[19:08] <jussi01> o/
[19:09] <TheMuso> And so far, looks like we won't have enough for a meeting.
[19:09]  * TheMuso reads the agenda.
[19:09] <jussi01>  got a link to that?
[19:09] <knome> hey jussi01
[19:09] <knome> what meeting is this?
[19:09] <knome> ;)=
[19:09] <jussi01> ubuntu studio
[19:09] <TheMuso> jussi01: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuStudio/Meetings/2010Jan10
[19:09] <knome> okay
[19:11] <jussi01> TheMuso: who are we waiting on?
[19:12] <TheMuso> 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] <TheMuso> And if luisbg is around, it would be great to have him along also.
[19:13] <jussi01> yea
[19:13]  * jussi01 has pinged them, so hopefully they arrive soon
[19:24] <TheMuso> Well I think this is a no go.
[19:24] <TheMuso> c
[19:40] <ScottL> anyone here for ubuntu studio meeting?
[19:41] <knome> ScottL, they decided not to keep it (jussi01+TheMuso)
[19:41] <ScottL> knome, thanks
[19:41] <knome> np. have a nice day!
[19:58] <raevol> hello all
[19:58] <SiDi> Hi
[19:58] <j1mc> hi SiDi and raevol
[19:59] <lmn> Hi :)
[19:59]  * charlie-tca waves
[20:00] <j1mc> ready to start the meeting?
[20:00] <lmn> Aye
[20:00] <knome> sure
[20:00] <j1mc> any ubuntu meeting bot experts here?
[20:00] <knome> who's gonna be the chair?
[20:00] <j1mc> cody-somerville: you ready?
[20:00] <SiDi> knome: you will :D
[20:00] <knome> SiDi, gah
[20:00] <knome> don't want to
[20:00] <lmn> I also nominate knome.
[20:01] <knome> !help
[20:01] <knome> meh
[20:01] <czajkowski> /c/c
[20:01] <charlie-tca> Well, that worked
[20:01]  * knome has to check out the bot stuff.
[20:02] <knome> just a moment
[20:02] <knome> make yourself comfortable
[20:02] <j1mc> 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] <j1mc> we'll get the logs
[20:02] <knome> and please fill the other chairs from the beginning
[20:02] <knome> #startmeeting
[20:02] <MootBot> Meeting started at 14:02. The chair is knome.
[20:02] <MootBot> Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
[20:02] <knome> [TOPIC] Xubuntu Governance
[20:02] <MootBot> New Topic:  Xubuntu Governance
[20:03] <j1mc> here's the wiki page: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Xubuntu/StrategyDocument#Xubuntu%20Governance%20&%20Team%20Structure
[20:04] <knome> [LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Xubuntu/StrategyDocument#Xubuntu%20Governance%20&%20Team%20Structure
[20:04] <MootBot> LINK received:  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Xubuntu/StrategyDocument#Xubuntu%20Governance%20&%20Team%20Structure
[20:04] <j1mc> did anyone have any comments based on reading it?
[20:04] <lmn> Other than agreement?
[20:05] <j1mc> lmn: correct
[20:05] <cody-somerville> Reading it again... do we need to even change it?
[20:05] <lmn> Then no.
[20:05] <cody-somerville> It seems to be provide the necessary authority to form a council already.
[20:05] <knome> cody-somerville, i think we only need to append/modify the council part of ir
[20:05] <knome> *it
[20:05] <cody-somerville> knome, ^^
[20:05] <j1mc> well, depending on what approach we take (team lead vs. council approach) certain items would need to be changed
[20:06] <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"
[20:06] <j1mc> i would lthink that this would need to be changed to something like, "xubuntu contributors and xubuntu developers"
[20:06] <SiDi> I agree w/ what's there
[20:06] <lmn> SiDi: Yes, but j1mc's point is right - the point is to be without a "lead" - correct?
[20:06] <knome> well personally i think that even if we had a leader, we should move a bit towards less-authoritarian leader.
[20:07] <cody-somerville> I don't think we have that now.
[20:07] <cody-somerville> Maybe the leader should take more of a back seat though.
[20:07] <SiDi> I think a lead is needed only when two people definitely disagree and begin to misbehave
[20:07] <lmn> knome: You mean a face without veto power?
[20:07] <knome> cody-somerville, that's what i meant
[20:07] <SiDi> and this can be the role of the ubuntu community council
[20:07] <cody-somerville> Maybe mr_pouit will provide that?
[20:07] <j1mc> is mr_pouit willing to be project lead for lucid?
[20:07] <cody-somerville> What I really want to avoid is voting
[20:08] <cody-somerville> j1mc, yes
[20:08] <cody-somerville> Instead, I think consensus is much more favorable to voting.
[20:08] <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
[20:08] <mr_pouit> aren't people supposed to accept the decisions of the council? ;)
[20:08] <j1mc> cody-somerville: he confirmed that in #xubuntu-devel?
[20:08] <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
[20:08] <lmn> mr_pouit: That would be my understanding..
[20:08] <lmn> Majority rules, aye?
[20:08] <cody-somerville> No, majority doesn't rule
[20:08] <knome> cody-somerville, finding a consensus is kind of voting anyway
[20:08] <cody-somerville> Ubuntu has never been like this
[20:08] <lmn> When it comes to council it should.
[20:08] <cody-somerville> knome, voting is binary, yes or no. Consensus not so much.
[20:09] <cody-somerville> knome, there can be varying levels of consensus
[20:09] <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
[20:09] <cody-somerville> I also disagree that "experts" should have full control of their area
[20:09] <lmn> Well, 9 times out of 10 something is either right or wrong and should be addressed as such..
[20:09] <knome> consensus doesn't mean no issues are disregarded.
[20:10] <j1mc> i think that people should be consulted before their "area" is changed by others, though.
[20:10] <cody-somerville> I think the people doing the work should have the authority to make decisions
[20:10] <cody-somerville> (except for artwork :P)
[20:10] <knome> cody-somerville, not full control, but if you want to think in binary, i think the expert should have more power than 1.
[20:10] <SiDi> cody-somerville: :P
[20:10] <knome> cody-somerville, i quit.
[20:10] <cody-somerville> who decides who experts are?
[20:10] <knome> :P
[20:10] <SiDi> knome: what is more than 1 in binary?
[20:10] <SiDi> 10?
[20:11] <cody-somerville> knome, lots of artwork people willing to contribute ::P
[20:11] <knome> cody-somerville, aren't that decided when team leaders are appointed
[20:11] <cody-somerville> Anyhow, thats all I wanted to say
[20:11] <SiDi> cody-somerville: by expert i mean people who have the most background on contributing to xubuntu in this field
[20:11] <lmn> knome: But wouldn't that introduce more complexity than needed? That concept is used in the Democratic party in America with "super delegates".
[20:11] <knome> cody-somerville, well, i haven't seen anybody ACTING yet.
[20:11] <SiDi> sorry for that word, it was badly chosen
[20:11] <cody-somerville> knome, agreed. which is why I tolerate you :P
[20:11]  * cody-somerville nudges knome 
[20:11] <cody-somerville> just joking, love you Pasi
[20:11]  * knome farts
[20:11] <knome> :P
[20:11] <cody-somerville> Anyhow, I must be going now.
[20:11] <j1mc> heh
[20:11] <knome> sure. i love you too
[20:11] <SiDi> lmn: I dont think we need to use the same systems as political parties :P
[20:12] <knome> see you cody-somerville
[20:12] <j1mc> cody-somerville: have a good afternoon
[20:12] <lmn> So would the system be if you're an "expert" that you automatically get 2 votes?
[20:12] <knome> lmn, no.
[20:12] <j1mc> thanks for making the time to be here
[20:12] <lmn> Then how are we going to weight the opinion of an "expert"?
[20:12] <SiDi> There is no such thing as vote
[20:12] <cody-somerville> (experts are recognized w/o appointment)
[20:12] <j1mc> mr_pouit: did you confirm that you'd be willing to be project lead for lucid?
