December 9, 2009 Logs

20:01 < akgraner> Time to start...
20:01 < dinda> who's leading?
20:02 < dinda> go for it
20:02 < akgraner> So who is here for the meeting?
20:02 < jono> o/
20:02 < czajkowski> Me
20:02 < jtniehof> *hand*
20:02 < akgraner> attendance time  :-)
20:02  * althara raises hand
20:02  * Pici waves
20:02 < maco> o/
20:02  * pleia2 waves
20:02  * akk waves
20:02  * Gareth waves
20:02  * dinda is off the clock and ready for meeting time
20:02 < akgraner> as people are giving attendance here is the agenda
http://wiki.ubuntu-women.org/Meetings/20091209
20:03 < maiatoday> i'm here too
20:03 < akgraner> Awesome!!...
20:03 < akgraner> anyone else
20:03 < czajkowski> Aloha and thanks for coming to the meeting, akgraner
is gonna get the mins of the meeting and I'll try adn drive the meeting,
if that's ok folks
20:03 < althara> sounds good
20:04 < akgraner> so everyone looking at the agenda?
20:04 < jono> ok, so the goal here is to decide on the leadership
codification and set a process in place for determining a leader?
20:04 < akgraner> jono you type faster than me...
20:04 < czajkowski> so first item and we may not get through it all
today is focusing on the leadership
20:04 < jono> lol
20:04 < jledbetter1> lol!
20:04 < jono> lauracowen, :)
20:04 < czajkowski> and determinging a place for the leadership of the group
20:04 < lauracowen> jono :)
20:05 < akgraner> czajkowski, take it away
20:05  * jussi01 puts a hand in the air
20:05 < czajkowski> So what would folks like to start with,  please have
a look at the
http://wiki.ubuntu-women.org/UbuntuWomen/LeadershipNominationsProcess/January2010

20:06 < akgraner> does anyone have any thoughts on this process...
20:06 < akgraner> after looking at it
20:06 < czajkowski> Election, timescales?
20:06 < czajkowski> we'd like to work on the responsibibilites
20:06 < althara> I think the timescales are reasonable
20:07 < pleia2> there has been some disagreement about having a single
leader after the 6 month leader appointed by the CC, instead possibly
having three leaders working together
20:07 < jono> +1 from me
20:07 < jono> looks good :)
20:07 < akgraner> +1 from me
20:07 < pleia2> I don't think this is something we need to decide right
now, but maybe add to that page that it's still up for discussion (one
of the things this single leader can
               help tackle)
20:07 < pleia2> otherwise, +1
20:07 < ara> +1
20:07 < czajkowski> +1
20:08 < dinda> +1 looks ok
20:08 < akk> +1
20:08 < althara> pleia2: +1 on the multiple leaders after lucid cycle
20:08 < czajkowski> pleia2: good point, perhaps for further discussion
20:08 < jussi01> What is the plan next election, are there going to be
constituents to vote or is it again CC appointed?
20:08 < czajkowski> althara: yes I think for the next 6 months and then
we can revisit it after that
20:08 < pleia2> jussi01: constituents
20:08 < dinda> how many candidates do we expect this cycle?  can't
imagine there are more than a handful
20:08 < akgraner> election after uds-m
20:09 < jussi01> pleia2: who will they be? how will you decide who gets
to vote?
20:09 < maco> pleia2: i think the treschix triumvirate in linuxchix has
worked out well so i like that idea for here too
20:09 < akgraner> jussi it's on the wiki..
20:09 < dinda> maco: +1 on that
20:09 < czajkowski> dinda: it's entirely up to people here to come up
with a list, niminate themselves and then say for arguement sake the CC
to chose
20:09 < akgraner> the process after usd-m will get finalized during
lucid cycle...
20:09 < czajkowski> maco: could you explain for those who don't know
about that
20:09 < czajkowski> please
20:10 < dinda> czajkowski: so we think the CC will be familiar enough
with everyone to make a good choice?
20:10 < pleia2> jussi01: we'll sort that out formally over the next 6 months
20:10 < akgraner> dinda that is the purpose for the wiki... to the CC
20:10 < czajkowski> dinda:
http://wiki.ubuntu-women.org/UbuntuWomen/LeadershipNominations/January2010
would be the standard information for them
20:10 < maco> a triumvirate is how ancient rome worked: 3 leaders
together. after a bit of a power struggle in linuxchix a couple years
ago, the old one-leader method was
             abolished and now we have 3. i think the shared power
works well.
20:10 < maco> (since lyz mentioned the 3 or 1 thing for after the 6mo
period)
20:11 < czajkowski> maco: seeme like a great idea
20:11 < dinda> it also works well for redundancy, helps keep pressure
off any one person
20:11 < czajkowski> +1
20:11 < akk> BTW, 'vir' means man, so maybe it would be a triumfeminate.
20:11 < pleia2> again, I think this triumvirate is something we can put
off talking about :) but I wanted that change to be made to the wiki page
20:11 < jono> sorry, net went wobbly for a sec
20:11 < akk> But yes, the tres chix works very well for Linuxchix.
20:11 < maco> akk: ah didnt know that!

20:11 < pleia2> so it's not "set in stone 1 leader"
20:11 < maco> in linuxchix its called the Tres Chix. akk are you one of
them?
20:12 < akk> maco: I am. :)
20:12 < akk> (Me, Carla and Sulamita.)
20:12 < czajkowski> so are we saying 3 for lucid and 3 after lucid, or 1
for lucid and then 3 aftewards?
20:12 < jono> I missed the last 3 mins
20:12 < althara> 1 for lucid three afterwards
20:12 < czajkowski> jono: maco mentioned a way fo having 3 for the team
leader
20:12 < pleia2> czajkowski:  1 for lucid and then 3 aftewards
20:12 < maco> jono: got you it in pm
20:12 < czajkowski> pleia2: ok thanks
20:13 < akgraner> pleia2, that sounds awesome!
20:13 < czajkowski> it sounds like a really good idea
20:13 < czajkowski> how do others feel about this
20:13 < jono> 3 for team leader?
20:13 < jono> my view is -1 for that
20:13 < Pici> jono: reason?
20:13 < jono> I believe this team needs one leader who is recognized as
a decision maker
20:13 < jono> if there are three leaders, concensus will still be delayed
20:14 < czajkowski> jono: there would be for the lucid release cycle
20:14 < jono> which seems to be the primary problem we want to solve
20:14 < jono> what is the reason not to choose just one leader?
20:14 < Theiya> I can see the point behind one leader, however the load
that is placed on one individual can be nasty.  so having a balance is good.
20:14 < czajkowski> and after lucid a team of 3/leaders would be the way
forward
20:14 < maco> jono: we're talking about 1 leader now then after 6mo when
we have an election, making a team of 3
20:14 < althara> jono: Shared workload responsibility, having a blackup
20:14 < althara> *backup
20:15 < pendulum__> I think 1 for lucid and then reevaluate depending on
how it goes
20:15 < pleia2> pendulum__: yeah, that's fine too :)
20:15 < czajkowski> so for lucid there owuld be one leader and helping
committee/steering committee
20:15 < akgraner> or 1 leader and steering committee
20:15 < czajkowski> so really for after lucid the 3 would be the
steering committee
20:15 < akgraner> so does everyone like the wiki format...
