[23:06] <Eickmeyer> o/
[23:06] <toddy> o/
[23:06] <Eickmeyer> o/
[23:06] <Eickmeyer> Hi lifeless
[23:06] <toddy> hi linaporras
[23:06] <Eickmeyer> *linaporras
[23:06] <Eickmeyer> mispings are awkward.
[23:07] <teward> i am around but thanks to the snow pulled my back and am waiting for the meds to kick in
[23:07] <teward> for the pain
[23:07] <teward> so forgive if ERR:quiet from me for a bit
[23:07] <linaporras> HI!
[23:07] <teward> jose: around?
[23:07] <Eickmeyer> Yeah, I'm still working too.
[23:08] <jose> I don't know, you tell me ;)
[23:08] <Eickmeyer> :P
[23:08] <teward> *tasers jose*
[23:08] <Eickmeyer> wxl: ?
[23:08] <Eickmeyer> nhaines: ?
[23:08] <wxl> yes i'm here
[23:09] <jose> who hasn't chaired yet and would like to
[23:09] <Eickmeyer> I'm not in a position to do so today, and ERR: next meeting (30th) is my 14th anniversary, so shouldn't today.
[23:10] <Eickmeyer> er, shouldn't then.
[23:10] <jose> we're probably skip the 30th meeting because festivities
[23:10] <teward> yep DMB is doing the same
[23:10] <Eickmeyer> Fair.
[23:10] <toddy> jose: we have no meeting at the 30th
[23:10] <jose> we are supposed to
[23:10] <jose> anyways
[23:10] <jose> who's chairing
[23:11] <teward> not it.
[23:11]  * Eickmeyer nominates toddy
[23:11] <Eickmeyer> not it
[23:11] <teward> unless you can wait 10min
[23:11] <jose> toddy, wxl, or linaporras, who's doing it
[23:11] <wxl> not it
[23:11] <wxl> looks like it's toddy :)
[23:11] <toddy> Can somebody else chair?
[23:12] <toddy> I'm pretty beat from the day
[23:12] <linaporras> I am not ready for that task
[23:13] <wxl> oh for pete's sake
[23:13] <linaporras> jose can u repeat
[23:13] <linaporras> ?
[23:13] <teward> >.>
[23:13] <wxl> i'll do the dumb thing
[23:13] <teward> give me 3min.  then i will fastrun the meeting if you want.  and complain :P
[23:13] <teward> today been chaosday for me
[23:13] <linaporras> oki teward
[23:14] <wxl> #startmeeting Community Council regular meeting
[23:14] <meetingology> Meeting started Wed Dec 16 23:14:13 2020 UTC.  The chair is wxl. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology.
[23:14] <meetingology> Available commands: action commands idea info link nick
[23:14] <teward> or wxl can since they said they would
[23:14] <Eickmeyer> I'm ok with that. I'm not in any hurry.
[23:14] <wxl> #meetingtopic Old business
[23:14] <wxl> oh jeez
[23:14] <wxl> i got to figure out how to work this thing :(
[23:14] <jose> just topic :)
[23:15] <wxl> #meeting Community Council regular meeting
[23:15] <wxl> ugh
[23:15] <wxl> #meetingtopic Community Council regular meeting
[23:15] <wxl> #topic Old business
[23:15] <wxl> FINALLY
[23:15] <wxl> ok so what old business do we have to deal with?
[23:15] <teward> TB stuff for one
[23:16] <teward> thats "in the works" - on jose and Mark atm
[23:16] <wxl> #subtopic Technical Board elections
[23:16] <jose> currently waiting on Mark to confirm the shortlist
[23:16] <teward> gonna make an observation tho
[23:16] <teward> not many people felt they were up for the task
[23:17] <wxl> i didn't look at the list. saw lots of recognizable names coming through. did we get enough folks?
[23:17] <Eickmeyer> I think we did.
[23:17] <jose> we did get just enough
[23:17] <teward> only after I put sil's name in
[23:17] <Eickmeyer> Yeah. Honestly, I feel pretty good about the list.