[20:12] <cody-somerville> (they are experts because they just are)
[20:12] <knome> but if we are talking about about documentation, for example, i think jim's voice should weigh more that, for example, mine.
[20:13] <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
[20:13] <charlie-tca> but who decides who the expert is?
[20:13] <cody-somerville> charlie-tca, each individual person
[20:13]  * lmn agrees with charlie
[20:13] <mr_pouit> j1mc: yes, if there's no other choice, I can do it until the council is fully functional
[20:13] <knome> expert is probably a wrong word.
[20:13]  * cody-somerville is gone.
[20:13] <Sysi> don't opinions weight themselfs trough people?
[20:13] <knome> jim leads the doc team. so he is responsible for getting good results on the doc front.
[20:13] <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."
[20:14] <SiDi> charlie-tca: i think we can each think on our own who we consider to be experts in their fields
[20:14] <j1mc> perhaps with the exception of artwork
[20:14] <lmn> It's becoming very clear we didn't discuss this well enough on the mailing list..
[20:14] <cody-somerville> hehe
[20:14] <SiDi> knome: expert is a wrong word. I use it for lack of a better one in my vocabulary :D
[20:14] <knome> j1mc, ugh? was there some kind of pn intended once again? :P
[20:14] <j1mc> SiDi: "team-lead"?
[20:14] <knome> i hate to talk about artwork all the time, BUT
[20:15] <j1mc> i don't want us to get bogged-down with semantics
[20:15] <raevol> can i ask a noob question? what does "artwork" consist of?
[20:15] <Sysi> people agree with people that they consider as experts, so they don't expecially need to have more weighed vote
[20:15] <j1mc> the important thing (to me) is that people's voices are heard with regard to important xubuntu-related decisions
[20:15] <knome> if i am the marketing (+artwork) lead, i suppose it does make a difference if i disagree with somebody
[20:15] <SiDi> raevol: it consists of the look and feel of Xubuntu and its marketing materials
[20:15] <lmn> raevol: Basically anything that's themeable.
[20:15] <j1mc> in cases of disagreement, we need to be able to sort things out in a way that doesn't bog down the distribution
[20:15] <knome> artwork is always subjective to taste, and we have to take SOME path.
[20:16] <raevol> is it a short list of things? desktop/gdm/bootsplash/window manager/gtk? or a lot more?
[20:16] <lmn> knome: Yeah, I wanted to talk with you about some artwork *ducks*
[20:16] <knome> 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] <j1mc> raevol: knome lmn ... can we sort out the governance stuff first?
[20:16] <knome> i remember a few situations where me and cody disagreed on some silly things
[20:16] <raevol> sorry
[20:16] <lmn> j1mc: Absolutely.
[20:16] <knome> (j1mc, i'm getting to that)
[20:17] <j1mc> knome: ok - if you need to talk about artwork to express a gov. issue... :)
[20:17] <j1mc> go ahead.  :)
[20:17] <knome> so in these situations, shouldn't my opinion weigh more? especially if the rest of the dev community agrees with me?
[20:17] <knome> why should the project leader have a VETO vote in a situation like this?
[20:18] <knome> "well i don't like that, let's throw it in the bin"
[20:18] <j1mc> knome: i agree.  how do we sort out such issues?
[20:18] <j1mc> perhaps... if project lead and other team member disagree...
[20:18] <knome> well if in the new governance we have the council
[20:18] <lmn> Well, a majority of the council should be able to over-ride a veto.
[20:18] <j1mc> it comes out to the xubuntu [insert group name here] for a vote?
[20:18] <knome> maybe we should find a consensus between the members
[20:18] <knome> not just asking the leaders opinion and blindly go forward with that
[20:19] <j1mc> s/vote/consensus
[20:19] <lmn> The council should have checks and balances so that no one branch is more powerful than any other.
[20:19] <lmn> E.g. leaders and etc.
[20:19] <Sysi> too much byrocracy kills all development
[20:19] <lmn> Yes but not enough kills creativity.
[20:20] <knome> Sysi, a veto possibility kills everything.
[20:20] <Sysi> true
[20:20] <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?
[20:20] <knome> [AGREED] Lionel will act as a temporary project leader until a council is formed.
[20:20] <MootBot> AGREED received:  Lionel will act as a temporary project leader until a council is formed.
[20:20] <lmn> SiDi: Exactly my thoughts.
[20:20] <SiDi> (with a max weight for the votes of the regular members to avoid them to outnumber the council)
[20:20] <mr_pouit> A council of ~5 people shouldn't kill anything, if people don't ask for it to decide something every hour.
[20:21] <knome> mr_pouit, i definitely do not want everything go through the council
[20:21] <mr_pouit> clearly
[20:21] <lmn> mr_pouit: Well the point is a person of 1 shouldn't be able to kill something without any way to repeal.
[20:21] <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
[20:21] <charlie-tca> Sidi hit it right on the head
[20:22] <lmn> Agreed.
[20:22] <cody-somerville> lmn, The community council is the elevation
[20:22] <Sysi> i just meant that in some point needs to make decisions
[20:22] <j1mc> SiDi: could you explain what you mean with "with a max weight..."
[20:22] <cody-somerville> SiDi, ^^
[20:22] <cody-somerville> Thats just all way to complicated SiDi
[20:22] <lmn> Is it?
[20:22] <cody-somerville> Yes it is
[20:23] <cody-somerville> We escalate to CC if we're not happy with Xubuntu council/project lead decision.
[20:23] <cody-somerville> and if that happens, you better have a good reason if you don't want to look foolish in front of them.
[20:23] <SiDi> Hm, okey
[20:23] <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?
[20:23] <raevol> err, yea what was just said
[20:23] <knome> cody-somerville, so basically, if the disagreement was about a silly thing, the leader could overrule any developer anyway?
[20:23] <mr_pouit> (unless it's on a technical matter, where the cc is useless)
[20:23] <lmn> mr_pouit: Agreed.
[20:24] <cody-somerville> In that case, we go to TB: )
[20:24] <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
[20:24] <cody-somerville> knome, if you can build up a case that the leader does that often, that wouldn't be a silly problem
[20:24] <cody-somerville> It would be a huge problem
[20:24] <cody-somerville> 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] <knome> agree as well.
[20:25] <charlie-tca> any micro manager as team leader should wind up in front of the cc
[20:25] <knome> maybe we should talk about what the team EXPECTS from the team leaders
[20:26] <lmn> That's a good question.
[20:26] <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?
[20:26] <knome> or just produce marketing material?
[20:26] <lmn> knome: I'd say at least be the "idea man".
[20:26] <j1mc> to do work, to provide direction for their portion of the project, to recruit and assist others who contribute to the project
[20:27] <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.
[20:27] <lmn> It seems j1mc and I are on the same page with this.
[20:27] <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?
[20:27] <j1mc> i would say yes, unless you want me directing artwork.  ... of course what you suggest makes sense. :)
[20:28] <knome> j1mc, how can anybody direct a team if his decisions are not appreciated or they are overruled by project leader?
[20:28] <mr_pouit> (you can say that he has more experience on his topic, so it's easier to convince other people ;)
[20:28] <mr_pouit> (he/she, of course)
[20:28] <j1mc> in what cases should a project leader be able to overrule the team leader?
[20:28] <knome> this also concerns the documentation team and i'm so happy you, jim, are taking care of it, even if somebody might disagree.
[20:29] <j1mc> or in what cases should the project leader be able to overrule the team leader?
[20:29] <j1mc> that's what i meant to ask.
[20:29] <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
[20:29] <knome> COMPACTLY: i know you know better.
[20:29] <lmn> j1mc: I'd say the project leader should organize a vote at that point, if it's necessary.
[20:29] <SiDi> ie. when the team leads acts on his/her own w/ nobody agreeing
[20:29] <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?
[20:29] <lmn> An organizer, basically.
[20:29] <knome> charlie-tca, well aren't we suggesting a governance with a council
[20:30] <knome> first go to council
[20:30] <knome> if council can't have consensus even what they do, ask the leader
[20:30] <lmn> The project leader should be the one managing the way things move, not deciding how they move, if that makes sense.
