Hello.
As promised here are a summary and the complete log from the last meeting.
I would also like to recall everyone that we agreed on having next
meeting on Saturday 11th August at 21H00 UTC. At the end of the meeting,
as christel won't be available at that time, we started discussing
changing the meeting, possibly to Sunday. Let's please discuss that here
as well as our view on the goals/roles for the userreps and their
election/selection process/schedule.
--
Regards,
Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
Gentoo- forums / Userrel
20:34 -!- christel changed the topic of #gentoo-userrel-meeting to: Meeting
tonight!
20:52 < christel> jmbsvicetto: are you ok to chair the meeting since you have
ze agenda and all workedup?
21:00 * christel eyes clock
21:32 < christel> ok. i need to run out for curry, i will try be back by 9utc,
may be slightly late, but will try not to
22:02 < jmbsvicetto> Hello
22:02 < jmbsvicetto> christel: ok, if you want me to
22:06 < jmbsvicetto> T - 0H55
22:06 -!- jmbsvicetto changed the topic of #gentoo-userrel-meeting to: Meeting
tonight! 21H00 UTC
22:14 -!- Philantrop [EMAIL PROTECTED]/developer/philantrop] has joined
#gentoo-userrel-meeting
22:40 < jmbsvicetto> T - 0H20
22:53 < jmbsvicetto> T - 0H07
22:54 -!- mark_alec [EMAIL PROTECTED]/developer/mark-alec] has joined
#gentoo-userrel-meeting
22:55 < mark_alec> Fri Aug 3 20:55:10 UTC 2007
23:00 < mark_alec> christel: jmbsvicetto!
23:00 < jmbsvicetto> hello
23:00 < jmbsvicetto> Hi mark_alec
23:00 < jmbsvicetto> mark_alec: christel asked me earlier if I would mind to
chair the meeting
23:02 < jmbsvicetto> mark_alec: She also said she might be a bit late
23:02 < jmbsvicetto> christel: Are you there yet?
23:03 < jmbsvicetto> mark_alec: Let me just check who else should be here,
besides tsunam
23:05 -!- tsunam [EMAIL PROTECTED]/developer/tsunam] has joined
#gentoo-userrel-meeting
23:05 < tsunam> yet another channel! -_- 27 at this point on 2 different servers
23:05 < tsunam> this is just getting silly
23:05 -!- hparker [EMAIL PROTECTED]/developer/hparker] has joined
#gentoo-userrel-meeting
23:05 < jmbsvicetto> tsunam: 35 here ;)
23:06 < tsunam> jmbsvicetto: well phhoey to you
23:06 < mark_alec> tsunam: hihi
23:06 < jmbsvicetto> tsunam: :)
23:06 < tsunam> hola
23:06 < jmbsvicetto> Anyone else?
23:06 < jmbsvicetto> Are dsd and genstef still on the team?
23:06 < mark_alec> according to our project page, i believe they are
23:07 < jmbsvicetto> mark_alec: well, our project page is a bit outdated ;)
23:08 -!- diox [EMAIL PROTECTED]/developer/diox] has joined
#gentoo-userrel-meeting
23:08 < jmbsvicetto> Have all of you received the mail for the meeting?
23:08 < diox> hmhm
23:08 < jmbsvicetto> Do you have the agenda?
23:08 < diox> no
23:08 < tsunam> jmbsvicetto: nope not that I know of but
23:08 < jmbsvicetto> ok
23:08 < jmbsvicetto> This is what I sent in the mail:
23:08 < jmbsvicetto> I would like to propose the following items for the agenda:
23:08 < jmbsvicetto> 1. discuss the userreps project and its future
23:08 < jmbsvicetto> 2. review of the userrel project and sub-project status
23:08 < jmbsvicetto> 3. setting up a fixed timeframe for userrel meetings
23:08 < jmbsvicetto> 4. clear up any doubts with other TLPs about userrel role
as a TLP, its merger with PR and evaluate our relation to users (do we remain a
bridge between users and devs or do we need/want devrel like powers over users?)
23:08 < jmbsvicetto> 5. open up the process to select the project leadership
(as stipulated by GLEP 39 the leads should be elected at least once every 12
months) and stipulate the method for selection / election
23:09 < jmbsvicetto> Any objections or suggestions?
23:09 < tsunam> *takes a nap*
23:09 < jmbsvicetto> hehe
23:09 < tsunam> at work so semi afk
23:10 < jmbsvicetto> Shouldn't beandog be here as well?
23:10 -!- kopp [EMAIL PROTECTED]/userrep/kopp] has joined
#gentoo-userrel-meeting
23:12 -!- beandog [EMAIL PROTECTED]/developer/beandog] has joined
#gentoo-userrel-meeting
23:12 < mark_alec> hi kopp && beandog
23:12 < jmbsvicetto> beandog: sorry for the misleading ?
23:13 -!- jmbsvicetto changed the topic of #gentoo-userrel-meeting to: Meeting
tonight! || 21H00 UTC || agenda - http://rafb.net/p/GNLmTb47.html
23:13 < diox> let's start?
23:13 < beandog> jmbsvicetto: its okay, Im a half-wheat.
23:13 < beandog> hey mark_alec how goes it
23:13 < jmbsvicetto> Anyone wants to propose additional items for the agenda or
an alternative one?
23:13 < diox> 21 utc == ?? cet?
23:14 < beandog> whats on the agenda?
23:14 * beandog totally out of it
23:14 < mark_alec> diox: date -u
23:14 < jmbsvicetto> diox: 21 utc == 23 cet
23:14 < jmbsvicetto> beandog: topic ;)
23:14 < diox> ah now
23:14 < beandog> bueno
23:14 < diox> jmbsvicetto: i want to add other possible revivals
23:14 < jmbsvicetto> So, unless someone wants to propose a change in the
agenda, can we start?
23:14 < beandog> soc?
23:14 < jmbsvicetto> diox: sure
23:15 < beandog> is christel here
23:15 < diox> adopt-a-dev pr plans?
23:15 < jmbsvicetto> beandog: She will arrive a bit late
23:15 < beandog> ok
23:15 < beandog> can we get summer of code on ze agenda
23:15 < jmbsvicetto> diox: Can we discuss that under point 2 ?
23:15 < diox> sure
23:15 < jmbsvicetto> beandog: ^^
23:16 < diox> tho; i want to start now
23:16 < diox> need to get up at 6cet
23:16 < jmbsvicetto> diox: I don't mind adding another point, but I was
thinking on that for point 2
23:16 < diox> sure nop
23:16 < beandog> jmbsvicetto: yah
23:16 < jmbsvicetto> So, let's start with 1
23:16 < beandog> tsunam: you awakey?
23:16 < jmbsvicetto> 1. discuss the userreps project and its future
23:16 < diox> userreps should be more alive ! :P
23:16 < diox> the slackesr :p
23:16 < jmbsvicetto> diox: hehe
23:16 < diox> *slackers
23:16 * diox ducks away from kopp
23:16 < tsunam> beandog: yes
23:17 < jmbsvicetto> diox: I agree they need an energy injection
23:17 < diox> jmbsvicetto: when is the election?
23:17 < mark_alec> but since the year is up, there isn't much point doing
anything with hem at the moment
23:17 < mark_alec> s/is up/is almost up/
23:17 < jmbsvicetto> mark_alec: That's the point
23:17 < beandog> when is the year up?
