[16:00] <rbasak> o/
[16:00] <gnuoy> o/
[16:00] <arges> o/
[16:00] <rbasak> #startmeeting ubuntu-server-team
[16:00] <meetingology> Meeting started Tue Oct 21 16:00:36 2014 UTC.  The chair is rbasak. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology.
[16:00] <meetingology> Available commands: action commands idea info link nick
[16:00] <kickinz1> \o
[16:00] <rbasak> I see no action points from the last meeting.
[16:00] <rbasak> #topic Utopic Development
[16:01] <rbasak> Release in two days! Are we ready?
[16:01] <caribou> rbasak: shouldn't it be Vivid now ;-) ?
[16:01] <rbasak> Vivid isn't open for development yet :-P
[16:01] <rbasak> #subtopic Release Bugs
[16:01] <rbasak> #link http://reqorts.qa.ubuntu.com/reports/rls-mgr/rls-u-tracking-bug-tasks.html#ubuntu-server
[16:02] <rharper> o/
[16:03] <jamespage> \o
[16:03] <lutostag> o/
[16:03] <rbasak> I think the High and Critical bugs in this list are already being taken care of.
[16:03] <matsubara> o/
[16:03] <rbasak> It looks unlikely that the rest are going to be fixed at this stage of the cycle.
[16:03] <rbasak> #subtopic Blueprints
[16:03] <rbasak> #link http://status.ubuntu.com/ubuntu-u/group/topic-u-server.html
[16:03] <rbasak> #link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/topic-u-server
[16:04] <rbasak> Can everyone update their blueprints?
[16:04] <rbasak> I see a fair bit left here still.
[16:04] <rbasak> Presumably these are already done or won't make it?
[16:04] <rbasak> #topic Server & Cloud Bugs (caribou)
[16:04] <rbasak> caribou: over to you
[16:05] <caribou> rbasak: nothing particular; working on automating kdump-tool testing
[16:05] <rbasak> OK, thanks!
[16:05] <rbasak> #topic Weekly Updates & Questions for the QA Team (psivaa)
[16:05] <rbasak> psivaa_: around?
[16:06] <psivaa_> rbasak: not much of an update from us
[16:06] <rbasak> OK. Any questions for psivaa_?
[16:06] <rbasak> #topic Weekly Updates & Questions for the Kernel Team (smb, sforshee, arges)
[16:06] <smb> Nothing from here.
[16:06] <rbasak> #topic Ubuntu Server Team Events
[16:07] <coreycb> o/
[16:07] <rbasak> OpenStack Summit is coming up of course.
[16:07] <rbasak> Anything else?
[16:07] <rbasak> Discuss EOLing qemu machine types (and legacy roms) (hallyn, rharper)
[16:07] <rbasak> hallyn can't make it, so deferring this until the next meeting.
[16:07] <rbasak> #topic Open Discussion
[16:08] <rbasak> Does anything have anything they'd like to raise?
[16:08] <rharper> rbasak: I'm here if you wanted to discuss the EOLing a bit
[16:08] <rbasak> Sure.
[16:08] <rbasak> Is there a decision we need to make here?
[16:09] <rharper> so background, https://wiki.ubuntu.com/QemuPTMigration
[16:09] <rharper> there is a decision w.r.t how long/how far to care the the legacy machine types from previous LTS releases w.r.t do we support live migration from an instance on an old LTS to current release
[16:10] <rharper> there is on-going maint. w.r.t keeping roms around , as well as handling any of the potential issues w.r.t qemu machine imcompatibility  between releases.
[16:10] <rbasak> Can I suggest that this goes to an appropriate mailing list?
[16:10] <rharper> from trusty onward, qemu has a ubuntu_release named machine which will help disambiguate it from the defaults in qemu
[16:10] <rharper> rbasak: indeed
[16:11] <rbasak> It sounds like there are some complicated implications here, and we should make sure that stakeholders have an opportunity to comment.
[16:11] <coreycb> rharper, and maybe to an openstack mailing list
[16:11] <rharper> rbasak: additionally coreycb brought up that this hits openstack upgrades with folks doing a precise -> trusty upgrade
[16:11] <rbasak> coreycb: +1
[16:12] <rbasak> Thanks for summarising the issue.
[16:12] <rharper> sure
[16:12] <coreycb> rharper, upgrades to trusty that are entirely on precise too
[16:12] <rbasak> Shall we leave this for now then, and take it to an ML?
[16:12] <rharper> I think that's best
[16:12] <rbasak> Any other topics for Open Discussion?
[16:12] <coreycb> s/trusty/icehoue above
[16:12] <rbasak> #topic Announce next meeting date, time and chair
[16:12] <coreycb> icehouse
[16:13] <rbasak> The next meeting will be on Tue Oct 28 16:00:00 UTC 2014.
[16:13] <rbasak> hallyn will chair.
[16:13] <rbasak> I don't think there's anything on that will clash with that, right?
[16:13] <gnuoy> Norwich beer festival
[16:13] <rbasak> :-)
[16:14] <caribou> haloween ?
