[00:00] Technoviking: only if it's associated with positive things [00:00] thanks mdke and good night [00:00] * mdke hugs dholbach [00:00] sabdfl: I think you should have created a more public & clear explanation about how other service providers could use the "Ubuntu" brand before launching this [00:00] thanks all === beuno_ is now known as beuno [00:00] * dholbach hugs mdke back [00:00] JanC: have you read the trademark guidelines? [00:00] popey: I believe it will be, and willing to take the chance [00:00] shall we put this off until next fortnight, see what has happened, see whether the situation has defined/refined itself for ease of clarity of knowing which bits we're trying to discuss? [00:00] Technoviking: ditto [00:01] hugs all round folks. sorry we have to go to bed on an argument ;-) [00:01] night [00:01] sabdfl: the trademark guidelines are clear for locoteams [00:01] [ACTION] Raise+review at next meeting [00:01] ACTION received: Raise+review at next meeting [00:01] Will the Team Report issue be deferred as well? [00:01] but not really for commercial use IMHO [00:01] nhandler: I think it'll have to be, sorry [00:01] nhandler: can you bring it up on the CC mailing list? [00:01] nhandler: we're going on two hours now [00:01] except for "contact Canonical" [00:01] nhandler: make sure it comes up earlier next time [00:02] nhandler: sorry [00:02] and personally, I'd kind of like to go home, especially if this is my last day ;-) [00:02] dholbach: Sure ting [00:02] hah [00:02] * dholbach hugs elmo [00:02] i'm pretty bothered by the way this all happened. more so than i am bothered with the outcome, actually [00:02] nhandler: thanks - I'll take a look at it tomorrow [00:02] dholbach: As a note, I already made the changes for the MC [00:02] /msg nhandler can you cc me on that email [00:02] bah [00:02] Yes boredandblogging ;) [00:02] hahaha [00:02] mako: it is still "happen_ing_" (one hopes) [00:02] mako: in what sense? [00:02] it's not only about companies wanting to provide services, but also about users wanting to know what they can expect! [00:02] /msg boredandblogging !fail [00:03] major fail on my part [00:03] later all have to get my son from school [00:03] elmo: i feel less a community governance board than a community "tell us what you think we and we'll consider it" board than i did a few hours ago [00:03] mako: Community Focus Group. [00:03] which, honestly, makes me feel a little bit like a tool ;) [00:03] mako: for the specific issue of trademarks? [00:03] elmo: yes [00:04] mako: honestly, I'm surprised that you're surprised, considering what you did @ Canonical? [00:04] elmo: i always thought canonical acted in accordance to its idea of the community and would answer to them [00:04] elmo: if they ever diverged [00:04] I think we've always been pretty upfront about the fact that Canonical owns the trademark, and also that we've been using it for commercial services (ours and other peoples) since almost the beginning [00:04] Up 'til now, development by the community has been an important part of the Ubuntu brand (to me). It seems that Ubuntu One doesn't follow this brand value, and so “Ubuntu” no longer signifies “community-developed”. [00:05] elmo: i would have been MUCH happier to be outvoted than to be told that it wasn't even something we could vote on [00:05] mako: I don't think it's at all clear that the majority of this council, never mind the community agree with you [00:05] elmo: that's plausible. but like i said. i would have been much happier to have been outvoted [00:05] elmo: no, it's surprised me too. (That the CC appears to have less signficance that presumed, or indeed that the paperwork suggests that it has as the last-point-of-decision) [00:05] elmo: i'd rather be on the loosing side of a democratic decision than to be told there's no democracy in a place i thought there was [00:06] sladen: which part are you "no-ing"? [00:06] mako, I think Trademark is a very difficult area for Canonical. I can see that very clearly from the outside. [00:06] mako: well, a) this isn't technically a democracy, the whole 'sabdfl' thing, b) let's be careful to frame this in the context of the trademark specifically [00:06] silner: i understand. i helped craft the trademark guidelines and answered trademark@canonical.com for a job for a while [00:06] mako: sabdfl's nickname already says that there is no democracy ;) [00:06] mako: nothing's changed outside of that, I hope you'll agree? [00:07] (I'd argue nothing's change with the