23:17 < beandog> btw, props to djay-il, w ho isn't here
23:17 < beandog> he's been a big help to me
23:17 < jmbsvicetto> diox / mark_alec: We should be starting the process for
another election
23:18 < mark_alec> yeah, he said he had a friend's birthday to go to
23:18 * kopp is alive
23:18 < beandog> oh okay
23:18 < diox> jmbsvicetto: then we need to decide what userreps should do; and
why they should be there
23:18 < jmbsvicetto> beandog: If I'm not mistaken, their term should end this
month
23:18 < diox> also; i want to give them email powers if possible
23:18 < diox> alltho; they are not staffers
23:18 < diox> they should get an email-addy imho
23:18 < diox> that's by far the biggest issue by them
23:19 < kopp> then we can get rid of the pink nick on the forums ?
23:19 < beandog> I think thats a bad idea (and I think weve gone over that
before), mostly because then people are going to seek it for a matter of status
23:19 < jmbsvicetto> My first question is: do we want to keep the userreps
project or not?
23:19 < jmbsvicetto> I vote we keep it
23:19 * beandog votes against (boo)
23:19 < kopp> You need people that are alive first
23:19 < mark_alec> well, first do we think it has succeeded in the past year
23:19 < diox> jmbsvicetto: there-for we need to discuss what they should be
'used' for?
23:19 < kopp> most of us are dead
23:19 < mark_alec> i would say, that at first when there was a whole team, they
were learning about gentoo, and helping other people learn
23:20 < diox> mark_alec: agreex
23:20 < beandog> I say we make the userreps (the ones who do stuff) staffers
23:20 < diox> *agreed
23:20 < jmbsvicetto> diox: I would prefer they had an email from a domain
controlled by us - possibly something like userreps|userrel.gentoo.org
23:20 < mark_alec> but lots have disappeared, which can be expected
23:20 * beandog indoctrinates kopp
23:20 < jmbsvicetto> diox: sure
23:20 < mark_alec> beandog: like djay?
23:20 < kopp> beandog: yes, master
23:20 < beandog> him too
23:21 < diox> djay was very active tho
23:21 < diox> i was eg. present at some gentoo events
23:21 < diox> like fosdem
23:21 < jmbsvicetto> beandog: I think that's one of the goals of userreps - to
find skilled people that join the gentoo team
23:21 < diox> he contributed a lot imho :)
23:21 < beandog> hey who let eroyf in here? :)
23:21 < diox> lol beandog
23:21 < jmbsvicetto> beandog: He was already here ;)
23:21 < mark_alec> he was already here
23:21 * diox pads eroyf
23:21 * mark_alec is too slow
23:22 < diox> eroyf: would make a great userrep :p
23:22 < jmbsvicetto> So, it seems no one wants to disband the userreps project,
right?
23:22 < kopp> mark_alec: take same coffee
23:22 < beandog> uh, I voted to, jmbsvicetto
23:22 < eroyf> har har har
23:22 * Philantrop still thinks the remaining userreps should think about the
goals first to decide about its future
23:22 < jmbsvicetto> beandog: Sorry, I misunderstood you then
23:22 < mark_alec> jmbsvicetto: i am not sure it works well in its current
format
23:22 < beandog> but I'm easily swayed.
23:22 < tsunam> I vote to keep it though so
23:22 < beandog> I'm in the same opinion as mark_alec
23:22 < beandog> I'm not convinced either way, tbh.
23:22 < jmbsvicetto> Shall we make a count?
23:22 < kopp> I'm not really convinced either
23:23 < beandog> but its not like Ive been the most active userrel staffer
either
23:23 < jmbsvicetto> I also think in it's current status it won't work. But I
would like to give it another try
23:23 < diox> i vote to keep them IF we find good agenda points for htem to do
23:23 < beandog> I think one thing that might work is to trim down the #
23:23 < jmbsvicetto> I also agree that we need to set clear goals and to
support it if we want it to strife
23:23 < beandog> We started off with 10 or something
23:23 < beandog> and 3 or so really stepped up (seems like to me)
23:23 < jmbsvicetto> beandog: I have no problem with reducing the number
23:24 * eroyf would be the best userrep ever
23:24 < diox> beandog: 10 sounds fine to me
23:24 * diox agrees w/ eroyf
23:24 < beandog> but, then again, I still say we just make them staffers so
they can help out more
23:24 < beandog> that is ,the ones that *have* been helping out
23:24 < beandog> not all the userreps.
23:24 < beandog> So.
23:24 < beandog> yah.
23:24 < mark_alec> that would require a glep
23:24 < mark_alec> like the one to make global mods staffers
23:24 < beandog> mark_alec: well Im not saying to make it automatic or anything
23:24 < eroyf> please don't make more people staffers
23:24 * beandog staffs eroyf
23:24 < mark_alec> eroyf: why?
23:24 < eroyf> we users has something to say too at this meeting or i should
shut up?
23:24 < jmbsvicetto> beandog: I think that's one of the goals. To find people
that during their term as userreps join the team - be it as staffers or ebuild
devs
23:25 < diox> ppl look for status
23:25 < beandog> jmbsvicetto: right
23:25 < beandog> diox: I think it starts out that way, but given some time, we
have people that *do* shine
23:25 < beandog> thats the thing.
23:25 < mark_alec> diox: yes, but they also look to be officially recognised as
'being involved', and that might motivate them to help more
23:25 < eroyf> remember the cokehabit case, if that happens again and the
userrep is staffer you're going to get a hard time removing them from the
project again
23:25 < beandog> eroyf: right
23:26 < eroyf> since the persons would have equal rights in gentoo like you have
23:26 < eroyf> and it would require devrel actions
23:26 < beandog> but you just gotta give it time.
23:26 < beandog> I'm not proposing any swift changes
23:26 < mark_alec> eroyf: but we always suspected he would have issues
23:26 < eroyf> basicly you shouldn't make people official gentoo people via an
election
23:26 < diox> luckaly; some of us have devrel powers *grins*
23:26 < mark_alec> no, userreps via election
23:26 < eroyf> that's just bad
23:26 < beandog> *headdesk*
23:26 < mark_alec> staffership via us
23:26 < beandog> I'm not talking about an election
23:26 < jmbsvicetto> beandog: I think we can make it more clear that we hope
that those chosen as userreps will be able to join the team during their term -
if you think that would help
23:26 < beandog> Its the same as any other recruitment.
23:26 < eroyf> you should be their proxies
23:27 < beandog> "Hey, youve been helping out, interested in being a dev /
staffer?"
23:27 < beandog> jmbsvicetto: yah, that would help
23:27 < beandog> anyway, definately not anything that should be implied, or
automatic.
23:27 < beandog> by any means.
23:27 < jmbsvicetto> sure
23:27 < diox> yah; userreps; should be ppl who guide devs and be some sort of
talent-hunter
23:28 < kopp> then wouldn't it be more like a trainee program ? like finding
new staffer ?
23:28 < diox> 'guide as in ; tell devs what users really want
23:28 < Philantrop> diox: How do userreps know what "users really want"?
