[13:33] <duanedesign> hello BTians
[13:43] <duanedesign> CCD/7
[17:17] <fabchampion> test
[19:59] <soren> o/
[19:59]  * stgraber waves
[19:59]  * geser waves too
[20:01] <stgraber> cjwatson, persia, cody-somerville: ping
[20:01] <cody-somerville> I'm here
[20:03] <cjwatson> hi, almost forgot about this meeting
[20:04] <geser> should we start?
[20:05] <cjwatson> please
[20:05] <stgraber> we have quorum and it's 5min past meeting time, so I think we can start, others can join later
[20:05] <geser> #startmeeting
[20:05] <MootBot> Meeting started at 14:05. The chair is geser.
[20:05] <MootBot> Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
[20:05] <geser> [LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DeveloperMembershipBoard/Agenda
[20:05] <MootBot> LINK received:  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DeveloperMembershipBoard/Agenda
[20:05] <geser> [TOPIC] Review of previous action items
[20:06] <MootBot> New Topic:  Review of previous action items
[20:06] <geser> * Cody Somerville to send e-mail requesting feedback from developers on Marco Rodrigues application to participate in Ubuntu Development.
[20:06] <geser> cody-somerville: did you write that mail?
[20:06] <cody-somerville> I didn't get around to doing this. I meant to ask a few other board members for advice on how to best word the e-mail.
[20:07] <cody-somerville> I'm not overly familiar with the original incident so it might even be best for someone else to take the action item from me.
[20:08] <cjwatson> I'm not particularly familiar with it either
[20:08]  * stgraber neither
[20:09] <geser> so that leaves only soren, persia and me
[20:11] <geser> but I have no idea what to write in that e-mail
[20:13] <cody-somerville> I nominate persia ;)
[20:13] <geser> I'm not sure how to move forward as we need more feedback from developers but on the other hand Marco is forbidden to contribute to development
[20:14] <cjwatson> didn't we discuss this in the last meeting?
[20:15] <geser> yes, but I don't remember if we had a plan to move forward besides ask for more feedback
[20:15] <cjwatson> if we don't ask, we'll never know
[20:16] <cjwatson> my thesis in the last meeting is that Marco has been contributing to enough things that are related to Ubuntu (most notably Debian) that there ought to be some developers who've had meaningful interactions with him recently
[20:17] <ScottK> I can guarantee there will be some that respond "No, he's caused enough trouble before, not worth the risk".
[20:17] <cjwatson> I know - I do feel obligated to gather wide feedback though.
[20:17] <ScottK> Sure.
[20:18] <cody-somerville> I have to admit that I'm not a big fan of publicly calling attention to someone for their previously negative behavior.
[20:18] <ari-tczew> I think that we should give chance for Marco R.
[20:19] <geser> cody-somerville: should we use LP feature to mail all ubuntu-dev members asking for feedback/opionions instead?
[20:19] <ScottK> That would suffer from an unfortunate lack of transparency.
[20:20] <cjwatson> I would rather get honest feedback, which I hope people can trust the DMB to summarise accurately, than have people not want to express honest opinions because they're worried about giving negative feedback in public
[20:21] <ari-tczew> you want to get more feedback. I would like give a feedback, but I'm not familiar with work this guy.
[20:21] <ScottK> ari-tczew: Then you aren't really in a position to give feedback, are you?
[20:22] <geser> I could write an e-mail to ubuntu-devel(?) asking for feedback/opionions and set reply-to to the DMB list
[20:22] <cody-somerville> I also want to makes sure we do the Right Thing (TM) here and set a precedent that we'll be happy to follow in the future for similar cases.
[20:22] <ari-tczew> ScottK: I want to tell, that you should (I'm nobody important) give chance him. then he can show his improvement.
[20:23]  * soren just got off the phone... catching up
[20:23] <cjwatson> ari-tczew: the original "please don't contribute here any more" mail from the MOTU Council gave very specific requirements which must be met.  One of those was positive advocacy from developers working with him.
[20:23] <cjwatson> ari-tczew: we're not asking for general feedback here; we're seeking to give him a chance to meet that specific requirement.
[20:24] <ari-tczew> cjwatson: ok, so I'm quite right now. :]
[20:24] <ari-tczew> s/quite/quiet
[20:24] <cjwatson> (https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-motu/2008-January/003067.html)
[20:25] <geser> so we are looking for MOTUs who volunteer to work together with Marco to be able to judge if he changed?
[20:25] <stgraber> geser: +1 on sending to ubuntu-devel with Reply-To to dmb, also indicating that answers will be kept private and that DMB will make a summary of the feedback received
[20:27] <ari-tczew> geser: let's ask coolbhavi for this one. he propably is interested in sponsoring.
