=== Resistance is now known as EvilResistance
=== bulldog98_ is now known as bulldog98
JackseenHi all iam new bee to this board04:11
=== smb` is now known as smb
=== dholbach_ is now known as dholbach
=== Guest62597 is now known as Zic
=== cjwatson_ is now known as cjwatson
=== doko_ is now known as doko
=== huats_ is now known as huats
=== ScottK2 is now known as ScottK
* cielak is away: Busy/Away12:46
=== yofel_ is now known as yofel
=== EvilResistance is now known as Resistance
dholbach(but I will have to leave early)17:00
Gwaihirdholbach, no problem17:01
GwaihirI should be chairing today if nobody wants to replace me :-P17:01
* ScottK is here for the Kubuntu Council catchup.17:01
* ScottK has to go a bit early too, so it'd be nice if it could be moved up on the agenda.17:02
czajkowskiGwaihir: no you're ok :) you do a great job17:02
* soaringsky is here for the support definition thing17:02
Gwaihirthanks czajkowski :-)17:02
Gwaihirso, lets get rolling17:02
meetingology`Meeting started Thu May  3 17:02:42 2012 UTC.  The chair is Gwaihir. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology.17:02
meetingology`Available commands: #accept #accepted #action #agree #agreed #chair #commands #endmeeting #endvote #halp #help #idea #info #link #lurk #meetingname #meetingtopic #nick #progress #rejected #replay #restrictlogs #save #startmeeting #subtopic #topic #unchair #undo #unlurk #vote #voters #votesrequired17:02
Gwaihir#topic Community Council Meeting - Agenda at: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CommunityCouncilAgenda17:02
=== meetingology` changed the topic of #ubuntu-meeting to: Community Council Meeting - Agenda at: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CommunityCouncilAgenda
YokoZarCatchups are usually first17:03
Gwaihirhello everyone!17:03
Gwaihirwelcome to this Community Council meeting!17:03
Gwaihiragenda for this meeting can be found here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CommunityCouncilAgenda17:03
Gwaihirso, first thing on the list is catch-up with the Tech Board17:04
YokoZardid we end up with two catchups in one day then?17:04
Gwaihirdo we have somebody here? or we can move up the Kubuntu catch-up since ScottK has to leave early17:04
dholbachGwaihir, if we don't have anyone from the TB available yet, we could move up the Kubuntu Coucil as Scott.... yes17:04
ScottKAny questions for me to start?17:05
* dholbach is clearly typing too slowly after 2 UOW sessions17:05
pleia2ScottK: we're actually not sure why the Kubuntu Council was added to the schedule17:05
Gwaihir#subtopic Kubuntu Council catch-up17:05
ScottKI'm glad it was.17:05
czajkowskiScottK: well Kubuntu has been already so wondered was there sometjhing up ?17:05
sabdflhello all17:06
ScottKWe're still working through the issues associated with the changed level of Canonical sponsorship/commerical support.17:06
ScottKIt all seems to be going reasonably well after discussions within the community about what the changes mean/don't mean.17:06
ScottKIt does seem that we're likely to rename ourselves in order to avoid any potential for trademark issues and potential additional sponsors.17:07
ScottKRiddell (who's not available right now) asked me to let you know about that.17:07
pleia2has Kubuntu approached Canonical about the trademark issues?17:07
dholbachScottK, do you already have updates about discussion bits which are definite and clear?17:08
ScottKWe don't intend to change anything about being a community focused KDE flavor in Ubuntu.17:08
sabdflTrademark issues haven't been escalated to me17:09
sabdflmy guidance has been to be flexible, to ask for a contribution to core costs, but otherwise not to make trademark a blocker17:09
sabdflbut i'm not sure where any request would have been sent, and if the person who received it is aware of that guidance17:10
sabdflScottK, if you can tell me where the issue was raised, i can close that loop17:10
ScottKRiddell or I can email you the details if you'd like.17:10
ScottKHe was the one doing the contacting, so best from him I think.17:10
ScottKWe do want to be very clear that if we do change the name, it's just a label plate change.  It doesn't change anything about what we think Kubuntu is/will be.17:11