23:28 < diox> Philantrop: we expect userreps to know what users want
23:29 < diox> they should be ppl who are active in multiple user-channels
23:29 < jmbsvicetto> kopp: We would hope that by working with the userrel team
members, the userreps would get to know the team better
23:29 < beandog> I think the whole point of user reps was to represent users,
not devs.
23:29 < diox> as in ML / fora/ irc
23:29 < diox> indeed beandog
23:29 < diox> pr represents devs
23:29 < Philantrop> diox: Ok, fair enough.
23:29 < eroyf> indeed beandog
23:29 < jmbsvicetto> ok, should we first determine if we want to try it again?
23:29 < eroyf> no, devs represents devs
23:30 < diox> err; pr does
23:30 < diox> that's why pr is there at least
23:30 < jmbsvicetto> diox: pr should work with the media and getting gentoo
into the news
23:30 < eroyf> devs are able to speak on behalf of gentoo
23:30 < diox> jmbsvicetto: thus representing devs
23:31 < jmbsvicetto> diox: As in spokesperson? ok
23:31 < diox> sure
23:31 < jmbsvicetto> So, anyone votes to disband the userreps project?
23:32 < diox> let's ask everyone
23:32 < diox> beandog: ?
23:32 < beandog> well I think the first question is, have userreps fulfilled
the goal we set out for them
23:32 < beandog> kinda like what mark_alec was asking
23:32 < hparker> gotta run
23:32 < jmbsvicetto> ok, sorry. then let's backtrack
23:32 < beandog> with the answer to that, I think we could better say if we
need them or not again next year
23:32 < diox> get back soon hparker :p
23:32 * kopp hides
23:32 < beandog> diox: I dunno, Im undeciddd.
23:33 < eroyf> i don't we could say anything about whether the userreps has
fulfilled their goals
23:33 < eroyf> since we haven't been visible after the cokehabit case
23:33 < eroyf> thus haven't been following up about their tasks
23:33 < diox> judging that might be difficult
23:33 < eroyf> juding that will be impossible
23:33 < jmbsvicetto> I think the project as a whole came short of what we
wanted. However, I think some members did an exceptional job and that if we
want to assign blame, we must start by having fuzzy goals and that userreps
didn't have as much support as they needed/deserved
23:33 < diox> as there was said before: some of them definately did tehe thing
23:33 * beandog nods
23:33 < beandog> I vote to keep it on, if we make the numbers smaller
23:33 < eroyf> userrel needs to follow up about it much more than we did
23:34 < eroyf> i think you should make it a smaller team (five or so) and try
again
23:34 < mark_alec> beandog: wouldn't smaller numbers have an increased risk on
people disappearing?
23:34 * diox agrees w/ mark_alec
23:34 < beandog> mark_alec: well I kinda think some have gone MIA anyway
23:34 < eroyf> and have meeting every n'th week like we had a year ago
23:34 < jmbsvicetto> eroyf: That's something I also want to discuss ;)
23:35 < jmbsvicetto> eroyf: For userreps and for userrel ;)
23:35 < eroyf> people disappearing is a non-issue. you can just pick someone
new or the next in the list
23:35 < diox> the election method should also be discussed
23:35 < jmbsvicetto> diox: agreed, but I think that first we must make up our
mind
23:35 < eroyf> indeed
23:35 < eroyf> but that's a minor issue
23:36 < diox> i vote for to keep the reps
23:36 < jmbsvicetto> kopp: I would like to get the opinion of the current
userreps about this term
23:36 < eroyf> the same people?
23:36 < diox> no; just the idea
23:36 < jmbsvicetto> kopp: How they see it and if they have any messages for us
23:36 < mark_alec> no, some might be
23:36 < eroyf> or the project?
23:36 < diox> having reps
23:36 < eroyf> indeed
23:36 < mark_alec> but we need a new team, with active members
23:37 < diox> indeed
23:37 < jmbsvicetto> sure
23:37 * diox totally agrees
23:37 < beandog> what about the current, active members
23:37 < beandog> do they have to run again?
23:37 < diox> we should have them auto-selected as candidates imho
23:37 < eroyf> unless they don't want to
23:37 < mark_alec> only if they want to, and if we are holding an election in a
similar fashion
23:38 < diox> would be kopp djay for me
23:38 < eroyf> and don't nominate lxnay :P
23:38 < jmbsvicetto> beandog: That's another issue. I think an election is an
election
23:38 < diox> q-collective used be active
23:38 < jmbsvicetto> beandog: However, do we want to start having selected
members?
23:38 < diox> i just propose to have the current active members auto-selected
as candidates
23:38 < diox> not automaticly reps
23:39 < diox> after that there should be judged
23:39 < beandog> agreed
23:39 < jmbsvicetto> eroyf: He did present his resignation. Not to us, but in
public
23:39 < eroyf> yeah
23:39 < eroyf> on planet.sabay..
23:39 < jmbsvicetto> diox: We can nominate them ;)
23:39 < eroyf> no need to auto-select them
23:39 < eroyf> people can just nominate the same people
23:39 < eroyf> agh, what jmbsvicetto said
23:40 < diox> auto-selections seems more safe
23:40 < diox> flameware-prevending-wise
23:40 < eroyf> how is that so?
23:40 < jmbsvicetto> So, who votes to keep the userreps project, subject to the
changes we discuss next?
23:40 < eroyf> nomination can't create flamewars
23:40 < diox> beandog: your vote?
23:41 < beandog> diox: Im gonna withhold my vote, I dunno.
23:41 < jmbsvicetto> I vote yes
23:41 < diox> i vote to keep them
23:41 < beandog> mark_alec, tsunam ?
23:41 < mark_alec> yes, if we can come up with a workable team
23:42 < diox> mark_alec: that's the plan
23:42 < eroyf> :)
23:42 < beandog> alright, well thats majority right there
23:42 < jmbsvicetto> tsunam / christel: Last chance for voting ;)
23:42 < diox> alltought eroyf isn't a staffer anymore; i propose to give him
voice, as he used to be last year
23:42 < beandog> at least as far as current attendees go
23:42 < eroyf> no thanks
23:43 < eroyf> but i'd like to see the project run for another year where
everything is done right
23:43 < jmbsvicetto> ok, so 3 votes yes and 1 abstention
23:43 < diox> decided then?
23:43 < jmbsvicetto> diox: to keep. Now we need to discuss what and how
23:43 < kopp> jmbsvicetto: hum, did not hear from most of the others except
djay-il
23:43 < diox> this should move us straigt forward to: how should they be
elected?
23:44 < kopp> so I cannot speak for them
23:44 < tsunam> hmm
23:44 < diox> tsunam: thoughts?
23:44 < tsunam> on?
23:44 < jmbsvicetto> kopp: I understand. I'm planning to send an email to user
alias and ask for everyone's feedback
23:44 < tsunam> <---semi afk working you know
23:44 < diox> the subject :)
23:44 < tsunam> lol
23:44 < kopp> but the fact is, we did not really know what we should do. Djay
submitted some idea that seems interesting but we never got to realise them
23:44 < tsunam> diox: that's not helping me have an opinion
23:44 < jmbsvicetto> tsunam: How do you vote on keeping the userreps project
subject to the changes to discuss next?