[16:14] <rbasak> "Apologies for my absense, I was drinking beer"
[16:14] <rbasak> #endmeeting
[16:14] <meetingology> Meeting ended Tue Oct 21 16:14:37 2014 UTC.
[16:14] <meetingology> Minutes:        http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2014/ubuntu-meeting.2014-10-21-16.00.moin.txt
[16:14] <gnuoy> thanks rbasak
[16:14] <kickinz1> thanks, rbasak
[16:14] <rharper> rbasak: thanks!
[16:14] <caribou> rbasak: thanks!
[16:15] <matsubara> Thanks rbasak
[16:32] <med_> rbasak, thanks for scrollback!
[19:49] <YoBoY> bonsoir
[19:49] <skellat> YoBoY: Bonsoir comrade
[19:49] <YoBoY> :)
[19:50] <IdrogN> bonsoir
[19:55] <cm-t> bonsoir :)
[19:55] <SergioMeneses> YoBoY, \o
[19:56] <YoBoY> hi SergioMeneses :)
[19:57] <SergioMeneses> hi YoBoY ! how you been?
[19:57] <YoBoY> tired and busy :) and you ?
[19:57] <costales> Hi!
[19:59] <Cytheria> hello guys !
[19:59] <SergioMeneses> YoBoY, like you! jejeje
[19:59] <cm-t> heya !
[19:59] <PabloRubianes> hi YoBoY
[19:59] <skellat> Are we ready to begin the meeting?
[19:59] <PabloRubianes> yes
[19:59] <skellat> #startmeeting Regular LoCo Council Meeting for October 2014
[19:59] <meetingology> Meeting started Tue Oct 21 20:00:07 2014 UTC.  The chair is skellat. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology.
[19:59] <meetingology> Available commands: action commands idea info link nick
[20:00] <skellat> #topic Opening Business
[20:00] <skellat> #subtopic Listing of Sitting Members of LoCo Council
[20:00] <skellat> #info For the avoidance of uncertainty and doubt, it is necessary to list the members of the council who are presently serving active terms.
[20:00] <skellat> #info Marcos Costales, term expiring 2015-04-16
[20:00] <skellat> #info José Antonio Rey, term expiring 2015-10-04
[20:00] <skellat> #info Pablo Rubianes, term expiring 2015-04-16
[20:00] <skellat> #info Sergio Meneses, term expiring 2015-10-04
[20:00] <skellat> #info Stephen Michael Kellat, term expiring 2015-10-04
[20:00] <skellat> #info There is currently one vacant seat on LoCo Council
[20:00] <skellat> #subtopic Roll Call
[20:00] <skellat> At this point we need to proceed with a roll call of LoCo Council members.
[20:00] <skellat> A quorum to transact business during today's meeting is 3.
[20:00] <skellat> During the following vote members of the council should vote "+1" to indicate their presence.
[20:00] <skellat> #voters PabloRubianes SergioMeneses skellat jose costales
[20:00] <meetingology> Current voters: PabloRubianes SergioMeneses costales jose skellat
[20:00] <skellat> #vote LoCo Council Roll Call (All Members Present To Vote In Favor To Register Attendance)
[20:00] <meetingology> Please vote on: LoCo Council Roll Call (All Members Present To Vote In Favor To Register Attendance)
[20:00] <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)
[20:00] <skellat> +1
[20:00] <meetingology> +1 received from skellat
[20:01] <PabloRubianes> +1
[20:01] <meetingology> +1 received from PabloRubianes
[20:01] <SergioMeneses> +1
[20:01] <meetingology> +1 received from SergioMeneses
[20:01] <costales> +1
[20:01] <meetingology> +1 received from costales
[20:02] <skellat> Are there any other members of LoCo Council wishing to indicate their attendance?
[20:02] <skellat> #endvote
[20:02] <meetingology> Voting ended on: LoCo Council Roll Call (All Members Present To Vote In Favor To Register Attendance)
[20:02] <meetingology> Votes for:4 Votes against:0 Abstentions:0
[20:02] <meetingology> Motion carried
[20:02] <skellat> #topic Re-Verification: France
[20:02] <skellat> Before today is a re-verification application from the team in France.  I will call upon the team's representative to speak to their application briefly.  Members of the Council will, of course, have questions to ask as we discuss the matter.
[20:02] <skellat> The application is available for viewing on the wiki infrastructure. -- https://wiki.ubuntu.com/FrenchTeam/ReVerificationApplication
[20:03] <skellat> Who is here to speak for the LoCo of France?
[20:03] <IdrogN> yes
[20:03] <cm-t> IdrogN: will talk for us
[20:03] <skellat> Greetings IdrogN
[20:03] <costales> Hi IdrogN! |o/
[20:03] <skellat> Tell us a bit about what is happening in France
[20:04] <IdrogN> pleased to meet you all
[20:04] <skellat> Thank you
[20:05] <IdrogN> First, let me introduce myself, i'm David, the new head of Ubuntu-Fr board (we are a "legal" association)
[20:05] <cm-t> mister president :)
[20:05] <IdrogN> cm-t & yoboy, who are also here, are members of the board too
[20:06] <cm-t> hi
[20:06] <IdrogN> Shall we proceed to the lecture?
