, well...
23:10  knome: charlie-tca, i can't agree on that either
23:10  raevol: does that mean it's agreed that PL breaks ties between TL and PL?
23:10  charlie-tca: okey dokey
23:10  knome: people could tamper with the results
23:10  j1mc: knome: no tampering :)
23:10  knome: eg. propose a meeting when the PL can't take part
23:10  j1mc: gaaah
23:10  j1mc: no
23:10  j1mc: not going to go there
23:11  knome: yes, they could do that.
23:11  charlie-tca: PL should never break ties between him and TL; there would only be two there then
23:11  knome: i could.
23:11  knome: i mean...
23:11  knome: :P
23:11  knome: charlie-tca, so if a vote is 2-2 with PL and TL on different sides, it's still a tiebreak?
23:12  knome: s/tiebreak/tie/
23:12  charlie-tca: PL should not have voted yet
23:12  raevol: perhaps decisions should never be made without both the PL and TL, unless they give their permission? which they would be sort of expected to do if there's a deadline issue?
23:12  knome: so you propose a PL is not a voting member at all?
23:12  charlie-tca: 4 showed up, TL and two voted; no tie
23:12  charlie-tca: I propose the PL votes as tie-breaker only
23:13  SiDi: oh
23:13  knome: no.
23:13  SiDi: Then it means the PL can't vote on non-ties, thats unfair to him :D
23:13  j1mc: doesnt that defeat the purpose of having a PL
23:13  charlie-tca: He no longer has the heaviest say every time
23:13  knome: i disagree.
23:13  charlie-tca: There was no council meeting unless they disagreed, was there?
23:13  knome: if TL and 2 vote (1 for TL, 2 against), and the PL would have agreed with TL...
23:14  knome: that makes PL have so much less weight on his words
23:14  knome: and that's not what we want, if the PL is the best guy to say what is the best for the project, right?
23:15  j1mc: i think the PL should definitely be able to vote.
23:15  knome: if PL voted in the first vote, it would have been a tie (2-2) and then PL's vote would have made the difference, thus TL in this example winning.
23:15  knome: but if the PL didn't vote,TL would have lost.
23:16  j1mc: i know it's important to delineate these things, but i feel like we're splitting hairs
23:16  knome: this is an exaggerated example, but this REALLY shouldn't happen.
23:16  j1mc: if a fifth member can't make it, and there's an important issue... call them.  email them.
23:16  knome: so, do we agree on the council size of 5?
23:16  knome: j1mc, and as the last effort, fart in their nose.
23:16  j1mc: that's ok w/ me
23:16  knome: everybody else agree?
23:17  knome: SiDi, charlie-tca, raevol ?
23:17  knome: lmn, ?
23:17  j1mc: mr_pouit
23:17  lmn: Yes.
23:17  charlie-tca: 5
23:17  lmn: knome: Agreed.
23:17  lmn: :)
23:17  raevol: oh don't wait for my agreement, i'm just watching and commenting
23:17  knome: raevol, you can disagree as well if you feel like.
23:17  knome: raevol, or agree, of course :P
23:18  mr_pouit: yeah yeah, agree for 5
23:18  knome: this shouldn't be a secret club.
23:18  raevol: i agree
23:18  knome: [AGREED] Council size should be 5 members, with one of them being the Project Lead.
23:18  MootBot: AGREED received:  Council size should be 5 members, with one of them being the Project Lead.
23:18  knome: did somebody [disagree] with the latter point?
23:18  knome: :P
23:18  j1mc: no :)
23:19  knome: does the PL get vote in the first voting in the council?
23:19  knome: do we need a vote on this?
23:19 * charlie-tca thinks disagreeing is good for the mind
23:19 * knome thinks disagreeing with your mind is good.
23:20  lmn: knome: I disagree with my fists,.
23:20  lmn: jk
23:20  knome: i'll be back in just a few seconds, i have to go to the bathroom.