23:44 < diox> hmmkay then :(
23:44 < eroyf> tsunam: whether or not we should try having a userrep project
again
23:45 < kopp> iirc, we concluded last year that the election was a big mess
23:45 < tsunam> I vote yes to having it again
23:45 < diox> how where the last elections held,?
23:45 < jmbsvicetto> ok, so 4 yes and 1 abstention
23:45 < beandog> forums, I think
23:45 < jmbsvicetto> yes
23:45 * diox pads tsunam
23:45 < eroyf> please don't
23:45 < eroyf> make it more formal
23:46 < diox> mail is hard to keep track on?
23:46 < eroyf> then it will be the forum people electing other forum people
23:46 < jmbsvicetto> First questions: Do we want all members to be elected or
do we want to have people chosen by us to be userreps?
23:46 < eroyf> people who writes a lot of posts etc. will be elected and
selected!
23:47 < mark_alec> nominations and then us elect, might work best
23:47 < beandog> yah
23:47 < eroyf> yeah
23:47 < beandog> what mark_alec said.
23:47 < tsunam> I think it should be a combination
23:47 < diox> i suggest us to choose users who make a chance
23:47 < jmbsvicetto> eroyf: last elections were skewed to forums members, but
some non-forum members were elected
23:47 < tsunam> like half we select..hafl elected
23:47 < tsunam> half*
23:47 < eroyf> let users nominate and let you people select the ones you like
23:47 < tsunam> it is after all..something we want everyone to participate in
23:47 < diox> sounds resonable tsunam
23:47 < jmbsvicetto> tsunam: I agree
23:47 < jmbsvicetto> I wouldn't want all members to be chosen by us
23:48 * diox agrees w/ joshua
23:48 < tsunam> now this also requires that we know these people who are
nominated
23:48 < jmbsvicetto> But should we be limited to users nominated?
23:48 < diox> i would like elect few of the current reps
23:48 < jmbsvicetto> Or can we choose users that are not nominated?
23:49 * eroyf knows about a user he's going to nominate :P
23:49 < diox> and have the others elected by users
23:49 * eroyf hides
23:49 < diox> like eg. 2 forums and 2 ml
23:49 < mark_alec> eroyf: who? and don't say ciaran ;)
23:49 < eroyf> damn
23:49 < eroyf> :)
23:49 < eroyf> i shall be silent then!
23:49 < eroyf> it was just a joke... heh
23:49 < jmbsvicetto> ok, so we want to 50% selected and 50% elected?
23:50 < jmbsvicetto> to have*
23:50 * kopp nominates cokehabit
23:50 < jmbsvicetto> or do you want to discuss the number of userreps first?
23:51 < diox> how many reps would we have?
23:51 < eroyf> five or seven!
23:51 < diox> 9!
23:51 < jmbsvicetto> If we're going to select some, I would propose 10
23:51 < jmbsvicetto> Let users elect at least 5
23:51 < eroyf> kopp: bad idea.
23:51 < diox> should be odd
23:51 < eroyf> 10 isn't odd!
23:52 < jmbsvicetto> why? They don't need to have votes
23:52 < eroyf> 11 then, like it is now
23:52 < diox> 11 sounds good
23:52 < eroyf> if they wish to vote they should be a right amount
23:52 < diox> i vote for 5 selected by us; 3 by forums; 3 by ML
23:52 < jmbsvicetto> eroyf: That raises another question: more elected or more
selected?
23:53 < jmbsvicetto> diox: What about bugzilla or irc?
23:53 < diox> jmbsvicetto: not enough seats?
23:53 < jmbsvicetto> diox: I don't mean that. But if we want to reserve seats
to the mediums, shouldn't we reserve seats for irc at least?
23:53 < diox> most irc users are either forums or ml users too
23:54 < eroyf> where's christel?
23:54 < mark_alec> diox: not all
23:54 < diox> jmbsvicetto: 2forums; 2irc; 2ml ?
23:54 < jmbsvicetto> eroyf: She went for curry ;)
23:54 < eroyf> damn her
23:54 < diox> damn curry
23:54 < diox> we need her
23:54 < diox> :p
23:54 < jmbsvicetto> diox: I would ok with that
23:54 < diox> i would at least have selected < elected
23:55 < diox> everyone agrees on that ?
23:55 < jmbsvicetto> What about the following:
23:55 * eroyf weould prefer the majority of the people to be known as being
sane
23:55 < eroyf> thus selected > elected
23:55 < jmbsvicetto> selected: 1 from ml, 1 from forums, 1 from irc, 2 from
whatever medium. elected: 6
23:55 < beandog> I think its a bad idea limiting any numbers from specific
sources.
23:56 < beandog> Just have a top # of nominations, and leave it at that.
23:56 < jmbsvicetto> if we wanted selected > elected: 3 from whatever medium
and 5 elected
23:56 < diox> jmbsvicetto: where will we find 6 _good_ candidates?
23:56 < beandog> er, not nominations, roles
23:56 < diox> jmbsvicetto: 8 is not odd
23:56 < jmbsvicetto> diox: That's 11
23:57 -!- nephros [EMAIL PROTECTED]/userrep/nephros] has joined
#gentoo-userrel-meeting
23:57 < jmbsvicetto> diox: I meant 1 from ml, 1 from forums, 1 from irc, 3 from
wherever and 5 elected
23:57 < diox> welcome nephros
23:57 < diox> jmbsvicetto: sounds fine to me
23:57 < nephros> hoi. sorry for being that late.
23:57 * diox spanks nephros
23:57 < eroyf> ewww
23:57 < nephros> uuh yea.
23:57 < jmbsvicetto> beandog: Having 1 from each channel, would ensure all
channels are represented in the userreps
23:58 < jmbsvicetto> beandog: But we wouldn't be forced to choose or reject
someone just because he/she is from a specific medium
23:58 * diox thinks jmbsvicetto's proposition is the best so far
23:58 < diox> jmbsvicetto: how would we select reps?
23:59 < diox> we all have to agree on the selected right?
--- Log closed Sat Aug 04 00:00:01 2007
--- Log opened Sat Aug 04 00:00:01 2007
--- Day changed Sat Aug 04 2007
00:00 < jmbsvicetto> Well, I would propose the userrel team asks devs to
nominated users based on their knowledge and that userrel then does a voting
00:00 < jmbsvicetto> nominate*
00:00 < jmbsvicetto> diox: I don't think we'll be able to reach 100% agreement,
so we should go with majority
00:00 < jmbsvicetto> diox: I wouldn't mind having 100% agreement, though
00:01 < jmbsvicetto> diox: That is, to reach a consensus
00:01 < diox> i would prefer 100% agreement
00:01 < jmbsvicetto> Anyone wants to make another proposal or should we vote
this one?
00:01 < beandog> go ahead
00:01 < jmbsvicetto> diox: We can discuss the method for selection later
00:02 < kopp> ok, I gotta go to bed, I'm not much of use here anyway. 'night
people
00:02 < nephros> I think before re-ekecting the new reps, the whole Uerreps
thing should be rethunk. I mean - it hasn been very successful.
00:02 < diox> nephros: that's our next point :)
00:02 < diox> at least; i tought it was:p
00:02 < jmbsvicetto> So, who votes for having 11 userreps with: 6 selected (1
from the mls, 1 from the forums, 1 from irc and the other 3 from any medium)
and 5 elected?