trademark, but I understand that this may be new information to some people) [00:07] JanC: sabdfl gets to veto all cc members [00:07] (which doesn't mean I agree with and/or follow all decisions made ;) ) [00:07] elmo: sure, i think that's right [00:07] elmo: can you prhase the question more specifically? [00:08] sladen: "< sladen> elmo: no, it's surprised me too." [00:08] sladen: what's the "no" refer to? [00:08] I had always assumed, again from the outsider viewpoint, that the Trademark was the company's, not the community's? [00:08] elmo: but if the ubuntu communit governance system doesn't even get to decide what ubuntu is and isn't.... [00:09] elmo: even if it's "just the trademark" it's a pretty big deal IMHO [00:09] elmo: the percieved irrelevance of the CC on this issue [00:09] nobody's said the CC is irrelevant [00:09] silner: legally, it always has been [00:09] there's a huge difference between 'not having total control' and 'being irrelevant' [00:09] and it doesn't do all the things the CC did justice [00:10] silner: but canonical could take a position that it's going to put decisoins about the ubuntu mark ultimately in the community's domain [00:10] the CC is hugely important; and FWIW I agree, it would have been nice to bring this to the CC first [00:10] it's like fedora early on. the fedora governance would get overruled by red hat over issues (often legal issues) [00:10] people were saying earlier, they were surprised people didn't predict this [00:10] like I said, it would have been much easier if there were guidelines about what is an appropriate ubuntu-branded service [00:10] and it basically left a real sour taste in people's moth [00:10] mouth even :) [00:10] FWIW, (although I'm not involved in U1), I was honestly surprised by the reaction [00:10] and we can still define such guidelines... [00:11] JanC: so i think this should and will happen in any case [00:11] so although it's easy to say in retrospect, "the CC should have been consulted", I can also honestly say that I think us (CC) not having been consulted was a genunine mistake rather than deliberate [00:11] elmo: sure, but the cc being told that their opinion ultimately didn't matter was a bigger one [00:11] mako, it's odd in one way cos I would have thought, commercially, Canonical would have wanted to push the company name, rather than the Ubuntu Brand? [00:11] elmo Sabdfl admitted that last CC meeting when I raised that [00:11] elmo: I can see how that could be a mistake ;) [00:12] elmo: interesting. I could see it was going to be a hot potatoe (perhaps the first LWN comments that appeared immediatley). I avoided forming an opinion until after the previous CC meeting had finished [00:13] mako: it's not that it doesn't matter [00:13] mako: it's that the CC doesn't own the trademark [00:13] mako: that doesn't mean Canonical doesn't value the CC's opinion [00:13] elmo: i'm not happy with "we listen to the you when we either don't care or you agree with us" [00:13] that's simply not governance [00:13] mako: and if everyone on the CC was saying 'this is a terrible idea', I'm absolutely sure it would have an effect [00:13] elmo: I see the platform being clearly good. A confusion comes from the infrastructure authority (railway parlance) also running the train services built on it. [00:13] elmo: we didn't even have an option of voting [00:13] but the reality is, when this first started it was 2 saying that, vs. 4 not [00:14] elmo: the platform should be for the clear benefit of Ubuntu, and have a name that matches [00:14] elmo: sabdfl said he had made up his mind [00:14] let's say it like this: if anybody would have asked me, I would have warned about the problems people have with this... [00:14] and I'm sure several other people here knew that [00:14] elmo: for the services running running on the platform, it shoulld be open to all, and they're shouldn't all also be called Network Rail [00:14] The UFBT meeting is moving to #ubutnuforums-beginners :) [00:14] elmo: like i said, i would be much happier now if we had had a vote and i'd be outnumbered [00:15] elmo: feeling in the minority, i'm used to :) [00:15] mako: but Mark _can do that about any decision_ [00:15] mako: that's what his nick is all about [00:15] bodhi_zazen: you mean #ubuntuforums-beginners ? [00:15] mako: so, umm, honestly I'm confused [00:16] Yes he did JanC [00:16] ;) [00:16] I can't form an opinion on whether there should have been a vote. I hate to sit on the fence but I going to have to say here for