beunoScottK, and I'm guessing there's a strong preference to keep the current name?17:11
ScottKThere are mixed feelings.17:12
beunoScottK, care to expand a bit?17:12
ScottKThere are some negative associations with the current name outside Ubuntu.17:12
ScottKPersonally, I'd prefer to keep it.17:12
beunoScottK, negative because of the *buntu part?17:13
ScottKThe largest issue is a perception of being controlled by Canonical and not community run.17:13
beunoor historic reasons of the project?17:13
ScottKSome historic reasons, but mostly perceptions about control.17:13
pleia2all the flavors suffer from this17:13
sabdfl"suffer" in the sense of being the most popular way to get that experience?17:14
sabdflis there a more popular way to get KDE? or XFCE? or LXDE?17:14
beunoScottK, do you think there's a way minimise the concerns there?17:14
pleia2well, Xubuntu got a lot of questions about "Canonical dropping support for us too" when the kubuntu news came out17:14
pleia2it was quite confusing to a lot of folks17:14
ScottKbeuno: I think over time things have improved.17:14
beunoit sounds like if nothing's going to change in the project itself, departing from the name sends mixed messages17:15
sabdfli would have concerns about use of ubuntu infrastructure by a project that was NOT associated17:15
ScottKWe intend to be just as associated as we are now.17:15
cprofitt+1 beuno I think changing the name would only strengthen the 'thought' that Canonical controls Ubuntu, Xubuntu, etc.17:15
beunoScottK, if the trademark issue is sorted out and everything else is transparent, maybe that would be enough?17:16
beunoI mean, some people will never be happy17:16
ScottKIf trademark weren't an issue, there wouldn't be a discussion about renaming.17:17
beunoScottK, ok, so besides sabdfl taking this on, what else can we do to help?17:17
ScottKI don't think anything.17:18
ScottKWe wanted to make you aware of it though.17:18
DarkwingI'd like to point out that Russell and I have a meeting on Monday afternoon with canonical about this.17:18
ScottKOh, you are here.17:18
* ScottK thought he was the only one around.17:18
dholbachApart from lacking some definite answers right now, are there any other pressing concerns in the Kubuntu world you can think of?17:19
ScottKIt's a bit of a brave new world for us, but we'll manage it.17:19
beunoScottK, it's awesome that more companies stepped up to sponsor17:19
DarkwingI just arrived... I'm mobile so I don't have my PC with me.17:20
beunoI was thrilled to see more commercial support out there ready to step in17:20
pleia2beuno: +117:20
ScottKDarkwing: We're going to email the status of the trademark situation to sabdfl after the meeting is where we stand (where we is Riddell or you).17:20
czajkowskiScottK: Darkwing thank you for keeping everyone up to date on the matter though17:21
Darkwingit'll have to be Russell... I'm on my phone.17:21
Gwaihirany other questions for the Kubuntu council?17:21
Darkwingdang it17:21
beunoDarkwing, auto correct is really stubborn, huh?17:22
dholbachScottK, Darkwing, Thanks a lot for bringing this up and thanks for trying to communicate all of this clearly to the Ubuntu community17:22
GwaihirScottK, Darkwing, thanks for bringing this forward to this meeting17:22
Gwaihirif there are no other questions we can move to the next topic17:22
Gwaihir#subtopic Tech Board catch-up17:23
Gwaihirany tech board members here today?17:23
Gwaihirafter my email today, did somebody had the chance to ping them on IRC?17:24
dholbachcjwatson, kees, pitti, mdz, soren, stgraber: ping17:24
YokoZarSorry, 20 minute-long netsplit there :/17:24
Gwaihirdholbach, do we know if the are already in Oakland?17:25
dholbachno idea I'm afraid17:25
Gwaihirok, I think we can move to the next topic and maybe resume it later17:26
Gwaihirsoaringsky, are you around?17:26
dholbachat UDS we are going to set up a new meet up schedule for Q - we might as well make sure we move the TB to the top of it17:26
soaringskyGwaihir: yep17:26
cjwatsonsorry, what?  I didn't see any mail from you17:26
stgraberI don't remember receiving a reminder for this meeting17:27
Gwaihircjwatson, might be in the queue then... sent it to the tech board mailing list17:27