[23:17] <teward> with their permission.  I woild have tossed in my hat but jose told me to stay homr
[23:17] <linaporras> :)
[23:17] <teward> home*
[23:17] <jose> I feel very strongly about the list too. Just need to get Mark's confirmation.
[23:17] <Eickmeyer> I agree, too many hats can be problematic.
[23:17] <wxl> sooooo teward: elaborate— do you see some sort of problem that there were so few nominations?
[23:18] <wxl> i'm not surprised by it
[23:18] <jose> we received 4, and looked for some extra people, got that final one
[23:18] <teward> typing from phone patience pls
[23:19] <teward> one of the major concerns was "oh i am not sure i am qualified" - sil and others had that opinion privately.  Other things is i think people have a misunderstanding of what the TB does or want to see it take a different direction (that was Laney's summarized opinion)
[23:19] <wxl> i suspect we don't have enough time to run the election to finish by end of year if we don't get the shortlist rather quick
[23:20] <teward> i will put together the concerns and ML them to us all
[23:20] <wxl> sil didn't think they were qualified?????
[23:20] <teward> they were on the fence.  After talkling to sil they reassessed
[23:20] <teward> they were more unsure than not
[23:20] <teward> sil is one of the most qualified IMO as are the others on the list so far
[23:21] <teward> (brb, need an ice pack)
[23:21] <jose> considering it's a just a confirmation vote, voting would be open for a week, so I think we might be able to make it by EOY
[23:21] <wxl> well i guess that sort of cautious behavior is the sort of thing we'd want in a tb member rather than just rushing things through
[23:21] <teward> yup
[23:21] <linaporras> +1
[23:21] <wxl> jose: are you planning on meeting with mark in the near future that you could bug him?
[23:21] <jose> right now, we're dependent on Mark's response, and he did want to get it done before the holidays
[23:21] <jose> I did reach out to him directly via IM :)
[23:22] <teward> #AIM_IS_DEAD jose ;)
[23:22] <jose> and I did message on Monday and again today
[23:22] <wxl> ok well i guess we'll just hope for the best
[23:22] <jose> not America On Line's, but other more modern solution
[23:22] <teward> wxl: if push comes to shove i'll extend existing TB through 2 weeks of Jan. until we get the meeting
[23:23] <teward> s/meeting/election/
[23:23] <jose> I have a good feeling about this.
[23:23] <wxl> okie dokie
[23:23] <Eickmeyer> I do too.
[23:23] <wxl> #action teward to post to list about observations from Technical Board nominations
[23:23] <meetingology> ACTION: teward to post to list about observations from Technical Board nominations
[23:23] <wxl> i suspect we're done with that
[23:24] <wxl> #topic Membership Board
[23:24] <wxl> we've got our new membership board installed (yay)
[23:24] <Eickmeyer> \o/
[23:24] <toddy> fine
[23:25] <linaporras> 👍
[23:25] <wxl> i don't think there's much else to say about that but we can acknowledge our success :)
[23:25] <Eickmeyer> Yup. Nothing wrong with a little celebration.
[23:25] <toddy> :)
[23:25] <wxl> ok next
[23:25] <wxl> #topic Discourse
[23:25] <Eickmeyer> Oof, discourse. :/
[23:25] <wxl> yeah well we have good news
[23:25] <linaporras> :o :o
[23:26] <Eickmeyer> Oh?
[23:26] <wxl> that being that there are now two new subtopics in the CC category
[23:26] <linaporras> 🙀
[23:26] <wxl> that being "Documentation" and "Meetings"
[23:26] <wxl> so now it should be easier to find things
[23:26] <toddy> looks good
[23:26] <Eickmeyer> Sweet.
[23:26] <wxl> so generally i think we have everything we were looking for there
[23:27] <wxl> there was one piece of documentation i thought might be better suited in our area
[23:27] <wxl> oh two actually
[23:27] <wxl> https://discourse.ubuntu.com/t/governance/332
[23:27] <wxl> https://discourse.ubuntu.com/t/community-structure/331
[23:28] <Eickmeyer> Indeed.
[23:28] <wxl> those are the only two things in the community subcategory of the documentation category
[23:28] <wxl> should i ask someone for permission before moving things?