23:20  j1mc: i think the PL should be able to vote in all cases
23:20  raevol: i agree with PL voting
23:20  j1mc: why should the leader be penalized in the decision-making process?
23:21 * SiDi is half afk. Got work to do for tomorrow morning
23:21 * charlie-tca disagrees, but that is okay too
23:22  knome: SiDi, with being half at keyboard, could you cast your vote
23:22  SiDi: Sure
23:22  knome: + or - ?
23:22  j1mc: the council should be selected by the existing xubuntu-contributors
23:22  SiDi: +
23:22  SiDi: Launch a vote if you want me to vote :P
23:22  SiDi: j1mc: i agree to this too
23:23  knome: [AGREED] The Project Leader will have a vote in a first vote in the council, not just as a tie-breaker.
23:23  MootBot: AGREED received:  The Project Leader will have a vote in a first vote in the council, not just as a tie-breaker.
23:23  charlie-tca: +1 j1mc
23:23  knome: yeah.
23:23  knome: anybody disagree?
23:23  charlie-tca: what are we disagreeing on now?
23:24  knome: charlie-tca, you already agreed on selecting the council
23:24  knome: raevol, lmn ?
23:24 * charlie-tca seems to have gotten confused
23:24  knome: heh, np
23:24  lmn: knome: Agreed.
23:24  knome: i can also do [vote]s if you want
23:24  raevol: i agree with PL voting? that's where we are?
23:25  knome: [AGREED] The 4 members in the Council in addition to the Project Leader should be selected by the existing 'xubuntu-contributors'.
23:25  MootBot: AGREED received:  The 4 members in the Council in addition to the Project Leader should be selected by the existing 'xubuntu-contributors'.
23:25  raevol: i agree with that too
23:25  knome: okay, who will tiebreak.
23:25  SiDi: knome: if for a reason or another i dont answer to a vote request within 1 min, you can safely assume i vote the same as you, whenever my vote is relevant
23:25  knome: only pl or tl+pl ?
23:25 * SiDi thinks the person who has most contributed to w/e is being discussed should tie break
23:26  knome: SiDi, okay, that's valid/official enough :P
23:26  SiDi: whoever it is
23:26  knome: SiDi, only the one or he and tl?
23:26  knome: and in which order?
23:26  knome: j1mc, charlie-tca, lmn, raevol: can i have your opinions please. should team leader be able to tiebreak?
23:27  lmn: Hm.
23:27  j1mc: be able to tie break what?
23:27  lmn: A tie.
23:27  knome: j1mc, at all.
23:27  lmn: :P
23:27  charlie-tca: only when PL is absent
23:27  raevol: i don't really have enough experience on the project to say who should tiebreak. my instincts say PL should, but i really don't know
23:27  lmn: I agree with charlie.
23:27  j1mc: charlie-tca: i agree
23:27  knome: SiDi, do you agree with that as well?
23:27  mr_pouit: (same here)
23:28  knome: okay
23:28  knome: mr_pouit, sorry for forgetting you in the ping :P
23:28  knome: i think this have been decided already, and i also agree
23:28  lmn: He was too busy being awesome.
23:28  mr_pouit: I'm reading, so no problem :p
23:29  knome: [AGREED] The appropriate Team Lead can be the tiebreaker in a vote, but only if Project Lead is absent.
23:29  MootBot: AGREED received:  The appropriate Team Lead can be the tiebreaker in a vote, but only if Project Lead is absent.
23:29  raevol: question: should the PL be able to request that a decision be made when he can be present?
23:29  SiDi: knome: only the one
23:29  j1mc: we are talking about team leads.. but will someone will be assigned as "team lead" formally?  cody-somerville was opposed to this
23:29  SiDi: that makes things more straightforward
23:30  knome: j1mc, i think that was just an idea he threw in. at the moment we DO have team leads.
23:30  charlie-tca: or will each team simply send a team member to the meeting?
23:30  SiDi: knome: there is a consensus on the PL, so lets say PL.
23:30  raevol: i like the idea of council members being associated with teams
23:30  knome: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/xubuntu-devel/2009-December/007225.html <- what do you think about this new team formation?