[20:30] <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.
[20:31] <knome> the council would probably find a consensus by theirselves if only one disagrees.
[20:32] <knome> if they really can't find a consensus, then i think the project leader definitely should have his voice heard.
[20:32] <knome> and in the end, make the decision
[20:32] <cody-somerville> The project leader isn't a project manager
[20:32] <cody-somerville> also, if there is a council, I feel the project leader should sit on it
[20:32] <knome> cody-somerville, of course
[20:32] <cody-somerville> and maybe even be the chairman (ie. tie breaker)
[20:32]  * j1mc agrees
[20:33] <lmn> I'll agree with that.
[20:33]  * j1mc agrees w/ the sitting on the council part
[20:33]  * charlie-tca agrees too
[20:33] <knome> cody-somerville, exactly. but in a non-tie situation he should just be one of the members.
[20:33] <j1mc> tiebreaker, too
[20:33] <cody-somerville> knome, agreed.
[20:33] <knome> i don't see we are going to have a lot of need for tie-breakers, really
[20:33] <charlie-tca> just a member or a non-voting member except in ties
[20:33] <SiDi> I think the tiebreaker should be the most relevant team lead for the thing involved
[20:34] <knome> even if we have disagreed, it's mostly being either me or you (cody) disagreeing the rest ;)
[20:34] <lmn> knome: Failsafes are rarely used, but when they are, you're glad they're there.
[20:34]  * cody-somerville is gone again.
[20:34] <knome> maybe the team leader and the project leader should be the tiebreakers.
[20:34] <knome> and if they disagree, project leader is the tiebreaker.
[20:34] <knome> what do you think of that?
[20:34] <cody-somerville> Lets get rid of team leaders
[20:35] <charlie-tca> can't have two tiebreakers. That creates more issues.
[20:35] <cody-somerville> let the teams organize themselves
[20:35] <cody-somerville> just an idea
[20:35]  * cody-somerville is really gone now.
[20:35] <knome> cody-somerville, tbh, the teams usually consist of one or two people
[20:35] <knome> cody-somerville, the marketing+artwork team is knome.
[20:35] <knome> atm
[20:35] <lmn> Well, knome - as I've mentioned on the mailing list I have wordpress experience..
[20:36] <lmn> just throwing that out there
[20:36] <knome> lmn, yes.
[20:36] <SiDi> knome: eeew, evil you
[20:36] <SiDi> i'm in the art team
[20:36] <knome> but in the past, even if there were people interested in contributing
[20:36] <SiDi> and im not a knome
[20:36] <knome> they rarely have contributed
[20:36] <knome> SiDi, yes you are. just generalizing :P
[20:37] <knome> so that leaves me still being on my own in the marketing team
[20:37] <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
[20:37] <j1mc> SiDi: that makes sense
[20:37] <j1mc> assuming we don't have 12 teams
[20:37] <charlie-tca> yup
[20:37] <knome> what about my suggestion in cutting the teams down to four?
[20:38] <charlie-tca> Council gets much bigger than about 5 for us, we are in trouble
[20:38] <j1mc> charlie-tca: i agree
[20:38] <SiDi> j1mc: a council member could be in several teams
[20:38] <j1mc> yes
[20:38] <SiDi> and the creation of new teams would require agreement of the council + dedication of a member
[20:39] <knome> https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/xubuntu-devel/2009-December/007225.html
[20:39] <knome> charlie-tca, won't get bigger than 5. we barely have more contributors than five >:|
[20:40] <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
[20:40] <knome> no, there's no council
[20:40] <knome> it's in the strategy document, but none has been formed yet.
[20:40] <j1mc> it's in the current governance doc
[20:40] <knome> the council is project leader.
[20:40] <knome> as for now.
[20:40] <j1mc> ok
[20:40] <SiDi> I think we can leave to Council, Contributors, Users
[20:41] <knome> we DO have a core developer group
[20:41] <knome> or contributor, to be more exact
[20:41] <charlie-tca> yes, and developers should be involved
[20:41] <knome> charlie-tca, developers are contributors.
[20:42] <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.
[20:42] <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... ?
[20:42] <SiDi> i agree to have a single group for devs + contributors
[20:43] <knome> which they kind of are, but should not be in the governance thing
[20:43] <SiDi> especially considering that the majority of the work is not related to code in Xubuntu
[20:43] <charlie-tca> without the developers, you have nothing
[20:43] <SiDi> charlie-tca: and the developers are the GNOME + XFCE + Ubuntu + Kernel + Xorg + w/e ones
[20:43] <j1mc> knome: i think it may draw in more "developers" if we have a separate group... a mkting tool?
[20:43] <knome> charlie-tca, that's true. but really, a QA guy is not less important when it comes down to governance.
[20:43] <SiDi> Who writes code in Xubuntu? Cody, Lionel and I write patches, thats all
[20:43] <knome> j1mc, i think that has worked against us, really
[20:44] <SiDi> +1 knome
[20:44] <knome> j1mc, (having a separate dev group)
[20:44] <lmn> SiDi: How many patches and repackaging usually go into a single release?
[20:44] <charlie-tca> I agree. Developers are the only group that is required by the distribution
[20:44] <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
[20:44] <SiDi> lmn: cant say, i've only worked on a single release cycle
[20:44] <knome> charlie-tca, ^ +1 billion for SiDi
[20:44] <SiDi> but i wrote more than 50 patches
[20:44] <lmn> Hm, fair enough.
[20:45] <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)
[20:45] <j1mc> i wouldn't want to "weight" someone's opinion
[20:45] <knome> (and steve)
[20:45] <SiDi> charlie-tca: i dont think there can be a distro only with developers
[20:46] <SiDi> devs often dont see the shortcomings of their own work without support teams to fetch feedback from users
[20:46] <knome> j1mc, that was just justifying that even developers should be counted as "contributors", not a separate group
[20:46] <charlie-tca> Of course there can, that is what started xubuntu
[20:47] <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
[20:47] <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.
[20:47] <j1mc> knome: i think we disagree on this a bit, but that's ok
[20:47] <knome> j1mc, i agree with developers having certain permissions.
[20:47] <SiDi> Of course devs can start a distro as long as they also know a bit about system administration and packaging
[20:48] <knome> j1mc, but i don't agree one developer being any more important in the council than one "contributor"
[20:48] <SiDi> but a good distro also needs a documentation and support team
[20:48] <j1mc> knome: i agree w/ you on tha tpoint
[20:48] <SiDi> + some designer effort for the desktop settings
[20:48] <knome> j1mc, also, there would be no idea in letting me have push rights to universe. i'd just mess everything up.
[20:49] <knome> j1mc, developers need special permissions to be able to do their part.
[20:49] <j1mc> knome: +1 billion.  every app would have a special "unicorn" button if it were up to you.
[20:49] <knome> j1mc, ...and a pink kitten
[20:49] <j1mc> what can we agree on for now.
[20:49] <j1mc> i think we're coming to some agreement
[20:49] <knome> sure
[20:50] <j1mc> we have PL for now - mr_p  :)
[20:50] <j1mc> we know we want a council...
[20:50] <j1mc> 4 or 5 people...
[20:50] <SiDi> knome: and binary birds
[20:50] <j1mc> we know we want votes to be equal
[20:50] <knome> 5, to have a tiebreaker.
[20:50] <j1mc> but PL can over-rule
[20:50] <knome> j1mc, that's where we disagree.
[20:50] <j1mc> as tie-breaker
[20:50] <j1mc> sorry... not over-rule
[20:50] <knome> or at least haven't agreed yet
[20:50] <j1mc> bad choice of words
[20:51] <j1mc> in cases where the PL and the subject matter expert disagree - we need special considerations
[20:51] <j1mc> that have yet to be determined
[20:51] <j1mc> (not sure we can decide on formal lanague in this mtg)
[20:52] <j1mc> am i on the right track?
[20:52] <j1mc> what else can we agree on?
[20:52] <knome> j1mc, but if the council votes 3-2 for the TL (PL disagrees), wouldn't the TL's idea go through anyway?