[20:28] <cody-somerville> hmmm
[20:28] <cjwatson> ari-tczew: currently, Marco is barred from contributing through sponsors, FYI
[20:28] <cjwatson> again, please see the logs of the last meeting, where there was discussion of this point
[20:29] <cody-somerville> Reading the statement from the MOTU again, I don't see any stipulation that the MOTU supporting his wish to come back have to have any experience working with him directly.
[20:29] <cjwatson> stgraber's plan looks good to me
[20:30] <geser> cody-somerville: would you comment on someone who you didn't work with?
[20:30] <cjwatson> I'm disappointed that we're basically going over old ground here
[20:30] <cody-somerville> It isn't asking for that. It asks for MOTUs to actively support the wish
[20:31] <cjwatson> cody-somerville: I can support that interpretation, but let's issue a call for feedback and get it over with
[20:31]  * soren approves of stgraber's plan, too
[20:31] <cjwatson> if we don't put a specific requirement in the mail that the MOTUs in question have worked with Marco, we can then assess the strength of the feedback when it comes back
[20:32] <geser> should we also ask Marco for a list of MOTUs supporting him (as required by the decision) instead of looking for them ourselves?
[20:33] <cody-somerville> I'm happy to get it over with but I do have reservations about a general call for feedback. It may make it more difficult for Marco to try and participate in the Ubuntu community as folks who don't know him may form an unfounded opinion of him based.
[20:33] <geser> (of course we can do both)
[20:33] <cody-somerville> based on googling up his name or what not after getting the e-mail.
[20:33] <cody-somerville> I think a general call for feedback may be unnecessarily embarrassing.
[20:34] <cjwatson> geser: Marco would probably (reasonably) argue that he'd attempted to provide that in his application
[20:35] <cjwatson> cody-somerville: if we're not willing to issue a call, then we should just say that we don't feel the support he's amassed in his application meets the bar of "active support", given our discussions last week
[20:36] <cody-somerville> I'm happy to support Marco's application to this board for an appeal of his ban based on the spirit of the Ubuntu project and duration of the time that has past since his ban.
[20:36] <cjwatson> given that the DMB members didn't on the whole seem to find the endorsements overwhelming, as I understood it?
[20:36] <cody-somerville> Which would leave the board to decide his application based on the second requirement " A solid indication of changes in the work style."
[20:37] <cjwatson> or let me put it differently: if we aren't willing to issue a call for feedback, we should get off the pot and vote :-)
[20:37] <cjwatson> (I ought not to prejudge the outcome)
[20:38] <cjwatson> We could also, if desired, vote separately on a probationary period, as Cody suggested last week.
[20:39] <geser> please tell me if I should start a vote
[20:39] <stgraber> I'd really prefer getting more feedback (as suggested before) and based on that vote on 1) letting him contribute again 2) probationary period (and if so, how long) 3) keeping the ban
[20:40] <cody-somerville> I'd like to table this again. I'd prefer Marco at least have an opportunity to address the board before we vote.
[20:40] <stgraber> though maybe we can vote on whether or not to ask for more feedback on the list
[20:40] <stgraber> cody-somerville: should we have to vote without further feedback, I'd also like to hear from him before we vote
[20:41] <cjwatson> we already voted last week to issue a call for feedback from developers
[20:41] <cjwatson> why vote on that again?
[20:41] <cody-somerville> May I also suggest that we seek input from the CC and TB on how to proceed with this? I think this is the first time any council in Ubuntu has had to consider something like this and it would be nice to set a precedent that the TB and CC are happy with.
[20:42] <stgraber> oops, sorry, memory issue ;) /me should re-read last meeting's log ;)
[20:42] <cjwatson> not that I'm biased as a TB member, but I think the CC is better-qualified for this kind of thing
[20:42] <cjwatson> (and I think that would be appropriate, yes)
[20:43] <geser> so everyone agree that we should contact CC for help?
[20:45] <cjwatson> I do, and I also think we should carry out the results of our previous vote on calling for feedback.  I don't currently see how to resolve that with Cody's objection expressed today.
[20:46] <stgraber> I also agree with contacting the CC
[20:48] <cjwatson> how can we move this forward?  we're nearly 50 minutes in
[20:48] <geser> [ACTION] geser to contact the CC asking for help with Marco's appeal
[20:48] <MootBot> ACTION received:  geser to contact the CC asking for help with Marco's appeal
[20:49] <cody-somerville> Lets table the action and move on. We can discuss it further on mailing list.
[20:49] <cjwatson> Looks like we have to now.
[20:49] <geser> if nobody objects let's move to the next topic
[20:51] <geser> [TOPIC] MOTU application: Felix Geyer
[20:51] <MootBot> New Topic:  MOTU application: Felix Geyer
[20:51] <geser> [LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/FelixGeyer/MOTUApplication
[20:51] <MootBot> LINK received:  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/FelixGeyer/MOTUApplication
[20:51] <cjwatson> gosh, what a lot of endorsements.