20:15 < jono> I think we are talking about two different things:
leadership governance and workload
20:15 < jono> workload should be spread out, I agree - and that is why
we built a roadmap - to fairly spread the load
20:15 < jono> but by appointing a leader it means that decisions can be
made - that is as quick as offering up a decision
20:16 < jtniehof> I agree with 1 for lucid and then reeval, just to get
stuff rolling
20:16 < jono> being leader does not mean you take on a lot more tasks,
just that people identify you as a decision make when projects stall
20:16 < akgraner> we can identify pain points during lucid ....
20:16 < dinda> steering committee seems like a good transition, going
from no leader as it is now
20:16 < althara> +1 on 1 leader and reeval
20:16 < pleia2> +1 on 1 leader and reeval
20:16 < czajkowski> + 1 on 1 leader and reeval
20:16 < althara> dinda: +1
20:16 < Pici> +1
20:16 < jono> so I would say +1 on a single leader using the process
linked to us and +1 on effectively sharing the workload throughout the team
20:16 < akgraner> +1 on 1 leader and reeval
20:17 < maco> +1 on 1 leader and reeval
20:17 < jono> sorry laggy net connection here
20:17 < akgraner> ok so wiki format for nominees look ok
20:17 < akgraner> to everyone
20:17 < Pici> Looks good to me
20:17 < czajkowski> ok so are we all in agreement for this for the next
6 months, that we shall have 1 leader and this to be reevaluated in M
20:17 < althara> +1
20:17 < jono> sounds good :)
20:18 < jussi01> +1
20:18 < Theiya> +1
20:18 < maiatoday> +1
20:18 < akgraner> +1
20:18 < czajkowski> lovely jubbly!
20:18 < jledbetter1> +1
20:18 < pleia2> +1
20:18 < althara> that was +1 on Pici and czajkowski
20:18 < czajkowski> ok movinbg to the next bit so
20:18 < czajkowski> is the wiki page
http://wiki.ubuntu-women.org/UbuntuWomen/LeadershipNominations/January2010
looking good for folks?
20:18 < czajkowski> would any more details be needed
20:19 < jono> looks great to me
20:19 < jono> good detail, reasonable deadlines
20:19 < jono> :)
20:19 < pleia2> looks good
20:19 < czajkowski> ok so the call for noiminations will go out tomorrow
20:19 < czajkowski> this will last till when ???
20:19 < jussi01> 2 weeks imho.
20:19 < jono> czajkowski, it says 23rd dec in the doc
20:20 < pleia2> the schedule on the wiki page looks fine
20:20 < akgraner> # Open Call For Nominations - 10th Dec
20:20 < akgraner> # Nominations Deadline - 23rd Dec
20:20 < akgraner> # Testimonials Deadline - 8th Jan
20:20 < akgraner> # CC Deadline - 15th Jan
20:20 < issyl0> Hi all!
20:20 < Theiya> I'd say no more than 2 weeks.
20:20 < czajkowski> ah yes missed it there
20:20 < akgraner> time line...
20:20 < jledbetter1> pleia2: +1
20:20 < althara> pleia2: +1
20:20 < jussi01> pleia2: +1
20:20 < czajkowski> +1
20:20 < issyl0> Wait... grr I've half missed the meeting!  I just looked
at emails!

20:20 < akgraner> +1
20:20 < czajkowski> seems liek a reasonable time frame
20:20 < jono> +1
20:20 < maiatoday> +1
20:20 < dinda> timeline is fine +1
20:20 < akgraner> awesome so wiki and time are good.... awesome moving along
20:20 < czajkowski> ok movingb to the responsibilities
20:20 < akgraner> :-)
20:20 < jono> I would recommend that we discuss how to get the word out
about the nomination process
20:21 < czajkowski> Responsibilities:
20:21 < jono> some blog entries would be good
20:21 < jono> and posts to the u-w list
20:21 < Pici> blog, fridge, mailing list
20:21 -!- Irssi: Pasting 5 lines to #ubuntu-women. Press Ctrl-K if you
wish to do this or Ctrl-C to cancel.
20:21 < akgraner> I will blog tomorrow...
20:21 < czajkowski>     * Sit the full term Length of one (1) year
(after -M elections are held, 1st leader appointed by CC will be for a 6
month period (lucid cycle) unless team
                   decides leader should sit for a longer period)
20:21 < czajkowski>     * Gathering input from team and other key
community members and finalizing a roadmap at the beginning of each cycle.
20:21 < czajkowski>     * Seek to serve the team and it's charter and
help team members to agree upon goals and be successful in achieving
those goals.
20:21 < czajkowski>     * Maybe called on to resolve conflicts of
varying nature
20:21 < czajkowski>     * Weekly Responsibilities: - Organizing and
chairing regular IRC meetings and coordinating the discussion to achieve
agreed objectives and unblock
                   problems. - Taking care of meeting minutes and
reporting those minutes in the Team Reporting framework (may be
delegated) - Following up with the team on work
                   items and cycle commitments to maximise the
opportunity for success.
20:21 < jono> I would recommend that these posts come from women in the
group
20:21 < czajkowski>     * Optional but encouraged: Attending UDS as a
sponsored participant.
20:21 < jono> cool akgraner :)
20:21 < jono> I have a question:
20:22 < czajkowski> jono: shoot
20:22 < akgraner> jono shoot
20:22 < jono> what is the six month period thing abut?
20:22 < jono> about
20:22 < akgraner> Lucid cycle..
20:22 < jono> in M
20:22 < akgraner> tentatively
20:22 < jussi01> is it not just review next cycle?
20:22 < pleia2> czajkowski: these are all good, maybe a note making sure
people know that these can be delegated, but it's their responsibility
to delegate :)
20:22 < akgraner> runs into -m
20:22 < jono> why six months in Lucid?
20:22 < Theiya> pleia2 +1
20:22 < pleia2> jono: so we have a strong leader for the next 6 months
as we work hard to reshape the project for the future
20:23 < jono> would it not make sense for the leadership position to
last for a year, like normal
20:23 < czajkowski> jono: after lucid, perhaps
20:23 < jono> my worry is that it takes a few months for a leader to
just get used to the role
20:23 < czajkowski> we can reevaluate this also at M

20:23 < althara> jono: not while we are shaping u-w with a cc appointed
leader
20:23 < jono> and for the community to get used to that person
20:23 < Michelle_Qimo> I don't know what I can do to help, but if
there's anything you all think I can step up and do, please let me know.
20:23 < pleia2> I think we can re-evaluate the leadership position,
which includes extending the term
20:23 < dinda> jono: really think you underestimate the idea of the
shared leadership here
20:23 < jono> what is the reason to have a less than one year term?
20:23 < Theiya> dinda, undersestimate?
20:23 < czajkowski> aye so term for leader to be reeval at <
20:23 < dinda> this tends to be much more consensus oriented than some
other groups/projects
20:23 < althara> jono: because the u-w consitutency hasn't elected the
leader
20:24  * issyl0 skims through scrollback.