now :) [00:17] elmo, what does his nick stand for? I should know really. [00:17] elmo: i guess you're right. but it's the first time it's happened (at least IIRC) [00:17] silner: and what would the/a vote have been? (What question /if/?) [00:17] silner: self appointed benevolent dictator for life [00:17] silner: the 'd' is the dictator bit [00:17] elmo: I think the reason for the stink, is that some of the Ubuntu volunteer contributors feel they are now contributing to the pockets of Canonical, more so than they did 2 years ago [00:17] Ah thanks [00:18] nixternal: well [00:18] nixternal: maybe they do feel that way, but I'm not sure we can fix that. I mean, in some respects, any contributor to Ubuntu (or upstream open source) has been doing that to one degree or another? [00:18] I think both are contributing to each other, to some degree [00:18] nixternal: would renaming U1 really change that? [00:19] nixternal: okay, the "pockets" is not and issue for me. For every 100 quid I've spent on Ubuntu promotion, Canonical have probably about matched that. And in return I've made income from that [00:19] elmo: a statement that something can happen but that is different than it actually happening. [00:19] elmo: nope, but all U1 did was act as the straw that broke the camel's back, imho [00:19] sladen: that's not true for everybody though ;) [00:19] mako: sure [00:19] elmo: except Canonical hasn't been competing with the community before, really. Selling support is one thing, but competing with another floss project (specifically iFolder, which Canonical could have picked up and made into the base of what is UbuntuOne) [00:20] greg-g: I honestly don't think iFolder is in the same space as U1? [00:20] * popey stifles a giggle about ifolder [00:20] sladen: as have I, but not everyone sees it that clearly I guess [00:20] greg-g: and certainly not in the same space as U1 the platform [00:20] elmo: file sync with the ability to add in services that U1 is thinking of adding [00:20] greg-g: its the other way round, services, of which file sync is one [00:20] can U1 people explain what those services are? [00:20] (full disclosure: I've not run ifolder (nobody will bloody package it), just listened to jcastro rant about it) [00:21] many have tried elmo, many have failed [00:21] see at the moment, I can write a piece of software and upload it to the Ubuntu archive. I can't do that for ubuntu One [00:21] greg-g: don't you think "competing with the community" is a bit drastic there for deciding to not reuse a piece of code that exists somewhere? [00:21] I also feel that if U1 came out with a "First to market" product instead of a blatent Dropbox clone, it might be a bit different...and I do understand this is just the beginning and I have an idea of what is to come because of the previous UDS discussions..that's why I didn't flip out about it :) [00:21] it's also more than just file sync, it's also about sharing [00:21] dholbach: a little yes, but I couldn't think of a better word to use. [00:21] dholbach: closed-source code will *always* be competing with the FOSS community [00:21] and if I did, I perceieve, that my BetterSync(tm) it would not be on equal footing to CanonicalSync(tm) [00:22] elmo: which iflder does [00:22] At the risk of being a Luddite I can't see myself every really trusting cloud services. [00:22] and more likely (just as Apple do), Canonical would not allow BetterSync(tm) to be included on ubuntu One [00:22] greg-g: not integrated with SSO and teams like U1 will do [00:22] elmo: SSO? [00:22] ok, i'm going to need to think about this more. but i'm pretty upset about the way this all happened. even if i shoulnd't have been suprirsed [00:22] elmo: it is the things that can't be annouced right now due to business contracts that worry me [00:22] sladen: single sign on [00:23] ok guys... it's 1:22 over here and I'm really really tired [00:23] greg-g: blink, like what? [00:23] good night and thanks everyone [00:23] * nixternal hugs dholbach [00:23] dholbach: sleep well :) [00:23] mako: well if you get a chance, do email/IRC... [00:23] * popey hugs dholbach [00:23] * dholbach hugs y'all back [00:23] mako, you around for a bit? [00:23] elmo: things that shouldn't be discussed in any public channel, I would suggest asking the U1 people about it [00:23] sladen: i've been traveling [00:23] mako: I'm sorry your upset, and like sladen, I'd encourage you to write it up in email [00:23] elmo: i will [00:24] * tonyyarusso is mostly just upset about the