[20:52] <j1mc> no, because then there is no tie
[20:52] <j1mc> wait... yes
[20:53] <knome> :D
[20:53] <SiDi> yes
[20:53] <j1mc> sorry, i misread
[20:53] <knome> so if there is 5 members
[20:53] <knome> and one of them is the PL
[20:53] <SiDi> PL would break the tie when there is a 2-2 (+ 1 abstention or absence)
[20:53] <knome> yes.
[20:53] <j1mc> yes
[20:53] <SiDi> but i'd prefer having the "subject expert" as a tie breaker
[20:53] <knome> i kind of have to agree with SiDi here
[20:53] <SiDi> because if he has more experience in the field hes more likely to know which decision is better
[20:54] <knome> at least if the voting is tied.
[20:54] <knome> (and there has been a vote)
[20:54] <charlie-tca> project lead should be thinking of the overall best for the project; team leader is only looking at his part
[20:54] <SiDi> charlie-tca: i think we're all looking for the best of the project
[20:54] <SiDi> and we all want to work together and have a global vision of the project
[20:54] <knome> charlie-tca, how to find out when the decision really matters for the best of the whole project?
[20:54] <knome> or when it is only about agreeing and disagreeing
[20:55] <charlie-tca> A a team leader, you want what "you" do first. As project lead, you are looking at everything
[20:55] <knome> if it's about certain artwork (eg. wallpaper), can you really say that an another WP would be better for "the project" ?
[20:56] <charlie-tca> yes
[20:56] <knome> i can't say that.
[20:56] <charlie-tca> look at Ubuntu and how many times their choices have been hated
[20:56] <j1mc> WP is certainly subjective
[20:57] <knome> charlie-tca, if i create a consistent theme for, let's say, lucid with the marketing team
[20:57] <charlie-tca> Even the karmic gdm screen is still being debated as to quality
[20:57] <knome> charlie-tca, and it includes a wallpaper, which is as well consistent
[20:57] <knome> charlie-tca, and the PL disagrees
[20:57] <raevol> this seems like a really silly thing to get stuck on, since all themed things can be changed by the user
[20:57] <knome> charlie-tca, should we change to a WP that is not consistent with the rest of the artwork?
[20:57] <SiDi> raevol: its the main point of disagreement in Xubuntu :D
[20:57] <charlie-tca> That is not what I said, knome
[20:57] <raevol> that's kind of ridiculous
[20:57] <knome> charlie-tca, that's what i meant.
[20:58] <SiDi> raevol: we usually start epic wars that involve nuclear bombing when it comes to the default wallpaper
[20:58] <raevol> and things like the login manager or media player get left on the wayside?
[20:58] <knome> raevol, we usually just agree on those.
[20:58] <SiDi> the login manager is out of our control
[20:58] <SiDi> the media player is what i've been working on in the last cycle
[20:58] <knome> charlie-tca, can you try to be more verbose on what you meant, then?
[20:59] <raevol> i'm sorry but froma  1st time user at this meeting, if all this governance drama is over wallpaper, that's really sad
[20:59] <SiDi> raevol: it was a (big) caricature from me
[21:00] <knome> [IDEA] Council of 4 or 5 members. Votes are equal, except if we need a tie-break. Who will tiebreak?
[21:00] <MootBot> IDEA received:  Council of 4 or 5 members. Votes are equal, except if we need a tie-break. Who will tiebreak?
[21:00] <knome> raevol, it's not that we only argued over wallpapers.
[21:00] <raevol> how about a council of 5 and ties are not allowed
[21:00] <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.
[21:00] <knome> raevol, these are just examples.
[21:00] <raevol> k
[21:00] <charlie-tca> The project leader should not be involved in those team projects individuallym, and will look at the whole project instead
[21:01] <knome> charlie-tca, of course. is that bad for the project, if the team leader wants the best for the project?
[21:01] <knome> charlie-tca, i mean, COME ON, has anybody really suggested anything THAT SUCKY?
[21:01] <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
[21:01] <knome> (in any team)
[21:01] <charlie-tca> The project leader shfould be able to look at all the items, to see the biggest picture
[21:02] <knome> raevol, even in a 5 member council one can be absent and then there's the possibility of having a tie.
[21:02] <SiDi> charlie-tca: then what can the project leader do apart from waiting and vetoing/distributing white cards?
[21:02] <raevol> put the vote on hold until the 5th returns?
[21:02] <knome> charlie-tca, then the project leader should not take part on any team
[21:02] <SiDi> And, more important, why would there be a single person to have a whole picture of xubuntu ?
[21:02] <knome> charlie-tca, because then he would get things in his team always pushed through anyway.
[21:02] <SiDi> raevol: the 5th can disappear. It happens
[21:03] <knome> charlie-tca, or things HE DID.
[21:03] <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?
[21:03] <knome> raevol, they can disappear completely.
[21:03] <knome> raevol, this is voluntary work.
[21:03] <charlie-tca> raevol: a vote can't wait if a decision has to be made by tomorrow
[21:03] <raevol> could you then have a time limit on absence before they are replaced?
[21:03] <SiDi> raevol: a vote can't be on hold. Deadlines are already so short
[21:03] <charlie-tca> Which does happen
[21:04] <knome> +1 on charlie-tca and SiDi
[21:04] <raevol> or perhaps each council member has a person to stand in for them?
[21:04] <SiDi> we dont even have 10 contributors :D
[21:04] <charlie-tca> Sure
[21:04] <SiDi> So we can't do that
[21:04] <charlie-tca> knome, can you be my stand in?
[21:04] <knome> do we agree that if council gets something to decide on, they should decide on the thing in the first meeting they have.
[21:05] <knome> charlie-tca, of course. especially when we disagree :P
[21:05] <charlie-tca> Thanks
[21:05] <knome> j1mc, did you fall off your chair already?
[21:05] <charlie-tca> Of course, that still leaves the council short that member, doesn't it
[21:05] <j1mc> knome: :)
[21:05] <charlie-tca> I agree the council has to decide quickly
[21:05] <knome> charlie-tca, well i think, if i was your stand in, wouldn't i have two votes?
[21:06] <charlie-tca> Yup
[21:06] <j1mc> i'm ok with 5 members... do not have a preference on how ties are situated
[21:06] <charlie-tca> One for qa and one for marketing?
[21:06] <knome> charlie-tca, my own vote and your vote, if i stand for you.
[21:06] <knome> regardless of the teams.
[21:06] <charlie-tca> Sounds right
[21:07] <knome> should we vote on team size?
[21:07] <knome> or do we just agree on five?
[21:07] <knome> eh
[21:07] <knome> council size
[21:07] <charlie-tca> Shouldn't there be a minimum number show up to have a decision made?
[21:07] <knome> (let's kick charlie-tca out, he's not a REAL developer)
[21:07] <j1mc> i think five is good
[21:07] <knome> just a joke.
[21:07]  * j1mc hugs charlie-tca 
[21:07] <j1mc> :)
[21:07]  * charlie-tca is gone
[21:07] <knome> charlie-tca, 50%+, so if the council is 5, 3 would be wnough.
[21:07]  * knome hugs charlie-tca as well :)
[21:07] <charlie-tca> right
[21:08] <SiDi> Sorry, wifi crashed
[21:08] <knome> if the council is 4, you'd still need 3 to be able to decide
[21:08] <knome> and the size would leave a possibility for more ties
[21:08] <charlie-tca> so if we get 3, 4, or 5 show up, a decision would be made at that meeting.
[21:08] <knome> charlie-tca, yes.
[21:08] <j1mc> yup
[21:08] <knome> UNLESS
[21:08] <knome> there are four people in
[21:08] <charlie-tca> no UNLESS
[21:08] <knome> but the PL is away
[21:08] <knome> then there's a tie
[21:08] <knome> and no tie-breaker
[21:08] <knome> if a TL can't tiebreak.
[21:09] <SiDi> Ok
[21:09] <charlie-tca> That may be the exception to the TL breaking the tie
[21:09] <SiDi> i propose Fair Roll Dice for ties
[21:09] <knome> then it's 2-2 but no tiebreaker.
