[03:34] <Emerling> please i need mootobot or meetingology  bot in #ubuntu-ve channel How i can put  in #ubuntu-ve channel??
[03:34] <Emerling> exquisme my English
[03:39] <n0rman> Emerling: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology
[03:40] <n0rman> Emerling: and http://ubottu.com/
[03:42] <Emerling> thanks n0rman
[03:43] <Emerling> i see,. i reading meetingology  wiki but no see how put into my  loco team channel
[03:43] <tumbleweed> ask meetingology's owner
[03:44] <n0rman> Emerling: in the sencond page, you need to go to #ubuntu-irc
[03:44] <Emerling> ok
[03:45] <Emerling> thnaks
[17:08] <czajkowski> pleia2: beuno ping
[17:08] <beuno> czajkowski, on an interview call, sorry  :(
[17:08]  * pleia2 waves
[17:08] <czajkowski> just trying to round up folks for the CC meeting
[17:08] <czajkowski> only 2 of us?
[17:08] <czajkowski> hmmm
[17:08] <czajkowski> less than good
[17:09] <mdz> cjwatson and I are around for the TB catch-up
[17:09] <pleia2> great
[17:10] <czajkowski> ok just you and me pleia2
[17:10] <czajkowski> #startmeeting
[17:10] <meetingology> Meeting started Thu May 17 17:10:26 2012 UTC.  The chair is czajkowski. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology.
[17:10] <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 #votesrequired
[17:10] <pleia2> week after UDS is always hard
[17:10] <czajkowski> #link https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CommunityCouncilAgendatodays agenda
[17:10] <czajkowski> #topic TB Catch up
[17:11] <pleia2> #link https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CommunityCouncilAgenda
[17:11] <pleia2> (just cleaning up the link for minutes :))
[17:11] <czajkowski> mdz: cjwatson thanks for coming along
[17:11] <czajkowski> pleia2: thank you
[17:12] <pleia2> mdz, cjohnston, this is just a quick status check, how are things doing? any concerns?
[17:13] <mdz> pleia2, there are a few things worth discussing I think
[17:13] <mdz> first the administrative
[17:13] <mdz> we seem to have had quite some difficulty scheduling meetings lately
[17:14] <pleia2> oops, s/cjohnston/cjwatson
[17:14] <mdz> not with attendance per se, but with people having different ideas of when the meeting was scheduled
[17:14] <mdz> due to there being multiple resources for that
[17:14] <pleia2> yeah, so there is the wiki, fridge calendar
[17:14] <czajkowski> mdz: nods, always hard.
[17:14] <mdz> there's also a Canonical calendar
[17:15] <czajkowski> mdz: could the person who's due to chair send out a a day before reminder so people remember to turn up?
[17:15] <mdz> and sometimes any two of them may disagree, and it's frustrating for folks who have adapted their schedules to attend meetings in the evenings etc.
[17:15] <mdz> czajkowski, yes, but that just creates one MORE place where the meeting time is recorded :-)
[17:15] <pleia2> since the TB isn't all Canonical, and we want to encourage community to see what happens at these meetings, should probably make sure wiki and fridge agree and go with that as the canonical calendar (er, little "c" canonical :))
[17:15] <mdz> is it the time in the email? or what the calendar says?
[17:16] <mdz> I wondered what other teams are doing, and whether we could simplify to only ONE authoritative schedule
[17:16] <mdz> whether that's the fridge calendar, or something else
[17:16] <mdz> and remove the others so there's no misunderstanding
[17:16] <pleia2> yeah
[17:16] <mdz> historically, this was problematic for various reasons
[17:16] <pleia2> fridge is what the community largely uses
[17:16] <mdz> e.g. google calendar losing its mind on DST changes
[17:17] <mdz> or the right people not having access to change it
[17:17] <cjwatson> I'm in principle here, but may have to leave at mid-meeting as I'm approaching EOD
[17:17] <pleia2> I'd suggest adding the time as reykjavik, iceland - always UTC, no DST
[17:17]  * stgraber waves (in the middle of something but on IRC if needed)
[17:17] <cjwatson> the other people in this case was me not moderating list mail until late, but that was just a screw-up, I did at least barely remember in time
[17:17] <cjwatson> s/people/problem/
[17:18] <czajkowski> mdz: possibly just the fridge and then if people want to add an ical feed for their own use fine, but the fridge would always be right
[17:18] <cjwatson> I think just the fridge is fine as long as we agree; didn't that use to be synced from google calendar?