choice of name [00:24] I have to sleep now. Interesting reading though! [00:24] make that email public mako :) [00:24] mako: I don't think irc has proved the best forum for this, as a lot of the issues require more thought than a time limited IRC meeting allows [00:24] g'night dholbach [00:24] elmo: sure, my own thinking has improved over the last week [00:25] the issue is that more and more services that will be seen to be a part of Ubuntu will be dependent on a proprietary backend [00:25] dude [00:25] that's so already happening [00:25] that is it. just saying. [00:25] with or without U1 [00:25] I know [00:26] but people see that expansion and think "when will it stop?" [00:26] right, I think the whole "when will it stop?" is what sent quite a few into a feeding frenzy [00:26] my personal view is not set in stone yet, either. [00:27] part of my frustration with this whole situation is that I think the name's a lot less interesting than what's included by default in Ubuntu [00:27] and right now, Ubuntu already includes clients, by default, for a whole bunch of non-free, non-FSS services [00:27] the most obvious of which being the search in firefox [00:28] mine isn't, as I could almost not really care anymore, I just don't like seeing a tarnish on the community and people continually bad mouthing us either...plus it wasn't named Kubuntu One so I am cool :p [00:28] right, but they weren't developed by Canonical, and I think people see Canonical as having a higher standard. [00:28] I see users seeing _that_ as Ubuntu, and _that_ causing confusion WRT what's "free" or not, much more so than whether or not U1 has 'Ubuntu' in the name [00:28] I don't even care if they were developed by Canonical. They aren't saying "hey looky, we're Ubuntu too!" when they're blatently not. They're called things like "Google", not "Ubuntu Search". [00:29] greg-g: higher standard> is both flattering and frustrating, from my POV ;-) [00:29] elmo: indeed. :) [00:29] I think another reason people targetd U1 for the trademark/naming is because any other argument against it doesn't hold water as easily maybe? [00:29] tonyyarusso: users don't care about names. they care about what they get by default [00:29] tonyyarusso: I know way too may technical users who call firefox and/or the internet 'google' [00:29] elmo: thats not really true, otherwise all marketing campaings are for naught [00:30] elmo: none of those clients included with ubuntu use the ubuntu name [00:30] elmo: Even if users don't care, *contributors* do. As someone who provides IRC support and does promotion for Ubuntu, not having a clear demarcation point is very bothersome. [00:30] I think I'm going to stop, since elmo seems to be getting a barage of comments thrown at him right now [00:30] elmo: they are each an application that has proved itself and established its *own* brand (and even changed it successfully over time; Firefox, Pidgin) [00:30] This isn't about the user experience, but whether Canonical has any right to disregard the feelings of the Ubuntu community. [00:31] tonyyarusso: I don't believe Canonical is disregarding them [00:31] tonyyarusso +1 and +1 …and +1 again. [00:31] elmo: making Ubuntu *more* dependent on proprietary backends isn't going to make it more popular... [00:31] even if it only looks like it's more dependent [00:31] tonyyarusso: and I take exception to your implicit claim to speak for the entire Ubuntu community [00:32] JanC: I'm nore sure I claimed it was? [00:32] elmo: the (ssemingly intentional) conflating of services, platforms and integration bugs me; not because it's not a good thing, but it's *really hard to discuss* when it's all called ".NET framework" (CLI? CLR? C#? Classlibraries? JIT?) [00:32] elmo: If the exact same functionality was included, with the backend remaining proprietary and the client open, and it was included by default, but with a name that conveyed its true relationship, I would be perfectly fine with that. I would *prefer* a FLOSS backend, but I wouldn't be angry about it. [00:33] tonyyarusso: ok, and on the flip side, there's demonstrably a large chunk of the community (including it's highest governance board) who are not angry, and sometimes even happy about the name [00:33] tonyyarusso: I'm not dismissing your concerns, but they need to be balanced with other peoples positions [00:33] elmo: Okay, I don't speak for the whole community. If you want a reliable measurement of that, put the name of the service up for a vote among all Ubuntu Members, and