[08:37] <lderan> knome, required vote count is a good idea, shall add it to the list :)
[08:44] <elfy> I thought so 
[11:41] <knome> lderan, it might exist already...
[11:42] <lderan> will quickly check
[11:43] <elfy> it can be used in -meeting afaik - we were talking about it the other day in a meeting
[11:44] <elfy> that's the reason I knew and mentioned it yesterday :)
[11:44] <knome> #startmeeting
[11:44] <meetingology> Meeting started Sat May 17 11:44:09 2014 UTC.  The chair is knome. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology.
[11:44] <meetingology> Available commands: action commands idea info link nick
[11:44] <knome> #Vote tet
[11:44] <meetingology> Please vote on: tet
[11:44] <meetingology> Public votes can be registered by saying +1, +0 or -1 in channel, (for private voting, private message me with 'vote +1/-1/+0 #channelname)
[11:44] <knome> #votesrequired 2
[11:44] <meetingology> votes now need 2 to be passed
[11:44] <knome> +1
[11:44] <meetingology> +1 received from knome
[11:44] <knome> #endvote
[11:44] <meetingology> Voting ended on: tet
[11:44] <meetingology> Votes for:1 Votes against:0 Abstentions:0
[11:44] <meetingology> Motion denied
[11:44] <knome> heh
[11:44] <elfy> :)
[11:44] <lderan> :P
[11:44] <knome> well, denied isn't the right one either
[11:44] <knome> #endmeeting
[11:44] <meetingology> Meeting ended Sat May 17 11:44:41 2014 UTC.  
[11:44] <meetingology> Minutes:        http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/xubuntu-devel/2014/xubuntu-devel.2014-05-17-11.44.moin.txt
[11:50] <lderan> what should it say instead? required votes not reached?
[11:53] <knome> lderan, yeah, i guess
[11:54] <elfy> try it again - with 3 of us voting - one of each
[11:54] <elfy> that would be the right wording for only having one +1 
[11:55] <knome> elfy, #votesrequired means
[11:55] <knome> err
[11:55] <knome> it actually means that N votes for or against is needed
[11:55] <knome> so practically,
[11:55] <knome> it'd need 3 -1 votes to be denied
[11:56] <elfy> no real use in our scenario :p
[11:56] <knome> no
[11:56] <elfy> actually - we'd just set it to 8 I guess
[11:56] <knome> yep
[11:56] <knome> but if there was no +8 or -8
[11:56] <knome> the bot would say "denied"
[11:56] <knome> which is wrong
[11:57] <elfy> it's right 
[11:57] <elfy> the bot doesn'tr know about the mailing list :)
[11:57] <knome> it's not; there just isn't a decision yet
[11:57] <knome> sure
[11:57] <knome> but with +7, no vote is exactly "denied" either
[11:57] <elfy> would the bot use different wording here to elsewhere?
[11:57] <knome> it's just "not carried"
[11:58] <knome> it could use the same wording everywhere :)
[11:58] <elfy> then we shouldn't go changing the wording willy nilly :)
[11:58] <lderan> from the code if the vote reqauired was 4, and 4 people voted +1 and 4 people votes -1, it would actualy be carried
[11:59] <knome_web> huhu
[11:59] <elfy> lderan: lol
[11:59] <knome_web> actually,
[11:59] <lderan> might have to changed that slightly
[11:59] <knome_web> let's forget #votesrequired for a moment
[11:59] <elfy> :)
[11:59] <knome_web> what if there was a #quorum
[11:59] <knome_web> set that to 8
[11:59] <elfy> good point
[11:59] <knome_web> and if no -8 or +8 happens, then it says "no quorum"
[12:00] <knome_web> actually, it'd have to be able to count +0 votes
[12:00] <elfy> it should count vote - not vote value I guess
[12:00] <knome_web> right
[12:01] <knome_web> yeah, that sounds correct
[12:01] <elfy> for quorum at least
[12:01] <knome_web> count the vote value, and if value is at least quorum, carry/deny
[12:01] <knome_web> if not, say no quorum
[12:01] <knome_web> (but nonetheless, output the votes)
[12:02] <knome_web> but... that's not how we always want it
[12:02] <elfy> there was a conversation about all this with the membership board on Thursday - quorum and vote value
[12:02] <knome_web> that's a fair case for regular votes
[12:02] <knome_web> well, hmm
[12:02] <knome_web> then just set quorum value to 14 :P
[12:02] <lderan> :P
[12:03] <elfy> it'd not work for them - they need the 'value' to be +4 
[12:03] <knome_web> yeah
[12:03] <elfy> anyway 
[12:03] <knome_web> well that's why i was considering #quorum
[12:03] <knome_web> not changing the existing functionality
[12:03] <elfy> quorum would be useful - people don't have to use it 
[12:03] <knome_web> because there clearly is use cases for that as well
[12:04] <knome_web> how would the bot handle the situation when both are set?
[12:04] <knome_web> #quorum 5
[12:04] <knome_web> #votesrequired 2
[12:05] <elfy> would need at least 3 +1's and 5 votes total?
[12:05] <knome_web> 2 +1's :P
[12:05] <knome_web> or 2 -1's
[12:05] <elfy> remove +0 
[12:05] <elfy> :)
[12:05] <lderan> poor +0
[12:05] <elfy> no fences - too sharp :D
[12:05] <knome_web> i think it has some added value
[12:06] <knome_web> i mean, yeah, it definitely does
[12:06] <knome_web> it can help fill the quorum
[12:06] <knome_web> "i'm around, but don't want to vote either way2
[12:07] <elfy> :)
[12:08] <knome_web> i'm thinking a very specific situation..