20:24 < jono> althara, I mean that the u-w agrees on this process and we
elect a leader, that leader should enter a normal term length in my view
20:24 < jono> just my opinion - its up to you, folks
20:24 < jono> in my experience six month leadership slots are not that
effective
20:24 < althara> jono: that's what the page says, after cc appointed
leader serves for 6 months leadership is 1 year
20:25 < akgraner> I think we were thinking back to usd and the
conversation about the lucid cycle..
20:25 < jtniehof> suggestion: for the first line of responsibilities,
just put the 6month term and "facilitate discussion about permanent
leadership"?
20:25 < czajkowski> jono: the fist apointeeed leader is coming from the
cc, and perhaps at M we can look at this again and after M, it goes to 1
year
20:25 < pendulum_> If it's only 6 months (and I somewhat agree with Jono
about that being short) it needs to be a full 6 months
20:25 < jono> I would recommend that this is how it works:
20:26 < jono> the CC elect the leader from the list of nominations, and
that leader sits for one full year - at the next election, if the u-w
project is running smoothly, the
             project chooses a leader not the CC
20:27 < jussi01> jono: Its an interim thing though, and so, should it
not be a short term thing until the project gets organised and sorted?
20:27 < althara> jussi01: +1
20:27 < jono> in my view, if the project is not confident in someone for
a year, they should not be confident in them for six months
20:27 < akk> Seems like getting a leader elected by the group should
happen as early as possible, no point in putting that off an extra 6 months.
20:27 < althara> akk: +1
20:28 < dinda> akk +1
20:28 < akk> If the group likes the appointed leader they can vote to
extend the term.
20:28 < pleia2> akk: +1
20:28 < akgraner> akk +1
20:28 < jono> ok here is an option:the leader is elected for one year,
but a review is performed after six months
20:29 < akk> If it's a "review, and we can kick the sucker out" then
people might be reluctant to do it even if they'd prefer a change.
20:29 < jono> so the leader would sit a full term, but if there are
concerns, there is a formal review process after six months in which the
leader can be reviewed
20:29 < althara> jono: that seems like more complication that running an
election in 6 months with the option to extend current leadership
20:29 < Nightrose> +1 for 6 months
20:29 < Nightrose> hi btw
20:29 < czajkowski> Nightrose: aloha
20:29 < pleia2> I like "extending" option much more than "kicking out"
20:29 < jono> its not kicking out in my mind
20:29 < jono> its a review, kind of like probation
20:29 < akk> jono: That's what it would feel like.
20:29 < althara> but it is in a lot of thoser
20:29 < pleia2> akk: yeah
20:29 < althara> *others
20:29 < dinda> and I think some will depend on the leader themselves -
they may want more help
20:30 < althara> a review seems to need the leader to bad to be removed
20:30 < jono> ok, well its your choice folks, I just wanted to share my
experience and why I am -1 on a six month term
20:30 < jono> lets carry on and have a vote
20:30 < czajkowski> I think either way a review should happen after 6
months, to see how it's working out
20:31 < jono> so what are folks' views on the first bullet in
Responsibilities?
20:31 < maco> ahhh catching up reading! +1 to what akk said at :27 past
20:31 < akgraner> if the leader is appointed in Jan...
20:31 < akgraner> then review can happen after uds-m
20:32 < ultraturquoise> ok
20:32 < ultraturquoise> sorry
20:32 < jono> ok the question is - who is happy for a six month term,
beginning in Jan and a review six months later?
20:32 < akgraner> and the review is for feedback and progress and team
decides to hold election or extend term at that point
20:32 < czajkowski> jono: +1
20:33 < pleia2> +1
20:33 < althara> +1
20:33 < Nightrose> +1
20:33 < dinda> +1
20:33 < jussi01> +1
20:33 < Theiya> +1
20:33 < maiatoday> +1
20:33 < jono> -1, as I already discussed
20:33 < maco> +1
20:33 < jono> looks like we have concensus
20:33 < jono> cool :-)
20:33 < czajkowski> ok
20:33 < jono> czajkowski, want to move on?
20:33 < czajkowski> we've that clearfed
20:33 < czajkowski> *cleared
20:33 < jono> :)
20:33 < czajkowski> can we move onto the responsibilities
20:33 < czajkowski> please
20:33 < althara> yep
20:33 < jono> sure
20:33 < czajkowski> *rest
20:34 < akgraner> do the responsibilities look ok to all
20:34 < czajkowski> I like pleia2 idea of adding in  they can be delegated
20:34 < dinda> you have to admit the group has done a grand job of just
getting this far, these past few months :)
20:34 < czajkowski> dinda: we hae indeed :)
20:34 < althara> +1 on pleia2's idea
20:34 < jono> all the other responsibilities are a +1 from me
20:34 < Theiya> +1 on pleia2s idea.
20:34 < jono> dinda, indeed :)
20:34 < akk> +1 on delegation
20:34 < czajkowski> pleia2: can you update the wiki with your comment on
delegation
20:34 < czajkowski> please
20:35 < jono> can you explain what you mean by delegation?
20:35 < maco> +1
20:35 < pleia2> czajkowski: sure
20:35 < jono> delegating membership?
20:35 < pleia2> delegating responsibilities
20:35  * elky curses her alarm
20:35 < jono> oh so delegating actions to members of the team?
20:35 < pleia2> yep
20:36 < jono> assuming they are happy to take them on :)
20:36 < jono> +1 from me
20:36 < althara> exactly
20:36 < czajkowski> +1
20:36 < jtniehof> +1 on delegation
20:36 < czajkowski> perfect
20:36 < jono> elky, sorry to hear that!
20:36 < Theiya> jono +1
20:36 < jono> elky, see
http://wiki.ubuntu-women.org/UbuntuWomen/LeadershipNominationsProcess/January2010
20:36 < jono> the process and deadlines are agreed
20:36 < jono> discussing the responsibilities now
20:36 < pendulum_> +1 on delegation
20:36 < akgraner> +1 and leader can delegate stuff as needed....
20:36 < akgraner> that make sense?
20:36 < dinda> agreed, leader doesn't have to do it all but just see
that someone does it  +1
20:37 < pleia2> yep
20:37 < jono> awesome :)
20:37 < czajkowski> great
20:37 < czajkowski> so pleia2 will update the wiki
20:37 < czajkowski> we're really rocking tonight! lovely jubbly!!
20:37 < akgraner> delegation to the members of the team...
20:37 < akgraner> sorry was lagging...
20:38 < Pici> The LP team?
20:38 < elky> dinda, more to the point, leader *shouldn't* do it all. :)
20:38 < althara> +1 elky
20:38 < dinda> elky: exactly :)
20:38 < Theiya> elky, ++1
20:38 < jono> elky, thats what we were discussing :)
20:38 < akgraner> elky +1
20:39 < maco> elky++
20:39 < czajkowski> Pici: what do you mean
20:39 < akgraner> so agreement on delegation..
20:39 < czajkowski> yes
20:39 < althara> yes
20:39 < jono> akgraner, can you explain what you mean
20:40 < jono> we have agreed on the leader delegating to the team
20:40 < czajkowski> yup
20:40 < akgraner> yeppers
20:40 < jono> akgraner, so did you have another query?