then we can both accept the outcome of that as being representative. [00:33] elmo: you said that there is no problem because Ubuntu is already dependent on such backends [00:34] popularity contests rarely resolve these questions tonyyarusso [00:34] take care all, thanks for the discussion. time to head out for a beer. [00:34] tonyyarusso: I refer you to popey and sabdfl's response to 'popular vote' suggestions [00:34] that doesn't mean people like it, and/or want more of it ;) [00:34] JanC: I didn't say that dude [00:34] Freedom-hating and community-hating aside, “Ubuntu One” sounds very much like “Window Live”, which was a *rubbish* brand. Everyone still calls Windows Live Messenger MSN, and the web search offering is now named after a character from Friends. [00:34] gregknicholson: bing bing!! [00:35] part of my frustration with this whole situation is that I think the name's a lot less interesting than what's included by default in Ubuntu [00:35] and right now, Ubuntu already includes clients, by default, for a whole bunch of non-free, non-FSS services [00:35] the most obvious of which being the search in firefox [00:35] gregknicholson: if it deserves the name, it really needs integrating totally. That means making last.fm etc "just work" [00:35] JanC: which part of that is "there is no problem"? === beuno_ is now known as beuno [00:35] * JanC doesn't use default search in firefox :P [00:36] If the name's "a lot less interesting", then just change it and we can focus on the interesting parts instead. [00:36] sladen: conflation> is this not orthogonal to 'ubuntu in the name or not'? [00:36] * nixternal either :) [00:36] elmo: platform != applications [00:36] elmo: to me, the platform belongs to ubuntu (tell me if I'm wrong here) [00:36] sladen: and therefore having no branding of its own. Just “Ubuntu's sync service”. Much like how Gedit and Nautilus are “Ubuntu's text editor” and “the file browser”. The code/project should have its own (largely internal) name though (think Chromium and laconica). [00:36] JanC: you are the exception rather than the rule [00:36] elmo: the applications dsitributed by it belong to Canonical (tell me if I'm wrong here) [00:37] sladen: err, I can't speak to that [00:37] sladen: with either hat on [00:37] not authoritatively anyway [00:37] elmo: and (the between the lines bit), is that am beginning to come to the conlusion that that likely _should_ be the distrinction [00:37] popey: maybe true, but people don't use "firfox google search" because they like it more than any other search (google-provided or not) [00:37] sladen: but the applications are open source, so I'm not sure how they belong to Canonical, except in the way bzr does [00:38] elmo: and which therefore leads to no probably with the Ubuntu One name (since it's somebeing infrastructure wise, that's neutral, and for the good of ubuntu generally) [00:38] if by applications, we mean the client side part [00:38] JanC: no, they use it because they're lazy and it works [00:38] by applications I mean "CanonicalSync" [00:38] anyway. it's like past midnight, and I last ate 12 hours ago, and I'm still in the office [00:38] and "CanonicalCloudService" [00:38] JanC: evidenced by the number of people who dont change their browser home page in IE from msn [00:39] so my answers and discussion is probably becoming increasingly incoherent [00:39] so I'm going to have to call it a night [00:39] but it's hard to discuss this, because the distinction is not being made [00:39] I'd encourage folks still concerned to followup in email prior to the next meeting [00:39] elmo: thank you for staying up so late [00:39] thanks for taking the extended time to talk about it elmo, it's appreciated [00:39] popey: most search engines (including live search) aren't worse than google search these days [00:39] Imagine how silly it would be if it were called "Ubuntu Messenger" instead of Pidgin just because it was the default application. [00:39] JanC: i never said they were :) [00:39] good night all [00:39] elmo: please go eat and go home! [00:40] night all. Probably see you in a fortnight [00:40] #endmeeting [00:40] Meeting finished at 18:40. [00:40] oh, this was all still considered a part of the meeting? [00:40] :P [00:43] greg-g: I thought the official meeting ended around the time sabdfl left [00:46] who cares, logs are public [01:00] everyone here for the Tennessee Team meeting? [01:00] #startmeeting [01:00] Meeting started at 19:00. The chair is