23:31  knome: i think people pretty much agreed on it on the list, but i'll ask again
23:31  knome: that would mean we'd have 4 team leads
23:31  knome: if one of them was the PL, we could vote a random guy in the council
23:31  j1mc: i don't like having the website under documentation
23:31  knome: like, some other contributor.
23:32  j1mc: mostly because i feel ill-equipped to coordinate the website, though
23:32  knome: j1mc, they are quite much doing the same thing
23:32  j1mc: i think website is under marketing
23:32  knome: j1mc, you would have people to help you though
23:32  knome: if it's under marketing, then marketing would be quite a big team
23:33  knome: marketing is, in that draft, already marketing+artwork
23:33  j1mc: well, website is both mktg and doc-related
23:33  knome: i think it is more about doc
23:33  j1mc: i need a vote from the council!  :P
23:33  knome: :P
23:33  j1mc: i disagree :P
23:33  charlie-tca: website has to be pretty! that's marketing, isn't it?
23:33  j1mc: yes :)
23:34  knome: charlie-tca, but it also has to have solid INFORMATION. isn't that documentation?
23:34  j1mc: yes :)
23:34  j1mc: documarketing
23:34  charlie-tca: I don't think information is as important as looks
23:34  charlie-tca: Anyone can design an ugly website, but few will go to it then
23:34  SiDi: It's under both
23:34  SiDi: Stop categorizing things so binarily :P
23:35  knome: what the website looks is only to be considered when we are doing a website redesign
23:35  SiDi: charlie-tca: web designers also hold for a fact that a beautiful shell without content is atractive only for the first 5 minutes ;D
23:35  knome: the banners for the website belong to artwork team, which then "ships" the files to the website team, which adds them in the site
23:35  charlie-tca: perhaps a fifth team: Everything else?
23:35  knome: practically: i upload them with drupal.
23:35  knome: :P
23:35  SiDi: charlie-tca: :D
23:36  knome: charlie-tca, disagree. that would include picking your nose, and i want that under marketing. if we are going to create "everything else" team, weäll have to explicitly say that nosepicking belongs for the marketing team
23:36 * charlie-tca thinks that is all in the wording
23:37  knome: :)
23:37  charlie-tca: That's fine, Knightlust
23:37  charlie-tca: knome
23:37  knome: after all, we already "kind of" have the COMMUNITY team
23:37  knome: which is mentioned in the team report page
23:37  knome: "just put it under community"
23:37  knome: :P
23:37  knome: i've heard that a few times.
23:38  knome: well.
23:38  knome: i'm making a question:
23:38  charlie-tca: That's because community just fits nicely
23:38  knome: if the council should have one member from each team, wouldn't that basically mean that it's populated by (probably) all the team leaders and the PL, and probably one more member?
23:39  knome: if we had five teams, wouldn't that mean that (probably) all the team leaders were part of the council?
23:39  lmn: Sorry, apparently my session died without informing me.
23:39  charlie-tca: yes
23:39  knome: do we really need a fifth team?
23:39  charlie-tca: Which is what the council should be
23:39  knome: does everybody agree that the council should have one member from each team?
23:39  j1mc: knome: in practice, i would like to have the website outside of the official "documentation" realm for now if only because i have no access to the website... if you want to say that members of the marketing and documentation teams will collaborate to ensure the upkeep of the website, that's fine.
23:39  knome: (do i have to make a [vote] ?)
23:40  knome: j1mc, i think you can have an account in the website
23:40  knome: i might be able to do that, actually.
23:41  knome: let me check
23:41  SiDi: lmn: dead sessions can't spea
23:41  raevol: agreed that the council should consist of team leads, though making a 5th team or not is *shrug*
23:42  knome: j1mc, yes, i can do that.
23:43  j1mc: i think that the council should generically be representative of the xubuntu project...
23:43  knome: mr_pouit, lmn, SiDi, j1mc: should council have one member from each team?