[21:09] <knome> SiDi, fair roll dice? :F
[21:09] <SiDi> dice roll
[21:09] <SiDi> Sorry, i'm tired
[21:09] <knome> lol
[21:09] <knome> i was already wondering what a fair dice was
[21:09] <charlie-tca> knome: that does make sense. PL is a tiebreaker unless he is not there, then TL is
[21:09] <knome> (one with 6 6's?)=
[21:10] <knome> charlie-tca, well...
[21:10] <knome> charlie-tca, i can't agree on that either
[21:10] <raevol> does that mean it's agreed that PL breaks ties between TL and PL?
[21:10] <charlie-tca> okey dokey
[21:10] <knome> people could tamper with the results
[21:10] <j1mc> knome: no tampering :)
[21:10] <knome> eg. propose a meeting when the PL can't take part
[21:10] <j1mc> gaaah
[21:10] <j1mc> no
[21:10] <j1mc> not going to go there
[21:11] <knome> yes, they could do that.
[21:11] <charlie-tca> PL should never break ties between him and TL; there would only be two there then
[21:11] <knome> i could.
[21:11] <knome> i mean...
[21:11] <knome> :P
[21:11] <knome> charlie-tca, so if a vote is 2-2 with PL and TL on different sides, it's still a tiebreak?
[21:12] <knome> s/tiebreak/tie/
[21:12] <charlie-tca> PL should not have voted yet
[21:12] <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?
[21:12] <knome> so you propose a PL is not a voting member at all?
[21:12] <charlie-tca> 4 showed up, TL and two voted; no tie
[21:12] <charlie-tca> I propose the PL votes as tie-breaker only
[21:13] <SiDi> oh
[21:13] <SiDi> Then it means the PL can't vote on non-ties, thats unfair to him :D
[21:13] <knome> no.
[21:13] <j1mc> doesnt that defeat the purpose of having a PL
[21:13] <charlie-tca> He no longer has the heaviest say every time
[21:13] <knome> i disagree.
[21:13] <charlie-tca> There was no council meeting unless they disagreed, was there?
[21:13] <knome> if TL and 2 vote (1 for TL, 2 against), and the PL would have agreed with TL...
[21:14] <knome> that makes PL have so much less weight on his words
[21:14] <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?
[21:15] <j1mc> i think the PL should definitely be able to vote.
[21:15] <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.
[21:15] <knome> but if the PL didn't vote,TL would have lost.
[21:16] <j1mc> i know it's important to delineate these things, but i feel like we're splitting hairs
[21:16] <knome> this is an exaggerated example, but this REALLY shouldn't happen.
[21:16] <j1mc> if a fifth member can't make it, and there's an important issue... call them.  email them.
[21:16] <knome> so, do we agree on the council size of 5?
[21:16] <knome> j1mc, and as the last effort, fart in their nose.
[21:16] <j1mc> that's ok w/ me
[21:16] <knome> everybody else agree?
[21:17] <knome> SiDi, charlie-tca, raevol ?
[21:17] <knome> lmn, ?
[21:17] <j1mc> mr_pouit
[21:17] <lmn> Yes.
[21:17] <charlie-tca> 5
[21:17] <lmn> knome: Agreed.
[21:17] <lmn> :)
[21:17] <raevol> oh don't wait for my agreement, i'm just watching and commenting
[21:17] <knome> raevol, you can disagree as well if you feel like.
[21:17] <knome> raevol, or agree, of course :P
[21:18] <mr_pouit> yeah yeah, agree for 5
[21:18] <knome> this shouldn't be a secret club.
[21:18] <raevol> i agree
[21:18] <knome> [AGREED] Council size should be 5 members, with one of them being the Project Lead.
[21:18] <MootBot> AGREED received:  Council size should be 5 members, with one of them being the Project Lead.
[21:18] <knome> did somebody [disagree] with the latter point?
[21:18] <knome> :P
[21:18] <j1mc> no :)
[21:19] <knome> does the PL get vote in the first voting in the council?
[21:19] <knome> do we need a vote on this?
[21:19]  * charlie-tca thinks disagreeing is good for the mind
[21:19]  * knome thinks disagreeing with your mind is good.
[21:20] <lmn> knome: I disagree with my fists,.
[21:20] <lmn> jk
[21:20] <knome> i'll be back in just a few seconds, i have to go to the bathroom.
[21:20] <j1mc> i think the PL should be able to vote in all cases
[21:20] <raevol> i agree with PL voting
[21:20] <j1mc> why should the leader be penalized in the decision-making process?
[21:21]  * SiDi is half afk. Got work to do for tomorrow morning
[21:21]  * charlie-tca disagrees, but that is okay too
[21:22] <knome> SiDi, with being half at keyboard, could you cast your vote
[21:22] <SiDi> Sure
[21:22] <knome> + or - ?
[21:22] <j1mc> the council should be selected by the existing xubuntu-contributors
[21:22] <SiDi> +
[21:22] <SiDi> Launch a vote if you want me to vote :P
[21:22] <SiDi> j1mc: i agree to this too
[21:23] <knome> [AGREED] The Project Leader will have a vote in a first vote in the council, not just as a tie-breaker.
[21:23] <MootBot> AGREED received:  The Project Leader will have a vote in a first vote in the council, not just as a tie-breaker.
[21:23] <charlie-tca> +1 j1mc
[21:23] <knome> yeah.
[21:23] <knome> anybody disagree?
[21:23] <charlie-tca> what are we disagreeing on now?
[21:24] <knome> charlie-tca, you already agreed on selecting the council
[21:24] <knome> raevol, lmn ?
[21:24]  * charlie-tca seems to have gotten confused
[21:24] <knome> heh, np
[21:24] <lmn> knome: Agreed.
[21:24] <knome> i can also do [vote]s if you want
[21:24] <raevol> i agree with PL voting? that's where we are?
[21:25] <knome> [AGREED] The 4 members in the Council in addition to the Project Leader should be selected by the existing 'xubuntu-contributors'.
[21:25] <MootBot> AGREED received:  The 4 members in the Council in addition to the Project Leader should be selected by the existing 'xubuntu-contributors'.
[21:25] <raevol> i agree with that too
[21:25] <knome> okay, who will tiebreak.
[21:25] <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
[21:25] <knome> only pl or tl+pl ?
[21:25]  * SiDi thinks the person who has most contributed to w/e is being discussed should tie break
[21:26] <knome> SiDi, okay, that's valid/official enough :P
[21:26] <SiDi> whoever it is
[21:26] <knome> SiDi, only the one or he and tl?
[21:26] <knome> and in which order?
[21:26] <knome> j1mc, charlie-tca, lmn, raevol: can i have your opinions please. should team leader be able to tiebreak?
[21:27] <lmn> Hm.
[21:27] <j1mc> be able to tie break what?
[21:27] <lmn> A tie.
[21:27] <knome> j1mc, at all.
[21:27] <lmn> :P
[21:27] <charlie-tca> only when PL is absent
[21:27] <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
[21:27] <lmn> I agree with charlie.
[21:27] <j1mc> charlie-tca: i agree
[21:27] <knome> SiDi, do you agree with that as well?
[21:27] <mr_pouit> (same here)
[21:28] <knome> okay
[21:28] <knome> mr_pouit, sorry for forgetting you in the ping :P
[21:28] <knome> i think this have been decided already, and i also agree
[21:28] <lmn> He was too busy being awesome.
[21:28] <mr_pouit> I'm reading, so no problem :p
[21:29] <knome> [AGREED] The appropriate Team Lead can be the tiebreaker in a vote, but only if Project Lead is absent.
[21:29] <MootBot> AGREED received:  The appropriate Team Lead can be the tiebreaker in a vote, but only if Project Lead is absent.
[21:29] <raevol> question: should the PL be able to request that a decision be made when he can be present?