pace_t_zulu. [01:00] Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE] [01:00] * galant14b raises his hand [01:00] * mac9416 < [01:00] present [01:00] * w4ett here [01:00] here [01:01] so we've got our agenda on the wiki [01:01] [LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/TennesseeTeam/Meeting [01:01] LINK received: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/TennesseeTeam/Meeting [01:01] first topic is OPs and founder-ship on #ubuntu-us-tn [01:01] [TOPIC] OPs and founder-ship on #ubuntu-us-tn [01:01] New Topic: OPs and founder-ship on #ubuntu-us-tn [01:02] pace_t_zulu: what's the status on foundership? I know it was up in the air last week [01:02] currently we only have one active member who has OP privileges [01:02] * w4ett raises hand [01:02] galant14b, Matthew Craig never responded to my request to transfer foundership [01:03] pleia2 has assured us that we will be able to transfer foundership provided the team agrees on it [01:03] it's a process :) but can be done for all resources when the team leaders are MIA [01:04] so i think we should transfer founder-ship to an active team member and get OP privileges to at least a couple active team members [01:04] anyone else want to contribute their thoughts on the matter? [01:05] It is a logical course to follow [01:05] fyi commands for MootBot can be found at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ScribesTeam/MootBot [01:05] [LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ScribesTeam/MootBot [01:05] LINK received: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ScribesTeam/MootBot [01:05] [IDEA] transfer founder-ship to an active team member and get OP privileges to at least a couple active team members [01:05] IDEA received: transfer founder-ship to an active team member and get OP privileges to at least a couple active team members [01:06] I think it is fair to say that pace_t_zulu is a very active member, so I believe he would be a logical choice for founder or OP. [01:06] pace_t_zulu: let me look at that link really quick. [01:06] mac9416: agreed [01:06] i agree mac9416 [01:07] thanks guys... i am humbled [01:07] pace_t_zulu: you're consistently around, helpful and never anyone incite any sort of temper. All good qualities we should want for founder/OP [01:07] So, is pace_t_zulu willing? [01:08] so should we take a vote regarding whether our current founder is uncooperative and we should thus pursue the process of transferring founder-ship? [01:08] wow i need to proofread what i write...."never let anyone incite any sort of temper" [01:09] mac9416, i am willing if the team decides it [01:09] I say put it to a vote [01:09] pace_t_zulu: a vote is in order [01:09] "whether our current founder is uncooperative" I'm not sure that's necessary ;-) [01:09] current founder has proven he's not willing to be cooperative [01:09] [VOTE] our current founder is uncooperative and we should thus pursue the process of transferring founder-ship [01:09] Please vote on: our current founder is uncooperative and we should thus pursue the process of transferring founder-ship. [01:09] Public votes can be registered by saying +1/-1/+0 in the channel, private votes by messaging the channel followed by +1/-1/+0 to MootBot [01:09] E.g. /msg MootBot +1 #ubuntu-meeting [01:09] Ah, Ok [01:09] +1 [01:09] +1 received from pace_t_zulu. 1 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 1 [01:09] +1 [01:09] +1 received from galant14b. 2 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 2 [01:09] +1 [01:09] +1 received from mac9416. 3 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 3 [01:09] +1 [01:09] +1 received from w4ett. 4 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 4 [01:10] +1 [01:10] +1 received from wrst. 5 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 5 [01:10] +1 [01:10] +1 received from linuxman410. 6 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 6 [01:10] wrst LibertyTiger ? [01:10] wrst voted [01:10] galant14b, sorry, missed that [01:10] looks like this is unanimous... [01:11] [ENDVOTE] [01:11] Final result is 6 for, 0 against. 