23:43  lmn: Hm..
23:43  charlie-tca: expand, j1mc
23:43  lmn: knome: That's a tough one.
23:43  j1mc: knome: i don' think it's necessary to formalize it
23:43  dhillon-v10: hi all :)
23:43  knome: j1mc, i think that a council including the current team leads would definitely do that.
23:43  j1mc: hi dhillon-v10
23:43  knome: hello dhillon-v10 
23:43  lmn: Hi, dhillon-v10.
23:44  SiDi: knome: could you type the name of the current 4 teams?
23:44  dhillon-v10: j1mc, knome, lmn so is this a xubuntu-council meeting, nice
23:44  lmn: Yes. :)
23:44  j1mc: there may be some cases where a person is a well-respected, long-time contributor...
23:44  knome: SiDi, check out https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/xubuntu-devel/2009-December/007225.html
23:44  j1mc: but they are also part of the artwork/marketing team.
23:44  lmn: Well, we're figuring out what the council _is_ right now.
23:44  SiDi: blah, knome
23:44  knome: SiDi, that's my proposal
23:44  raevol: j1mc: that's really true
23:44  knome: SiDi, CURRENTLY there is more teams.
23:45  j1mc: so... if we have two people on the council from 1 team... that is what we have at that time.
23:45  SiDi: ok, imo website should go to marketing, and there is a lack of desktop team
23:45  j1mc: as long as they are well-respected and people think they make fair decisions, i think it's ok
23:45  knome: dhillon-v10, not a council meeting yet, we don't just have council yet. it's the TEAM meeting ;)
23:45  lmn: ^
23:45  knome: SiDi, i suppose desktop is under dev
23:46  dhillon-v10: knome, okay :) I'll sit back and watch
23:46  SiDi: j1mc: +1. Anyway the 5 members of the council will be part of one or more teams
23:46  knome: j1mc, yeah, no problem if we have more than one from each team. but i was asking whether we should have *at least* one member from each team.
23:46  j1mc: SiDi: yeah
23:46  j1mc: knome: it may not always be possible
23:46  knome: dhillon-v10, feel free to vote and join the discussion as well. it's an open meeting
23:46  j1mc: team names may change
23:46  SiDi: knome: dev should be bugfixing, triaging, packaging, release management, which is different from desktop. But anyway a desktop team is too early considering it would be empty, very likely :p
23:46  dhillon-v10: knome, thanks :)
23:46  raevol: knome: that would be nice, but perhaps not necessary as a requirement
23:47  j1mc: i'm a bit more laissez-faire about this.  if the council will be selected by the contributors...
23:47  knome: j1mc, okay. i can cope with that. no problem :)
23:47  j1mc: i think that's enough
23:47  knome: j1mc, yeah.
23:47  knome: um, i had an another question
23:47  knome: how long should one "season" last? how often should we have a new voting of the council?
23:47  j1mc: if you want to say that the council should "aim" to have balanced membership across the different aspects of xubuntu, i think that's ok
23:48  knome: j1mc, that's a great wording. :)
23:48  j1mc: 1 year - 2 cycles?
23:48  knome: yeah, at least 2 cycles i think.
23:48  j1mc: more than that is too much, i think
23:48  j1mc: charlie-tca: what do you think?
23:48  knome: having a council for 1 cycle doesn't really make it possible to do long-term decisions
23:48  SiDi: I think we could do it per LTS cycle
23:48  knome: SiDi, that's quite rarely.
23:48  SiDi: to be able to decide on very long term projects
23:49  charlie-tca: I am having issues just following this now
23:49  j1mc: charlie-tca: ok
23:49 * SiDi is about to have to go, because of school tomorrow, by the way
23:49  knome: maybe the council should be able to do "very long term decisions" which last over the council's age
23:49  j1mc: do we agree that we don't need to have "one person from each team on the council"?
23:49  knome: j1mc, yes.
23:49  raevol: j1mc: yes
23:49  j1mc: anyone disagree with that?