[20:06] <skellat> Certainly
[20:07] <IdrogN> You can find our application there: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/FrenchTeam/ReVerificationApplication2014
[20:07] <olive> bonsoir
[20:07] <IdrogN> (olive is also a member of the board)
[20:08] <cm-t> (and maybe since the begining of ubuntu-fr if I am not false)
[20:08] <IdrogN> So, as you know, we organise a lot of events. The most important ones are the release party and the Paris Ubuntu Parties
[20:08] <olive> maybe, maybe
[20:09] <PabloRubianes> really nice application
[20:09] <cm-t> oups, i forgot to remove the "we need you",  i remove it asap
[20:09] <IdrogN> We are currently organising the next Ubuntu Party which will be hosted at la Cité des Sciences by mid-november and that occupies us a lot
[20:10] <cm-t> (done, no more ads "we need you")
[20:10] <PabloRubianes> Are you having any problem we can help in?
[20:11] <IdrogN> Next week, there will be the release party for the 14.10. During thisrelease party, we will meet to organise the next Ubuntu Party (UP) and train the volunteers
[20:12] <YoBoY> (this saturday more exactly)
[20:12] <IdrogN> @Pablo: for the next UP ?
[20:12] <meetingology> IdrogN: Error: "Pablo:" is not a valid command.
[20:12] <IdrogN> Pablo: for the next UP?
[20:12] <PabloRubianes> IdrogN: I mean in the team
[20:13] <IdrogN> Pablo : everything seems to be quite ok
[20:14] <SergioMeneses> awesome guys!
[20:14] <skellat> What are your plans for 2015?
[20:15] <IdrogN> As usual, 2 UP (15.4 & 15.10), several meetings & meet-ups with local teams & other association from the Free Software ecosystem
[20:15] <skellat> Excellent
[20:15] <costales> You're in a lot of social networks :)) Which of them is working better for you?
[20:15] <IdrogN> More webcafés in more festivals
[20:16] <IdrogN> twitter mostly
[20:17] <IdrogN> for 2015, we can add that we will try to develop the association by recruiting more volunteers and using new tools to be more efficient
[20:17] <skellat> Excellent.
[20:17] <PabloRubianes> IdrogN: great!
[20:17] <skellat> Fellow Council members, are we ready to vote?
[20:17] <PabloRubianes> yes
[20:17] <costales> Yes
[20:17] <skellat> #vote That the re-verification application of France be approved and that the period of verification be extended for a period of two years from this date.
[20:17] <meetingology> Please vote on: That the re-verification application of France be approved and that the period of verification be extended for a period of two years from this date.
[20:17] <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)
[20:17] <PabloRubianes> +1 great work
[20:17] <meetingology> +1 great work received from PabloRubianes
[20:18] <costales> +1 This is one of the best applications I've ever seen. Really an awesome work, team! Thanks!!
[20:18] <meetingology> +1 This is one of the best applications I've ever seen. Really an awesome work, team! Thanks!! received from costales
[20:18] <SergioMeneses> +1 congrats :D
[20:18] <meetingology> +1 congrats :D received from SergioMeneses
[20:18] <skellat> +1 an excellent example to be followed
[20:18] <meetingology> +1 an excellent example to be followed received from skellat
[20:18] <skellat> #endvote
[20:18] <meetingology> Voting ended on: That the re-verification application of France be approved and that the period of verification be extended for a period of two years from this date.
[20:18] <meetingology> Votes for:4 Votes against:0 Abstentions:0
[20:18] <meetingology> Motion carried
[20:18] <IdrogN> thank you
[20:18] <PabloRubianes> keep the great work French Team
[20:18] <YoBoY> thanks you everyone for your support :)
[20:18] <skellat> Congratulations to the French team.  We'll be updating things on Launchpad after this meeting concludes.
[20:18] <costales> Congrats team!
[20:18] <cm-t> thanks dear loco council <3, and thank to our new president to lead our lecture :')
[20:19] <skellat> #topic Update on open cases before the LoCo Council
[20:19] <skellat> May I have permission to put in the record a list of our pending verification and re-verification proceedings?
[20:19] <IdrogN> merci à l'équipe :)
[20:19] <cm-t> ^^
[20:20] <PabloRubianes> skellat: yes
[20:20] <skellat> #agreed That information may be placed in the meeting record as to the list of pending LoCo Council proceedings.
[20:20] <skellat> #info LoCo Council presently has before it pending verification and re-verification proceedings for the following LoCo Teams: Mauritius, Finland, Netherlands, Peru, Russia, Serbia.
[20:20] <skellat> #topic The loco-contacts thread "Our teams reject the new LoCo Council policy"
[20:20] <skellat> There are many things relevant to the most recent thread on loco-contacts.
[20:20] <skellat> I will bring up that, in parallel to this, Daniel holbach discussed on ubuntu-community-team various thoughts about recognizing and incorporating non-LoCo groups. -- https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-community-team/2014-October/000044.html
[20:20] <skellat> The original start to this thread is available for reading and the thread did generate some rancor and heated discussion. -- https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/loco-contacts/2014-October/006791.html
[20:20] <skellat> The new SubLoCo policy is what caused much of the concern in this thread. -- http://lococouncil.ubuntu.com/2014/09/16/new-subloco-policy/
[20:20] <skellat> I don't want to discuss this for too long.