[21:29] <SiDi> knome: only the one
[21:29] <j1mc> we are talking about team leads.. but will someone will be assigned as "team lead" formally?  cody-somerville was opposed to this
[21:29] <SiDi> that makes things more straightforward
[21:30] <knome> j1mc, i think that was just an idea he threw in. at the moment we DO have team leads.
[21:30] <charlie-tca> or will each team simply send a team member to the meeting?
[21:30] <SiDi> knome: there is a consensus on the PL, so lets say PL.
[21:30] <raevol> i like the idea of council members being associated with teams
[21:30] <knome> https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/xubuntu-devel/2009-December/007225.html <- what do you think about this new team formation?
[21:31] <knome> i think people pretty much agreed on it on the list, but i'll ask again
[21:31] <knome> that would mean we'd have 4 team leads
[21:31] <knome> if one of them was the PL, we could vote a random guy in the council
[21:31] <j1mc> i don't like having the website under documentation
[21:31] <knome> like, some other contributor.
[21:32] <j1mc> mostly because i feel ill-equipped to coordinate the website, though
[21:32] <j1mc> i think website is under marketing
[21:32] <knome> j1mc, they are quite much doing the same thing
[21:32] <knome> j1mc, you would have people to help you though
[21:32] <knome> if it's under marketing, then marketing would be quite a big team
[21:33] <knome> marketing is, in that draft, already marketing+artwork
[21:33] <j1mc> well, website is both mktg and doc-related
[21:33] <knome> i think it is more about doc
[21:33] <j1mc> i need a vote from the council!  :P
[21:33] <knome> :P
[21:33] <j1mc> i disagree :P
[21:33] <charlie-tca> website has to be pretty! that's marketing, isn't it?
[21:33] <j1mc> yes :)
[21:34] <knome> charlie-tca, but it also has to have solid INFORMATION. isn't that documentation?
[21:34] <j1mc> yes :)
[21:34] <j1mc> documarketing
[21:34] <charlie-tca> I don't think information is as important as looks
[21:34] <charlie-tca> Anyone can design an ugly website, but few will go to it then
[21:34] <SiDi> It's under both
[21:34] <SiDi> Stop categorizing things so binarily :P
[21:35] <knome> what the website looks is only to be considered when we are doing a website redesign
[21:35] <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
[21:35] <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
[21:35] <charlie-tca> perhaps a fifth team: Everything else?
[21:35] <knome> practically: i upload them with drupal.
[21:35] <knome> :P
[21:35] <SiDi> charlie-tca: :D
[21:36] <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
[21:36]  * charlie-tca thinks that is all in the wording
[21:37] <knome> :)
[21:37] <charlie-tca> That's fine, Knightlust
[21:37] <charlie-tca> knome
[21:37] <knome> after all, we already "kind of" have the COMMUNITY team
[21:37] <knome> which is mentioned in the team report page
[21:37] <knome> "just put it under community"
[21:37] <knome> :P
[21:37] <knome> i've heard that a few times.
[21:38] <knome> well.
[21:38] <knome> i'm making a question:
[21:38] <charlie-tca> That's because community just fits nicely
[21:38] <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?
[21:39] <knome> if we had five teams, wouldn't that mean that (probably) all the team leaders were part of the council?
[21:39] <lmn> Sorry, apparently my session died without informing me.
[21:39] <charlie-tca> yes
[21:39] <knome> do we really need a fifth team?
[21:39] <charlie-tca> Which is what the council should be
[21:39] <knome> does everybody agree that the council should have one member from each team?
[21:39] <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.
[21:39] <knome> (do i have to make a [vote] ?)
[21:40] <knome> j1mc, i think you can have an account in the website
[21:40] <knome> i might be able to do that, actually.
[21:41] <knome> let me check
[21:41] <raevol> agreed that the council should consist of team leads, though making a 5th team or not is *shrug*
[21:41] <SiDi> lmn: dead sessions can't spea
[21:42] <knome> j1mc, yes, i can do that.
[21:43] <j1mc> i think that the council should generically be representative of the xubuntu project...
[21:43] <knome> mr_pouit, lmn, SiDi, j1mc: should council have one member from each team?
[21:43] <lmn> Hm..
[21:43] <charlie-tca> expand, j1mc
[21:43] <lmn> knome: That's a tough one.
[21:43] <j1mc> knome: i don' think it's necessary to formalize it
[21:43] <dhillon-v10> hi all :)
[21:43] <knome> j1mc, i think that a council including the current team leads would definitely do that.
[21:43] <j1mc> hi dhillon-v10
[21:43] <knome> hello dhillon-v10
[21:43] <lmn> Hi, dhillon-v10.
[21:44] <SiDi> knome: could you type the name of the current 4 teams?
[21:44] <dhillon-v10> j1mc, knome, lmn so is this a xubuntu-council meeting, nice
[21:44] <lmn> Yes. :)
[21:44] <j1mc> there may be some cases where a person is a well-respected, long-time contributor...
[21:44] <knome> SiDi, check out https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/xubuntu-devel/2009-December/007225.html
[21:44] <j1mc> but they are also part of the artwork/marketing team.
[21:44] <lmn> Well, we're figuring out what the council _is_ right now.
[21:44] <SiDi> blah, knome
[21:44] <knome> SiDi, that's my proposal
[21:44] <raevol> j1mc: that's really true
[21:44] <knome> SiDi, CURRENTLY there is more teams.
[21:45] <j1mc> so... if we have two people on the council from 1 team... that is what we have at that time.
[21:45] <SiDi> ok, imo website should go to marketing, and there is a lack of desktop team
[21:45] <j1mc> as long as they are well-respected and people think they make fair decisions, i think it's ok
[21:45] <knome> dhillon-v10, not a council meeting yet, we don't just have council yet. it's the TEAM meeting ;)
[21:45] <lmn> ^
[21:45] <knome> SiDi, i suppose desktop is under dev
[21:46] <dhillon-v10> knome, okay :) I'll sit back and watch
[21:46] <SiDi> j1mc: +1. Anyway the 5 members of the council will be part of one or more teams
[21:46] <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.
[21:46] <j1mc> SiDi: yeah
[21:46] <j1mc> knome: it may not always be possible
[21:46] <knome> dhillon-v10, feel free to vote and join the discussion as well. it's an open meeting
[21:46] <j1mc> team names may change
[21:46] <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
[21:46] <dhillon-v10> knome, thanks :)
[21:46] <raevol> knome: that would be nice, but perhaps not necessary as a requirement
[21:47] <j1mc> i'm a bit more laissez-faire about this.  if the council will be selected by the contributors...
[21:47] <knome> j1mc, okay. i can cope with that. no problem :)
[21:47] <j1mc> i think that's enough
[21:47] <knome> j1mc, yeah.
[21:47] <knome> um, i had an another question
[21:47] <knome> how long should one "season" last? how often should we have a new voting of the council?
[21:47] <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
[21:48] <knome> j1mc, that's a great wording. :)
[21:48] <j1mc> 1 year - 2 cycles?
[21:48] <knome> yeah, at least 2 cycles i think.
[21:48] <j1mc> more than that is too much, i think
[21:48] <j1mc> charlie-tca: what do you think?
[21:48] <knome> having a council for 1 cycle doesn't really make it possible to do long-term decisions
[21:48] <SiDi> I think we could do it per LTS cycle
[21:48] <knome> SiDi, that's quite rarely.
[21:48] <SiDi> to be able to decide on very long term projects
[21:49] <charlie-tca> I am having issues just following this now
[21:49] <j1mc> charlie-tca: ok
[21:49]  * SiDi is about to have to go, because of school tomorrow, by the way
[21:49] <knome> maybe the council should be able to do "very long term decisions" which last over the council's age
[21:49] <j1mc> do we agree that we don't need to have "one person from each team on the council"?
[21:49] <knome> j1mc, yes.
[21:49] <raevol> j1mc: yes
[21:49] <j1mc> anyone disagree with that?
[21:49] <lmn> yes
[21:49] <lmn> er
[21:49] <lmn> no
[21:49] <lmn> :P
[21:50] <lmn> I agree.