23:49  lmn: yes
23:49  lmn: er
23:49  lmn: no
23:49  lmn: :P
23:50  lmn: I agree.
23:50  lmn: :)
23:50  knome: and that the "very long term" decisions could be overruled but only by a council vote
23:50  j1mc: lmn: sorry... :)  i changed the yes/no o nyou
23:50  lmn: hehe
23:50  lmn: ;)
23:50  knome: [AGREED] The council should *aim* to have balanced membership across the different aspects/teams of Xubuntu.
23:50  MootBot: AGREED received:  The council should *aim* to have balanced membership across the different aspects/teams of Xubuntu.
23:50  SiDi: knome: fair enough
23:51  knome: j1mc, ? what do you think of the very long term stuff?
23:51  raevol: knome put in a clause about it not being necessary, just so it's clear to future people
23:51  knome: raevol, "should aim" means it's not mandatory.
23:51  j1mc: charlie-tca: our next point was to consider how long people should be on the council?
23:51  raevol: knome: i forsee someone trying to make "should aim" into a necessary thing ;)
23:52  knome: raevol, then reconsider rephrasing it at that time
23:52  knome: or just kick his/her ass
23:52  j1mc: appts for the ubuntu community council are made for 2 years
23:52  raevol: hahaha
23:52  knome: j1mc, i agree with you that it's a long time.
23:52  charlie-tca: You ;can define terms later, "should does not mean will" kind of things
23:53  j1mc: technical board members are elected for two years, too
23:53  charlie-tca: 2 years being 4 cycles?
23:53  j1mc: i think that's a long time for us... charlie-tca year... 4 cycles
23:53  knome: charlie-tca, i think we need to have some kind of guideline as for now, so voting members again will happen.
23:53  raevol: i've gotta run guys, will meeting notes end up on the mailing list?
23:53  j1mc: raevol: sure
23:53  knome: yeah, 4 cycles/2 yrs  is a LONG time.
23:53  raevol: kk, bye, good luck!
23:54  charlie-tca: LTS is every two years, what if the council is elected before each LTS phase begins
23:54  mr_pouit: s/before/after/
23:54  charlie-tca: after works for me
23:54  knome: charlie-tca, not thinking the release schedule at all, it's really hard for me seeing it would be good if people sat in the council for 2 years.
23:54  j1mc: i see that as being a long time, but i think it would lend continuity to the project
23:55  mr_pouit: (setting up a new council during a lts cycle looks a bit counterproductive)
23:55  charlie-tca: For continuity and being able to accomplish much, 2 years is about right
23:55  knome: i don't completely disagree with that either.
23:55  charlie-tca: Setting up the new council after lts hits beta?
23:56  dhillon-v10: yah 2 years seems just about right IMHO
23:56  knome: what bout set it when lts is released?
23:56  charlie-tca: It could take 6 months just to get settled each time
23:56  j1mc: and it ensures that we don't get unexpected turnover right before an LTS
23:56  charlie-tca: okay
23:56  knome: should i make a [vote] ?
23:56  j1mc: not yet
23:56  knome: okay.
23:57  knome: i'm waiting for what you have to say :)
23:57  j1mc: so using lucid as an example...
23:57  charlie-tca: 2 years only sounds long, maybe word it to 4 releases
23:57  j1mc: if we used this process...
23:57  j1mc: we would have voted after the close of karmic?
23:57  knome: j1mc, after close of lucid.
23:57  charlie-tca: If it is before LTS, yes
23:58  charlie-tca: If it after, when lucid releases
23:58  knome: i think definitely AFTER an lts release
23:58  j1mc: i would want the council to have had a good amount of experience together in advance of an LTS.
23:58  knome: j1mc, exactly.
23:58  charlie-tca: We picked them after hardy ( 2008) and ;again after lucid (2010)
23:58  knome: that's why we would name the council right after the earlier lts
23:58  j1mc: so we shouldn't introduce a new council to xubuntu immediately in advance of an LTS
23:59  j1mc: knome: agreed.  charlie-tca: agreed, too.