[23:28] <jose> I feel like, after we wind down with restaffing, we're going to be able to put stuff in there
[23:28] <jose> I would say ask the owner
[23:28] <jose> and if you don't get a response in a couple days, move it
[23:28] <wxl> that would be popey
[23:28] <jose> and otherwise we can move it back
[23:29] <wxl> okie dokie
[23:29] <jose> just as a "politeness" thing
[23:29] <Bashing-om> wxl: Be aware that I do follow through on the "Meetings" report and so list in UWN.
[23:29] <wxl> #action wxl to ask popey if it's ok to move Community Structure & Governance posts from Documentation/Community category on Discourse to Community Council/Documentation
[23:29] <meetingology> ACTION: wxl to ask popey if it's ok to move Community Structure & Governance posts from Documentation/Community category on Discourse to Community Council/Documentation
[23:30] <wxl> Bashing-om: ok. did i say something wrong? :)
[23:30] <wxl> ooook
[23:30] <wxl> next item
[23:31] <wxl> #topic Local Communities Committee
[23:31] <Bashing-om> wxl: No - sorry - just a comment for the use of discourse.
[23:31] <wxl> Bashing-om: okie thx :)
[23:31] <wxl> so did everyone review and/or comment on the draft for the LoCo Committee?
[23:31] <jose> okay, for this one, I still haven't gotten either an 'ack' from most of you, saying "I've reviewed and left my comments"
[23:31] <wxl> (i know i did!)
[23:32] <toddy> I also have did it
[23:32] <linaporras> Wel... I did... ;)
[23:32] <teward> i've read the comments and such, but not made any other than the one.  every other comment was already made :P
[23:32] <jose> Eickmeyer?
[23:32] <jose> #voters wxl jose toddy linaporras teward Eickmeyer nhaines
[23:32] <Eickmeyer> I don't think I had. Link?
[23:32] <jose> #voters wxl jose toddy linaporras teward Eickmeyer nhaines
[23:32] <meetingology> Current voters: Eickmeyer jose linaporras nhaines teward toddy wxl
[23:33] <wxl> there you go
[23:33] <teward> #chairs teward jose wxl
[23:33] <teward> #chair teward jose wxl
[23:33] <meetingology> Current chairs: jose teward wxl
[23:33] <teward> so we don't need to op ;)
[23:33] <wxl> votes required 4?
[23:33] <jose> Let me get you a link.
[23:33] <jose> Yes but hold on
[23:33] <linaporras> there was a point to discuss
[23:33] <toddy> I think we have an open question in the draft?
[23:34] <toddy> There was something
[23:34] <jose> Eickmeyer: sent you a link via DDM
[23:34] <jose> not posting it here because it's still a draft and still open
[23:34] <jose> yes, there is something, but I want to make sure to give Eickmeyer time to skim it
[23:34] <jose> let's give him 3 minutes (180 secs)?
[23:34] <wxl> (what's ddm?)
[23:34] <linaporras> agree with jose
[23:35] <jose> DM*
[23:35] <wxl> ahh :)
[23:35] <jose> direct, direct message :)
[23:35] <wxl> could you send to me again so i can remind myself
[23:35] <wxl> ?
[23:35] <jose> of course.
[23:35] <Eickmeyer> Yeah, after a cursory glance, LGTM. Only question is if the question is resolved.
[23:36] <jose> wxl: need some time to skim it?
[23:36] <jose> #votesrequired 4
[23:36] <meetingology> votes now need 4 to be passed
[23:37] <jose> giving wxl a couple more minutes before I raise my point
[23:37] <jose> and then after I explain and we discuss we can put it to a vote
[23:37] <wxl> should we answer the question that remains?
[23:38] <Eickmeyer> I think we should.
[23:38] <jose> okay, then. let me explain the question and my point of view
[23:38] <linaporras> Not be a Community Council member.this is the topic for dicussion
[23:38] <Eickmeyer> Ok. Yeah, being a CC member on this committee might have a perception of a heavy hand.
[23:39] <jose> Right now, there are mixed opinions on whether current Community Council members can be part of the LCRC. In my opinion, we are creating this entity to perform independent research.