[12:08] <knome_web> #quorum 8
[12:08] <knome_web> 7 persons vote +0
[12:08] <knome_web> 1 person votes +1
[12:09] <knome_web> well, the bot says it's carried
[12:09] <knome_web> ;)
[12:09] <elfy> yea - which is an issue for lots of teams
[12:09] <knome_web> so... should #votesrequired always be quorum/2 when quorum is set?
[12:09] <lderan> can have it so it has to have a majority when used with quorum?
[12:09] <elfy> I'd argue that it's an issue for any team that isn't Ubuntu Mathematicians
[12:10] <knome_web> lderan: i guess yeah unless #votesrequired is explicitly set to something else
[12:10] <elfy> lderan: a value majority or a votes majority
[12:11] <knome_web> elfy: question.. does the membership team really need it like this:
[12:11] <knome_web> if one votes -1, practically five need to vote +1 ?
[12:11] <knome_web> or would it be fine if they knew that there was at least four +1's ?
[12:12] <elfy> yea - though they too - take things to m/l if needed - but I don't want to get into the specifics right now - I'm not really here lol 
[12:12] <knome_web> ;)
[12:12] <elfy> I just sat down to roll a smoke lol 
[12:12] <lderan> vote majority? so if 8 vote 0 and 1 votes +1 it would count it as not carried? 5 would need to vote +1
[12:13] <elfy> mmm 
[12:13] <elfy> hang on 
[12:13] <knome_web> though
[12:13] <knome_web> the real question is:
[12:14] <knome_web> if quorum is 8, the real team size is 14/15
[12:14] <knome_web> shouldn't the bot just understand that in the situation lderan pasted
[12:14] <knome_web> and say it needs more votes
[12:14] <knome_web> or should we actually not use #quorum
[12:14] <knome_web> but #voters
[12:15] <knome_web> which would be the maximum amount of people voting
[12:15] <knome_web> and quorum would be calculated from that
[12:15] <lderan> mmm
[12:15] <knome_web> then setting
[12:15] <knome_web> #voters 14
[12:16] <knome_web> would practically work like the XPL voting
[12:16] <knome_web> but if it was a regular vote, and we knew there would be 6 people around,
[12:16] <knome_web> we could do
[12:16] <knome_web> #votesrequired 4
[12:16] <knome_web> no, that doesn't work
[12:17] <knome_web> or does, but then #voters is useless
[12:17] <elfy> would it work if there was a 'voter' who could have a number set by chair - #voters is a list of names - but you might have 9 people away and then voting on m/l
[12:17] <elfy> so for example #voteexternal=9
[12:18] <knome_web> #voters <nick> <nick> ... Set the qualified voters. Use '#voters all' to reset. 
[12:18] <elfy> then you have #voters = those present
[12:18] <knome_web> or just assign everybody to it?
[12:18] <knome_web> and the bot knows how many are off because they didn't vote
[12:19] <elfy> knome_web: but would that work if elfy is in the list - but isn't in -devel when the vote takes places
[12:19] <elfy> does it not need the irc nick?
[12:19] <knome_web> it would work
[12:19] <knome_web> because it could just check if elfy voted
[12:19] <knome_web> whether elfy was around or not
[12:20] <elfy> ok
[12:21] <knome_web> so...
[12:21] <knome_web> what if we used that
[12:21] <knome_web> and then #quorum on/off
[12:21] <knome_web> is quorum is off, vote value within available people wins
[12:22] <elfy> logically sounds like it should work for us
[12:22] <knome_web> if it's off, vote amount wins if enough votes
[12:22] <knome_web> err,,
[12:22] <knome_web> if it's on :P
[12:22] <elfy> and quorum=voters/2+1
[12:23] <knome_web> floor(voters/2)+1
[12:23] <knome_web> but yeah.
[12:25] <lderan> cool
[12:27] <knome_web> btw, we need to be able to remove voters
[12:27] <knome_web> iirc, #voters just adds voters
[12:27] <knome_web> can't remove
[12:27] <knome_web> (except with #voters all)
[12:27] <elfy> why would you need to remove voters during a meeting?
[12:27] <knome_web> if we use a factoid that outputs #voters
[12:28] <knome_web> then knome suddenly has a "knome_web" nick
[12:28] <knome_web> and we don't want to break the quorum value
[12:28] <elfy> mmm yea 
[12:28] <knome_web> then we need to remove knome and add knome_web
[12:31] <knome_web> (and if voters are removed, their votes should be removed too)
[12:34] <elfy> from current vote I assume
[12:34] <knome_web> yep
[12:35] <elfy> sounds good
[17:15] <ochosi> somehow i only receive a selection of the emails from the dev-mailinglist
[17:16] <ochosi> anyone else here having trouble with receiving the emails
[17:20] <elfy> ochosi: http://www.zimagez.com/zimage/screenshot-170514-181951.php
[17:21] <elfy> that's what I've received - what are you missing - they appear to match https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/xubuntu-devel/2014-May/thread.html
[18:48] <ochosi> elfy: yeah, didn't receive GridCube's and pleia2's message...
[18:48] <ochosi> very odd
[18:48] <ochosi> knome's i did receive
[18:51] <elfy> ochosi: perhaps the issue with your xfce mail address ?
[18:57] <ochosi> i dunno, i sent a testmail to myself today, that arrived normally
[18:59] <elfy> no idea I'm afraid
[19:01] <elfy> knome can't let go then - still XPL on his mail sig :D
[19:01] <ochosi> heh
[19:01] <ochosi> yeah
[23:32] <benonsoftware>  /msg jose Hiyas
[23:32] <benonsoftware> Err. -.-