[17:18] <pleia2> fridge is a google calendar
[17:19] <mdz> according to https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Fridge/Calendar the recommended approach is to create the event on your own calendar, and invite the fridge to it
[17:19] <pleia2> and if any changes are ever needed and don't show up, you just swing by #ubuntu-news and give us a nudge
[17:19] <pleia2> mdz: yeah, you can also ask the news team directly to add stuff
[17:19] <mdz> OK, I'll do that then
[17:19] <pleia2> great
[17:20] <mdz> second topic is a small governance thing
[17:20] <mdz> I'm listed as the "chair" of the TB, and have been since approximately the dawn of time
[17:20] <mdz> but AFAIK that role is completely undefined, and I don't think it exists in practice
[17:21] <cjwatson> in practice we rotate chairship from meeting to meeting
[17:21] <mdz> in terms of the meeting chair, yes
[17:21] <mdz> and I don't think there's a need for any other kind of chair
[17:21] <mdz> all of the members of the TB are (should be) in equal standing
[17:21] <czajkowski> nods
[17:21] <czajkowski> that's how I saw it at least from the outside
[17:22] <mdz> how would we go about making that official?
[17:22] <pleia2> on the CC the Chair is responsible for tie-breaking
[17:22] <cjwatson> Where's that documented for the TB?  Just the wiki and maybe a copy on the website?
[17:22] <pleia2> I think there is a wiki page somewhere outlining this, but I'm having trouble finding it
[17:23] <cjwatson> I believe our official tie-break procedure is to invoke sabdfl; I can't recall ever needing it
[17:23] <czajkowski> pleia2: ah I assumed on the CC as we rotate the chair, it was equal standing only sabdfl had tie-breaking
[17:23] <mdz> cjwatson, yes and yes
[17:23] <pleia2> czajkowski: that's meeting chair, this is full council chair (sabdfl is ours)
[17:23] <mdz> I don't think it has happened once in practice in 8 years
[17:24] <mdz> cjwatson, website for sure
[17:24] <czajkowski> pleia2: ahh ok, this is where the term chair should possibly be defined then tbh, as chair has always been rotated on all boards with equal standing except CC which has mark as chair chair
[17:24] <pleia2> mdz: sabdfl likes the idea of chairs, so I think we might want to defer this for feedback from him too (he may have a clearer picture or remember where we documented the role)
[17:24] <cjwatson> We used to be closer to it when we were responsible for developer approval, but with the odd exception most other matters that come to us seem to be relatively consensual at least among the board
[17:24] <mdz> I don't think it's causing any problem per se, but it seemed like a rough edge worth reviewing
[17:25] <mdz> pleia2, if it's to be an official role, it should be elected
[17:25] <pleia2> czajkowski: in theory membership boards have "chair" or "secretary" as well, who is also responsible for making sure the stuff gets done (team reports, meetings happen)
[17:25] <cjwatson> back in Oxford in 2004 I'm sure I remember an explicit idea that Mark would break ties on the CC and TB
[17:25] <mdz> cjwatson, that matches my recollection
[17:25] <cjwatson> The notion drifted for a while because Mark also sat directly on both
[17:26] <pleia2> ok, so I think we want to determine what the role is supposed to be, and then take the conversation from there
[17:26] <cjwatson> Then he decided he wanted to step down from a direct seat on the TB, but I don't think that ever superseded his general benevolent-dictator role
[17:27] <pleia2> ah
[17:27] <mdz> pleia2, so that's a CC action then?