[23:39] <jose> 1.- As Eickmeyer mentioned, it can create the perception of a heavy hand
[23:39] <jose> 2.- We are delegating because we have other stuff to take care of
[23:39] <jose> not that we don't care about this, but we do, which is why we should get other people to help us with this
[23:39] <jose> they will have much better bandwidth than us, with all our duties
[23:40] <jose> and so, perform a much more deep investigation
[23:40] <jose> what do y'all think?
[23:40] <Eickmeyer> I agree, jose.
[23:40] <toddy> If someone thinks they want to take part, they can do so for all I care. regardless of whether they are a cc member or not.
[23:40] <jose> toddy: what do you think of the points I raised above?
[23:40] <jose> do you agree? no? why?
[23:41] <toddy> I don't think that it is a heavy hand of this person if he in the commitee
[23:41] <linaporras> I don 't see in that way, why our participation could be seen as heavy hand... is just cooperaton.
[23:41] <Eickmeyer> toddy: The problem is that if other people (non-CC members) know there's a CC member on the committee, that might make a perception of being watched, or that the CC member is the actual leader of the committee and is steering it.
[23:41] <linaporras> and I agree with toddy
[23:41] <toddy> we are all grown up enough
[23:41] <Eickmeyer> We are, but other people on the committee might not be able to separate that psychologically.
[23:42] <wxl> it's not to say we can't be involved
[23:42] <jose> of course
[23:42] <jose> we can still be involved
[23:42] <jose> but we delegate the heavy work
[23:42] <toddy> and point 2. I think if somebody thing it whould be good to help and have the time. it is okay for me
[23:42] <jose> if we take on absolutely everything ourselves, we would have a never ending list of things
[23:43] <wxl> ^ that is something i constantly worry about. i already knowingly allow myself to wear too many hats as it is
[23:43] <linaporras> of course, but we are not saying that we are going to force everyone of us to participate
[23:43] <linaporras> as toddy says if someone has the time, and wants to get involved, just do it
[23:43] <toddy> I don't want to be in that committee but if somebody else would I feel okay with that.
[23:43] <jose> anyways, those were my arguments, I think that unless anyone else has anything else (different than what's already been presented), we can put this to a vote? anything else?
[23:44] <linaporras> no
[23:44] <jose> if I don't hear back in 60s I'll post the vote
[23:44] <wxl> let's look at it a different way: there may be some other person who has a particularly unique perspective that if one of us took their spot that they couldn't participate
[23:44] <wxl> yeah let's vote
[23:44] <jose> #vote Can current Community Council members be part of the LCRC?
[23:44] <meetingology> Please vote on: Can current Community Council members be part of the LCRC?
[23:44] <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)
[23:44] <linaporras> +1
[23:44] <meetingology> +1 received from linaporras
[23:44] <jose> -1
[23:44] <meetingology> -1 received from jose
[23:45] <toddy> +1
[23:45] <meetingology> +1 received from toddy
[23:45] <Eickmeyer> -1
[23:45] <meetingology> -1 received from Eickmeyer
[23:45] <wxl> -1
[23:45] <meetingology> -1 received from wxl
[23:45] <wxl> looks like teward and nhaines are the deciing votes
[23:46] <teward> looks like i got busy with my mom and dad calling
[23:46] <teward> -1 CC members should not sit on the LCRC.
[23:46] <meetingology> -1 CC members should not sit on the LCRC. received from teward
[23:46] <jose> nhaines?
[23:46] <Eickmeyer> Regardless of nhaines's vote, motion cannot pass.
[23:46] <toddy> than we have a result.
[23:46] <wxl> yep
[23:46] <wxl> #endvote
[23:46] <meetingology> Voting ended on: Can current Community Council members be part of the LCRC?
[23:46] <meetingology> Votes for:2 Votes against:4 Abstentions:0
[23:46] <meetingology> Motion denied
[23:47] <wxl> okie dokie so with that out of the way, we can make the draft official
[23:47] <linaporras> yeah!
[23:47] <Eickmeyer> Yup.
[23:47] <toddy> \o/
[23:47] <jose> there are still a couple things to iron out
[23:47] <jose> especially the number of members
[23:47] <linaporras> and do u think we should start recruiting for the LCRC now, or at begining of january?