cjwatsonat least three of us will be in Oakland, possibly more17:27
stgraberI know I saw something about it a while ago on the wiki17:27
YokoZarok then17:28
sabdfli saw it in email but that might have been the CC copy17:28
sabdfllet's bump TB to next CC meeting if they're amenable, it was very short notice17:28
cjwatsonGwaihir: I've moderated your message; we'll see it in a bit, I guess17:28
sabdflor in-person if we can get it at UDS17:28
sabdfl*very* short notice :)17:28
Gwaihircjwatson, thanks, shame on me, could have sent individual emails17:29
Gwaihirsabdfl, ok to move if forward17:29
Gwaihirapologies guys17:29
Gwaihirwe have the CCv2 review, and the "Defining support"17:30
cjwatsonmy list moderation has been slowed by listadmin hating me, but there you go17:30
Gwaihirin order lets take the "CCv2 review" for now17:30
Gwaihir#subtopic Code Of Conduct v2 feedback review17:30
Gwaihirczajkowski, has done a great work merging the feedback we received here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/czajkowski/CoCFeedback17:31
cprofittI sent out a suggested change to the Decisiveness has value in itself section... it is on the CC mailing list17:32
paultagWell, firstly (on this topic) I'd like to say sorry to anyone who found my comments out of line - I agree they were out of line. I'll be here (and civil) to talk about this topic :)17:32
cprofittthanks paultag17:33
pleia2thanks paultag17:33
dholbachdo we want to go through the commentary one by one?17:34
Gwaihirthat can take time...17:35
dholbachany other thoughts?17:35
czajkowskifirstly thanks to all those who sent in feedback17:36
YokoZarI think it's pretty clear the "Deciciveness has value in itself" paragraph is very problematic and needs a rewrite17:36
dholbachI sent my thoughts to the CC mailing list already, as I might have to leave in a bit17:36
pleia2do we want to just collect more community feedback here at the meeting and then pick this up at UDS?17:36
paultagYokoZar: I agree.17:36
maco(is this about the CoC rewrite?)17:36
YokoZarpleia2: that I agree with17:36
paultagmaco: yep17:36
pleia2maco: yep17:36
Gwaihirpleia2, +117:36
greg-gYokoZar: I agree with that as well (re: it needs a rewrite in the Deciciveness section)17:36
Laneycan we discuss what you're trying to do with the CoC?17:36
beunothat's a good idea, Laney17:37
cprofitthere is the re-write for Decisiveness -- Wiki style so others can see it17:37
beunoLaney, part of it is to merge in the leadership CoC with the CoC17:37
cprofittLaney: the initial motivation was to merge leadership CoC with the CoC due to the inability to sign the leadership CoC... limitations of Launchpad17:37
cprofittwith the two merged there was also a desire to clean up the language and update it to reflect the current state of the project17:38
dholbachand it being a bit hard to find the LCoC if you don't know of its existence17:38
greg-gcprofitt: that last sentence is slightly problematic. If I disagree with a decision I don't want to be forced to bring it up with the governance structure.17:38
dholbachon top of that some other edits had happened since the last update (addition of a diversity statement and other bits)17:38
paultaggreg-g: I would agree17:38
pleia2it's also to address some of the abuse that decision makers in Ubuntu have had to deal with over some decisions they have been put into a position to make17:38
sabdflgreg-g, what would you see as reasonable alternatives when you disagree with a decision?17:38
pleia2(the decisiveness section)17:39
cprofittgreg-g: how should someone raise a question about a decision then?17:39
greg-gsabdfl: that I can voice my disagreement anywhere I choose as long as I abide by the other sections of the CoC17:39
paultagcprofitt: people should feel free to resolve issues among themselves, and bring the solution up17:39
sabdfl * be part of teams that are clearly going to take decisions you are likely to be particularly interested in17:39
greg-gcprofitt: they are of course FREE TO CHOOSE to go to a governance body, but I don't want that to be forced on anyone17:39
sabdfl  - i.e. if you care about kubuntu governance, step up to the council etc17:39
cprofittgreg-g: hmm...17:39
sabdfl * pay attention to community lists and conversations and blogs17:39