[20:21] <skellat> Is there anything we can add here today other than taking note of what Mr. Holbach is doing?
[20:22] <PabloRubianes> I think that the new policy is clear as it is
[20:22] <SergioMeneses> everything is there!
[20:22] <PabloRubianes> and have the proper workarounds
[20:22] <nhaines> I recommend that the LoCo Council carefully consider how they represent policies in response to queries on the mailing list.
[20:22] <felipexil> From my point of view, the "exceptions" are not clear, but I don't want to open the discussion here
[20:23] <skellat> Okay
[20:23] <olive> thx
[20:23] <nhaines> For instance, it was insinuated that independant status for LoCo teams of autonomous subregions would be somewhat of an uphill battle.
[20:24] <nhaines> And then later insinuated that it would probably be a rote overview.
[20:24] <costales> Good point nhaines
[20:24] <nhaines> And skellat, you asked that conversation stop on the mailing list because this meeting was the only proper venue, and now you're saying that you don't want to spend much time on it.
[20:25] <skellat> nhaines: Coming up on the agenda will be consideration of requests from the Galician and Asturian teams.
[20:25] <nhaines> It's clear from the actual announced policy that a great deal of thought was put into the general guidelines.
[20:25] <nhaines> So when questions about hypothetical (or not so hypothetical) situations are met with mixed messages, that creates a lack of confidence.
[20:25] <PabloRubianes> let me clear some points here
[20:26] <skellat> nhaines: I do want to ensure we reach the Galician and Asturian requests before 2100 UTC
[20:26] <skellat> That is all
[20:27] <rww> If there wasn't public discussion of this policy before it was established, that probably would have helped decrease confusion. Something to bear in mind for the future.
[20:27] <PabloRubianes> I don't see the confusion
[20:27] <skellat> Ah
[20:27] <skellat> Part of that is bringing Debian paradigms into Ubuntu
[20:28] <rww> PabloRubianes: I think that regardless of the correctness of various emails on loco-contacts@, it's blatantly obvious that some people were confused.
[20:28] <PabloRubianes> if a team don't want to a subteam they can ask to be an independent loco
[20:28] <nhaines> I think the confusion is that the policy (presumably) was designed to address existing LoCos who wanted "official" subteams, and the policy was designed to be an operating guidelines for those teams.
[20:28] <rww> Now, personally I'm fine with the policy, but as a LoCo leader, I'd prefer that future policy not come out of nowhere from a public point of view. Hence, prior discussion.
[20:29] <costales> PabloRubianes, "if a team don't want to a subteam they can ask to be an independent loco". Could we append that to the policy?
[20:29] <PabloRubianes> nhaines: the last 2 sentences of the policy are clearly address for teams who don't want to be sublocos
[20:29] <skellat> "In the event what is considered a sub-team wants to be considered a LoCo, it will need to present a request to the LoCo Council."
[20:29] <skellat> We have two of those requests coming up later in this meeting to address.
[20:30] <PabloRubianes> costales: the policy states "In the event what is considered a sub-team wants to be considered a LoCo, it will need to present a request to the LoCo Council."
[20:30] <PabloRubianes> thats the same!
[20:30] <costales> I didn't read in the last days
[20:30] <SergioMeneses> I don't know if we are missing something but I don't get the point, I saw everything cover with the new policy
[20:30] <costales> ;) sorry
[20:30] <nhaines> Yes, but the fact that alarmed LoCo teams were told "read the policy" instead of being reassured is disappointing.
[20:30] <felipexil> PabloRubianes: the policy is not clear for a group of people, so even in the case it is clear for you, it is obvious that there is a problem
[20:31] <xuacu> I think that exixting LoCos were quite confused about being demoted fron LoCo to SubLoCo ;)
[20:31] <felipexil> as nhaines said, the problem is that the policy was written from a point of view that is not reflected in the policy itsefl
[20:31] <costales> Good point xuacu
[20:31] <PabloRubianes> xuacu: the problem is some existent locos where out of the old policy too
[20:31] <felipexil> there is a lack of context, and the "policy" is going to be interpreted without that point of view
[20:32] <PabloRubianes> we made the new policy to contemplate them and have every loco on the same page
[20:32] <nhaines> So once again, my advice is that the Council carefully consider the response to alarmed community members.  "RTFM" is something the Ubuntu project was founded to eliminate.
[20:32] <PabloRubianes> nhaines: none made RTFM
[20:32] <nhaines> I would be happy to provide links after the meeting.
[20:33] <skellat> No, nhaines, please provide them in the record
[20:33] <PabloRubianes> yes
[20:33] <SergioMeneses> sure
[20:33] <nhaines> Is the LoCo Council willing to delay the Galacian and Asturian requests while I cross-reference my email with the web archives?
[20:34] <PabloRubianes> nhaines:yes
[20:34] <costales> https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/loco-contacts/2014-October/006802.html
[20:34] <nhaines> Then I will do my best to be prompt.