[21:50] <lmn> :)
[21:50] <knome> and that the "very long term" decisions could be overruled but only by a council vote
[21:50] <j1mc> lmn: sorry... :)  i changed the yes/no o nyou
[21:50] <lmn> hehe
[21:50] <lmn> ;)
[21:50] <knome> [AGREED] The council should *aim* to have balanced membership across the different aspects/teams of Xubuntu.
[21:50] <MootBot> AGREED received:  The council should *aim* to have balanced membership across the different aspects/teams of Xubuntu.
[21:50] <SiDi> knome: fair enough
[21:51] <raevol> knome put in a clause about it not being necessary, just so it's clear to future people
[21:51] <knome> j1mc, ? what do you think of the very long term stuff?
[21:51] <knome> raevol, "should aim" means it's not mandatory.
[21:51] <j1mc> charlie-tca: our next point was to consider how long people should be on the council?
[21:51] <raevol> knome: i forsee someone trying to make "should aim" into a necessary thing ;)
[21:52] <knome> raevol, then reconsider rephrasing it at that time
[21:52] <knome> or just kick his/her ass
[21:52] <j1mc> appts for the ubuntu community council are made for 2 years
[21:52] <raevol> hahaha
[21:52] <knome> j1mc, i agree with you that it's a long time.
[21:52] <charlie-tca> You ;can define terms later, "should does not mean will" kind of things
[21:53] <j1mc> technical board members are elected for two years, too
[21:53] <charlie-tca> 2 years being 4 cycles?
[21:53] <j1mc> i think that's a long time for us... charlie-tca year... 4 cycles
[21:53] <knome> charlie-tca, i think we need to have some kind of guideline as for now, so voting members again will happen.
[21:53] <raevol> i've gotta run guys, will meeting notes end up on the mailing list?
[21:53] <j1mc> raevol: sure
[21:53] <knome> yeah, 4 cycles/2 yrs  is a LONG time.
[21:53] <raevol> kk, bye, good luck!
[21:54] <charlie-tca> LTS is every two years, what if the council is elected before each LTS phase begins
[21:54] <mr_pouit> s/before/after/
[21:54] <charlie-tca> after works for me
[21:54] <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.
[21:54] <j1mc> i see that as being a long time, but i think it would lend continuity to the project
[21:55] <mr_pouit> (setting up a new council during a lts cycle looks a bit counterproductive)
[21:55] <charlie-tca> For continuity and being able to accomplish much, 2 years is about right
[21:55] <knome> i don't completely disagree with that either.
[21:55] <charlie-tca> Setting up the new council after lts hits beta?
[21:56] <dhillon-v10> yah 2 years seems just about right IMHO
[21:56] <knome> what bout set it when lts is released?
[21:56] <charlie-tca> It could take 6 months just to get settled each time
[21:56] <j1mc> and it ensures that we don't get unexpected turnover right before an LTS
[21:56] <charlie-tca> okay
[21:56] <knome> should i make a [vote] ?
[21:56] <j1mc> not yet
[21:56] <knome> okay.
[21:57] <knome> i'm waiting for what you have to say :)
[21:57] <j1mc> so using lucid as an example...
[21:57] <charlie-tca> 2 years only sounds long, maybe word it to 4 releases
[21:57] <j1mc> if we used this process...
[21:57] <j1mc> we would have voted after the close of karmic?
[21:57] <knome> j1mc, after close of lucid.
[21:58] <charlie-tca> If it is before LTS, yes
[21:58] <charlie-tca> If it after, when lucid releases
[21:58] <knome> i think definitely AFTER an lts release
[21:58] <j1mc> i would want the council to have had a good amount of experience together in advance of an LTS.
[21:58] <knome> j1mc, exactly.
[21:58] <charlie-tca> We picked them after hardy ( 2008) and ;again after lucid (2010)
[21:58] <knome> that's why we would name the council right after the earlier lts
[21:58] <j1mc> so we shouldn't introduce a new council to xubuntu immediately in advance of an LTS
[21:59] <j1mc> knome: agreed.  charlie-tca: agreed, too.
[21:59] <j1mc> that makes sense
[21:59] <knome> so that means we are agreeing with the 2 year term as well?
[21:59] <j1mc> knome: now i think a vote would be ok. :)  yeah, i am ok with that.
[21:59] <charlie-tca> We don't want leadership changes before/during the LTS release, if we can help it.
[22:00] <knome> charlie-tca, yeah. exactly.
[22:00] <knome> does anybody disagree on the two year term or the time naming the new council (just after lts release) ?
[22:00] <j1mc> i am ok with that
[22:01] <knome> j1mc, i heard that. i'm waiting for mr_pouit ;)
[22:01] <mr_pouit> yeah, I'm ok too :p
[22:01] <lmn> ;)
[22:01] <knome> okay.
[22:01] <knome> anybody else?
[22:01] <lmn> Agreed.
[22:01] <knome> okay
[22:01] <SiDi> knome: i agree with changing council after LTS
[22:02] <charlie-tca> I have to propose that any more discussion be tabled at this point. We are two hours in now
[22:02] <knome> [AGREED] The council should be named/selected after every LTS release. Thus, every season lasts for 2 years.
[22:02] <MootBot> AGREED received:  The council should be named/selected after every LTS release. Thus, every season lasts for 2 years.
[22:02] <charlie-tca> Hold another meetint next week or in two weeks.
[22:02] <knome> kind of disagree.
[22:02] <knome> :P
[22:02] <lmn> I agree.
[22:03] <j1mc> what else needs to be decided?
[22:03] <j1mc> can we at least confirm that?
[22:03] <knome> let me see
[22:03] <knome> there was at least something
[22:03] <lmn> 2 hours of council discussion has killed my enthusiasm, tbh.
[22:03] <knome> oh, the new teams
[22:03] <knome> [ACTION] Discuss about the new team structure in the next meeting.
[22:03] <MootBot> ACTION received:  Discuss about the new team structure in the next meeting.
[22:04] <knome> umm...
[22:04] <knome> we still haven't fought about the lucid wallpaper
[22:04] <j1mc> knome: nooo.
[22:04] <charlie-tca> make it light
[22:04] <j1mc> lmn: i know this is not fun
[22:04] <knome> :)
[22:04] <charlie-tca> well, medium
[22:04] <knome> well, just to inform you all
[22:04] <lmn> knome: Just grab an 800x600 polaroid of George W Bush. I'm sure we'd all enjoy that.
[22:04] <j1mc> but getting this out of the way is helpful.
[22:05] <j1mc> we won't have to deal w/ it again
[22:05] <lmn> True.
[22:05] <charlie-tca> knome: you want me to send you an "everybody else" monitor?
[22:05] <knome> Michael (NCommander) says he is going to pause his involvement with Xubuntu for now; ENOTIME.
[22:05] <knome> charlie-tca, haha :D
[22:06] <knome> so we'll be one short for lucid/lucid+1 at least, i think
[22:06] <knome> j1mc, where was our agenda again?
[22:06] <j1mc> wiki.ubuntu.com/Xubuntu/Meetings
[22:07] <knome> j1mc, did you have some quick words about xfce 4.8+lucid?
[22:08] <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
[22:09] <knome> mr_pouit, ?
[22:09] <charlie-tca> What kind of final date is there for 4.8 to be out?
[22:09] <j1mc> cody and i talked about it at uds a little... he came up with a date around alpha 3, i think.
[22:09] <j1mc> i'll have to look at my notes.
[22:09] <knome> j1mc, will you do that now or later?
[22:09] <mr_pouit> I don't think it'll be ready
[22:10] <mr_pouit> so I would prefer to wait for lucid+1
[22:10] <knome> i doubt it as well, but IF...
[22:10] <knome> maybe that would be better
[22:10] <knome> even though i'd really like to see 4.8 in lucid
[22:10] <knome> escpecially if it has a menu editor
[22:10] <knome> >:|
[22:11] <SiDi> Good night to everyone. If my opinion is needed I let Pasi vote instead of me
[22:11] <knome> SiDi, i doubt we'll vote today. good night :)
[22:11] <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"
[22:11] <knome> beta 11? :P
[22:11] <SiDi> charlie-tca: 4.8 should be out in 1st of April if my memory doesnt betray me
[22:11] <j1mc> beta 1
[22:11] <j1mc> sorry
[22:11] <knome> when is beta 1?