[17:27] <pleia2> yeah, I'll take it
[17:27] <pleia2> czajkowski: action me to look into definition of chair on these boards and follow up with CC and TB?
[17:27] <czajkowski> #action pleia2 to start a thread on the role of a chair on boards
[17:27] <meetingology> ACTION: pleia2 to start a thread on the role of a chair on boards
[17:27] <mdz> thanks
[17:27] <pleia2> thanks :D
[17:28] <czajkowski> pleia2: np sorry in 2 meetings at once :)
[17:28] <czajkowski> any other comments from the TB members?
[17:28] <mdz> in general, the various descriptions of the TB's role feel dated these days
[17:29] <mdz> they talk about library versions and feature goals and so on
[17:29] <mdz> and don't really capture that, at the scale Ubuntu operates at today, the TB isn't involved day to day in any routine decision making
[17:30] <mdz> the de facto scope of the TB is to offer assistance in exceptional cases
[17:30] <czajkowski> mdz: would it be an idea for the board to update the description and mail the CC afterwards for review?
[17:30] <mdz> for example, if a team needs specific technical advice, or is having trouble reaching a consensus
[17:30] <cjwatson> gah, we didn't get rid of all that library versions stuff?  I thought we nuked that from our own description a while back
[17:31] <mdz> cjwatson, it's still on http://www.ubuntu.com/project/about-ubuntu/governance
[17:31] <mdz> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/TechnicalBoard is a little less specific but still doesn't describe the present scope very well IMO
[17:31] <cjwatson> grumble.  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/TechnicalBoard is marginally better but could still use improvement.
[17:31] <mdz> czajkowski, we could do that
[17:32] <pleia2> it doesn't strictly need our review, but we can offer feedback if needed
[17:32] <mdz> does that content belong on the website or on the wiki? it should only be in one place
[17:32] <mdz> I think for most teams, it's in the wiki
[17:32] <pleia2> the trouble with ubuntu.com is it requires a ticket and follow-up, it takes a while, so we want to make the website docs as simplified as possible
[17:32] <mdz> but the CC, TB and SABDFL also have (redundant?) content on the website
[17:33] <pleia2> yeah :\
[17:33] <pleia2> that has never been coordinated very well, I don't know who writes the content for the website or who they work with in the community
[17:33] <mdz> heh, it even says that the TB meetings alternate with CC, which I don't think is particularly accurate
[17:34] <mdz> pleia2, if you could let us know where the verbage should go, I can take a stab at writing it
[17:34] <pleia2> mdz: I'd say update the wiki and then we'll worry about the website
[17:34] <cjwatson> I think the last time we talked about this I pared down the website content to be just our headline description; I should have gone further and made it a link
[17:34] <mdz> ok
[17:34] <pleia2> cjwatson: yeah
[17:35] <pleia2> czajkowski: can you action mdz to update TB docs?
[17:35] <mdz> those are the things which came to mind for me
[17:35] <mdz> pleia2, I've got it
[17:35] <czajkowski> #action mdz update the TB docs
[17:35] <pleia2> thanks
[17:35] <meetingology> ACTION: mdz update the TB docs
[17:35] <mdz> we'll track it as a TB action
[17:35] <pleia2> great
[17:36] <mdz> cjwatson, anything else?
[17:37] <mdz> czajkowski, pleia2, is this the kind of thing you were looking for in the catch-up? this is the first one I've participated in
[17:37] <pleia2> mdz: yep! thanks for coming
[17:37] <czajkowski> mdz: yes thanks
[17:37] <mdz> the email mentioned "reviewing team reports together"
[17:37] <czajkowski> always nice to see how other boards are doing
[17:37] <czajkowski> mdz: indeed some boards do a monthly team report
[17:38] <pleia2> mdz: just under "might" cover :)
[17:38] <mdz> we used to do that, but AFAIK it was never more than a concatenation of the meeting minutes
[17:38] <mdz> do you want to look at those and let us know if you have any questions?