[20:34] <costales> José Antonio Rey: "Please, read the whole policy." Unique phrase
[20:34] <costales> for me it's a RTFM
[20:34] <nhaines> costales: agreed.
[20:34] <PabloRubianes> that's not
[20:34] <xuacu> costales: +1
[20:35] <PabloRubianes> they where reading the first part
[20:35] <PabloRubianes> the end of the policy is where the independent locos are allow
[20:35] <PabloRubianes> the last 2 sentences
[20:35] <felipexil> PabloRubianes... How can you know what the other people were reading?
[20:35] <costales> I didn't like too this: The LoCo Council isn't listen their teams/users
[20:36] <nhaines> "Please read the whole policy" and "read the fucking manual" are functionally identical.
[20:36] <costales> If the users/teams like change something, we have to listen them :)
[20:36] <nhaines> felipexil: it's pretty clear he didn't read the entire policy, but that's no excuse not to clarify.
[20:36] <PabloRubianes> felipexil: because as costales just did they where asking for something the policy states
[20:36] <rww> I think "is the policy okay" and "were there issues with the way discussion proceeded before and after the announcement of the policy" are two different topics.
[20:37] <rww> nhaines is quite clearly talking about the latter. Defending the policy is not addressing that.
[20:37] <nhaines> Yes, the policy seems quite reasonable to me.  A codification of current best practice.
[20:38] <costales> I think we have a lot of teams and it's impossible a rule for all of them :)
[20:39] <skellat> And that is where internal debate among LoCo Council members filtered outward and one person's opposition to a majority vote brings us to today's discussion
[20:40] <rww> amongst other issues, such as lack of prior communication, handling of the ensuing thread after announcement, etc. etc.
[20:40] <nhaines> Which one person opposed which majority vote and how did that lead to this discussion today?
[20:40] <xuacu> skellat: you can't avoid this kind of discussion sooner or later :)
[20:41] <PabloRubianes> wait a sec
[20:41] <PabloRubianes> lets get another angle of this
[20:41] <PabloRubianes> xuacu: for example
[20:41] <PabloRubianes> what do you think is wrong with the policy?
[20:41] <felipexil> And... I would like to point out that the sentence "In the event what is considered a sub-team wants to be considered a LoCo, it will need to present a request to the LoCo Council." is not clear at all
[20:42] <felipexil> "what is considered a sub-team" should be defined
[20:42] <felipexil> (at least, it is not clear for me)
[20:42] <skellat> Okay
[20:42] <xuacu> Pablo: just the point felixepil brings up
[20:42] <nhaines> felipexil: it does seem to indicate that an autonomous region would need to become a subteam to the existing team before asking for consideration.
[20:43] <felipexil> nhaines: +1
[20:43] <felipexil> and, the two first sentences of the policy make this difficult
[20:43] <SergioMeneses> ok let me see if I get the point, you want to have 2 official subteams in the same city, right? ( by instance )
[20:43] <felipexil> Each team will be a country (or state in the United States). We will call this a ‘LoCo’. Each LoCo can have sub-teams. This sub-teams will be created at the will and need of each LoCo.
[20:44] <costales> SergioMeneses, Nobody talked about cities ;)
[20:44] <xuacu> and that begs the next question: could a subLoCo be denied to become a LoCO?
[20:44] <SergioMeneses> costales, city or state or region
[20:44] <costales> SergioMeneses, It's not the same for us
[20:44] <PabloRubianes> xuacu: it depends on the case
[20:45] <xuacu> and where are the guidelines to be accepted or rejected?
[20:46] <felipexil> According to the two first sentences of the policy, only countries can be LoCo, and sub-teams will be created only at "the will and need of that LoCo", and it seems that to be promoted to a "LoCo", it is necessary to be a sub-LoCo. T
[20:46] <PabloRubianes> felipexil: that was the old policy
[20:46] <PabloRubianes> just that
[20:46] <PabloRubianes> so ubuntu-cat or ubuntu-ast were outside the policy
[20:47] <nhaines> There was also a question about how a theoretical Basque LoCo would represent the Basque population found in the US.  https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/loco-contacts/2014-October/006847.html
[20:47] <nhaines> I would in turn ask how the Ohio LoCo is representing the interests of the Ohioan population outside of Ohio.
[20:47] <nhaines> But this seems to indicate a predisposition to rejecting autonomous regions looking to become independent LoCos.
[20:48] <costales> Good point too: The Basque LoCo would be in 2 countries
[20:48] <nhaines> costales: a cultural identity with a unique language that happens to straddle two countries that came long later.
[20:49] <PabloRubianes> nhaines costales with that view all the latin america would be one 1 loco
[20:49] <felipexil> PabloRubianes: I copied the text from the new policy...
[20:49] <PabloRubianes> felipexil: the old policy was just "one country one loco"
[20:50] <felipexil> PabloRubianes: yes, but the exception is not clear
[20:50] <PabloRubianes> now we added the rest to let provinces or cities have their loco if they don't want to be part of the national loco
[20:50] <felipexil> PabloRubianes: it is not clear who is a "what is considered a sub-team"
[20:51] <PabloRubianes> felipexil: any team that is not a country loco
[20:51] <SergioMeneses> felipexil, a group of people
[20:51] <PabloRubianes> yes
[20:51] <felipexil> PabloRubianes: SergioMeneses: could that not be clarified in the policy?