[22:12] <SiDi> beta 1 is in March 1st
[22:12] <charlie-tca> Seems a little tight to get it into lucid
[22:12] <mr_pouit> alpha 3 is after feature freeze, too late
[22:12] <knome> beta 1 is march 18th
[22:12] <charlie-tca> PL has spoken
[22:12] <knome> according to https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LucidReleaseSchedule
[22:12] <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
[22:12] <charlie-tca> :-)
[22:12] <SiDi> Now, good night everyone! :D
[22:13] <mr_pouit> SiDi: that's in progress
[22:13] <mr_pouit> I've already included all patches from the xfce-4.6 branch in xfdesktop4 today for instance
[22:13] <knome> so shall we go with 4.6?
[22:13] <j1mc> mr_pouit: would we be able to get the new thunar into lucid?
[22:14] <j1mc> even if we went w/4.6?
[22:14] <mr_pouit> it depends on xfce 4.8 components
[22:14] <mr_pouit> (such as libxfce4ui)
[22:14] <j1mc> yeah
[22:14] <mr_pouit> and exo 0.6
[22:15] <mr_pouit> they aren't "stable" at the moment
[22:15] <mr_pouit> so I would prefer not to include it
[22:15] <j1mc> with dapper... xubuntu was released w/ xfce 4.3.9.xx or something
[22:15] <mr_pouit> yeah, and xfce folks were really unhappy
[22:16] <mr_pouit> because they received bugs reports about outdated development releases
[22:16] <knome> hmm
[22:16] <charlie-tca> We are looking at keeping 4.6.? until 2013?
[22:16] <mr_pouit> moreover, thunar gio might create issues with other components not ported yet
[22:17] <mr_pouit> (such as xfdesktop4)
[22:17] <lmn> charlie-tca: Yeah, that means listening to gui menu editing questions until 2013.
[22:17] <lmn> heh heh
[22:17] <knome> ugh
[22:17] <charlie-tca> and complaints about it being out of date, too
[22:17] <lmn> This is a loaded problem.
[22:17] <lmn> REAL loaded.
[22:18] <knome> wasn't there a guy who was crating an xfce-suitable version of alacarte?
[22:18] <knome> :?
[22:18] <j1mc> we could go with 4.6, and put 4.8 in a ppa.
[22:19] <lmn> j1mc: I don't see that going over well.
[22:19] <j1mc> well... at least we can begin to identify the issues/possible problems now.
[22:19] <j1mc> and then make a decision as we see how 4.8 is progressing.
[22:20] <j1mc> they may not have things done until june.
[22:20] <j1mc> never know. :)
[22:20] <j1mc> or july.
[22:20] <knome> [ACTION] Continue looking how 4.8 is progressing and possible include it in Lucid.
[22:20] <MootBot> ACTION received:  Continue looking how 4.8 is progressing and possible include it in Lucid.
[22:20] <knome> any team reports?
[22:21] <charlie-tca> mr_pouit has done great triaging and fixing bugs
[22:21] <j1mc> i've written new docs for xfce4-screenshooter in "mallard," a new doc syntax from the gnome team.
[22:21] <knome> [TOPIC] Team reports
[22:21] <MootBot> New Topic:  Team reports
[22:21] <j1mc> jeromeg likes them
[22:21] <knome> [ACTION] Lionel had done great traging and fixing bugs.
[22:21] <MootBot> ACTION received:  Lionel had done great traging and fixing bugs.
[22:22] <knome> [ACTION] Jim has written new docs for xfce4-screenshooter in "Mallard" (jeromeg likes them).
[22:22] <MootBot> ACTION received:  Jim has written new docs for xfce4-screenshooter in "Mallard" (jeromeg likes them).
[22:22] <j1mc> heh
[22:22] <mr_pouit> (some topics for the marketing & artwork team: ubiquity slideshow & plymouth theme ;p)
[22:23] <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.
[22:23] <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.
[22:23] <knome> mr_pouit, is plymouth in lucid?
[22:24] <mr_pouit> yes, although I don't know if it works :)
[22:24] <j1mc> they confirmed at UDS that they would be using plymouth + xplash for the boot sequence
[22:25] <knome> [ACTION] Artwork team to look on Plymouth and plan on creating a theme.
[22:25] <MootBot> ACTION received:  Artwork team to look on Plymouth and plan on creating a theme.
[22:25] <j1mc> i'm going to be recruiting for xubuntu and xfce doc help.
[22:25] <charlie-tca> shimmer project needs to lighten the panels in lucid
[22:25] <j1mc> both are separate projects
[22:25] <knome> j1mc, you decided to have two projects after all?
[22:26] <j1mc> knome: xubuntu docs will continue to be done in docbook for now.
[22:26] <j1mc> so, es
[22:26] <knome> [ACTION] Jim is working on and recruiting for both the Xubuntu and Xfce documentation.
[22:26] <MootBot> ACTION received:  Jim is working on and recruiting for both the Xubuntu and Xfce documentation.
[22:26] <knome> charlie-tca, did you file a bug?
[22:26] <j1mc> s/es/yes
[22:26] <knome> j1mc, okay
[22:26] <charlie-tca> knome: not yet
[22:27] <knome> [ACTION] Charlie files bugs about Albatross accessibility issues so the artwork guys can work on them.
[22:27] <MootBot> ACTION received:  Charlie files bugs about Albatross accessibility issues so the artwork guys can work on them.
[22:27] <mr_pouit> https://launchpad.net/distros/ubuntu/+spec/ubiquity-slideshow for ubiquity also
[22:28] <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
[22:28] <knome> [ACTION] Marketing team to look after Ubiquity slideshows.
[22:28] <MootBot> ACTION received:  Marketing team to look after Ubiquity slideshows.
[22:28] <knome> [LINK] https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/ubiquity-slideshow
[22:28] <MootBot> LINK received:  https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/ubiquity-slideshow
[22:29] <knome> mr_pouit, i can see that and discuss with people knowing more about it
[22:29] <mr_pouit> ok
[22:29] <j1mc> knome: we'll also need CSS for the Xubuntu docs
[22:30] <mr_pouit> do you think you can have a first version before feature freeze? knome
[22:30] <mr_pouit> (feb 18th)
[22:30] <knome> [ACTION] Pasi and Jim continue theming the Xubuntu documentation.
[22:30] <MootBot> ACTION received:  Pasi and Jim continue theming the Xubuntu documentation.
[22:31] <dhillon-v10> j1mc, I'll help with system docs too, if needed :)
[22:31] <j1mc> dhillon-v10: excellent
[22:31] <knome> mr_pouit, that's possible, but i think i need some help to achieve/make that daye
[22:31] <knome> *date
[22:31] <knome> so, anything else we should cover now or in the next meeting?
[22:32] <j1mc> everyone, i need to go, but i wanted to THANK YOU for your time.  :)
[22:32] <j1mc> this was the best xubuntu meeting ever.
[22:32] <knome> thank you jim.
[22:32] <mr_pouit> knome: okay, I can take care of the packaging stuff, etc, but not of the text inside the slides :p
[22:32] <knome> i'll put up the meeting minutes and the logs and stuff
[22:32] <j1mc> knome: i can help with the text for the slides
[22:32] <knome> mr_pouit, thanks. :) j1mc can work on the texts
[22:32] <knome> hehe
[22:32] <knome> great
[22:32] <knome> maybe we'll be ready for FF then
[22:33] <knome> #endmeeting
[22:33] <MootBot> Meeting finished at 16:33.
[22:33] <mr_pouit> :)
[22:33] <knome> gah
[22:33] <j1mc> :-D
[22:33] <j1mc> hehe
[22:33]  * knome slaps himself in the face
[22:33] <charlie-tca> gotta go now
[22:33] <knome> okay, see you charlie-tca
[22:33] <j1mc> later, charlie-tca