[20:51] <geser> debfx: are you here?
[20:52] <debfx> hi :)
[20:53] <stgraber> lots of very good endorsements
[20:53] <cody-somerville> indeed
[20:54]  * ajmitch would endorse based on virtualbox alone :)
[20:55] <cody-somerville> debfx, How and when did you get involved with Ubuntu?
[20:55] <geser> looks like this is an easier topic than the previous one :)
[20:55] <stgraber> geser: definitely :)
[20:56] <debfx> cody-somerville: I submitted some patches for the virtualbox package, I think it was in early 2009
[20:57] <cody-somerville> I'm ready to vote.
[20:57] <stgraber> me too
[20:57]  * soren too
[20:58] <cjwatson> yep
[20:58] <geser> [VOTE] Should Felix Geyer (debfx) become a MOTU?
[20:58] <MootBot> Please vote on:  Should Felix Geyer (debfx) become a MOTU?.
[20:58] <MootBot> Public votes can be registered by saying +1/-1/+0 in the channel, private votes by messaging the channel followed by +1/-1/+0  to MootBot
[20:58] <MootBot> E.g. /msg MootBot +1 #ubuntu-meeting
[20:58] <cjwatson> +1 # most complete application I've seen all year
[20:58] <MootBot> +1 received from cjwatson. 1 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 1
[20:58] <geser> +1
[20:58] <MootBot> +1 received from geser. 2 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 2
[20:58] <cody-somerville> +1
[20:58] <MootBot> +1 received from cody-somerville. 3 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 3
[20:59] <stgraber> +1 based on plenty of very good testimonials + extremely complete application
[20:59] <MootBot> +1 received from stgraber. 4 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 4
[20:59] <geser> soren: ?
[20:59] <soren> +1
[20:59] <MootBot> +1 received from soren. 5 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 5
[21:00] <geser> [ENDVOTE]
[21:00] <MootBot> Final result is 5 for, 0 against. 0 abstained. Total: 5
[21:00] <soren> Sorry, fell asleep waiting for the vote start :)
[21:00] <stgraber> that was an easy one ;)
[21:00] <stgraber> congrats debfx
[21:00] <debfx> stgraber: thanks :)
[21:01] <geser> ok, who wants to be the next chair?
[21:02] <stgraber> depends exactly when is next meeting I guess. If I'm not wrong, it's going to be at UDS at 8am on the Monday
[21:02] <geser> I'm not mistaken the next one should be Oct 25th, 12 UTC
[21:03] <soren> So you agree. Good :)
[21:03] <soren> (12 UTC being 8 AM UDS time)
[21:03] <geser> or do plan to skip the next one due to UDS?
[21:04]  * cjwatson won't be unjetlagged yet by Monday, so 8am is doable for me
[21:04] <soren> I'm not sure. I'll be attending UDS, but may be commuting in at that time.
[21:05] <stgraber> It's the same timezone for me and I'll have been in Orlando for quite a few days by then anyway, so it should be doable for me too
[21:05] <stgraber> we just need to see if we will have quorum or not, depending on who'll be traveling at the time (as most of DMB will be in Orlando I guess)
[21:06] <stgraber> the first session is at 10am, so we should be fine having DMB, breakfast and then go to the intro session
[21:06]  * geser isn't at UDS and doesn't have time at 12 UTC anyways
[21:08] <stgraber> ok, so let's keep it at the scheduled time and date and I'm fine chairing that one
[21:08] <geser> anything else before I close the meeting?
[21:09] <ajmitch> what happened with the call for nominations for the DMB?
[21:09] <geser> ajmitch: buried in cjwatson's TODO
[21:09] <cjwatson> I have been trying to hand it off
[21:09] <ajmitch> aha, which was a little less important than the release :)
[21:09] <cjwatson> in fact I thought geser had taken it ...?
[21:10] <geser> cjwatson: I could if I would know how to setup the voting (or who to ask about it)
[21:11] <cjwatson> if you're trying to do it in Launchpad, ask #launchpad for help
[21:11] <ScottK> Please be trying to do it with CIVS.
[21:11] <cjwatson> if you're trying to do it the way we did the vote that instituted the DMB, I believe that was done using http://www.cs.cornell.edu/andru/civs.html
[21:11] <cjwatson> ScottK: I was getting there :)
[21:12] <geser> cjwatson: that's the first question already: if LP or CIVS
[21:12] <stgraber> CIVS would be nice
[21:13] <cjwatson> let's do CIVS
[21:13] <geser> ok, I try to setup a CIVS poll
[21:14] <geser> anything else?
[21:15] <stgraber> nope
[21:15] <geser> #endmeeting
[21:15] <MootBot> Meeting finished at 15:15.