00:02 < nephros> okok.
00:02 < diox> i do
00:03 < jmbsvicetto> me too
00:03 < jmbsvicetto> mark_alec / tsunam / beandog ?
00:03 < mark_alec> fine with me
00:04 < beandog> jmbsvicetto: meh, I dont like it, but I cant come up with
anything better, so
00:04 < beandog> meh.
00:05 < beandog> I'll just stay out again.
00:05 < jmbsvicetto> beandog: abstention? ;)
00:05 < diox> beandog: could you tell us what you don't like about it?
00:05 < eroyf> pasny :P
00:05 < eroyf> pansy*
00:05 < beandog> I dont like the idea of limiting where they come from
00:05 < tsunam> that's fine with me
00:05 < beandog> I say, there are x number of slots, and just let everyone know.
00:05 < diox> we have to limit the reps anyhow
00:05 < tsunam> I think we should have some from various mediums
00:06 < jmbsvicetto> 4 yes and 1 abstention?
00:06 < diox> christel ?
00:06 < beandog> Well my beef is that they dont all equally represent the same
# of users
00:06 < diox> they're all users .. :)
00:06 < jmbsvicetto> beandog: That's true, but I would like to have people from
all mediums
00:06 < beandog> I mean the mediums
00:07 < beandog> well then
00:07 < beandog> how about splitting it up into forums userreps, ml userreps
00:07 < beandog> or
00:07 < beandog> I dunno
00:07 < tsunam> beandog: no set of userreps will
00:07 < beandog> whatever.
00:07 < beandog> :)
00:07 < jmbsvicetto> :)
00:07 < tsunam> beandog: we are trying to hit the broadest spectrum
00:07 < beandog> right
00:07 < beandog> alright, go ahead with it
00:08 < jmbsvicetto> So, what's the next point?
00:08 < jmbsvicetto> userreps goal?
00:08 < diox> yes please
00:09 < jmbsvicetto> suggestions?
00:09 < nephros> can someone repeat the point/topic for me please?
00:09 < diox> i say guide developers to where users want to head on to + prod
users to help out at bugday and development in general (submitting bugs,
at-work etc)
00:10 < eroyf> bugday \o/
00:10 < nephros> :)
00:10 < diox> overall guide users to get more into development, and gentoo's
inner working
00:10 < beandog> wheres welp
00:10 < diox> btw: it's bugday like _now_
00:10 * eroyf should remove highlight on that word
00:10 < diox> welp is out
00:10 < beandog> wheres he at?
00:10 < eroyf> welp is not in userrel either
00:10 < diox> he's mia this summer
00:10 < beandog> no, but he is doing bugday
00:11 < beandog> or was
00:11 < beandog> the summer?
00:12 < diox> yesh
00:12 < diox> he's bugday lead
00:13 < diox> and yesh he's mia this summer
00:13 < jmbsvicetto> Well, any other suggestions?
00:13 < diox> that's where i would like to see movement from reps
00:13 < diox> dunno about you guys
00:13 < nephros> I'd like to raise the point of wether there a point in
continuing/reviving the Userreps concept. From my point of view, the project
has failed, and heirs to it cannot benefit from the hirtory.
00:13 < diox> nephros: we are past that point
00:13 < nephros> *history, excuse my speling.
00:13 < diox> we agreed to give it new life :)
00:14 < beandog> yah, we already voted on that
00:14 < beandog> sorry nephros
00:14 < nephros> oh, alright. my fault for turning up too late.
00:15 < jmbsvicetto> So ?
00:15 < diox> jmbsvicetto: your thoughs sir?
00:15 < beandog> jmbsvicetto: I think the general idea has always been for them
to be a liasion between devs and users, basically grabbing our ears to let us
know what the current storms are
00:15 < jmbsvicetto> diox: I agree with beandog
00:15 < diox> i want it to be more
00:16 < beandog> basically someone that is comfortable talking to devs, and
devs can recognize as a ... well, representative for the greater userbase.
00:16 < diox> they should prod users to contribute imho :p
00:16 < jmbsvicetto> diox: I agree with that
00:16 < diox> if they want to make gentoo better, they should start by
submitting boogs
00:16 < beandog> fixing
00:16 < beandog> :)
00:16 < jmbsvicetto> hehe
00:16 < beandog> got plenty of bugs.
00:16 < diox> not enough imho :p
00:16 < beandog> equally
00:16 < beandog> Id say that userreps should be aware of dev's needs
00:17 < jmbsvicetto> diox: I'm sure we can find a few packages for they to take
care of ;)
00:17 < beandog> so that they can know whats falling behind, and why
00:17 < diox> beandog: that's why we choose some of them :)
00:17 < diox> like, i think djay, eroyf, kopp would make some good reps (again)
00:17 < jmbsvicetto> about their participation, I think we should continue to
have them involved on bugday, universe and sunrise
00:17 < beandog> agreed
00:18 < diox> agreed
00:18 < beandog> well they arent involved on universe at all.
00:18 < jmbsvicetto> and have them also on sunrise and other overlays
00:18 < diox> well; bugzilla-activity > overlays
00:18 < nephros> hmm but anyone can participate on those things, what would
make a re p so special?
00:19 < beandog> communication
00:19 < beandog> ideally.
00:19 < jmbsvicetto> nephros: Having them engage users
00:19 < diox> helping users, and if needed guide them to apropriate channels
like our #gentoo-dev-help support media
00:20 < jmbsvicetto> nephros: It's not a question of just being there, but of
getting others there and helping users
00:20 < beandog> jmbsvicetto: okay I think were ready to move onto something
else
00:20 < jmbsvicetto> ok
00:20 < diox> i think we should decide when to start elections
00:20 < jmbsvicetto> so, anyone wants to propose a phrase for the purpose?
00:20 < nephros> okay, so one thing is to proactively go out to individual
users and point them to appropriate channels to get their work included in
Gentoo.
00:20 < beandog> not me
00:20 < jmbsvicetto> beandog: hehe
00:21 < beandog> jmbsvicetto: no, I mean I think the original proposal is valid.
00:21 < jmbsvicetto> ah, ok
00:21 < eroyf> how long is your agenda for tonight?
00:21 < diox> eroyf: some more points
00:21 < beandog> eroyf: you got a hot date?
00:21 < eroyf> hah, one of the long userrel meetings
00:21 < eroyf> no no no
00:21 < eroyf> just asking
00:22 < diox> moving on?
00:22 < diox> i think we should decide when to start elections
00:22 < diox> and how to do them
00:22 < jmbsvicetto> ok
00:22 < beandog> I assume were going to start voting when the year is up?
00:22 < beandog> comments?
00:22 < diox> sure
00:22 < jmbsvicetto> So, 15 days for nominations and 15 days for election?
00:22 < diox> how about having the team started 1 september?
00:23 < jmbsvicetto> diox: hmm, that won't give us 1 month for conducting the
process
00:23 < diox> hrm
00:23 < diox> so exactly one month from now?
00:23 < diox> then we should release the news after this meeting?
00:23 < jmbsvicetto> well, if we were to start the nominations tomorrow, they
could start on september 1
00:23 < beandog> brb
00:23 < diox> i think i can hack it in to this weeks gwn
00:25 < jmbsvicetto> Although I would suggest nominations from 6 to 19,
elections from 20 to september 2 and have them start on september 3
00:25 < diox> jmbsvicetto: fine by me
00:25 < jmbsvicetto> Anyone else?