[20:52] <nhaines> I rather like the language "In the event that what is or would be considered a sub-team wants to be considered a LoCo".
[20:52] <felipexil> PabloRubianes: SergioMeneses: (remove the "not" in my previous sentence)
[20:52] <costales> PabloRubianes, then, we are treating a team without country as >>> "Sub" << this is bad in itself.
[20:52] <nhaines> The problem is that the new policy immediately states "LoCos not meeting the criteria of country/state teams will be denied verification."
[20:53] <PabloRubianes> felipexil: it could be
[20:54] <PabloRubianes> but there's the fact that the only country that have locos working as independent at the moment is spain
[20:54] <PabloRubianes> but if you feel more confortable with that we can clarified this
[20:55] <costales> I'd like to hear to Quebec, Brittany...
[20:55] <costales> No all people read the mail list
[20:55] <rww> I could point out the United States, but I expect that would just be pedantry ;)
[20:56] <PabloRubianes> rww: USA was the only exception when Locos where created
[20:56] <PabloRubianes> and I think is not fare to have different rules for them
[20:56] <skellat> rww: And the USA is definitely an exception as it a dual system of sovereigns.
[20:56] <rww> PabloRubianes: I'm aware of the history involved, probably more than you are. I was pointing out a slight inaccuracy in your comment.
[20:57] <PabloRubianes> but the new policy give the same posibility to the rest of the world
[20:57] <nhaines> That the LoCo Council knew that Spain had independant LoCos and was still completely unprepared to address their concerns is a little disappointing.
[20:57] <rww> (my concerns, again, don't rest with the policy but the way it was communicated, hence me not really talking right now)
[20:57] <skellat> Right now I don't want to disappoint the Galician and Asturian teams but we're approaching 2057 UTC
[20:58] <skellat> Do they have representatives present to make their requests?
[20:58] <felipexil> skellat: /me from the Galician Team
[20:58] <rww> skellat: remaining unaddressed concerns should go where? List, next meeting...?
[20:58] <xuacu> For Asturian Loco, varela or me
[20:58]  * ivarela too, for Asturian
[20:59] <skellat> rww: We will return to that matter in a few minutes
[20:59] <rww> skellat: thank you
[20:59] <skellat> #topic Requests from the Galician and Asturian teams
[20:59] <skellat> Now that the Galician and Asturian representatives are present, we can proceed.
[20:59] <skellat> The policy, in its essentials, does not stipulate what the request should look like.
[21:00] <felipexil> There was a lot of confussion in the mailing list. It was stated that existing LoCos will remain as indendent LoCos
[21:00] <felipexil> I would like to confirm this
[21:00] <skellat> felipexil: We will address that later under "Any Other Business".  Right now it is out of order.
[21:01] <PabloRubianes> felipexil: this is your request to be independent loco
[21:01] <felipexil> PabloRubianes: yes
[21:01] <skellat> Representatives of the teams, for the purposes of today's meeting, need merely make the following request: "That the XX Team be considered an independent LoCo team notwithstanding representing less than a country"
[21:01] <skellat> With the name of the team substitute for XX
[21:02] <ivarela> yes
[21:02] <skellat> Would the representatives of the teams please state their formal requests?
[21:03] <ivarela> I think it's the same case for both. The two groups have cultures, languages ​​and history that allows us to work at the same level as a LoCo with state
[21:03] <skellat> xuacu, do you make the same request?
[21:04] <felipexil> We (the Galician team) make the same request
[21:04] <xuacu> I'm waiting for ivarela to do it, I could do on his behalf if he's not present
[21:04] <skellat> Fellow Council members, the requests have been made.  Are you ready to vote on each item so as to dispose of the requests?
[21:05] <costales> skellat, I'll no vote this time, because these teams are like brothers for me :)
[21:05] <PabloRubianes> ok, can I ask why you don't want to be part of the Spain Team?
[21:05] <ivarela> Where do you live PabloRubianes ?
[21:05] <PabloRubianes> Uruguay
[21:06] <ivarela> Do you feel you are argentinian?
[21:06] <ivarela> That's the same.
[21:06] <PabloRubianes> no
[21:06] <PabloRubianes> you are in the same country
[21:06] <xuacu> Asturian LoCo has it's own workflow. Despite our excellent relationships with es-LoCo we want to keep things as they are now
[21:06] <felipexil> PabloRubianes: the Galician team is organized around our "culture", specially by our language
[21:06] <felipexil> we want to collaborate with all the teams
[21:07] <felipexil> and very specially with the teams in the Iberian Peninsula
[21:07] <PabloRubianes> felipexil: I respect that, and I know that you have your language
[21:07] <ivarela> anyway, culture and language is not the same. And we will not go back.