23:59  j1mc: that makes sense
23:59  knome: so that means we are agreeing with the 2 year term as well?
23:59  j1mc: knome: now i think a vote would be ok. :)  yeah, i am ok with that.
23:59  charlie-tca: We don't want leadership changes before/during the LTS release, if we can help it.
--- Day changed Mon Jan 11 2010
00:00  knome: charlie-tca, yeah. exactly.
00:00  knome: does anybody disagree on the two year term or the time naming the new council (just after lts release) ?
00:00  j1mc: i am ok with that
00:01  knome: j1mc, i heard that. i'm waiting for mr_pouit ;)
00:01  mr_pouit: yeah, I'm ok too :p
00:01  knome: okay.
00:01  lmn: ;)
00:01  knome: anybody else?
00:01  lmn: Agreed.
00:01  knome: okay
00:01  SiDi: knome: i agree with changing council after LTS
00:02  charlie-tca: I have to propose that any more discussion be tabled at this point. We are two hours in now
00:02  knome: [AGREED] The council should be named/selected after every LTS release. Thus, every season lasts for 2 years.
00:02  MootBot: AGREED received:  The council should be named/selected after every LTS release. Thus, every season lasts for 2 years.
00:02  charlie-tca: Hold another meetint next week or in two weeks.
00:02  knome: kind of disagree.
00:02  knome: :P
00:02  lmn: I agree.
00:03  j1mc: what else needs to be decided?
00:03  j1mc: can we at least confirm that?
00:03  knome: let me see
00:03  knome: there was at least something
00:03  lmn: 2 hours of council discussion has killed my enthusiasm, tbh.
00:03  knome: oh, the new teams
00:03  knome: [ACTION] Discuss about the new team structure in the next meeting.
00:03  MootBot: ACTION received:  Discuss about the new team structure in the next meeting.
00:04  knome: umm...
00:04  knome: we still haven't fought about the lucid wallpaper
00:04  j1mc: knome: nooo.
00:04  charlie-tca: make it light
00:04  j1mc: lmn: i know this is not fun
00:04  knome: :)
00:04  charlie-tca: well, medium
00:04  knome: well, just to inform you all
00:04  lmn: knome: Just grab an 800x600 polaroid of George W Bush. I'm sure we'd all enjoy that.
00:04  j1mc: but getting this out of the way is helpful.
00:05  j1mc: we won't have to deal w/ it again
00:05  lmn: True.
00:05  charlie-tca: knome: you want me to send you an "everybody else" monitor?
00:05  knome: Michael (NCommander) says he is going to pause his involvement with Xubuntu for now; ENOTIME.
00:05  knome: charlie-tca, haha :D
00:06  knome: so we'll be one short for lucid/lucid+1 at least, i think
00:06  knome: j1mc, where was our agenda again?
00:06  j1mc: wiki.ubuntu.com/Xubuntu/Meetings
00:07  knome: j1mc, did you have some quick words about xfce 4.8+lucid?
00:08  j1mc: oh, just that we'll need to set a cutoff point where we decide whether or not we want to use 4.8 or stay with 4.6
00:09  knome: mr_pouit, ?
00:09  charlie-tca: What kind of final date is there for 4.8 to be out?
00:09  j1mc: cody and i talked about it at uds a little... he came up with a date around alpha 3, i think.
00:09  j1mc: i'll have to look at my notes.
00:09  knome: j1mc, will you do that now or later?
00:09  mr_pouit: I don't think it'll be ready
00:10  mr_pouit: so I would prefer to wait for lucid+1
00:10  knome: i doubt it as well, but IF...