Laneywell, not everyone is in the position to get onto every team17:40
greg-gthat sentence is an if..then17:40
macoA friend of mine who was interested in getting involved but after an interaction in an Ubuntu channel the other day expressed concern to me that the "be respectful" paragraph's wording allows for someone to claim offense at being accused of sexism and thereby having their sexism supported by the CoC while the person who was offended by the sexism is told to be nicer about their offendedness.17:40
maco(she's not so much interested in ubuntu anymore)17:40
dholbachLaney, maybe rather "participate" than "join"17:40
macoi'm pretty sure pleia2 knows who i mean17:40
sabdfl    - don't show up after a long conversation that lead to a decision and expect to restart the conversation17:40
pleia2maco :(17:40
sabdfl * accept that no one person can weigh in on every issue, and no issue should require everyone to weigh in on it to get a good decision17:40
sabdfl * accept that a big, fast moving community will have to make a lot of decisions, and nobody will agree with all of them17:41
YokoZarsabdfl: surely we can revisit decisions we made years ago given new information, though17:41
cprofittgreg-g: I see value in discussion as long as it is done in the spirit of moving the project forward... I question the value if it is just there to complain or to distract17:41
sabdfl * help structure the community to make sure the right people are in place to take relevant decisions17:41
sabdfl   -> encourage good people to lead, to participate17:41
YokoZarsabdfl: especially since lots of decisions we make are for reasons that may no longer apply (like no-longer-existent technical limitations)17:41
sabdfl * support those who have stepped up, when they have to take decisions17:41
cprofittI am not sure how to word that... we value discussion and disagreement... but not negativity for the sake of being negative.17:41
sabdfl  -> recognise that anybody who HAS gotten into a leadership position, or any team doing the work, is better suited to their decisions than anybody else17:42
YokoZarsabdfl: it seems rather broad (and frankly a bit like wishful thinking) to just say that we make authoritative decisions and then everyone should be good with it from now on17:42
sabdfl * recognise that decisions which are deferred indefinitely are enormously destructive17:42
greg-gcprofitt: Would my dent/tweet from earlier this week violate this rule? I said that I am a foresaken citizen because I use gnome-shell and a choice was made to modify a package to support Unity keyboard shortcuts that breaks them in gnome-shell. That decision was made but I disagree with it. I didn't go to my local governance board first.17:42
sabdfl   - the big thing we do better than some other community distros is simple: we take decisions17:42
paultagkeep in mind this is for both private and public interactions17:42
cprofittgreg-g: I think it is different to prefer Gnome Shell vs. 'complain' about Unity17:43
dholbachgreg-g, you could just file a bug report17:43
sabdfl  - it takes guts to make those decisions, when you have to, it's understandable you might have to justify them to those who support you further up the governance chain17:43
greg-gdholbach: it was, and I linked to it17:43
paultagcprofitt: saying I don't think Unity should be the default offhand counts as a CoC violation as is17:43
sabdfl - but it's not OK to have everyone in the community feel they have a right to beat you up for being there and doing the work17:43
cprofittpaultag: I see that possible interpretation... not sure that is the intent17:43
YokoZarsabdfl: taking decisions doesn't mean you impose on all contributors the requirement to agree to all decisions (especially _your_ fiat ones) in EVERY forum of conversation17:43
sabdfl - as a community, if we let people beat up leaders, we will end up with no leaders17:43
greg-gdholbach: also, is filing a bug report that disagrees with a choice (where there is no obvious right answre) a violation?17:43
paultagcprofitt: so we need to fix the letter of the coc17:44
sabdflgreg-g, when you disagree with a decision, what would you see as appropriate options?17:44