[21:07] <PabloRubianes> ok
[21:08] <ivarela> tebanpb, Llumex03 and dangerouspiper can say exactly the same
[21:08] <Llumex03> Yep
[21:09] <PabloRubianes> lets vote then
[21:09] <dangerouspiper> +1
[21:09] <xuacu> of course, our collaboration with es-LoCo will go on as usual, but as independent teams
[21:09] <skellat> There will be two separate votes
[21:09] <skellat> #vote That the Galician Team, pursuant to their request this day, be considered an independent LoCo team notwithstanding representing less than a country.
[21:09] <meetingology> Please vote on: That the Galician Team, pursuant to their request this day, be considered an independent LoCo team notwithstanding representing less than a country.
[21:09] <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)
[21:09] <skellat> +1
[21:09] <meetingology> +1 received from skellat
[21:09] <PabloRubianes> +1
[21:09] <meetingology> +1 received from PabloRubianes
[21:10] <SergioMeneses> 0
[21:10] <meetingology> 0 received from SergioMeneses
[21:10] <skellat> #endvote
[21:10] <meetingology> Voting ended on: That the Galician Team, pursuant to their request this day, be considered an independent LoCo team notwithstanding representing less than a country.
[21:10] <meetingology> Votes for:2 Votes against:0 Abstentions:1
[21:10] <meetingology> Motion carried
[21:10] <skellat> #vote That the Asturian Team, pursuant to their request this day, be considered an independent LoCo Team notwithstanding representing less than a country.
[21:10] <meetingology> Please vote on: That the Asturian Team, pursuant to their request this day, be considered an independent LoCo Team notwithstanding representing less than a country.
[21:10] <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)
[21:10] <skellat> +1
[21:10] <meetingology> +1 received from skellat
[21:10] <PabloRubianes> +1
[21:10] <meetingology> +1 received from PabloRubianes
[21:11] <SergioMeneses> 0
[21:11] <meetingology> 0 received from SergioMeneses
[21:11] <skellat> #endvote
[21:11] <meetingology> Voting ended on: That the Asturian Team, pursuant to their request this day, be considered an independent LoCo Team notwithstanding representing less than a country.
[21:11] <meetingology> Votes for:2 Votes against:0 Abstentions:1
[21:11] <meetingology> Motion carried
[21:12] <skellat> #info Marcos Costales, in his capacity as leader of Ubuntu Spain and as a member of LoCo Council, stood aside from both votes.
[21:13] <skellat> The requests are granted.  The Asturian team is reminded that re-verification is still due at the deadline specified on Launchpad.
[21:13] <felipexil> Thanks!
[21:13] <skellat> #topic Any Other Business
[21:13] <skellat> What other business is there before the LoCo Council at this time?  It is presently 2113 UTC.
[21:13] <xuacu> Thank you all for hearing us
[21:14] <skellat> xuacu: If you had written to us as asked prior we could have disposed of this even more quickly.
[21:14] <nhaines> What is the preferred forum for exception requests?
[21:14] <ivarela> Thank you very much
[21:14] <ivarela> felipexil, gracies home!!
[21:14] <skellat> nhaines: We're still debating that internally.  This is the first time we've approached such since the policy was adopted so most of it was handled in a pro forma fashion.
[21:15] <skellat> If we had been written to, the turnaround would possibly have been quicker.  We only hold one IRC meeting per month.
[21:15] <skellat> When in doubt, write to us.
[21:16] <skellat> We try to not let things get hung up due to the calendar if we can avoid it.
[21:16] <nhaines> So provisionally, the preferred form of contact is via email to the LoCo Council?
[21:16] <skellat> For now, yes.
[21:17] <skellat> #info Those who have requests of the LoCo Council are advised to write to it at loco-council@lists.ubuntu.com for assistance.
[21:18] <skellat> rww: Do you wish to continue discussion of your matter?  We're unfortunately not quorate at this point as Sergio and Pablo had to depart.
[21:18] <rww> sorry, work matter. yes.
[21:18] <xuacu> still, it's very likely that things goes out of control
[21:19] <skellat> Okay
[21:19] <rww> so as I mentioned earlier, I was concerned (and I think nhaines was?) about the communication surrounding this policy
[21:19] <nhaines> rww: that is an accurate representation of my concern.
[21:19] <skellat> Bad situations make for bad policy.
[21:19] <xuacu> I've found this issue already in a bad state
[21:19] <rww> For example, as I mentioned earlier, I didn't see public discussion of it beforehand, which I think is something that could be improved in the future.
[21:19] <skellat> May I tell some of the back story?
[21:20] <rww> sure :)
[21:20] <skellat> Okay
[21:20] <skellat> First the Catalan team came up for re-verification
[21:20] <skellat> Under one country, one LoCo we said they didn't fit as they're still part of Spain
[21:20] <skellat> Yes, they're trying hard to have a separatist referendum but for now they're still part of Spain
[21:21] <skellat> The Catalan team didn't like that so they took the matter up with Community Council
[21:21] <skellat> After a long and not so happy meeting between both bodies, LoCo Council was tasked with trying to find a way to adapt what had existed prior to accommodate the Catalan situation
[21:21] <nhaines> Why was it so important to disband the verified, fully-functional Catalan team?