00:25 < diox> can do gwn-article by sunday evening
00:26 < nephros> whenever it is, IMHO it should be very clear what the position
is about and involved with before tarting with nominations and voting,
othwervise it will turn out just the way it did last time.
00:27 < jmbsvicetto> nephros: Yes, I agree
00:27 < diox> jmbsvicetto: i'm already on that
00:27 < diox> will be a good article
00:28 < diox> will mail it to userrel@ when ready
00:28 < jmbsvicetto> beandog / mark_alec / tsunam ?
00:28 < jmbsvicetto> diox: Thanks
00:28 < tsunam> hmm
00:28 < diox> it will contain the role of the userrep/ how to get elected/ how
the process works / benefits
00:28 < tsunam> we need to have very clearly defined roles for the userreps
00:28 < jmbsvicetto> diox: We also need to discuss, on a later meeting, how
userrel will work them - I have a few ideas for that
00:29 < tsunam> before we EVEN begin to consider elections
00:29 < tsunam> no half assed..well sorta do this
00:29 < nephros> exactly.
00:29 < diox> tsunam: what do you mean?
00:29 < jmbsvicetto> tsunam: Do you propose we delay the process until we can
define those?
00:30 < tsunam> jmbsvicetto: yes
00:30 < mark_alec> i don't think we should rush nominations/elections, much
better to have them delayed a few weeks if we can work out their goals clearly
beforehand
00:30 < tsunam> diox: that we know what the goals..objectives and steps to
succeed
00:30 < jmbsvicetto> tsunam: I agree with that, but I'm affraid of how long it
will take
00:30 < jmbsvicetto> tsunam: It has been *very* difficult to have meetings ;)
00:31 < tsunam> jmbsvicetto: next meeting
00:31 < tsunam> (weekends are better obviously for meetings...
00:31 < tsunam> as some of us are at work
00:31 < jmbsvicetto> tsunam: sure
00:31 < diox> tsunam: we all would be at work at some point
00:31 < jmbsvicetto> tsunam: This date was chosen by christel, though ;)
00:32 < tsunam> diox: yeah but sat works better for most
00:32 < tsunam> jmbsvicetto: yeah I know
00:32 < diox> tsunam: not for me, sir :)
00:32 < jmbsvicetto> So, let's leave the dates for next meeting, ok?
00:32 < nephros> use the ML, then, for in-depth discussion, and meetings only
to vote on already discussed stuff.
00:32 < jmbsvicetto> Who votes for deciding the schedule next meeting?
00:33 < diox> jmbsvicetto: no need to vote for that
00:33 < jmbsvicetto> ok
00:33 < diox> agenda should be decided before on ml
00:33 < tsunam> aye
00:33 < tsunam> and should be able to vote absentee
00:33 < tsunam> but anyways...
00:33 < jmbsvicetto> Do we want to talk about the election process tonight?
00:34 < tsunam> I think we should postpone that
00:34 < jmbsvicetto> ok
00:34 < jmbsvicetto> So the election process and schedule will be postponned
for next meeting
00:34 < jmbsvicetto> Anything else on userreps tonight?
00:35 < nephros> not from me..
00:35 < beandog> back
00:35 < beandog> this is a good meeting time for me
00:35 < jmbsvicetto> beandog: We've decided to postponne the election process
and schedule for next meeting
00:35 < beandog> yah, I read up
00:35 < jmbsvicetto> beandog: unless you have anything else to talk about the
userreps, I think we can move to point 2 of the agenda
00:35 < beandog> that's cool
00:36 < beandog> yah lets go
00:36 < jmbsvicetto> just one thing, before we move on
00:36 < jmbsvicetto> We'll discuss these two points in the userrel ml until
then, right?
00:36 < diox> yes; kay
00:36 < jmbsvicetto> until next meeting
00:36 < diox> what about having a meeting next saturnday 21UTC?
00:37 < jmbsvicetto> O_O - ok :)
00:38 < beandog> saturday?
00:38 * beandog would rather miss work than saturday. ;)
00:38 < tsunam> beandog: basically that's sat for everyone...
00:38 * nephros wil not be able to be here next saturday, but is looking fwd
to any ML activity til then
00:38 < beandog> alright
00:38 < tsunam> beandog: for example I'm working on work stuff currently
00:38 < beandog> ditto
00:38 < tsunam> and not having much involvement
00:39 < jmbsvicetto> would you be willing to do it on Friday at another time?
00:39 < beandog> saturday's fine
00:39 < tsunam> jmbsvicetto: be too late for friday that'd work with the west
coasters
00:39 < beandog> its not like I have a social life :)
00:39 < tsunam> jmbsvicetto: and I go out friday night :-P
00:39 < jmbsvicetto> hehe
00:39 < jmbsvicetto> tsunam: You're hard to please :P
00:40 < diox> i work mondays to saturndays
00:40 < tsunam> jmbsvicetto: I'm like a woman :-P
00:40 < jmbsvicetto> tsunam: lol
00:40 < diox> so err; only requirement is after 20utc
00:40 < tsunam> hmm...I'm sure someone will submit that to robbat2 for gentoo
quotes
00:40 < jmbsvicetto> So, meeting saturday 11 at 21H00 UTC?
00:40 < beandog> fine w/me
00:40 < diox> fine w/me
00:40 < jmbsvicetto> I think mark_alec would prefer it be a bit later
00:41 < mark_alec> i won't be here then anyway, got a camp next week
00:41 < jmbsvicetto> mark_alec: ah, ok
00:41 < diox> jmbsvicetto: can't -> that's already 23h for me
00:41 < jmbsvicetto> ok
00:41 < jmbsvicetto> So, point 2 of the agenda?
00:41 < beandog> were only on #2? -_-
00:41 < jmbsvicetto> diox / beandog: You wanted to talk about some
sub-projects, right?
00:42 < jmbsvicetto> beandog: yup
00:42 < beandog> I just wanted to say, we need to get SoC pages up todate
00:42 < beandog> and planet, too
00:42 < diox> jmbsvicetto: jup
00:42 < beandog> that's it.
00:42 < jmbsvicetto> who's doing adopt-a-dev now?
00:42 < beandog> I can do that, given the details.
00:42 < jmbsvicetto> beandog: I think christel should have that info
00:42 < beandog> jmbsvicetto: she said grant has it, I just need to poke him.
00:43 < jmbsvicetto> ok
00:43 < jmbsvicetto> So, diox do you need any help from userrel for gwn?
00:43 < beandog> and this isn't an offical subproject, but planet larry is
going to have some major upgrades soon.
00:43 < beandog> if anyone can find users that wanna be on there, that's great.
00:44 < beandog> diox: lemme know ifyou need guidexml help, as well
00:44 < jmbsvicetto> beandog: If you want to, I think it should become an
official project
00:44 < diox> jmbsvicetto: no
00:44 * beandog can write some docs if needed
00:44 < diox> don't forget i'm a gdp monkey
00:44 < beandog> jmbsvicetto: nah
00:44 < beandog> jmbsvicetto: infra wouldnt go for it
00:44 < diox> i wanted to bug you on adopt-a-dev
00:44 < diox> need some help to make it lively again
00:44 < beandog> jmbsvicetto: its much more managable if it wasnt
00:45 < jmbsvicetto> beandog: userreps are an official userrel sub-project, why
shouldn't planet larry be?