ScottKThe current draft (as I looked at it a few days ago) reads to me that one is not allowed to disagree at all except through higher governance bodies.17:44
cprofittI think we do not mind people taking a position that is different... but in a respectful way17:44
ScottKThat is very much too restrictive.17:44
cprofittpaultag: if we remove the last sentence from my draft that would be ok?17:44
soaringskycprofitt: +117:44
ScottKI have military experience and not even they are do dismissive of questioning.17:44
YokoZarsabdfl: surely not forfeiting all conversation about it in even casual media17:44
sabdflgreg-g, how will voicing disagreement to a decision which has been made, and supported up the governance chain, strengthen our ability to execute that decision?17:45
cjwatsonWe do need to draw a line between beating up leaders and requiring everyone to be yes-men17:45
greg-gsabdfl: I have a choice to engage with the decision makers at appropriate times (ie: what you listed above) but I also have the right to complain (yes, complain, voice dissent, voice disagreement, whatever you want to call it) publicly without first going to a governance body17:45
paultagcprofitt: I've not read it, I'm in a work meeting, but I can check later17:45
cprofittpaultag: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/cprofitt/Co17:45
cprofittpaultag: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/cprofitt/CoC17:45
greg-gsabdfl: it isn't about strengthing the ability to execute a decision, that is neigher here nor there, it is about the freedom to voice disagreement. If I can't voice disagreement then I am not able to communicate, period.17:45
paultaggreg-g: I agree in so many ways17:46
cprofittsabdfl: I think greg-g and paultag are not talking about executing the decision, but reversing it... at times that does have value... Rhythmbox vs. Banshee17:46
paultagI would never block the implementation17:46
beunogreg-g, well, that paragraph *is* about strengthing the ability to execute a decision17:46
sabdflLaney, anybody who shows commitment and competence can get any role in ubuntu17:46
greg-gcprofitt: not taling about any which way, I'm just tlaking about voicing my disagreement17:46
sabdflmaco, i'm still trying to parse that17:46
beunomaybe it's too restrictive17:46
cprofittunderstand now greg-g17:46
YokoZarSimply put, we will inevitably lose an awful lot of credibility if Ubuntu members aren't permitted to complain about Ubuntu just as much as the general public when we make bad decisions.  Hell as this reads those blog posts I made complaining about the window controls on planet-ubuntu would be seen counter to the CoC.  That's NOT cool.17:46
ScottKI think it's quite reasonable, when faced with a decision I disagree with to say, "I see you decided  foo.  I'm not sure that's right.  Did you consdier bar when making the decison?"17:46
greg-gScottK: exactly.17:47
ScottKThere are respectful and disrespectful ways to address post-decision angst.17:47
paultagthat would never block the technical implementation17:47
sabdflmaco, i *think* that any two people who got into a debate like that would be asked, politely, to stop17:47
greg-gThis doesn't mean I can say "you all are idiots!" that is a violation of other sections of the CoC, of course17:47
paultagand I don't think respectful disgagreement would block technical changes after decided17:47
dholbachto me it seems like some assume that this is an edict or new law - whereas I see it as an attempt to frame how we want to work together and recognise that leadership is hard and that making decisions if you wish to listen to feedback endlessly is impossible - I don't see the majority of our discussion culture (mailing lists, RFCs, bug reports, etc) change at all17:47
ScottKI think the disrespectful ones are already against the CoC.17:47
sabdflYokoZar, it's not possible to impose a requirement that people agree with everything17:47
sabdflthis is not a brainwashing exercise17:47
greg-gjust that we can't voice that disagreement17:47
paultagScottK: right, exactly17:47
sabdflit's about recognising that a strong community supports moving forward even when there are things they don't agree with17:47