20:40 < akgraner> I was asking if we were all in agreement to leader
should not do it all and delegate when and where possible
20:40 < jono> oh gotcha
20:41 < Pici> czajkowski: nevermind :)
20:41 < jono> seems like people are pretty much +1ed on that :)
20:41 < althara> yep, we can move on
20:41 < czajkowski> yes
20:41 < akgraner> next
20:41 < czajkowski> next on the agenda is : Clarify the purpose of the
#ubuntu-women channel.
20:42 < jono> ooh, just before we move on
20:42 < akgraner> since pleia2 is a CC member she will take nominations
to CC
20:42 < czajkowski> jono: yes....
20:42 < jono> can I recommend one other addition to the responsibilities?
20:42 < jono> that the leader will set a next meeting date at the end of
each meeting
20:42 < jono> it helps define a level of continuity
20:42 < czajkowski> jono: yes we hope to address meeting s also
20:42 < jono> cool
20:42 < jono> :)
20:42  * AlanBell waves, lately
20:42 < althara> I like the idea of polling for meeting dates
20:42 < czajkowski> and the regular meetingds
20:43 < elky> uh, what about a range of dates
20:43 < issyl0> Yep.
20:43 < akgraner> polling to figure out when is best times for bi
monthly meetings...
20:43 < jono> cool
20:43 < Theiya> althara, +1
20:43 < althara> akgraner: +1
20:43 < czajkowski> althara: so 21 people voted and only 12 people said
this suited
20:43 < issyl0> akgraner +1
20:43 < czajkowski> ok so we shall do more polls
20:43 < Pici> I'd assume that the meeting time would rotate in order to
let people from other time zones attend.
20:44 < akk> +1 on rotating meeting times.
20:44 < jussi01>  Id suggest not polling for _every*_ meeting though
20:44 < akgraner> Pici yes..
20:44 < jono> something other teams do is pick two times and alternative
them
20:44 < czajkowski> Pici: we used UTC and set about 9 differnt times or
more
20:44 < czajkowski> Pici: and let the majority chose
20:44 < akgraner> no just get the initial ones set up
20:44 < maco> jussi01: poll for good times, then have set times based on
them?

20:44 < pleia2> jussi01: yeah, that gets unmanageable
20:44 < jussi01> maco: +1
20:44 < afigueiras> I'm sorry for interrupting the conversation. Can
someone tell me what has been discussed until now. Because I got here now.
20:44 < Pici> jussi01: I think thats what jono was trying to say..
20:45 < akgraner> afigueiras, the logs will be posted about an hour
after meeting ends
20:45 < jussi01> :)
20:45 < akgraner> link will go out to the list
20:45 < maco> afigueiras: 6mo term on CC appointed leader, then we
reevaluate that leadership, possibly have election. how many leaders we
want post-election will be decided then.
20:45 < Daviey> afigueiras: If you client supports scrollback, you
should be able to just scroll back and read what has happend so far.
20:45 < afigueiras> akgraner: ok, thankx
20:45  * hypa7ia is awake now, and paying attention :)
20:45 < althara> jussi01: Agreed, we shouldn't poll for every meeting
until the end of time, but until u-w is restabilshed we should poll to
get ideas on the two bets times
20:45 < althara> *best
20:45 < maco> afigueiras: we've agreed on the leader's responsibilities
20:45 < maco> afigueiras: and that the leader can delegate tasks
20:45 < czajkowski> hypa7ia: aloha
20:45 < maco> afigueiras: now we're talking about determining meeting times
20:46 < czajkowski> so a poll wil be sent out
20:46 < czajkowski> to deterermine a time and leader to send this out
20:46 < afigueiras> maco: ok, thankx
20:47 < akgraner> we are agreed then poll to determine best times for
rotating meeting.. poll to determine initial set up
20:47 < akgraner> then we can tweak if necessary...
20:47 < elky> +1
20:47 < Theiya> +1
20:47 < althara> +1
20:47 < jono> +1
20:47 < Pici> sounds good +1
20:47 < czajkowski> +1
20:47 < afigueiras> +1
20:47 < maco> +1
20:47 < maiatoday> +1
20:47 < dinda> +1
20:47 < czajkowski> so moving on
20:47 < czajkowski> can we look again at
http://wiki.ubuntu-women.org/Meetings/20091209   and we're now at
Clarify the purpose of the #ubuntu-women channel.   please
20:48 < jono> cool
20:49 < czajkowski> so at UDS the issue of this channel being logged
came up and was in agreemwnt, but we'd like to rediscuss it here
20:49 < jono> this plan, which was from UDS looks great, and the new
leader sign sign off on the guidelines
20:50 < jussi01> where is the UDS plan now?
20:50 < althara> so long as there is a safe-space that isn't logged I
think logging here is fine
20:50 < dinda> so is the consensus to log?  or not log?
20:50 < czajkowski> yes log
20:50 < akgraner> +1 log
20:50 < Nightrose> why do we need logs?
20:50 < akk> Does logged mean there are public logs that show up in
google? Or only that there are logs someone can check if they know
exactly where to look?
20:50 < jono> +1 log
20:50 < elky> althara, except the plan states that the "safe space" will
be logged.
20:50 < althara> s/isn't logged/private logs/
20:50 < czajkowski> akk: like the rest of the ubuntu channels, logged
channels
20:50 < Nightrose> it seems meh to me to create another channel in the
first place and even more meh to do it to evade logs
20:50 < maco> althara: +1
20:51 < akk> czajkowski: I still don't know what that means. Public and
googleable?
20:51 < czajkowski> akk: yes
20:51 < elky> czajkowski, not all ubuntu channels are logged though.
many LoCos are not.
20:51 < Nightrose> akk: yes like all other ubuntu logs i assume
20:51 < jono> the discussion at UDS suggested this channel is logged and
if needed a seperate safe channel would be created with logs only
visible to the CC who would govern if
             there were issues
20:51 < afigueiras> +1 agree to logging
20:51 < akgraner> akk yes
20:51 < jussi01> I think this channel needs to be encouraged to be as
positive as possible, about promoting women in ubuntu.
20:51 < czajkowski> elky: majority are
20:51 < Pici> Such as: http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2009/12/07/
20:51 < czajkowski> Pici: thanks
20:51 < Nightrose> again: why do we need logs? ;-)
20:51 < Theiya> jussi01, do you think logging will do thta?
20:52 < akk> Thanks, Pici. I was going to ask where.
20:52 < czajkowski> Nightrose: so others who don't use irc can see
what's going on
20:52 < jono> Nightrose, I would say there are many valuable discussions
we can view, such as this meeting, in the logs
20:52 < czajkowski> or if they miss a meeting can read the logs
20:52 < maco> Nightrose: i like the idea of a separate channel because
there may be people who are here because theyre interested in UW's goals
but who don't quite know how to
             react when someone brings up a complaint about someone
else's behaviour. additionally, i wouldnt want such complaints publicly
logged because long after it's
             resolved it could still harm their reputation thanks to google
20:52 < jono> the same justification for logging other channels
20:52 < czajkowski> or take part via  mailing list after seeing logs
20:52 < Nightrose> meeting notes could be posted seperately
20:52 < pleia2> fwiw, we always publish meeting logs
20:52 < Nightrose> right
20:52 < Pici> Is there a good reason why this channel shouldn't be logged?
20:53 < Theiya> While meeting notes can be posted seperately, the
questions posed during a meeting might help others see why a decision
was made.
