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.