Re: meeting today -- tickets/ongoing (18:00UTC)
by Rex Dieter
FYI, I may not be able to attend, seems I'm having trouble connecting to freenode today (apparently fallout from some DOS'ing over the weekend).
-- Rex
________________________________________
From: Matthew Miller <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2015 7:39 AM
To: Discussions with the Fedora Council and community
Subject: meeting today -- tickets/ongoing (18:00UTC)
Today: IRC meeting in #fedora-meeting on Freenode, at 18:00UTC (shifted
for DST)
Topic is "Tickets/Ongoing" -- while we strive to not be meeting driven
(and particularly, to not be blocked on waiting for a meeting to come
around), this helps make sure things aren't completely dropped.
Topics I see for the agenda:
- Current elections
- Update on Outreachy
Possibly: more on future of FAmSCo?
Anything else?
Upcoming:
Dec 7: Report from Langdon on Modularization objective
Dec 14: Open Floor
Dec 21: Skip for Holidays
Dec 28: Skip for Holidays
Jan 4: Open Floor
Jan 11: Tickets/Ongoing
--
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>
Fedora Project Leader
_______________________________________________
council-discuss mailing list
council-discuss(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/council-discuss@lists.fedorapr...
The Fedora Project's mission is to lead the advancement of free and
open source software and content as a collaborative community.
7 years, 10 months
[council] #27: Proposed Schedule for PRD Refresh
by fedora-badges
#27: Proposed Schedule for PRD Refresh
----------------------+-------------------
Reporter: sgallagh | Owner:
Status: new | Priority: normal
Component: General | Keywords:
----------------------+-------------------
As discussed in the Hangout meeting today, we need to do a periodic
refresh of the PRDs to make sure they are kept up-to-date. I propose that
each of the Edition, Base and Env/Stacks groups should provide an update
by 23:59 UTC on June 12, 2015 for review. This gives a little over a week
for them to be reviewed prior to the Change Submission Freeze as currently
scheduled.
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/27>
council <https://fedorahosted.org/council>
Fedora Council Public Tickets
7 years, 10 months
no meeting today
by Matthew Miller
(As per schedule.)
--
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>
Fedora Project Leader
7 years, 10 months
Fedora Elections for FAmSCo
by Jan Kurik
Hi Council and Ambassadors,
I was pointed by several people to the fact that FAmSCo is (or should
be) an inactive committee and I was questioned why we are organizing
elections for this committee.
As I understand the situation, there is an aim to replace FAmSCo by
FOSCo & Council. However the current FAmSCo is securing some "level of
service" for Ambassadors, which is not yet covered by any other
group/team/governance body within the Fedora community. As such, I was
explicitly ask by Ambassadors to organize the elections for FAmSCo
team as well, to make sure FAmSCo will operate till the time we have a
full replacement for it.
However, it seems like we do not have a full agreement on this topic
[1]. I would like to have a discussion here, to come up with a common
agreement whether we support the idea of having FAmSCo operational for
now or we have other solution.
[1] https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-2/2015-11-17/fedora-meet...
- 17:23:27
Regards,
Jan
--
Jan Kuřík
Platform & Fedora Program Manager
Red Hat Czech s.r.o., Purkynova 99/71, 612 45 Brno, Czech Republic
7 years, 10 months
Re: Fedora Elections for FAmSCo
by Remy DeCausemaker
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Robert Mayr
> <robyduck(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> > 2015-11-18 16:26 GMT+01:00 Jan Kurik <jkurik(a)redhat.com>:
> >>
> >> Hi Council and Ambassadors,
> >>
> >> I was pointed by several people to the fact that FAmSCo is (or should
> >> be) an inactive committee and I was questioned why we are organizing
> >> elections for this committee.
> >>
> >> As I understand the situation, there is an aim to replace FAmSCo by
> >> FOSCo & Council. However the current FAmSCo is securing some "level of
> >> service" for Ambassadors, which is not yet covered by any other
> >> group/team/governance body within the Fedora community. As such, I was
> >> explicitly ask by Ambassadors to organize the elections for FAmSCo
> >> team as well, to make sure FAmSCo will operate till the time we have a
> >> full replacement for it.