20:53 < Nightrose> maco: yea that's what i find strange - i'd rather not
log this channel than create another one
20:53 < jono> maco, agreed
20:53 < hypa7ia> i know i won't talk as much in general in here if it's
logged
20:53 < althara> Nightrose: there are a lot of discussions that happen
conncurrently in irc and the mailing list, and people not being on irc
prevents them from giving input on
                what is said here
20:53 < czajkowski> maco: well if you won't say something to someone
face you shouldnt say it behind their back, as that;s not really fair
either
20:53 < elky> jussi01, i think it needs to be able to nurture women and
be here for them to come to if there's a problem. it's going to be
awfully upsetting to then tell them
             they'r ein the wrong place and they ought to go to this
*different* channel that is marked as "safe"
20:53 < hypa7ia> if it's publicly logged that is
20:53 < Pici> hypa7ia: Can you elaborate why?

20:53 < pleia2> althara: yeah, I'd say that's the major reason
20:53 < Nightrose> hypa7ia: +1
20:53 < hypa7ia> Pici: well, i rant about my employer and conferences
and such
20:53 < hypa7ia> Pici: and i simply wouldn't if it were publicly logged
20:53 < maco> czajkowski: but when you say something to someone's face
with a mediator *in person* its not going to end up on the big screen in
Times Square and then a million
             copies in every library
20:53 < Nightrose> althara: no real decisions have been made here lately
afaik that have not been brought to the list
20:53 < dinda> hypa7ia: +1
20:54 < hypa7ia> i'd be fine if the logs were accessible to cc
20:54 < jussi01> elky: Where does the positive stuff happen then?
20:54 < hypa7ia> or whoever
20:54 < akk> There's a difference between being willing to stand behind
what you say, and having it googleable forever.
20:54 < Theiya> I think that's where the clarification about this
channel comes in.  Is this a place to rant about things like that?
20:54 < hypa7ia> akk: BINGO
20:54 < akk> (I'm agreeing with hypa7ia)
20:54 < Pici> Theiya: Exactly.
20:54 < pleia2> Nightrose: not decisions, but there are those who can't
IRC often who feel they are missing a major part of the project because
they are unable to participate here
               (I think they're right)
20:54 < elky> jussi01, you're acting like nurturing is to the absolute
exclusion of positiviity
20:54 < czajkowski> Pici: +1
20:54 < maco> yeah, what akk said
20:54 < czajkowski> pleia2: +!
20:54 < czajkowski> +1
20:54 < Nightrose> pleia2: hmmm the stuff that gets discussed here then
would simply move to the other channel and we'd have the same problem
20:55 < jono> I don't see why ubuntu-women should be any different from
any other channel, if the goal of this channel is to discuss the
project, and not a safe space - I agree
             that a safe space should not be logged in a publicly
visible way
20:55 < dinda> why does this channel have to move?  why not use the new
channel as the logged one?
20:55 < elky> i think we'd be much better served with a
#ubuntu-women-project channel than a #ubuntu-women-safe chhannel
20:55 < akk> I hate splitting into lots of little channels. Too many
xchat tabs, meh.
20:55 < czajkowski> I don't like the idea of a room being called "safe"
All ubuntu rooms are safe
20:55 < Nightrose> elky: +1
20:55 < jono> so I agree with the proposal at UDS to have this channel
logged and a seperate safe space only logged for the CC
20:55 < czajkowski> jono: +1
20:56 < jussi01> jono: +1
20:56 < hypa7ia> czajkowski: not all ubuntu rooms are safe, not at all.
20:56 < elky> -1
20:56 < Pici> czajkowski: agreed, but I don't think this channel should
have to move.
20:56 < pleia2> jono: +1
20:56 < althara> jono: +1
20:56 < Theiya> jono, +1
20:56 < hypa7ia> i'm -1, very very unhappy at publicly logging this channel
20:56 < jono> any other votes?
20:56 < maco> we've had cases before where a woman would come in and say
"this person said this thing to me, and i think its
[creepy|stalkerish|mean]... how do i react?" and i
             dont think *that* should be publicly logged, but i do
think we have plenty of valuable discussions that should be
20:56 < akk> -1
20:56 < althara> also Theiya +1 on what should be discussed here vs
other channel
20:56 < afigueiras> jono +1
20:56 < Nightrose> yea -1
20:56 < maco> +1
20:56 < akgraner> +1 but I don't like the name having the word safe in it
20:56 < Pici> No opinion from me.
20:56 < dinda> -1 I agree with hypa7ia and nightrose
20:56 < Michelle_Qimo> it seems to me we need an "Arbitration" Channel
20:57 < pleia2> akgraner: yeah, "safe" is no good, maybe -dispute or
-arbitration
20:57 < elky> akgraner, exactly. that gives the wrong idea about the
*whole* rest of the community
20:57 < dinda> would prefer to keep this channel as is and make the new
channel the one with the changes
20:57 < jono> 8 +1  and 4 -1
20:57 < elky> dinda, same
20:57 < akgraner> czajkowski, what was your name suggestion...
20:57 < czajkowski> oh, an Asside room
20:57 < hypa7ia> i'd prefer to privately log this channel
20:57 < pleia2> channel logging has been a major issue for this project
for years
20:57 < hypa7ia> and not make a new one at all
20:57 < czajkowski>      #ubuntu-women-asside
20:57 < pleia2> -aside ? :)
20:57 < maco> agreed with the "use a differerent name" thing as well
20:57 < Gabs> If any folks from last night are in here - I fixed my
problem and got ubuntu installed on my new SSD on my netbook finally :)
20:57 < Pici> czajkowski: psst, one S
20:57 < czajkowski> aside
20:58 < pleia2> Gabs: great :)
20:58 < dinda> czajkowski: i like your type  :)
20:58 < Gabs> thanks to folks who tried to help :)
20:58 < Theiya> lol good typo
20:58 < hypa7ia> why not #ubuntu-women-gossip
20:58 < dinda> typo!
20:58 < czajkowski> Gabs: meeting on atm
20:58 < hypa7ia> i mean let's call it what it is
20:58 < jono> based on the vote here I would recommend that a proposal
for logging is written up and the new leader will sign off on it if it
is suitable
20:58 < dinda> argh, now I can't type/typo
20:58 < IdleOne> why not have an official ubuntu-women-project channel
that is logged and leave this channel as is?
20:58 < elky> hypa7ia, because "gossip" is a negative word
20:58 < Gabs> oh sorry didn
20:58 < afigueiras> is it really necessary to have a safe channel? what
would be discussed in that channel?
20:58 < Theiya> gossip has negative connotations
20:58 < hypa7ia> no shit
20:58 < hypa7ia> and that's what we're worried about, no?
20:58 < Gabs> didn't realize I was interrupting ... sorry
20:58  * Pici nods20:58 < hypa7ia> all those gossipy womenz
20:58 < czajkowski> can we deal wth the naming issue please seperately
20:58 < jono> czajkowski, agreed
20:58 < elky> hypa7ia, we already have people throwing the word around
in seriousness, i'm not sure they're going to get your joke
20:58 < maco> IdleOne's idea would be acceptable to me as well
20:58 < akk> I'm also not clear what the separate channel is for.
