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