00:10  knome: maybe that would be better
00:10  knome: even though i'd really like to see 4.8 in lucid
00:10  knome: escpecially if it has a menu editor
00:10  knome: >:|
00:11  SiDi: Good night to everyone. If my opinion is needed I let Pasi vote instead of me
00:11  knome: SiDi, i doubt we'll vote today. good night :)
00:11  j1mc: we can talk about it further, but my note from talking with cody says, "Decide on whether or not to include Xfce 4.8 between Alpha 3 and Beta 11"
00:11  knome: beta 11? :P
00:11  SiDi: charlie-tca: 4.8 should be out in 1st of April if my memory doesnt betray me
00:11  j1mc: beta 1
00:11  j1mc: sorry
00:11  knome: when is beta 1?
00:12  SiDi: beta 1 is in March 1st
00:12  charlie-tca: Seems a little tight to get it into lucid
00:12  mr_pouit: alpha 3 is after feature freeze, too late
00:12  knome: beta 1 is march 18th
00:12  charlie-tca: PL has spoken
00:12  knome: according to https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LucidReleaseSchedule
00:12  SiDi: I think it's safer not to push it, but we need to check the billion commits for bugfixes to the 4.6 branch
00:12  charlie-tca: :-)
00:12  SiDi: Now, good night everyone! :D
00:13  mr_pouit: SiDi: that's in progress
00:13  mr_pouit: I've already included all patches from the xfce-4.6 branch in xfdesktop4 today for instance
00:13  knome: so shall we go with 4.6? 
00:13  j1mc: mr_pouit: would we be able to get the new thunar into lucid?
00:14  j1mc: even if we went w/4.6?
00:14  mr_pouit: it depends on xfce 4.8 components
00:14  mr_pouit: (such as libxfce4ui)
00:14  j1mc: yeah
00:14  mr_pouit: and exo 0.6
00:15  mr_pouit: they aren't "stable" at the moment
00:15  mr_pouit: so I would prefer not to include it
00:15  j1mc: with dapper... xubuntu was released w/ xfce 4.3.9.xx or something
00:15  mr_pouit: yeah, and xfce folks were really unhappy
00:16  mr_pouit: because they received bugs reports about outdated development releases
00:16  knome: hmm
00:16  charlie-tca: We are looking at keeping 4.6.? until 2013?
00:16  mr_pouit: moreover, thunar gio might create issues with other components not ported yet
00:17  mr_pouit: (such as xfdesktop4)
00:17  lmn: charlie-tca: Yeah, that means listening to gui menu editing questions until 2013.
00:17  lmn: heh heh
00:17  knome: ugh
00:17  charlie-tca: and complaints about it being out of date, too
00:17  lmn: This is a loaded problem.
00:17  lmn: REAL loaded.
00:18  knome: wasn't there a guy who was crating an xfce-suitable version of alacarte?
00:18  knome: :?
00:18  j1mc: we could go with 4.6, and put 4.8 in a ppa.
00:19  lmn: j1mc: I don't see that going over well.
00:19  j1mc: well... at least we can begin to identify the issues/possible problems now.
00:19  j1mc: and then make a decision as we see how 4.8 is progressing.
00:20  j1mc: they may not have things done until june.
00:20  j1mc: never know. :)
00:20  j1mc: or july.
00:20  knome: [ACTION] Continue looking how 4.8 is progressing and possible include it in Lucid.
00:20  MootBot: ACTION received:  Continue looking how 4.8 is progressing and possible include it in Lucid.
00:20  knome: any team reports?
00:21  charlie-tca: mr_pouit has done great triaging and fixing bugs
00:21  j1mc: i've written new docs for xfce4-screenshooter in "mallard," a new doc syntax from the gnome team.
00:21  knome: [TOPIC] Team reports
00:21  MootBot: New Topic:  Team reports
00:21  j1mc: jeromeg likes them
00:21  knome: [ACTION] Lionel had done great traging and fixing bugs.
00:21  MootBot: ACTION received:  Lionel had done great traging and fixing bugs.
00:22  knome: [ACTION] Jim has written new docs for xfce4-screenshooter in "Mallard" (jeromeg likes them).
00:22  MootBot: ACTION received:  Jim has written new docs for xfce4-screenshooter in "Mallard" (jeromeg likes them).