20:59 < jono> lets first decide on what the decision will be re. logging
20:59 < hypa7ia> elky: i'm not joking. i'm calling people on this BS
20:59 < jono> we can then discuss if another channel is needed
20:59 < althara> I think we need to decide what this channel is for
befroe we can decide on logging vs not
20:59 < elky> akk, for women whose ovaries are wandering around their
bodies and bumping in to their brains.
20:59 < Theiya> althara, +1
20:59 < maco> hypa7ia: pssst we're not supposed to swear in #ubuntu*
channels
20:59 < jussi01> althara: +1
20:59 < Pici> jono: I think some people would be okay with logging only
if there was another -offtopic channel to rant in,
20:59 < hypa7ia> maco: apologies.
20:59 < jono> althara, agreed - at UDS there was a proposal for it to be
for the general discussion of the u-w project
20:59 < maco> hahaha the Wandering Womb got nto the meeting
20:59 < pleia2> akk: some people are uncomfortable using names of
people, conferences, workplaces where they have problems if it's public
(I wouldn't call this "gossip" - it is a
               valid concern for some), the other channel would be for this
21:00 < pleia2> personally I don't think we should discuss anything here
that we wouldn't discuss on the mailing list (which is also public)
21:00 < jono> so would the group be happy with logging if the purpose of
this channel is for general discussion of the U-W project?
21:00 < althara> pleia2: +1
21:00 < althara> jono: yes
21:00 < jono> +1
21:00 < maco> yes
21:00 < maiatoday> jono: +1
21:00 < hypa7ia> wait, can we agree on that purpose first?
21:00 < czajkowski> ok sorry about lag
21:00 < Theiya> Why not have it called #ubuntu-women-personal then.. its
more about what's up since it's not project related.
21:00 < akk> I see IRC as a much less formal method of communication
than mailing lists. I edit my mailing list postings, because I know
they're preserved forever.
21:00 < akgraner> lagging here..sorry
21:00 < czajkowski> so we've agreeed +1 on logging
21:01 < akk> I'd prefer not to have to write and rewrite and edit every
line I type in IRC.
21:01 < elky> i'm quite distressed at the thought that people are going
to come here only to be pushed away, further away from the community as
a whole.
21:01 < Pici> (#ubuntu-women-offtopic might be a good name)
21:01 < czajkowski> but now are deaing with the naming
21:01 < jono> hypa7ia, the general discussion of the ubuntu women project
21:01 < hypa7ia> jono: did we agree on that?
21:01 < elky> i find that quite unwelcoming behaviour
21:01 < Theiya> Pici, +1
21:01 < Nightrose> +1 elky
21:01 < maco> oh dear
21:01 < jono> hypa7ia, at UDS that was a popular idea

21:01 < hypa7ia> this isn't UDS
21:01 < maco> so i think we need to write this as a proposal or something
21:01 < dinda> I think hypa7ia has a point
21:01 < Nightrose> yes
21:01 < hypa7ia> i'm still -1 to logging, quite vehemently
21:01 < maco> come up with a list of possible ways the topics, channels,
and logging combinations could work
21:02 < althara> maco: +1
21:02 < maco> and then meet again and vote on which of those
combinations is most acceptable
21:02 < czajkowski> can we just clarify:  we just +1 on logged
channel..  The issue seems to be the name of the alternative channel
21:02 < dinda> you're asking the 'nature' of this channel to change by
logging when we haven't clarified the nature of this channel yet
21:02 < hypa7ia> and i think "logging if $foo" is derailing the point there
21:02 < althara> this issue is way too big to cover in irc
21:02 < Nightrose> czajkowski: no
21:02 < Nightrose> not all ;-)
21:02 < althara> czajkowski: no
21:02 < Pici> czajkowski: did we?
21:02 < Nightrose> dinda: right
21:02 < jussi01> If you dont create another channel you risk alienating
a lot of people who want to advance women in Ubunt, but dont want to
deal with the rants and big worries.
21:02 < Theiya> czajkowski, I think the issue is that there is no
clarifiction for this channel yet so no real way to vote +1 or -1 unless
we clarify it
21:02 < czajkowski> 20:57 < jono> 8 +1  and 4 -1
21:02 < althara> czajkowski: we just +1 on logging if this channel is
for disscussions relating to the ubuntu-women project
21:02 < IdleOne> czajkowski: I did not see any agreement on logging
21:03 < hypa7ia> we need to either decide logging [y/n] and channel
purpose, not "logging IF this is the purpose" - the latter is pointless
21:03 < czajkowski> IdleOne: yes look up and see +1 and -1
21:03 < elky> czajkowski, except people are not now sure what they
actually voted on
21:03 < jono> I saw agreement on logging earlier
21:03 < hypa7ia> +8/-4 is hardly consensus
21:03 < IdleOne> czajkowski: I don't think everybody was clear on what
the vote was for
21:03 < jono> ok, let me propose a clearer vote and then lets vote:
21:03 < hypa7ia> if we're going with a vote then sure, but i don't even
know what kind of decision-making we're trying for here
21:03 < czajkowski> hypa7ia: 12 people outta 21 voted on having a meeting
21:03 < afigueiras> maybe we should vote again
21:04 < hypa7ia> maybe we should decide on the channel purpose first
21:04 < hypa7ia> THEN vote based on that
21:04 < IdleOne> +1 hypa7ia
21:04 < elky> +1 hypa7ia
21:04 < althara> hypa7ia: +1 as I said before
21:04 < Nightrose> +1
21:04 < jtniehof> +1 hpa7ia
21:04 < afigueiras> hypa7ia: agreed
21:04 < akk> +1 hypa7ia -- That would be helpful, though I think they're
all connected.
21:04 < dinda> +1
21:04 < jono> please vote +1 if you are happy with this channel to be
logged if the primary purpose of this channel is to discussion the
direction, running and activities of the
             ubuntu-women project, if you are not happy with this vote -1
21:04 < Sharrow> +1 hypa7ia
21:04 < czajkowski> jono: +1
21:04 < maco> Can we set aside a wiki page and write up a set of
purposes/logging-policies/channels that would be acceptable to at least
some of us, and at hte next meeting, we
             all vote on which of those scenarios i the one we like
best? This meeting is turning into brainstorming and thus being unproductive
21:04 < elky> jono, you're asking 2 questions there
21:04 < jono> +1
21:04 < Gareth> perhaps the topic of logging should be addressed at a
later date...doesnt look like a concensus is going to be reached at the
moment.
21:04 < Theiya> jono, +1
21:04 < akgraner> jono +1
21:04 < hypa7ia> jono: did you see any of my messages
21:05 < maiatoday> jono +1
21:05 < jono> hypa7ia, I did
21:05 < elky> hypa7ia, i dont think so
21:05 < pleia2> Gareth: I agree
21:05 < dinda> jono: agree with elky, that's a conditional voting
21:05 < althara> jono: you're skipping part of the process
21:05 < jono> ok, lets start earlier
21:05 < hypa7ia> we're missing the "what is the channel purpose" discussion
21:05 < akk> Agree with dinda and elky.
21:05 < jtniehof> +1 maco :)
21:05 < hypa7ia> can we do that please?