[21:22] <xuacu> nhaines: I second your question
[21:22] <skellat> nhaines: We were trying to clean up what we had in terms of policies and exceptions (written, unwritten, and some partially forgotten) to bring it into a coherent whole
[21:22] <skellat> This was also prior to the Scottish independence vote failing
[21:23] <skellat> After multiple rounds of LoCo Council deadlocking on trying to adapt policy so that forgotten understandings, barely documented exceptions, and the like could be cleaned up...
[21:23] <skellat> ...we voted via CIVS.
[21:23] <skellat> By majority vote we adopted what we had.
[21:24] <skellat> This stretched on for about 3 months.
[21:24] <skellat> We finally submitted the policy to Community Council to see if they felt it would help ameliorate the situation that arose with respect to the Catalan team, they were okay with it, and we then resolved the Catalan matter.
[21:25] <skellat> There were a couple different versions we voted on and this one was the one we felt would be flexible enough to accommodate the future.
[21:26] <skellat> As to the US, the exceptions for the individual states stay because of the unique system of dual sovereignties in play especially considering every Governor has their own army (## State National Guard) as well as the federal forces.
[21:27] <rww> I think discussing the US fully would probably not be productive, so unless someone objects we can probably set that aside :)
[21:27] <rww> (US sovereignty is... a fun topic)
[21:27] <nhaines> Not the consideration that a US LoCo with 50 team leads and almost no geographical continuity would be completely unproductive?
[21:28] <skellat> rww: LoCo Council spent a week going round and round about it and there was a "red team" discussion of creating a single US LoCo undertaken.
[21:28] <nhaines> Actually I like rww's better.
[21:28] <tebanpb> I have a question then. What about countries without their own army? :s
[21:29] <rww> So yeah. Communication. I understand (and now more fully understand) that it was a difficult situation, and that bringing it up for public discussion was in some ways problematic.
[21:29] <skellat> tebanpb: :-) That was just one example of dual sovereignties in the US system.
[21:29] <skellat> rww: Yeah, you could say that.
[21:29] <skellat> Does it need work?  Probably.
[21:29] <elfy> o/
[21:29] <skellat> elfy: Hello comrade
[21:29] <rww> However, as someone who part-manages a LoCo that occasionally threatens to try to be two LoCos, I would have appreciated *something* on loco-contacts@, even if it were just "we're pondering the one-LoCo-one-state policy, if you have input email the LoCo Council off-list"
[21:30] <tebanpb> But sovereignty is a political concept which is defined differently in each country
[21:30] <rww> I mean, it's water under the bridge now, but please consider that for future issues :)
[21:30] <nhaines> tebanpb: this is why the guidelines allow for exceptions on an individual basis.
[21:30] <tebanpb> As a matter of fact I don't get why we are getting so much into these politic issues :s
[21:30] <rww> And I've said my piece, so back to the others for their comments I guess.
[21:30] <costales> tebanpb, all it's politic
[21:31] <skellat> rww: We're all fairly exhausted from the Utopic Unicorn cycle getting the issues of the Iberian Peninsula settled.
[21:31] <costales> tebanpb, our society and live
[21:31] <costales> ;)
[21:31] <dangerouspiper> skellat you konw that in Spain is a system with dual sovereignties?
[21:31] <tebanpb> I mean institutional politics
[21:32] <tebanpb> dangerouspiper is right about that
[21:32] <skellat> Okay, does anybody else have anything else to raise before the LoCo Council at this time?
[21:32] <costales> dangerouspiper,  I tried to explain to the Council
[21:32] <tebanpb> and we could end discussing about what sovereignty means, it's pointless
[21:33] <skellat> Nothing being heard, this meeting is concluded.  Thank you all for your participation.
[21:33] <costales> I think is not a political issue, it's a cultural/language issue
[21:33] <skellat> #endmeeting
[21:33] <meetingology> Meeting ended Tue Oct 21 21:33:47 2014 UTC.
[21:33] <meetingology> Minutes:        http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2014/ubuntu-meeting.2014-10-21-20.00.moin.txt
[21:33] <costales> thanks a lot skellat for be our chairman :)
[21:33] <skellat> Your welcome.
[21:34] <skellat> s/Your welcome/You are welcome/
[21:34] <costales> xD
[21:34] <costales> sed rules!
[21:34] <nhaines> xuacu, ivarela, felipexil: congratulations.  :)
[21:34] <costales> bye bye!
[21:34] <xuacu> Nigth everyone and thank you again :)
[21:34] <felipexil>  skellat: I'm a bit late, but I think the policy should be clarified
[21:34] <felipexil> just in case other teams are in our situation
[21:34] <felipexil> nhaines: thanks!
[21:35] <xuacu> bye!
[21:35] <ivarela> nhaines, thanks to you
[21:35] <felipexil> thanks xuacu, ivarela!
[21:35] <nhaines> Your result is what I thought the policy should allow, and I'm happy it worked out that way.  I hope that this helps to relieve some of the concerns of the community.
[21:35] <ivarela> felipexil, gracies home!
[21:36] <nhaines> costales: can't get enough of us?  :)