[17:38] <cjwatson> I fill in the TeamReports thing when I remember, which gets automatically concatenated
[17:38] <cjwatson> We have been extremely quiet of late, in general; not much stuff has come to us
[17:38] <czajkowski> nofd
[17:38] <pleia2> the benefit of team reports is they end up on https://wiki.ubuntu.com/TeamReports which is included in UWN so the broader community has a place to go to see all reports
[17:39] <czajkowski> nofd
[17:39] <cjwatson> For the most part I view this as a good sign since our scope has been moving in the direction of dispute resolution
[17:39] <mdz> oh, one other thing
[17:39] <cjwatson> We've had some discussions about being more proactive about "issues of the day", but they haven't tended to come to much and perhaps they're not a god idea
[17:39] <cjwatson> *good
[17:39] <czajkowski> cjwatson: at least you discussed it
[17:39] <mdz> the one recurring task (self)assigned to the TB, we've had trouble actually doing
[17:39] <czajkowski> :)
[17:39] <mdz> that being the brainstorm reviews
[17:40] <pleia2> mdz: is anyone else formally reviewing brainstorm?
[17:40] <mdz> pleia2, there are moderators who help garden it
[17:40] <mdz> pleia2, but "review" is maybe a misleading name for what was intended on behalf of the TB
[17:41] <pleia2> yeah, I think the idea of TB "review" was to find actionable development items
[17:41] <mdz> the goal was that the most popular ideas in brainstorm should elicit an official response from the project
[17:41] <cjwatson> The brainstorm reviews have been popular and (I think) useful when we've done them, but the last couple have been belated (I can hardly complain, since I started that trend apparently)
[17:41] <mdz> to use brainstorm as a tool for listening to the user community
[17:41] <mdz> maybe this is a sign that this should be delegated
[17:41] <mdz> we had a brief discussion about that
[17:41] <pleia2> I do think it's valuable thing
[17:42] <cjwatson> It's sort of like the big-and-fluffy equivalent of looking at the top crashers on errors.ubuntu.com
[17:42] <mdz> exactly
[17:43] <mdz> anyway, just an FYI for purposes of this meeting I guess. nothing for the CC to do I think
[17:43] <cjwatson> My feeling is that this does belong with the TB, but too many of our members are too busy; I don't know whether this view is shared
[17:43] <czajkowski> mdz: cjwatson is it meant to be done at the meeting  or via mailing list ?
[17:43] <mdz> of course I don't think we would turn away help :-)
[17:43] <pleia2> I don't think it needs to be very formal, maybe grab some more general devs in the community and ask them to help out?
[17:43] <cjwatson> czajkowski: too big for at a meeting, we've been rotating one member doing a review of the top ten (notionally) every three months
[17:43] <mdz> czajkowski, it's a medium sized project, which involves working with various people in other teams and getting their help writing responses and publishing them
[17:43] <pleia2> (it does seem that delegation is needed here)
[17:44] <cjwatson> which is supposed to involve going and talking with appropriate developers to get them to supply responses
[17:44] <cjwatson> when I did it I think I got something like a 60% response rate, which was lower than I'd hoped but wasn't bad
[17:44] <pleia2> cheesehead from brainstorm is quite the active community member, talking to him about what brings the most value may be useful too
[17:44] <cjwatson> it took me about three weeks elapsed time, probably about a day's total work
[17:45] <czajkowski> cjwatson: 3 months is a long time as well.
[17:45] <mdz> Ian Weisser offered help
[17:45] <pleia2> ah, good
[17:45] <mdz> the total amount of work across everyone involved makes it a sizeable effort
[17:46] <mdz> maybe an hour's work each, but for a dozen or so people
[17:46] <czajkowski> nods thanks for the explaination
[17:47] <mdz> anything else?