21:05 < althara> maco: +1
21:05 < jono> vote +1 if you believe the purpose of this channel should
be for the discussion of ubuntu-women, its direction, running and activities
21:05 < jono> +1
21:05 < Daviey> +1
21:05 < althara> undecided
21:05 < czajkowski> +1
21:05 < hypa7ia> waaai
21:05 < akgraner> +1
21:06 < hypa7ia> what are the alternatives to that, and can we discuss
them before voting?
21:06 < Mamarok> +1
21:06 < althara> hypa7ia: +1
21:06 < elky> this is a farce
21:06 < maco> this is getting out of hand
21:06 < hypa7ia> SLOW DOWN PLEASE
21:06 < hypa7ia> we're not ready to vote here people
21:06 < jono> elky, can you suggest a better way of approaching this?
21:06 < maco> hypa7ia: like the idea i said above?
21:06 < althara> maco: yes
21:06 < akgraner> ok so how about this... proposal to list.. with
options....
21:06 < maco> jono: what about what i said above?
21:06 < akk> +1 maco
21:06 < akgraner> open discussion for 2 weeks
21:06 < Sharrow> I'm with maco.21:06 < jono> maco, sounds good
21:06 < akk> and hypa7ia too, seems like we're not ready to vote
21:07 < hypa7ia> +1 maco
21:07 < IdleOne> +1 maco's ide
21:07 < akgraner> the lp or mootbot voting
21:07 < IdleOne> idea
21:07 < jono> this will be a lot easier when a leader is in place to
help drive things forward
21:07 < jono> sorry my suggestions were not useful with the voting folks
21:07 < elky> jono, you're trying to rush something throiugh that I'm
not sure I understand *exactly* what you're intending. "discuss
ubuntu-women" means what? Discussing women in
             ubuntu? who feel threatened? who are discontent with things?
21:07 < akk> This is such a contentious issue it should probably be
mentioned on the mailing list too
21:07 < akk> for people who couldn't make this meeting.
21:07 < jono> sounds like taking it offline is a good idea
21:07 < czajkowski> ok
21:07 < jono> I have to run to a meeting now anyway
21:07 < hypa7ia> and jono, please don't be so quick to rush to voting
21:07 < czajkowski> so can we take this to the mailing lis,t
21:07 < jono> hypa7ia, ok
21:07 < althara> agreed this should be opened up to the mailing list
21:08 < hypa7ia> i'm not sure who put you in charge of this meeting, jono :)
21:08 < czajkowski> and at a stage we can either vote using mootbot in
here, or launchpad
21:08 < Pici> Are we voting about taking this to the mailing list *grin*
21:08 < akk> I was wondering that too, hypa7ia
21:08 < Daviey> should this be a social channel, functional channel, or
something else?
21:08 < jono> hypa7ia, I didnt believe I was in charge :)
21:08 < dinda> +1 for not voting yet  ;)
21:08 < czajkowski> hypa7ia: jono isn't in charge, he's helpging wiht
suggestions
21:08 < althara> Daviey: we're taking this offline
21:08 < czajkowski> which I think is great
21:08 < czajkowski> so thank you
21:08 < hypa7ia> jono: then please stop calling votes.
21:08 < elky> +1 dinda
21:08  * jono blinks
21:08 < jono> sorry
21:08 < althara> actually jono is trying to drive this meeting with
forced votes
21:08 < akk> jono: You have been sort of railroading votes through.
21:08 < jono> ok, I apologize
21:08 < jono> I will step back
21:08 < Pici> I don't think he was doing it on purpose, just trying to
keep us on track.
21:08 < akk> Not just this one -- earlier ones too.
21:08 < althara> thank you jono
21:09 < hypa7ia> much appreciated, jono
21:09 < elky> Pici, we dont doubt that
21:09 < pleia2> it's good to keep in mind that this is one our major
roadmap goals for the project for the lucid cycle, it's fine to take our
time and not decide today :)
21:09  * Pici likes stating the obvious
21:09 < dinda> jono: yor help and enthusiasm is much appreciated,
sometimes we just wanna slow it down a moment :)
21:09 < elky> Pici, but it's feeling very much like a guy is trying to
angle how the womens space will be
21:09 < hypa7ia> Pici: intent matters less than effect
21:09 < jono> ok npo
21:09 < jono> np
21:09 < akk> elky++
21:09 < maco> elky++
21:09 < afigueiras> to decide what #ybyntu-women will be, we should
first discuss about what #ubuntu-women is
21:09 < elky> afigueiras, yep
21:09 < jono> I will step out of future meetings, I don't want to defeat
the purpose of this
21:10 < althara> jono: don't over react
21:10 < akgraner> ok back on topic pls...
21:10 < jono> I am not overreacting, I am just concious to not derail this
21:10 < jono> I appreciate the feedback :)
21:10 < Pici> hypa7ia: unfortunately, but thats life.
21:10 < czajkowski> can we look at the next few topic
21:10 < althara> czajkowski: what is the current topic? we are tangented
21:11 < czajkowski> and possible move it to the mailing list
21:11 < czajkowski> due to time constraints
21:11 -!- Irssi: Pasting 5 lines to #ubuntu-women. Press Ctrl-K if you
wish to do this or Ctrl-C to cancel.
21:11 < czajkowski> # Discuss a set of guidelines for general discussion
channel about the Ubuntu Women project (Laura Czajkowski).
21:11 < czajkowski> # Document the agreed set of guidelines (Laura
Czajkowski).
21:11 < czajkowski> # Set the channel topic to the guidelines (Elizabeth
Krumbach).
21:11 < czajkowski> # Start logging channel (Elizabeth Krumbach).
21:11 < czajkowski> # Provide a set of factoids that reference the
channel guidelines (Elizabeth Krumbach).
21:11 < czajkowski> # Communicate guidelines outwards (Jono Bacon, Amber
Graner, Laura Czajkowski).
21:11 < jussi01> See, Im not sure I agree with that. is this really a
"womens space"? if so, then goodbye, Ill see you all later. If its
really about getting peple to treat women
                equally, get more women involved, then Im all in and Id
love to help.
21:11 < afigueiras> czajkowski +1
21:11 < IdleOne> jussi01: +1
21:11 < hypa7ia> jussi01: there's a difference between "asking dudes to
not dominate the discussion" and "wimmins-only"
21:12 < czajkowski> ok so would folks like to discuss the rest of the
itms on mailing list or here
21:12 < czajkowski> or at next meeting ??
21:12 < czajkowski> we knew it would tke more than one meeting to get
through the list
21:12 < czajkowski> but we've made a good start
21:12 < althara> jussi01, hypa7ia ,IdleOne that is a tangential to the
current topic and is best discussed on the mailing list
21:12 < dinda> all that is one topic?  eek, might need to break it down??
21:13 < Pici> Are those items for the meeting? Some of those are quick
things that I don't really think would need to be discussed. (setting
the topic, making factoids, etc)
21:13 < akk> The next few topics involve membership tracking and plans
... that could be discussed here even if the meeting formally ended.
21:13 < akk> (if people have to leave) and discussion could be continued
on the mailing list.
21:13 < AlanBell> is pleia2 writing the factoids or collecting them?
