=== DaZ_ is now known as DaZ === asac__ is now known as asac === asac__ is now known as asac === noy_ is now known as noy === thekorn_ is now known as thekorn === njpatel1 is now known as njp___ === DaZ is now known as Maynard === \vish is now known as vish === yofel_ is now known as yofel [19:08] o/ [19:09] And so far, looks like we won't have enough for a meeting. [19:09] * TheMuso reads the agenda. [19:09] got a link to that? [19:09] hey jussi01 [19:09] what meeting is this? [19:09] ;)= [19:09] ubuntu studio [19:09] jussi01: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuStudio/Meetings/2010Jan10 [19:09] okay [19:11] TheMuso: who are we waiting on? [19:12] jussi01: stochastic I think, since he sent out eh reminder etc. I don't remember him saing that he couldn't make it. [19:12] And if luisbg is around, it would be great to have him along also. [19:13] yea [19:13] * jussi01 has pinged them, so hopefully they arrive soon === Mamarok_ is now known as Mamarok [19:24] Well I think this is a no go. [19:24] c [19:40] anyone here for ubuntu studio meeting? [19:41] ScottL, they decided not to keep it (jussi01+TheMuso) [19:41] knome, thanks [19:41] np. have a nice day! [19:58] hello all [19:58] Hi [19:58] hi SiDi and raevol [19:59] Hi :) [19:59] * charlie-tca waves [20:00] ready to start the meeting? [20:00] Aye [20:00] sure [20:00] any ubuntu meeting bot experts here? [20:00] who's gonna be the chair? [20:00] cody-somerville: you ready? [20:00] knome: you will :D [20:00] SiDi, gah [20:00] don't want to [20:00] I also nominate knome. [20:01] !help [20:01] Please don't ask to ask a question, simply ask the question (all on ONE line and in the channel, so that others can read and follow it easily). If anyone knows the answer they will most likely reply. :-) [20:01] meh [20:01] /c/c [20:01] Well, that worked [20:01] * knome has to check out the bot stuff. [20:02] just a moment [20:02] make yourself comfortable [20:02] let's get started w/ taking about governance. knome - if cody only has 10 minutes, we should get started w/o the meeting bot. [20:02] we'll get the logs [20:02] and please fill the other chairs from the beginning [20:02] #startmeeting [20:02] Meeting started at 14:02. The chair is knome. [20:02] Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE] [20:02] [TOPIC] Xubuntu Governance [20:02] New Topic: Xubuntu Governance [20:03] here's the wiki page: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Xubuntu/StrategyDocument#Xubuntu%20Governance%20&%20Team%20Structure [20:04] [LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Xubuntu/StrategyDocument#Xubuntu%20Governance%20&%20Team%20Structure [20:04] LINK received: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Xubuntu/StrategyDocument#Xubuntu%20Governance%20&%20Team%20Structure [20:04] did anyone have any comments based on reading it? [20:04] Other than agreement? [20:05] lmn: correct [20:05] Reading it again... do we need to even change it? [20:05] Then no. [20:05] It seems to be provide the necessary authority to form a council already. [20:05] cody-somerville, i think we only need to append/modify the council part of ir [20:05] *it [20:05] knome, ^^ [20:05] well, depending on what approach we take (team lead vs. council approach) certain items would need to be changed [20:06] for example, "The Xubuntu council is a small group of people who have been designated as "movers and shakers" by the Xubuntu project lead" [20:06] i would lthink that this would need to be changed to something like, "xubuntu contributors and xubuntu developers" [20:06] I agree w/ what's there [20:06] SiDi: Yes, but j1mc's point is right - the point is to be without a "lead" - correct? [20:06] well personally i think that even if we had a leader, we should move a bit towards less-authoritarian leader. [20:07] I don't think we have that now. [20:07] Maybe the leader should take more of a back seat though. [20:07] I think a lead is needed only when two people definitely disagree and begin to misbehave [20:07] knome: You mean a face without veto power? [20:07] cody-somerville, that's what i meant [20:07] and this can be the role of the ubuntu community council [20:07] Maybe mr_pouit will provide that? [20:07] is mr_pouit willing to be project lead for lucid? [20:07] What I really want to avoid is voting [20:08] j1mc, yes [20:08] Instead, I think consensus is much more favorable to voting. [20:08] 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 [20:08] aren't people supposed to accept the decisions of the council? ;) [20:08] cody-somerville: he confirmed that in #xubuntu-devel? [20:08] 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 [20:08] mr_pouit: That would be my understanding.. [20:08] Majority rules, aye? [20:08] No, majority doesn't rule [20:08] cody-somerville, finding a consensus is kind of voting anyway [20:08] Ubuntu has never been like this [20:08] When it comes to council it should. [20:08] knome, voting