> >>
> >> However, it seems like we do not have a full agreement on this topic
> >> [1]. I would like to have a discussion here, to come up with a common
> >> agreement whether we support the idea of having FAmSCo operational for
> >> now or we have other solution.
> >>
> >> [1]
> >> https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-2/2015-11-17/fedora-meet...
> >> - 17:23:27
> > Thank you Jan for this open discussion, I'm adding here some more
> > informations.
> > First of all FAmSCo is not dead and never has been officially dismissed, but
> > FAmSCo decided months ago to hand all its repsonibilities over to FOSCo,
> > which was planned as an even bigger committee, and which should have
> > included also the Ambassador's activities. Therefor we reduced the activity
> > and after some meetings without reaching a quorum FAmSCo decided to act only
> > through the Trac until new elections would happen or FOSCo will start its
> > activity.
> > Many thing happened in the meanwhile and we are going towards a new and
> > hopefully better budgeting process (thanks to all who worked on it and who
> > are discussing it), but as you said this is not the only responsibility
> > FAmSCo actually has. Unfortunately FAmSCo missed some of its deadlines,
> > there is for example the EMEA FAD planning, release parties, F23 media and
> > other stuff (which in the end happened partially but not in a coordinated
> > way as before).
> >
> > That's why I would welcome, unless we will not reach the minimum number of 7
> > candidates, new elections. These new memebers could give continuity to
> > FAmSCo's activities and the big ambassadors group, on the other hand they
> > could actively help the integration of the actual FAmSCo responsibilities
> > into the Council, FOSCo or whatever.
> > Canceling the Ambassadors Steering Committee without replacing *all* its
> > activities is not the best way if we don't want to loose some parts of the
> > community, so IMO let's do elections and find the best solution to pass over
> > all the stuff and try to represent _all_ regions in the body who will take
> > over in the future the FAmSCo job.
>
> Forgive me, but I have not followed the ambassador side of things for
> a while. If FAmSCo isn't actually meeting (per the IRC conversation)
> and isn't technically a thing any longer, what is the elected body to
> do? Start meeting again?
>
> I do not disagree with you at all that we need people performing the
> tasks you highlight, but I'm not sure having an elected body to do
> them is necessary. Once they are elected, are we to restart FAmSCo,
> or would they only serve until FOSCo actually exists? Perhaps
> volunteers would be better than elected members of a zombie
> organization?
>
> josh
> _______________________________________________
> council-discuss mailing list
> council-discuss(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/council-discuss@lists.fedorapr...
>
> The Fedora Project's mission is to lead the advancement of free and
> open source software and content as a collaborative community.
I'm not against FAMSCo elections, but if there were conversations
about elections (other than FLOCK sessions) this is the first I have
heard about them.
I'm here to support what the community wants, and if the community
wants to revive FAMSCo,and Fedora Leadership is on board with that (no
-1's so far), then I will support that decision.
For those who haven't done this sort of thing before (like me), the
official rules can be found here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FAmSCo_election_rules
So, firstly, if we're going to go through with this, we need enough
candidates to be nominated. Officially, we have until November 23rd,
which is this coming Monday, to secure at least 9 Candidates (7
Candidates, PLUS 25%, which is 2, rounding up.)
It would be kinda weird since CommOps is helping to handle all the
election interviews and communication, but if we really really needed
a ninth Candidate on Monday, I would consider throwing my hat into the
ring and running for FAMSCo if it would help to make this happen, but
only if necessary.
According to the wiki, only ambassadors can vote, and only ambassadors
can be nominated for FAMSCo.
I'm in full support for there to be reestablished ambassador-specific
leadership, but I agree with jzb and others on this thread that this
election be had with the understanding that FAMSCo is helping to
create this new 'larger Fedora representative body' that includes
other project stakeholders and teams, and is scoped beyond
on-the-ground representation at specific events. (I've got a few ideas
on this that are being formalized and organized I'll be sharing
soonlyish.More on that later.)
Best of luck securing the nominations, I'll be keeping an eye on this
thread moving forward.
--RemyD.