cjwatsonThere's a grave danger in isolating leaders from any criticism at all, in that they will start to take bad decisions because people never tell them they're wrong17:47
YokoZarsabdfl: it sounds like you would if you could here though, so you're going for the next best thing and asking them to be quiet about made decisions17:47
beunogreg-g, the spirit, i think, is more about finding a healthier way of channeling disagreements17:48
beunonot silencing them17:48
sabdflit's not as though i would walk away from the CC even though we have disagreed, individually, occasionally, right?17:48
greg-gI apologize, I have a very important call to run in 10 minutes17:48
beunothe wording is going to be tricky17:48
cprofittI fully appreciate the fact that respectful disagreement should be allowed...17:48
macowould it be correct to assume the current discussion about decisions relates to some things i was involved with last year?17:48
Gwaihirgreg-g, could you send us or Laura your concerns and comments?17:48
YokoZarsabdfl: What infuriates me (and I think others) about the current language is it seems like it even applies to the sorts of decisions that we frankly make very poorly17:48
greg-gbeuno: right, so say: "When we disagree we do so civily and do not impede the progress of a decision. If issues are unsurmountable, we go to the councils"17:48
sabdflScottK, the language should not say "not allowed to disagree", it should say we find endless bickering and re-hashing destructive and distasteful17:48
cprofittI think we are really concerned about disagreement that is outside that or that causes a project to get 'blocked'17:48
Laneysabdfl: I see that, but not everybody has the inclination, skill or time to be a governor. It sounded like you were saying that the only way to influence a decision (after it is made?) is to become a leader, which is quite onerous imho.17:49
ScottKsabdfl: I agree with that.  I don't think the current language does that.17:49
paultagnot to mention burnout, Laney17:49
YokoZarThere have been downright arbitrary decisions in this project, either due to lack of time, information, or consequence.  Only the latter can be considered bikeshedding.17:49
cprofittwe are growing short on time though... would it be acceptable to have a UDS session on this topic?17:49
sabdflgreg-g, sure, drawing attention to an issue is fine of course17:49
sabdflfor a start, it may bring other opinions to the table that shed new light17:50
greg-gsabdfl: then I think we're in an odd agreement ;)17:50
cjwatson"do not expect to delay, debate or discuss any decision after the fact, except through escalation to a more senior governance body" - some kind of insertion of "endlessly" there would help, or something17:50
LaneyI think the paragraph needs to be made less prescriptive.17:50
sabdflwhat this is aiming to do is shine a light on an anti-pattern where a single issue festers17:50
beunogreg-g, yeah, I don't think there's a contraversty here, it's just hard to find the right wording17:50
paultagcjwatson: in the end, talking about it is fine, so long as no one blocks the implementation17:50
greg-gbeuno: /me nods17:50
paultagcjwatson: I don't think keeping the conversation going is a bad thing17:50
greg-galright, gotta run, sorry for leaving early, work calls :)17:50
cjwatsonFWIW, for decisions I take, I'd actually rather people came to me with their disagreement in the first instance, rather than taking it over my head to a governance body17:50
paultagthere's always next cycle17:50
LaneyIf you want to get a decision revisited, do this. We don't want endless discussions, and leaders are free to ignore them.17:50
greg-gthanks for the discussion, everyone17:51
cjwatsonthe latter is a far more hostile and toxic thing to do to start with17:51
ScottKIf I were writing it, I'd put the burden on the decision maker to say "We've discussed enough, please see $GOVERNING_BODY if you can't accept the decision."17:51
YokoZarI'm not fully convinced single issue festering is a substantial problem.  If people are complaining about active decisions about as much as obvious bugs then perhaps the decisions were just as big of a problem.17:51
LaneyIf we're moving on, I'd like to look at the penultimate paragarph.17:51