00:45 < tsunam> because its not on gentoo hardware
00:45 < beandog> right.
00:46 < jmbsvicetto> tsunam: The gentoo userreps page also isn't
00:46 < tsunam> O_o
00:46 < beandog> planet gets tons of hits anyway
00:46 < jmbsvicetto> ok
00:46 < beandog> It would put a bigger load on infra.
00:46 < beandog> if anyone wants stats, btw, I can get thsoe to you
00:46 < nephros> is hardware/infra a good reason?
00:46 < jmbsvicetto> I think we're talking about different things. I'm not
talking about using gentoo hardware
00:46 < beandog> right
00:46 < beandog> well
00:47 < beandog> I dont see a reasonable argument to make it official.
00:47 < tsunam> I don't see why it needs to be under anyone
00:47 < jmbsvicetto> ok
00:47 < tsunam> its running fine on its own
00:47 * beandog nods
00:47 < tsunam> afaik
00:47 < tsunam> I don't visit it
00:47 < jmbsvicetto> so, anything else on userrel and its subprojects?
00:47 < tsunam> users scare me
00:47 < jmbsvicetto> tsunam: hehe
00:48 < beandog> 25k visits last month
00:48 < diox> hm
00:48 < diox> jmbsvicetto: need some help to make it lively again (adopt-a-dev)
00:48 < diox> ideas?
00:48 < beandog> jmbsvicetto: I just wanna maek sure SoC is well communicated
00:48 < beandog> but, I need to find out first what the status is
00:48 < beandog> so
00:48 < beandog> I'll work on it.
00:48 < beandog> I guess.
00:49 < beandog> Ill try.
00:49 < jmbsvicetto> diox: I think that's a very good project
00:49 < jmbsvicetto> diox: We should ask devs to submit requests again and try
to find some sponsors
00:50 < diox> requests enough imho
00:50 < diox> well for now
00:50 < diox> sponsors and interested users are something other
00:50 < beandog> what is that anyway?
00:50 < diox> beandog: adopt-a-dev?
00:50 < beandog> yah
00:50 < diox> what it sounds like
00:51 < diox> a project that takes care of developers needs
00:51 < diox> like eg. hardware or books
00:51 < beandog> when are we gonna get date-a-dev?
00:51 < jmbsvicetto> hehe
00:51 < diox> lol :p
00:51 < diox> could do that :p
00:51 < jmbsvicetto> beandog: I can do the screening for that ;)
00:51 < beandog> heh
00:51 < beandog> lol
00:51 < beandog> alright, we ready for next?
00:51 < diox> userreps could do that :p
00:52 < diox> (screening)
00:52 < diox> :p
00:52 < diox> sure
00:52 < jmbsvicetto> Nah, userrel would do it
00:52 < beandog> fixed meeting time
00:52 < diox> let's move on
00:52 < Philantrop> jmbsvicetto: ius primae noctis? ;-)
00:53 < jmbsvicetto> Philantrop: THis is one of the things that we should not
delegate ;)
00:53 < Philantrop> jmbsvicetto: I SEe you're already excited... ;-)
00:53 < jmbsvicetto> hehe
00:53 * Philantrop goes back to lurking
00:53 < jmbsvicetto> Philantrop: That's a good sign ;)
00:54 < jmbsvicetto> So, any more status on userrel projects?
00:54 < beandog> no
00:55 < beandog> next :)
00:55 < diox> no
00:55 < diox> next agenda point ?
00:55 < jmbsvicetto> I feel like userrel has been dead for the past 6 months.
We need to revive the team again
00:55 < jmbsvicetto> We also need to update the project's page and to see who
is still on the team
00:56 < jmbsvicetto> 3. setting up a fixed timeframe for userrel meetings
00:56 < jmbsvicetto> I think we should have at least one meeting per month
00:56 < beandog> jmbsvicetto: agreed, on both points.
00:56 < diox> agreed
00:57 < jmbsvicetto> Should we try to define a default meeting time? Something
like council's default meeting on the 2nd thursday of the month?
00:57 < jmbsvicetto> I would suggest the weekends, though
00:58 < beandog> I dont think it'll do much good if we dont have a reason to
meet
00:58 < beandog> tbh.
00:58 < jmbsvicetto> beandog: I understand, but I fear that if we don't have a
fixed time, we stop having meetings :\
00:59 < diox> i would suggest saturnday
00:59 < diox> evenings
00:59 < jmbsvicetto> beandog: It has proved to be very difficult to setup
meetings in the past
00:59 < beandog> yah
00:59 < beandog> I dunno.
01:00 < jmbsvicetto> beandog: Anyway, I'm proposing "default times". We can
always change them or even to cancel a meeting
01:00 < beandog> how often do we want to meet
01:00 < jmbsvicetto> I think we should try to have one meeting per month
01:00 < beandog> I would say one every 2 months
01:00 < jmbsvicetto> ok, I can live with that ;)
01:01 < beandog> Lets just set a time
01:01 < beandog> and if people make it, great
01:01 < beandog> if they dont
01:01 < diox> agree w/ beandog
01:01 < beandog> we'll just kick them out
01:01 < beandog> :)
01:01 < jmbsvicetto> hehe
01:01 * beandog pokes mark_alec for an opinion
01:01 * mark_alec stops trying to sleep
01:01 < jmbsvicetto> hmm, if we go with Saturdays, we should perhaps avoid the
first, right? (bugday)
01:01 < jmbsvicetto> mark_alec: hehe
01:02 < mark_alec> i think having regular meetings is a good idea, if we have
nothing to talk about, we don't need to actually meet, but at least it gives us
a schedule
01:02 * beandog nods
01:02 < beandog> I think having it on bugday would be a good idea, actually
01:02 < beandog> it'd be easier to remember that way.
01:02 < jmbsvicetto> beandog: ok, we just need to have shorter ones then ;)
01:03 < beandog> agreed
01:03 < beandog> well this ones just long since it's been a while.
01:03 < jmbsvicetto> sure
01:03 < jmbsvicetto> So, 1st Saturday of the month at 21H00 UTC ?
01:03 * beandog nods
01:03 < beandog> tsunam: ?
01:03 < jmbsvicetto> well, even or odd months?
01:03 < beandog> even
01:03 < beandog> so 2 months from now
01:03 < jmbsvicetto> ok
01:04 < beandog> lets make sure we get that on the project page
01:04 < tsunam> hmm
01:04 < beandog> tsunam: talking about having a set meeting time
01:04 < beandog> on a regular basis (1 per 2mos)
01:04 < beandog> on bugday
01:04 < jmbsvicetto> beandog: sure
01:05 < diox> agreed
01:05 < tsunam> whenever works for me
01:05 < diox> so when is next meeting?
01:05 < tsunam> just poke me to show up =)
01:05 < beandog> ok
01:05 < diox> next bugday?
01:05 < diox> or next week?