is binary, yes or no. Consensus not so much. [20:09] knome, there can be varying levels of consensus [20:09] 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 [20:09] I also disagree that "experts" should have full control of their area [20:09] Well, 9 times out of 10 something is either right or wrong and should be addressed as such.. [20:09] consensus doesn't mean no issues are disregarded. [20:10] i think that people should be consulted before their "area" is changed by others, though. [20:10] I think the people doing the work should have the authority to make decisions [20:10] (except for artwork :P) [20:10] cody-somerville, not full control, but if you want to think in binary, i think the expert should have more power than 1. [20:10] cody-somerville: :P [20:10] cody-somerville, i quit. [20:10] who decides who experts are? [20:10] :P [20:10] knome: what is more than 1 in binary? [20:10] 10? [20:11] knome, lots of artwork people willing to contribute ::P [20:11] cody-somerville, aren't that decided when team leaders are appointed [20:11] Anyhow, thats all I wanted to say [20:11] cody-somerville: by expert i mean people who have the most background on contributing to xubuntu in this field [20:11] knome: But wouldn't that introduce more complexity than needed? That concept is used in the Democratic party in America with "super delegates". [20:11] cody-somerville, well, i haven't seen anybody ACTING yet. [20:11] sorry for that word, it was badly chosen [20:11] knome, agreed. which is why I tolerate you :P [20:11] * cody-somerville nudges knome [20:11] just joking, love you Pasi [20:11] * knome farts [20:11] :P [20:11] Anyhow, I must be going now. [20:11] heh [20:11] sure. i love you too [20:11] lmn: I dont think we need to use the same systems as political parties :P [20:12] see you cody-somerville [20:12] cody-somerville: have a good afternoon [20:12] So would the system be if you're an "expert" that you automatically get 2 votes? [20:12] lmn, no. [20:12] thanks for making the time to be here [20:12] Then how are we going to weight the opinion of an "expert"? [20:12] There is no such thing as vote [20:12] (experts are recognized w/o appointment) [20:12] mr_pouit: did you confirm that you'd be willing to be project lead for lucid? [20:12] (they are experts because they just are) [20:12] but if we are talking about about documentation, for example, i think jim's voice should weigh more that, for example, mine. [20:13] 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 [20:13] but who decides who the expert is? [20:13] charlie-tca, each individual person [20:13] * lmn agrees with charlie [20:13] j1mc: yes, if there's no other choice, I can do it until the council is fully functional [20:13] expert is probably a wrong word. [20:13] * cody-somerville is gone. [20:13] don't opinions weight themselfs trough people? [20:13] jim leads the doc team. so he is responsible for getting good results on the doc front. [20:13] i think we're a small enough group to know who the recognized "subject matter experts" are without formalizing what qualifies as an "expert." [20:14] charlie-tca: i think we can each think on our own who we consider to be experts in their fields [20:14] perhaps with the exception of artwork [20:14] It's becoming very clear we didn't discuss this well enough on the mailing list.. [20:14] hehe [20:14] knome: expert is a wrong word. I use it for lack of a better one in my vocabulary :D [20:14] j1mc, ugh? was there some kind of pn intended once again? :P [20:14] SiDi: "team-lead"? [20:14] i hate to talk about artwork all the time, BUT [20:15] i don't want us to get bogged-down with semantics [20:15] can i ask a noob question? what does "artwork" consist of? [20:15] people agree with people that they consider as experts, so they don't expecially need to have more weighed vote [20:15] the important thing (to me) is that people's voices are heard with regard to important xubuntu-related decisions [20:15] if i am the marketing (+artwork) lead, i suppose it does make a difference if i disagree with somebody [20:15] raevol: it consists of the look and feel of Xubuntu and its marketing materials [20:15] raevol: Basically anything that's themeable. [20:15] in cases of disagreement, we need to be able to sort things out in a way that doesn't bog down the distribution [20:15] artwork is always subjective to taste, and we have to take SOME path. [20:16] is it a short list of things? desktop/gdm/bootsplash/window manager/gtk? or a lot more? [20:16] knome: Yeah, I wanted to talk with you about some artwork *ducks* [20:16] in the past i haven't proposed anything totally silly (except for laughs) [20:16] * SiDi proposes artwork specific discussions occur after the governance topic [20:16] raevol: knome lmn ... can we sort out the governance stuff first? [20:16] i remember a few situations where me and cody disagreed on some silly things [20:16] sorry [20:16] j1mc: Absolutely. [20:16] (j1mc, i'm getting to that) [20:17] knome: ok - if you need to talk about artwork to express a gov. issue... :) [20:17] go ahead. :) [20:17] so in these situations, shouldn't my opinion weigh more? especially if the rest of the dev community agrees with me? [20:17] why should the project leader have a VETO vote in a situation like this? [20:18] "well i don't like that, let's throw it in the bin" [20:18] knome: i agree. how do we sort out such issues? [20:18] perhaps... if project lead and other team member disagree... [20:18] well if in the new governance we have the council [20:18] Well, a majority of the council should be able to over-ride a veto. [20:18] it comes out to the xubuntu [insert group name here] for a vote? [20:18] maybe we should find a consensus between the members [20:18] not just asking the leaders opinion and blindly go forward with that [20:19] s/vote/consensus [20:19] The council should have checks and balances so that no one branch is more powerful than any other. [20:19] E.g. leaders and etc. [20:19] too much byrocracy kills all development [20:19] Yes but not enough kills creativity. [20:20] Sysi, a veto possibility kills everything. [20:20] true [20:20] 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? [20:20] [AGREED] Lionel will act as a temporary project leader until a council is formed. [20:20] AGREED received: Lionel will act as a temporary project leader until a council is formed. [20:20] SiDi: Exactly my thoughts. [20:20] (with a max weight for the votes of the regular members to avoid them to outnumber the council) [20:20] A council of ~5 people shouldn't kill anything, if people don't ask for it to decide something every hour. [20:21] mr_pouit, i definitely do not want everything go through the council [20:21] clearly [20:21] mr_pouit: Well the point is a person of 1 shouldn't be able to kill something without any way to repeal. [20:21] 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 [20:21] Sidi hit it right on the head [20:22] Agreed. [20:22] lmn, The community council is the elevation [20:22] i just meant that in some point needs to make decisions [20:22] SiDi: could you explain what you mean with "with a max weight..." [20:22] SiDi, ^^ [20:22] Thats just all way to complicated SiDi [20:22] Is it? [20:22] Yes it is [20:23] We escalate to CC if we're not happy with Xubuntu council/project lead decision. [20:23] and if that happens, you better have a good reason if you don't want to look foolish in front of them. [20:23] Hm, okey [20:23] 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? [20:23] err, yea what was just said [20:23] cody-somerville, so basically, if the disagreement was about a silly thing, the leader could overrule any developer anyway? [20:23] (unless it's on a technical matter, where the cc is useless) [20:23] mr_pouit: Agreed. [20:24] In that case, we go to TB: ) [20:24] 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 [20:24] knome, if you can build up a case that the leader does that often, that wouldn't be a silly problem [20:24] It would be a huge problem [20:24] It would be a clear case of micro management [20:24] * cody-somerville is gone again. [20:24] * charlie-tca agrees [20:24] * lmn also agrees [20:25] agree as well. [20:25] any micro manager as team leader should wind up in front of the cc [20:25] maybe we should talk about what the team EXPECTS from the team leaders [20:26] That's a good question. [20:26] 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? [20:26] or just produce marketing material? [20:26] knome: I'd say at least be the "idea man". [20:26] to do work, to provide direction for their portion of the project, to recruit and assist others who contribute to the project [20:27] 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. [20:27] It seems j1mc and I are on the same page with this. [20:27] j1mc, okay, so doesn't the team leader have a bigger weight about his own area, if he is supposed to direct the team? [20:27] i would say yes, unless you want me directing artwork. ... of course what you suggest makes sense. :) [20:28] j1mc, how can anybody direct a team if his decisions are not appreciated or they are overruled by project leader? [20:28] (you can say that he has more experience on his topic, so it's easier to convince other people ;) [20:28] (he/she, of course) [20:28] in what cases should a project leader be able to overrule the team leader? [20:28] this also concerns the documentation team and i'm so happy you, jim, are taking care of it, even if somebody might disagree. [20:29] or in what cases should the project leader be able to overrule the team leader? [20:29] that's what i meant to ask. [20:29] 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 [20:29] COMPACTLY: i know you know better. [20:29] j1mc: I'd say the project leader should organize a vote at that point, if it's necessary. [20:29] ie. when the team leads acts on his/her own w/ nobody agreeing [20:29] If the team leader is not the one to make the final decision on what's best for a team, what is he? [20:29] An organizer, basically. [20:29] charlie-tca, well aren't we suggesting a governance with a council [20:30] first go to council [20:30] if council can't have consensus even what they do, ask the leader [20:30] The project leader should be the one managing the way things move, not deciding how they move, if that makes sense. [20:30] 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. [20:31] the council would probably find a consensus by theirselves if only one disagrees. [20:32] if they really can't find a consensus, then i think the project leader definitely should have his voice heard. [20:32] and in the end, make the decision [20:32] The project leader isn't a project manager [20:32] also, if there is a council, I feel the project leader should sit on it [20:32] cody-somerville, of course [20:32] and maybe even be the chairman (ie. tie breaker) [20:32] * j1mc agrees [20:33] I'll agree with that. [20:33] * j1mc agrees w/ the sitting on the council part [20:33] * charlie-tca agrees too [20:33] cody-somerville, exactly. but in a non-tie situation he should just be one of the members. [20:33] tiebreaker, too [20:33] knome, agreed. [20:33] i don't see we are going to have a lot of need for tie-breakers, really [20:33] just a member or a non-voting member except in ties [20:33] I think the tiebreaker should be the most relevant team lead for the thing involved [20:34] even if we have disagreed, it's mostly being either me or you (cody) disagreeing the rest ;) [20:34] knome: Failsafes are rarely used, but when they are, you're glad they're there. [20:34] * cody-somerville is gone again. [20:34] maybe the team leader and the project leader should be the tiebreakers. [20:34] and if they disagree, project leader is the tiebreaker. [20:34] what do you think of that? [20:34] Lets get rid of team leaders [20:35] can't have two tiebreakers. That creates more issues. [20:35] let the teams organize themselves [20:35] just an idea [20:35] * cody-somerville is really gone now. [20:35] cody-somerville, tbh, the teams usually consist of one or two people [20:35] cody-somerville, the marketing+artwork team is knome. [20:35] atm [20:35] Well, knome - as I've mentioned on the mailing list I have wordpress experience.. [20:36] just throwing that out there [20:36] lmn, yes. [20:36] knome: eeew, evil you [20:36] i'm in the art team [20:36] but in the past, even if there were people interested in contributing [20:36] and im not a knome [20:36] they rarely have contributed [20:36] SiDi, yes you are. just generalizing :P [20:37] so that leaves me still being on my own in the marketing team [20:37] 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 [20:37] SiDi: that makes sense [20:37] assuming we don't have 12 teams [20:37] yup [20:37] what about my suggestion in cutting the teams down to four? [20:38] Council gets much bigger than about 5 for us, we are in trouble [20:38] charlie-tca: i agree [20:38] j1mc: a council member could be in several teams [20:38] yes [20:38] and the creation of new teams would require agreement of the council + dedication of a member [20:39] https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/xubuntu-devel/2009-December/007225.html [20:39] charlie-tca, won't get bigger than 5. we barely have more contributors than five >:| [20:40] in the current structure, there's contributors, documentors (which includes the website group... which i don't often think about), developers, council & project lead [20:40] no, there's no council [20:40] it's in the strategy document, but none has been formed yet. [20:40] it's in the current governance doc [20:40] the council is project leader. [20:40] as for now. [20:40] ok [20:40] I think we can leave to Council, Contributors, Users [20:41] we DO have a core developer group [20:41] or contributor, to be more exact [20:41] yes, and developers should be involved [20:41] charlie-tca, developers are contributors. [20:42] 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. [20:42] 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... ? [20:42] i agree to have a single group for devs + contributors [20:43] which they kind of are, but should not be in the governance thing [20:43] especially considering that the majority of the work is not related to code in Xubuntu [20:43] without the developers, you have nothing [20:43] charlie-tca: and the developers are the GNOME + XFCE + Ubuntu + Kernel + Xorg + w/e ones [20:43] knome: i think it may draw in more "developers" if we have a separate group... a mkting tool? [20:43] charlie-tca, that's true. but really, a QA guy is not less important when it comes down to governance. [20:43] Who writes code in Xubuntu? Cody, Lionel and I write patches, thats all [20:43] j1mc, i think that has worked against us, really [20:44] +1 knome [20:44] j1mc, (having a separate