LaneyI didn't notice that when reading before for some reason.17:51
sabdflLaney, no, not a governor, a participant. a contributor.17:52
* cielak is back (gone 05:05:25)17:52
sabdflwhat is destructive in other communities, and occasionally in ours, is where a team does a LOT of work and is then told "omg this is controversial"17:52
Laneysabdfl: fine. You said something like "step up to the Kubuntu council" which sounds like "if you want to influence a decision, get on the board".17:52
sabdflthen the discussion rages until it's basically moot because the world has moved on17:52
sabdflusually, in the direction the folks on point decided to go anyway17:52
paultagsabdfl: so long as they're not blocking the technical implementation, talking about it's not bad17:52
Gwaihirwe are running short on time, we schedule an UDS session to discuss about this17:53
ScottKsabdfl: So instead of saying no discussion after the fact, make it explicit that the decider can direct further discussion at the relevant governing board if people aren't satisfied.17:53
sabdflYokoZar, i doubt anybody feels like they have taken arbitrary decisions. they may seem that way to you, but then, yours might seem that way to me, yet I still find it worthwhile to support you, and them.17:53
beunoScottK, +117:53
ScottKThat would, I think answer your point without causing the problems people are concerned about.17:53
Gwaihirif everybody could please send us or to one of us all the comments or concerns they have, that would be great, we will collect them and add to our agenda17:54
sabdflcjwatson, i thought the language expressly encouraged what you prefer: raising issues with the team concerned first17:54
sabdfl"  We expect participants in Ubuntu to resolve disagreements17:55
sabdfl  constructively. When they cannot, we escalate the matter to17:55
sabdfl  structures with designated leaders to arbitrate and provide clarity17:55
sabdfl  and direction.17:55
ScottKParts of it do that, but the one sentence we've been focused on  prohibits it.17:55
czajkowskiI have created a session to discuss this at uds http://summit.ubuntu.com/uds-q/meeting/20662/community-council-code-of-conduct-review/  as know people are leaving for other meetings/work17:55
cjwatsonsabdfl: it kind of contradicts itself a bit, I think.  I don't disagree with the apparent intent, seems to be a wording problem17:55
cjwatsonI often take an arbitrary decision if it simply doesn't seem to matter17:55
sabdflright, looks like decisiveness showed up twice17:55
cjwatsonIt's valuable for people to come along and say "hang on, I actually cared about that"17:55
sabdfli will do a round to tighten up based on cprofitts proposal17:55
* ScottK is out of time.17:56
sabdflcjwatson, sure, we're in perfect agreement on that17:56
czajkowskiif anyone has any other feedback you can mail me czajkowski@ubuntu.com and I'll add it to the wiki for discussion at uds17:56
sabdflwhat matters is how they do that ("hang on, I actually cared about that" on IRC to you, vs "this is ridiculous" as a blog on planet.ubuntu.com)17:56
cprofittI think the core is to avoid stagnatiion due to disagreement... avoid the villification of leaders who made a difficult choice... and allow open conversations that are meaningful and respectful17:56
sabdfland also whether they accept that there is a reasonable limit to the time we should allocate to that review17:56
sabdfland that the appropriate process, if they don't get satisfaction, is to take it up the chain17:57
sabdfland that if your call has the support of, say, the platform leads, and the tech board, and the CC, that it stands17:57
sabdfland we should move on17:57
sabdfland they will be great contributors if they say "ok, I'll help" rather than getting rude about it17:57
sabdflthat's all we're shooting for here17:57
cjwatsonI'd also say that we shouldn't be making it cumbersome to talk about less contentious things for the sake of solving problems that show up in a small number of very controversial cases17:57
sabdflof course17:58
YokoZarcjwatson: right, we definitely do have arbitrary decisions.  Inconsequential ones are obviously there, but so are ones that do matter but it's simply not obvious to the decider that it does.  Avoiding discussion of that is...strange.17:58