--
Remy DeCausemaker
Fedora Community Lead & Council
<decause(a)redhat.com>
https://whatcanidoforfedora.org
7 years, 10 months
Whither FOSCo
by Stephen John Smoogen
On 19 November 2015 at 10:37, Josh Boyer <jwboyer(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 12:32 PM, Joe Brockmeier <jzb(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Was anybody else -1 on FAmSCo elections?
>
> Not that I had seen. And to be clear, I was never -1 for FAmSCo
> elections either. I was/am just very concerned that the thing that is
> supposed to be replacing FAmSCo isn't making actual progress.
>
> josh
> _______________________________________________
I figure this might be the point for a new subject? Because I am
confused on what FOSCo is supposed to do, why it is "delayed" from
March, what the timeline for getting it birthed and what people can do
to help.
Thanks.
--
Stephen J Smoogen.
7 years, 10 months
Fedora Budget.next - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Budget.next
by Remy DeCausemaker
Ambassadors,
As some of you may be aware, there have been some changes to how Budget is
proposed and allocated for the coming fiscal year. This conversation has
been happening on the Council-discuss list, and through meetings with
members of the OSAS team:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/council-discuss/2015-October/01...
With input from the council, OSAS, and other Ambassador Leads, I've taken
the results of these budget meetings up until this point, and the
discussions around FOSCo/FAMSCo, and created a wiki page to help explain
our best understanding of how things should work going forward. The policy
seen here is a blend of the results from public discussions and meetings
over the past year on mailing lists, in IRC, and at FLOCK:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Budget.next
*tl;dr* - We're proposing 3 delegated roles in each ambassadorial region
for treasurer, logistics, and storytelling. We're keeping our reimbursement
and other policies as close to the same as possible. There is a now
quarterly budget timeline with scheduled FADs and planning. There will be a
webpage available in the near-ish future at http://budget.fedoraproject.org
where folks can find the budget and policies related to it.
This is not a permanent, set-in-stone policy, but we need to start
somewhere, beginning with the new budget year (FY17) and the next Fedora
Release (F24.) We can always come back and tinker and change what is on
that wiki page, but for now, this is what we'd like to propose to close the
loop on budget.
Please read the wiki page, as the daemon is always in the details, and we
can use as much informed input and feedback as we can get. I'm hoping to
spend about a week gathering feedback, and then move forward implementing
these new budget processes together with all of you :)
Thank you Ambassador Leads and fellow council members for your early input
and efforts on this. Your feedback helped to round off some of the rough
corners, and provided a consistent reminder to adhere to the Fedora-way of
defaulting to open.
This formalized regional approach to budget is the first step in working
out a larger community-wide strategy around integrating subprojects and
other Fedora constituencies with eachother--but that will be a whole nother
conversation after this one.
Looking Forward,
--RemyD.
7 years, 10 months
meeting today, 18:00 UTC (an hour later nominally; "normal" time with DST factored out)
by Matthew Miller
This is an open floor meeting, in freenode IRC #fedora-meeting.
upcoming meeting schedule:
Nov 23: Skip for Thanksgiving week
Nov 30/Dec 7: Subproject report from __________ (Tickets/Ongoing other
week)
Dec 14: Open Floor
Dec 21: Skip for Holidays
Dec 28: Skip for Holidays
Jan 4: Open Floor
Jan 11: Tickets/Ongoing
--
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>
Fedora Project Leader
7 years, 10 months
Re: [Ambassadors] the "premier" label [was Re: Fedora Budget.next - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Budget.next]
by Matthew Miller
On Sat, Nov 07, 2015 at 07:01:36AM +0700, S.Kemter wrote:
> > And, I think *some* FADs make sense from the central community budget
> > (whether we call that the Council budget or something else), while
> > others — like the ambassadors' planning FADs — make sense to me to be
> > part of the regional budgets directly.
> then they will not happen, they eat easily a third of the regional budget.
> But there is still need for them.
Well, they have to be paid for _somehow_. I'm suggesting that it makes
sense to move that line item from the general pool to the regional
pool. Are you saying that if that happened, the regions would prefer to
spend that money in a different way and wouldn't do the planning
meetings?
--
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>
Fedora Project Leader
7 years, 11 months