[17:47] <pleia2> I think that's it
[17:47] <czajkowski> nope I'm all good thanks
[17:47] <pleia2> thanks for coming
[17:48] <czajkowski> ok we'll move on
[17:48] <czajkowski> next person isn't about
[17:48] <czajkowski> AlanBell: ping
[17:48] <AlanBell> hi
[17:48] <pleia2> JC Hulce/soaringsky - are you here with another nickname?
[17:48] <pleia2> I'll follow up with them via email
[17:49] <czajkowski> pleia2: I did that already in /whois
[17:49] <czajkowski> #topic Election and appointment of the 5th member of the IRCC
[17:49] <czajkowski> AlanBell: thanks for coming
[17:50] <AlanBell> so the IRCC charter states we should have 5 members, back when this IRCC was appointed there were only 4 applicants
[17:50] <AlanBell> we decided to hold off on recruiting until the Q cycle, so now we are ready
[17:50] <czajkowski> great to hear
[17:50] <pleia2> great
[17:51] <AlanBell> the appointment process is here https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcCouncil
[17:51] <pleia2> AlanBell: last time a sitting member of the IRCC did the call for nominations, so I'd suggest moving forward with a similar process this time https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-irc/2011-November/001465.html
[17:52] <pleia2> send to the cc list, -irc and -news-team
[17:52] <czajkowski> AlanBell: do you have a time frame in mind
[17:52] <AlanBell> pleia2: ok, great, that bit wasn't so clear, I can do that
[17:52] <AlanBell> czajkowski: lets get on and do it
[17:53] <pleia2> https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-irc/2011-November/001467.html is the second email in that (he had to make some adjustments :))
[17:53] <pleia2> looks like the call was open for 2 weeks last time
[17:53] <czajkowski> AlanBell: great just be really clear on the date/deadlines
[17:53] <AlanBell> which takes it nicely to the end of the month if announced today
[17:53]  * pleia2 nods
[17:54] <czajkowski> AlanBell: thanks for this
[17:54] <czajkowski> no actions from us from this
[17:54] <czajkowski> anything else?
[17:55] <pleia2> just a quick thing about the CoC
[17:55] <AlanBell> ok, so end of this month for applications, then we can start the vote during next month
[17:55] <pleia2> AlanBell: sounds good!
[17:55] <czajkowski> #topic Code of Conduct
[17:56] <pleia2> at UDS the CC met to discuss the proposed CoC again, cproffit blogged about it here and linked to the notes: http://ftbeowulf.wordpress.com/2012/05/10/uds-day-four-code-of-conduct-review/
[17:56] <pleia2> there have been some revisions based on this discussion (huge thanks to Laney in particular for his great feedback)
[17:56] <pleia2> but being post-UDS week, we're still catching up to make sure everything was addressed :)
[17:57] <pleia2> once we're at a good stopping point, we'll put it out to the community for another review before publishing
[17:57] <pleia2> that's it from me
[17:57] <czajkowski> great
[17:58] <czajkowski> #topic AOB
[17:58] <czajkowski> anything else ?
[17:58] <czajkowski> nope ok then
[17:58] <czajkowski> #endmeeting
[17:58] <meetingology> Meeting ended Thu May 17 17:58:50 2012 UTC.
[17:58] <meetingology> Minutes (wiki):        http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2012/ubuntu-meeting.2012-05-17-17.10.moin.txt
[17:58] <meetingology> Minutes (html):        http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2012/ubuntu-meeting.2012-05-17-17.10.html
[17:58] <pleia2> I can update minutes and wiki
[17:58] <czajkowski> pleia2: thanks
[17:59] <pleia2> we can discuss who can chair next time on list (since not many people here now)
[17:59] <czajkowski> aye thats was my reasoning for not picking beuno :)
[17:59] <pleia2> we also need someone to email the next board on the list
[17:59] <pleia2> we're in the new cycle, so our new list should go on the wiki once it's fully acked
[18:00] <pleia2> I think that's it
[18:00] <pleia2> thanks czajkowski
[18:00] <czajkowski> pleia2: thanks :)