cjwatsonsolving the former problem should solve the latter as well]17:58
sabdflwhatever language we settle on here, it's mainly for dealing with the hard / controversial decisions17:58
Gwaihirwe have only a coupe of minutes left17:58
cprofitt+1 sabdfl17:58
dholbachI will have to run in a bit as well, but I sent my thoughts on the other comments to the list - maybe some of us can get together tomorrow and try to fix some of the wording in one or the other case17:59
Gwaihirdholbach, thanks17:59
cprofittthis is not an easy thing to word out folks... and I truly appreciate everyone's input... it is your willingness to engage in a meaningful and thoughtful discussion that builds Ubuntu as a community17:59
GwaihirI think we should collect everything for the session at UDS and bring forward the discussion there18:00
cprofitt+1 Gwaihir18:00
sabdflthanks folks, please excuse me, i'll propose a diff to CC based on cproffitt's language18:00
sabdflcprofitt, even18:00
Gwaihirthanks sabdfl18:01
cprofittthanks sabdfl18:01
czajkowskiok I've to head off also here18:01
Gwaihirthe  other topic (Defninig Support) should be postponed to the next meeting, sorry soaringsky18:01
soaringskyGwaihir: ok18:01
pleia2thanks everyone18:01
dholbachthanks everyone18:02
Gwaihiradmin stuff to do...18:02
cprofittthanks everyone!!18:02
Gwaihirwho is going to chair next time?18:02
czajkowskiGwaihir: I will to give you a break18:02
Gwaihirmeetings minutes and agenda18:02
Gwaihirthanks czajkowski :-)18:02
beunoUDS is next week18:02
beunoI'm guessing that will happen in-person?18:02
Gwaihir#action czajkowski to chair next time18:02
meetingology`ACTION: czajkowski to chair next time18:02
* beuno will not be at UDS18:03
Gwaihirbeuno, next public meeting should be in 2 weeks18:03
Gwaihirwho can take care of the wiki?18:03
Gwaihirok, I updated the wiki for next meeting (time and topics)18:04
Gwaihir#action Gwaihir update the wiki for next meeting18:04
meetingology`ACTION: Gwaihir update the wiki for next meeting18:04
pleia2meeting minutes?18:04
Gwaihircprofitt, pleia2, beuno fancy creating the IRC logs?18:04
Gwaihirpleia2, up to that?18:05
pleia2I always do them (except last time dholbach did!)18:05
* beuno is burried in work atm18:05
pleia2logs are just a link, I can add that to the team report18:05
pleia2but if someone else could do minutes that'd be great18:05
dholbachI'll do it18:05
dholbachbut I've got to run18:05
dholbachsee you18:05
pleia2thanks :)18:05
dholbacham late already18:05
Gwaihirthanks dholbach, ciao!18:05
pleia2Gwaihir: can you follow up with the tech board to see about them coming next meeting?18:06
Gwaihir#action dholbach to create minutes18:06
meetingology`ACTION: dholbach to create minutes18:06
Gwaihirpleia2, sure, no problem18:06
pleia2I think we're set the n:)18:06
Gwaihir#action Gwaihir to follow up with the tech board for nect catch-up18:06
meetingology`ACTION: Gwaihir to follow up with the tech board for nect catch-up18:06
Gwaihirthanks all for coming, and see you next week for who will be at UDS!18:06
Gwaihirhave a nice day!18:07
=== meetingology` changed the topic of #ubuntu-meeting to: Ubuntu Meeting Grounds | Calendar/Scheduled meetings: http://fridge.ubuntu.com/calendar | Logs: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MeetingLogs | Meetingology documentation: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology
meetingology`Meeting ended Thu May  3 18:07:10 2012 UTC.18:07
meetingology`Minutes (wiki):        http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2012/ubuntu-meeting.2012-05-03-17.02.moin.txt18:07
meetingology`Minutes (html):        http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2012/ubuntu-meeting.2012-05-03-17.02.html18:07
=== lifeless_ is now known as lifeless
=== Resistance is now known as EvilResistance
=== Cees_ is now known as cees
=== cees is now known as Cees
AlanBellbeuno: pleia2: czajkowski: YokoZar: hullo I am making an IRCC blog and adding it to the planet, I think I have to inform the CC of new team blogs or something, so consider yourselves informed :)20:39
beunoAlanBell, ack!20:40
pleia2thanks AlanBell20:40

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!