[23:48] <toddy> asap
[23:48] <Eickmeyer> ^
[23:48] <jose> If there is someone you know would be interested, line them up
[23:48] <wxl> i think ideally it should at least be 6 or more
[23:48] <linaporras> I think from my LoCo could  be one person
[23:48] <linaporras> Lirrums
[23:49] <wxl> how about this: it would be nice to have at least one member from every region. THAT is our requirement
[23:49] <wxl> if there are more than that, it's ok
[23:49] <jose> Nominations will be formal and later on
[23:49] <wxl> not to exceed 12
[23:49] <linaporras> wel 12 is a big number...
[23:49] <jose> So we good with min 6, max 12?
[23:49] <linaporras> I think 9 is a good big number...
[23:50] <toddy> jose: thats fine for me
[23:50] <wxl> 6-9 then
[23:50] <jose> min 6, max 9?
[23:50] <linaporras> min 5... maz 9
[23:50] <wxl> but with the requirement that there is at least one member from each region
[23:50] <linaporras> *max
[23:50] <wxl> regions being:
[23:50] <wxl>  1. n. america
[23:50] <wxl>  2. s. america
[23:50] <wxl>  3. europe
[23:50] <wxl>  4. africa
[23:51] <wxl>  5. asia
[23:51] <wxl>  6. oceania
[23:51] <wxl> that's why i said minimum 6
[23:51] <linaporras> 2. south an central america maybe?  a
[23:51] <linaporras> and  bye northe will be Canada, Us, and Mexico or ?
[23:51] <wxl> you know i was totally going to say that :)
[23:51] <linaporras> well ok, 6 is ok
[23:51] <linaporras> wow, I am writing horrible
[23:51] <linaporras> and  by north america will be Canada, Us, and Mexico or ?
[23:52] <toddy> yes 6 is a good for min
[23:52] <wxl> all of the above linaporras
[23:52] <jose> I would take the Wikipedia definition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_America
[23:53] <wxl> right
[23:53] <wxl> can we say "It is essential for the committee to be composed of people from all regions" and define those 6 regions?
[23:53] <jose> All good with min 6, max 9, essential all regions?
[23:54] <linaporras> ok ok North America includes central america...
[23:54] <wxl> right
[23:54] <linaporras> ok I agree with the Wikipedia definition, I think that we should cite the wikipedia part... for clarification...
[23:55] <jose> we can have that internally ourselves
[23:55] <linaporras> I agree
[23:55] <Eickmeyer> Yep.
[23:55] <toddy> ok
[23:55] <wxl> great
[23:55] <wxl> anything else ?
[23:55] <linaporras> Nop from my part1
[23:56] <Eickmeyer> I'm good.
[23:56] <linaporras> I think that we should make this official and start the conformation, but I suggest to start that in the 2nd week of January... take into account, that in some countries this is holiday season
[23:56] <jose> target project completion date?
[23:56] <linaporras> end of January
[23:57] <jose> opinions?
[23:57] <jose> anyone else?
[23:57] <wxl> i think it makes sense
[23:57] <toddy> ok, we can do it like this
[23:57] <wxl> chinese new year thankfully begins in february this year
[23:58] <jose> so, accounting for a 2-week nomination period, 1-week voting period, finish it on Jan 31st at most, and then instate it on Feb 1st?
[23:58] <wxl> yep
[23:58] <wxl> i presume we are announcing this as we would board nominations?
[23:58] <jose> and expiring Jul 31st?
[23:58] <jose> yeah
[23:58] <jose> actually
[23:58] <jose> the proposal draft should go into our documentation
[23:58] <jose> and then we should make a formal call for nominations linking to that
[23:58] <linaporras> coool.. well se what happens with the job... if they found that maybe need more time we can reealuate, but so far is  ok
[23:58] <jose> that way it's not lost in the call for nominations post
[23:59] <jose> yes, these are all estimated timelines
[23:59] <linaporras> :)
[23:59] <jose> toddy: are you still good to own this action item?
[23:59] <toddy> I own that?
[23:59] <wxl> yes that's right (on expiration)
[23:59] <jose> yeah, you owned the LoCo Council renewal