dev group) [20:44] SiDi: How many patches and repackaging usually go into a single release? [20:44] I agree. Developers are the only group that is required by the distribution [20:44] 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 [20:44] lmn: cant say, i've only worked on a single release cycle [20:44] charlie-tca, ^ +1 billion for SiDi [20:44] but i wrote more than 50 patches [20:44] Hm, fair enough. [20:45] 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) [20:45] i wouldn't want to "weight" someone's opinion [20:45] (and steve) [20:45] charlie-tca: i dont think there can be a distro only with developers [20:46] devs often dont see the shortcomings of their own work without support teams to fetch feedback from users [20:46] j1mc, that was just justifying that even developers should be counted as "contributors", not a separate group [20:46] Of course there can, that is what started xubuntu [20:47] 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 [20:47] 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. [20:47] knome: i think we disagree on this a bit, but that's ok [20:47] j1mc, i agree with developers having certain permissions. [20:47] Of course devs can start a distro as long as they also know a bit about system administration and packaging [20:48] j1mc, but i don't agree one developer being any more important in the council than one "contributor" [20:48] but a good distro also needs a documentation and support team [20:48] knome: i agree w/ you on tha tpoint [20:48] + some designer effort for the desktop settings [20:48] j1mc, also, there would be no idea in letting me have push rights to universe. i'd just mess everything up. [20:49] j1mc, developers need special permissions to be able to do their part. [20:49] knome: +1 billion. every app would have a special "unicorn" button if it were up to you. [20:49] j1mc, ...and a pink kitten [20:49] what can we agree on for now. [20:49] i think we're coming to some agreement [20:49] sure [20:50] we have PL for now - mr_p :) [20:50] we know we want a council... [20:50] 4 or 5 people... [20:50] knome: and binary birds [20:50] we know we want votes to be equal [20:50] 5, to have a tiebreaker. [20:50] but PL can over-rule [20:50] j1mc, that's where we disagree. [20:50] as tie-breaker [20:50] sorry... not over-rule [20:50] or at least haven't agreed yet [20:50] bad choice of words [20:51] in cases where the PL and the subject matter expert disagree - we need special considerations [20:51] that have yet to be determined [20:51] (not sure we can decide on formal lanague in this mtg) [20:52] am i on the right track? [20:52] what else can we agree on? [20:52] j1mc, but if the council votes 3-2 for the TL (PL disagrees), wouldn't the TL's idea go through anyway? [20:52] no, because then there is no tie [20:52] wait... yes [20:53] :D [20:53] yes [20:53] sorry, i misread [20:53] so if there is 5 members [20:53] and one of them is the PL [20:53] PL would break the tie when there is a 2-2 (+ 1 abstention or absence) [20:53] yes. [20:53] yes [20:53] but i'd prefer having the "subject expert" as a tie breaker [20:53] i kind of have to agree with SiDi here [20:53] because if he has more experience in the field hes more likely to know which decision is better [20:54] at least if the voting is tied. [20:54] (and there has been a vote) [20:54] project lead should be thinking of the overall best for the project; team leader is only looking at his part [20:54] charlie-tca: i think we're all looking for the best of the project [20:54] and we all want to work together and have a global vision of the project [20:54] charlie-tca, how to find out when the decision really matters for the best of the whole project? [20:54] or when it is only about agreeing and disagreeing [20:55] A a team leader, you want what "you" do first. As project lead, you are looking at everything [20:55] if it's about certain artwork (eg. wallpaper), can you really say that an another WP would be better for "the project" ? [20:56] yes [20:56] i can't say that. [20:56] look at Ubuntu and how many times their choices have been hated [20:56] WP is certainly subjective [20:57] charlie-tca, if i create a consistent theme for, let's say, lucid with the marketing team [20:57] Even the karmic gdm screen is still being debated as to quality [20:57] charlie-tca, and it includes a wallpaper, which is as well consistent [20:57] charlie-tca, and the PL disagrees [20:57] this seems like a really silly thing to get stuck on, since all themed things can be changed by the user [20:57] charlie-tca, should we change to a WP that is not consistent with the rest of the artwork? [20:57] raevol: its the main point of disagreement in Xubuntu :D [20:57] That is not what I said, knome [20:57] that's kind of ridiculous [20:57] charlie-tca, that's what i meant. [20:58] raevol: we usually start epic wars that involve nuclear bombing when it comes to the default wallpaper [20:58]