00:22  j1mc: heh
00:22  mr_pouit: (some topics for the marketing & artwork team: ubiquity slideshow & plymouth theme ;p)
00:23  knome: [ACTION] Shimmer Project announced the deadline for Albatross 0.2 to be 1st of March so we will have time to incorporate it into Lucid, if decided so.
00:23  MootBot: ACTION received:  Shimmer Project announced the deadline for Albatross 0.2 to be 1st of March so we will have time to incorporate it into Lucid, if decided so.
00:23  knome: mr_pouit, is plymouth in lucid?
00:24  mr_pouit: yes, although I don't know if it works :)
00:24  j1mc: they confirmed at UDS that they would be using plymouth + xplash for the boot sequence
00:25  knome: [ACTION] Artwork team to look on Plymouth and plan on creating a theme.
00:25  MootBot: ACTION received:  Artwork team to look on Plymouth and plan on creating a theme.
00:25  j1mc: i'm going to be recruiting for xubuntu and xfce doc help.
00:25  charlie-tca: shimmer project needs to lighten the panels in lucid
00:25  j1mc: both are separate projects
00:25  knome: j1mc, you decided to have two projects after all?
00:26  j1mc: knome: xubuntu docs will continue to be done in docbook for now.
00:26  j1mc: so, es
00:26  knome: [ACTION] Jim is working on and recruiting for both the Xubuntu and Xfce documentation.
00:26  MootBot: ACTION received:  Jim is working on and recruiting for both the Xubuntu and Xfce documentation.
00:26  knome: charlie-tca, did you file a bug?
00:26  j1mc: s/es/yes
00:26  knome: j1mc, okay
00:26  charlie-tca: knome: not yet
00:27  knome: [ACTION] Charlie files bugs about Albatross accessibility issues so the artwork guys can work on them.
00:27  MootBot: ACTION received:  Charlie files bugs about Albatross accessibility issues so the artwork guys can work on them.
00:27  mr_pouit: https://launchpad.net/distros/ubuntu/+spec/ubiquity-slideshow for ubiquity also
00:28  mr_pouit: that's already enabled in ubuntu I think, I don't know what it looks like, but it could be nice to have this for xubuntu as well
00:28  knome: [ACTION] Marketing team to look after Ubiquity slideshows.
00:28  MootBot: ACTION received:  Marketing team to look after Ubiquity slideshows.
00:28  knome: [LINK] https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/ubiquity-slideshow
00:28  MootBot: LINK received:  https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/ubiquity-slideshow
00:29  knome: mr_pouit, i can see that and discuss with people knowing more about it
00:29  mr_pouit: ok
00:29  j1mc: knome: we'll also need CSS for the Xubuntu docs
00:30  mr_pouit: do you think you can have a first version before feature freeze? knome
00:30  mr_pouit: (feb 18th)
00:30  knome: [ACTION] Pasi and Jim continue theming the Xubuntu documentation.
00:30  MootBot: ACTION received:  Pasi and Jim continue theming the Xubuntu documentation.
00:31  dhillon-v10: j1mc, I'll help with system docs too, if needed :)
00:31  j1mc: dhillon-v10: excellent
00:31  knome: mr_pouit, that's possible, but i think i need some help to achieve/make that daye
00:31  knome: *date
00:31  knome: so, anything else we should cover now or in the next meeting?
00:32  j1mc: everyone, i need to go, but i wanted to THANK YOU for your time.  :)
00:32  j1mc: this was the best xubuntu meeting ever.
00:32  knome: thank you jim.
00:32  mr_pouit: knome: okay, I can take care of the packaging stuff, etc, but not of the text inside the slides :p
00:32  knome: i'll put up the meeting minutes and the logs and stuff
00:32  j1mc: knome: i can help with the text for the slides
00:32  knome: mr_pouit, thanks. :) j1mc can work on the texts
00:32  knome: hehe
00:32  knome: great
00:32  knome: maybe we'll be ready for FF then
00:33  knome: #endmeeting
00:33  MootBot: Meeting finished at 16:33.