21:13 < czajkowski> dinda: hence why I said mailihng list
21:13 < pleia2> czajkowski: I'd say we put together thoughts (21:13 <
dinda> the only contentious item seem so to be deciding on the nature of
this channel
21:13 < czajkowski> pleia2: +1
21:14 < akgraner> pleia2, +1
21:14 < althara> pleia2: +1
21:14 < dinda> czajkowski: can we pull that topic out separately?
21:14 < akgraner> open discussion for 2 weeks
21:14 < akgraner> the vote
21:14 < akgraner> then vote
21:14 < althara> akgraner: +2
21:14 < afigueiras> pleia2 +1
21:14 < hypa7ia> +1 to that
21:14 < czajkowski> dinda: which
21:15 < akk> +1 akgraner
21:15 < dinda> czajkowski: very first item
21:15 < akgraner> use mootbot to handling the voting
21:15 < czajkowski> dinda: on mailing list just break it down
21:16 < althara> akgraner: +1
21:16 < jono> akgraner, +1
21:16 < dinda> okeydokey then +1  :)
21:16 < akgraner> ok we only have 15 mins so I want to sum up some
things... before everyone leaves....
21:17 < akgraner> call for nominations for leader to CC goes out
tomorrow with timelines
21:17 < hypa7ia> great
21:17 < pleia2> hooray :)
21:17 < akgraner> channel discussion to be moved to list - items and
proposal will be mailed to list by pleia2 and czajkowski
21:17 < jono> :D
21:17 < jono> awesome meeting :)
21:17 < akgraner> for open discussion for 2 weeks
21:18 < akgraner> then we meet again after polling
21:18 < afigueiras> akgraner: nice
21:18 < czajkowski> I'll send out another doddle poll for the next
meeting for votge
21:18 < akgraner> and vote for channel options and guidelines
21:18 < hypa7ia> can we use not-doodle?
21:18 < akgraner> by then leader should be in place
21:19 < akgraner> and ready to roll up their sleeves...
21:19 < elky> hypa7ia, alternative?
21:19 < czajkowski> hypa7ia: how else would you like me to do it
21:19 < akk> About 2 weeks: that's 2 days before Christmas, so a lot of
people might not make that meeting.
21:19 < Theiya> True.
21:19 < akgraner> akk, the doc won't be ready  that soon
21:20 < akgraner> it will prob take at least 1 week to 10 days to write
up all options and proposals for channel
21:20 < akgraner> so realistically that discussion would happen post Jan 1
21:20 < pleia2> getting anything done (aside from our leadership
timeline chuggling along) before jan 1st is unrealistic
21:20 < pleia2> darn holidays :)
21:20 < akk> Good.
perhaps discuss on the mailing list) and take the rest of this to the
next meeting

21:21 < hypa7ia> czajkowski: i'll find an alternative - doodle was just
not so good as it focuses on one timezone
21:21 < akgraner> gives a time to research options and proposals...
21:21 < czajkowski> hypa7ia: only cuse I selected UTC
21:21 < czajkowski> rahter than multiple ones
21:21 < hypa7ia> ohh
21:21 < hypa7ia> cool
21:21 < akk> czajkowski: It only allowed some blocks of time, not others.
21:21 < hypa7ia> well if it doesn't always need to work like that, go
for it :)
21:21 < czajkowski> UTC was picked so it's standard for ubuntu
21:21 < czajkowski> and can be added to fridge
21:21 < elky> it'd be nice if it'd let us tell it which timezone we're
in and it did the math from utc
21:21 < jussi01> I think timeanddate.com does something like doodle.
21:21 < althara> if we are doing UTc for meeting time votes it needs to
be explicitly stated in every poll title
21:21 < czajkowski> akk: I chose a selection rahther than 24 hrs
21:21 < czajkowski> to narrow down the meeting
21:22 < czajkowski> again like everyihng there is always gonna be an
issue, and not everyone is ever gona be happy, we tried to get as many
to come to meeting
21:22 < akgraner> so next poll in UTC stated clearly on a 24 hour clock
21:22 < althara> akgraner: +1
21:22 < czajkowski> fine
21:22 < akk> akgraner: +1
21:22 < jono> I have to run, folks
21:22 < jono> thanks everyone, I apologize again if some of you felt I
was pushing things a long a bit quick, just wanted to try and help keep
things moving a long, I appreciate
             the feedback
21:22 < althara> jono: thank you
21:23 < pleia2> thanks jono
21:23 < dinda> jono: thanks!
21:23 < afigueiras> akgraner +1
21:23 < jono> great work, everyone!
21:23 < jono> :)
21:23 < Theiya> :)
21:23 < akgraner> thanks jono!
21:23 < akgraner> ok 7 mins...
21:23 < hypa7ia> czajkowski: i totally understand that you can't keep
eveyrone happy, it was just challenging when there were blocks of time
one couldn't pick within at all
                because the app restricted it
21:24 < hypa7ia> that's the only reason i suggested using someting else :)
21:24 < czajkowski> hypa7ia: I'll vary t the next time
21:24 < althara> czajkowski: we were providing feedback not criticism
21:24 < hypa7ia> czajkowski: good stuff
21:24 < czajkowski> althara: didnt take it any other way
21:25 < akgraner> czajkowski, so make it 24 hour poll
21:25 < akgraner> and 7 days
21:25 < hypa7ia> that's a lot of ticky boxes to check :)
21:25 < czajkowski> rather large area to work off
21:25 < czajkowski> and bit to hard to narrow down a time
21:26 < akk> Too bad there isn't a calendar app where you can just say
"$t1 to $t1 on all days except Thursdays 12-1".
21:26 < czajkowski> in the last one there were 15 time slsots to chose form
21:26 < czajkowski> and 7 days
21:26 < akk> Can google calendar do something like that? There's no OSS
app that can?
21:26 < czajkowski> so wil still send out for 7 days
21:26 < AlanBell> it would make for a nice python/quickly app with
Ubuntu One couchDB back end
21:26 < hypa7ia> let's figure out alternatives offline
21:27 < Theiya> Agreed.
21:27 < althara> hypa7ia: +1
21:27 < akgraner> hypa7ia, +1
21:27 < hypa7ia> tho i guess the meeting is about over :s
21:27 < Michelle_Qimo> czajkowski: if you can just have everyone email
me a preferred time, I'll manually take a tally.
21:27 < akgraner> and get it sent to list by Monday?
21:27 < czajkowski> Michelle_Qimo: tis grand the idea of it being
visable is also nice so folks don't say the wrong date/time was given
21:27 < althara> czajkowski: +1
21:27 < czajkowski> and they can see what is gonna be favourited
21:28 < Michelle_Qimo> czajkowski: oh, I understand, just offering
21:28 < althara> is meeting officially done?
21:28 < czajkowski> Michelle_Qimo: thank you
21:28 < czajkowski> Michelle_Qimo: I apprecaite the offer
21:28 < akgraner> 2 min
21:28 < akgraner> anything else?
21:28 < Michelle_Qimo> np
21:29 < czajkowski> ok, think that's it folks
21:29 < czajkowski> thanks for taking part
21:29 < Theiya> Wicked.
21:29 < czajkowski> and we can discuss the rest over the mailing list
21:29 < czajkowski> meeting over

Meetings/20091209/logs (last edited 2009-12-10 01:09:16 by akgraner)