01:05 < jmbsvicetto> On the first Saturday of October at 21H00 UTC
01:06 < diox> we'll need to schedule a meeting for userrep -stuff
01:06 < jmbsvicetto> diox: sure
01:06 < jmbsvicetto> diox: The regular meeting with be then. we'll have an
extra next week
01:07 < jmbsvicetto> Can we move forward?
01:07 < diox> sure
01:08 < beandog> oh man, please lets not tackle #4
01:08 < jmbsvicetto> 4. clear up any doubts with other TLPs about userrel role
as a TLP, its merger with PR and evaluate our relation to users (do we remain a
bridge between users and devs or do we need/want devrel like powers over users?)
01:08 * beandog doesnt have the strength
01:09 < beandog> in fact, Ive got to go, guys
01:09 < jmbsvicetto> beandog: I wanted to raise this question, because of the
merge with pr and because some have expressed the view that userrel was a
devrel subproject
01:09 < jmbsvicetto> beandog: Can you talk about 5 before you go?
01:09 < beandog> userrel was a devrel subproject
01:09 < jmbsvicetto> beandog: We could do 5 before 4
01:09 < beandog> its a tlp now
01:09 < jmbsvicetto> beandog: I know and agree, but some seem not to understand
that
01:09 < beandog> well, screw them. :)
01:09 < jmbsvicetto> :)
01:09 < beandog> its been that way for a while.
01:09 < beandog> #5, christel should be here
01:10 < jmbsvicetto> yeah :|
01:10 < jmbsvicetto> Should we leave 5 to next week?
01:10 < beandog> yah
01:10 < jmbsvicetto> tsunam: Will you be able to be here next week?
01:10 < beandog> and #4 too
01:10 < beandog> I think they kind of relate
01:10 < jmbsvicetto> ok
01:11 < beandog> plus weve been in here a while.
01:11 < tsunam> jmbsvicetto: just poke me about the time of it and i should
mkae it
01:11 < tsunam> make*
01:11 < jmbsvicetto> tsunam: ok
01:11 < jmbsvicetto> So, do we adjourn for today?
01:11 < beandog> jmbsvicetto: Ill catch up with you later so we can make sure
the emails,e tc, get out as well as get proj. page updated
01:11 < beandog> diox: you too
01:12 < diox> hm
01:12 < diox> wiat a asec
01:12 < beandog> wake up boy
01:12 < beandog> :)
01:12 < jmbsvicetto> :)
01:12 < beandog> we just voted you lead
01:12 < beandog> ;)
01:12 < jmbsvicetto> hehe
01:12 < diox> whut!
01:12 < beandog> fix all the bugs kthxbai
01:12 < diox> so 4 and 5 to next week?
01:12 < jmbsvicetto> diox: Now you can do all the work ;)
01:12 < jmbsvicetto> diox: yes
01:12 < diox> kay
01:13 < diox> i might run late next week
01:13 < jmbsvicetto> tsunam / mark_alec: Are you ok with that?
01:13 < beandog> ok
01:13 < beandog> Im getting kicked out
01:13 < diox> my agenda says i have a birthday party to attent
01:13 < jmbsvicetto> postponning 4 and 5 to next week
01:13 < diox> *attend
01:13 < mark_alec> jmbsvicetto: yes
01:13 < diox> but i should be able to make it at 21 or 22 utc
01:13 < jmbsvicetto> diox: You can send your opinion to the ml
01:14 < jmbsvicetto> So, we're done?
01:14 < beandog> Im outta, gotta go, seeya guys
01:14 -!- beandog [EMAIL PROTECTED]/developer/beandog] has quit ["Leaving"]
01:14 < mark_alec> jmbsvicetto: seems that way
01:15 < jmbsvicetto> I've been taking some notes, so I can do a summary
01:15 < mark_alec> cool, i'm going to go back to bed for now
01:15 < mark_alec> see you in a few hours
01:15 < jmbsvicetto> mark_alec: later
01:17 < jmbsvicetto> diox: Should you do the gwn article this week or should
you postponne it for next week?
01:21 < diox> jmbsvicetto
01:21 < diox> i'll writ it
01:21 < diox> and have it read by you
01:21 < jmbsvicetto> ok
01:21 < jmbsvicetto> Thanks
01:21 < diox> you = the userrel group
01:22 < diox> thus; we can directly get it released in next gwn after that
meeting
01:22 < diox> sounds good?
01:22 < jmbsvicetto> yes
The agenda for the meeting was:
1. discuss the userreps project and its future
2. review of the userrel project and sub-project status
3. setting up a fixed timeframe for userrel meetings
4. clear up any doubts with other TLPs about userrel role as a TLP, its merger
with PR and evaluate our relation to users (do we remain a bridge between users
and devs or do we need/want devrel like powers over users?)
5. open up the process to select the project leadership (as stipulated by GLEP
39 the leads should be elected at least once every 12 months) and stipulate the
method for selection / election
Before starting the meeting, diox proposed we added the adopt-a-dev and beandog
the SoC to the agenda. They accepted we discussed about them under point 2.
Point 1:
After much discussion, where everyone agreed that the userreps project had not
fulfill all the expectations and since the current members' term is ending,
with 4 yes and 1 abstention we voted to keep the userreps project.
During the discussion, we talked again about trying to get userreps a
@gentoo.org email address, which was rejected, or instead having a gentoo
(userrel?) controlled domain, such as userreps.gentoo.org. Beandog proposed we
recruited the current userreps that are doing work as staffers. No one agreed
with making that an automatic rule of having elected userreps become staffers,
but there was an agreement that some of the current members could / deserved
become staffers. It was recalled that one of the goals of the userreps project
is "to find people that during their term as userreps join the team - be it as
staffers or ebuild devs." We agreed that we need to make it more clear that we
hope that those chosen as userreps will be able to join the team during or
after their term. We talked about userreps goals and purpose, some agreed with
the current definition expressed by Beandog as "the general idea has always
been for them to be a liasion between devs and users, basically grabbing our
ears to let us know what the current storms are ... basically someone that is
comfortable talking to devs, and devs can recognize as a ... well,
representative for the greater userbase."; diox proposed that usereps "guide
developers to where users want to head on to + prod users to help out at bugday
and development in general (submitting bugs, at-work etc)" and "overall guide
users to get more into development, and gentoo's inner working".
We chose to have 11 userreps with: 6 selected (1 from the mls, 1 from the
forums, 1 from irc and the other 3 from any medium) and 5 elected with 4 votes
yes and 1 abstention. The discussion included the number of userreps, the
proportion between elected and selected, if there should be reserved seats for
each medium or not, and there was even a suggestion of having users nominate
people for userreps and userrel selecting them.
It was decided to postponne the voting on the election process and schedule to
the next meeting, to be held at Saturday 11, 21H00 UTC. The discussion will be
done on the ml until then. Some points already discussed on the meetings are
that we can't start the election process until we clearly define userreps'
goals and roles,
Point 2:
There were a few updates on the current status of userrel and its subprojects.
Beandog will get the info from g2boojum to update the SoC pages and planet. He
told us that planet larry is also going to have some major upgrades soon. Diox
asked for some help to make adopt-a-dev more lively again. The team agreed that
the userrel team has been stalled for the last 6 months and that it has to be
revived.
Point 3:
It was decided to have meetings at the 1st Saturday of even months at 21H00 UTC.
Points 4 and 5 were postponned to next meeting.