0 abstained. Total: 6 [01:11] [AGREED] our current founder is uncooperative and we should thus pursue the process of transferring founder-ship [01:11] AGREED received: our current founder is uncooperative and we should thus pursue the process of transferring founder-ship [01:12] even given the couple of active members we have missing today, i think this is the general consensus i've felt in the channel over the last couple weeks [01:12] pace_t_zulu: #ubuntu-irc can help you with that [01:12] ok so now it seems we should decide on who will receive foundership ... lets do nominations [01:12] i'd like to nominate w4ett ... [01:13] MTecknology, thank you [01:13] or do you guys think we should hold off to decide who should receive foundership? [01:14] i like your idea pace_t_zulu especially considering the dedication w4ett had even when he was in the hospital [01:14] From Star Wars I: "Vote now!" ;-) [01:14] FWIW w4ett is currently the successor for the channel, so it probably be easiest to promote him to channel founder [01:14] pace_t_zulu: I think we need to resolve to make the changes before we select replacements === asac_ is now known as asac [01:15] w4ett, i thought we just resolved to change foundership... can you clarify? [01:15] pleia2 +1 [01:15] w4ett, so you suggest only appointing OPs today? [01:15] Oh.......thought it was ops at this point [01:16] should we conduct a quick vote to establish that w4ett is our pick for founder since his is the successor [01:16] i tend to agree with what wrst and pleia2 have said though. w4ett has been here a while, he is the natural choice if he would accept/desires the position [01:16] but at pleia2 says I have the successorship, but that does not mean I need to get the foundership of the channel [01:17] i don't hear any dissenting w4ett receiving founder [01:17] w4ett: currently you have the power to add other ops :) [01:17] If appointed I will server [01:17] yep [01:18] you only lack the founder mode, which isn't a huge deal logistics-wise [01:18] * mac9416 is prepared to vote for w4ett, since there appears to be no dissent. [01:18] i motion that we vote regarding w4ett being the channel founder of #ubuntu-us-tn [01:18] * galant14b nods [01:18] second. [01:18] [VOTE] w4ett to be appointed founder of #ubuntu-us-tn [01:18] Please vote on: w4ett to be appointed founder of #ubuntu-us-tn. [01:18] Public votes can be registered by saying +1/-1/+0 in the channel, private votes by messaging the channel followed by +1/-1/+0 to MootBot [01:18] E.g. /msg MootBot +1 #ubuntu-meeting [01:19] +1 [01:19] +1 received from pace_t_zulu. 1 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 1 [01:19] +1 [01:19] +1 received from mac9416. 2 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 2 [01:19] +1 [01:19] +1 received from galant14b. 3 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 3 [01:19] +1 [01:19] +1 [01:19] +1 received from linuxman410. 4 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 4 [01:19] +1 received from wrst. 5 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 5 [01:19] +0 [01:19] Abstention received from w4ett. 5 for, 0 against. 1 have abstained. Count is now 5 [01:19] i reckon that vote is conclusive [01:19] [ENDVOTE] [01:19] Final result is 5 for, 0 against. 1 abstained. Total: 5 [01:19] :) [01:20] [AGREED] w4ett to be appointed founder of #ubuntu-us-tn [01:20] AGREED received: w4ett to be appointed founder of #ubuntu-us-tn [01:20] [ACTION] w4ett to be appointed founder of #ubuntu-us-tn [01:20] ACTION received: w4ett to be appointed founder of #ubuntu-us-tn [01:21] so should we turn our attention to OPs in #ubuntu-us-tn? [01:21] sounds reasonable [01:21] agreed [01:22] shall we decide on how many new OPs we need? [01:22] previously it has been suggested that we should have 2 OPs in addition to the founder [01:22] Sounds reasonable. [01:22] pace_t_zulu: that sounds like a reasonable number [01:22] [TOPIC] OPs in #ubuntu-us-tn [01:22] New Topic: OPs in #ubuntu-us-tn [01:22] you already have that [01:22] * w4ett sounds good [01:23] pleia2, nealmcb and w4ett [01:23] [IDEA] 2 OPs in addition to founder [01:23] IDEA received: 2 OPs in addition to founder [01:23] * galant14b has never seen nealmcb in #ubuntu-us-tn [01:23] me either galant14b [01:23] /msg chanserv flags #ubuntu-us-tn [01:23] ^^ that tells you who is [01:23] popey, pleia2 is not a member of the Tennessee team... thanks you [01:23] popey: neither nealmcb nor I are not part of -tn, we're mentors from the USTeams, we were added to help them out [01:24] of course.. sorry, my bad [01:24] pleia2: ahh [01:24] /ignore popey [01:24] neal and pleia are mentors from the us team [01:24] popey :) [01:24] ok... moving on [01:24] let's take ideas on how to decide who our OPs should be... [01:25] I vote for removing the ability for any ubuntu member to become op [01:25] anyone disagree with the idea of 2 OPs in addition to w4ett? [01:25] agreed [01:25]