While I am writing up the formal "nominations are now open" email, I did
some modifications to various pages.
Some of you are watching these changes (by setting your 'Subscribed wiki
pages' to include Docs.* or DocsProject.* in your UserPreferences page),
but I wanted to give a request to all to read through these pages.
Probably best if we resolve objections and questions _before_ we open
This page content and the entire election tools/process was borrowed
directly from recent FESCo elections. There is about 20% difference in
the content, so it is already fairly well vetted.
Thanks - Karsten
Karsten Wade, RHCE, 108 Editor ^ Fedora Documentation Project
Sr. Developer Relations Mgr. | fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProjectquaid.108.redhat.com | gpg key: AD0E0C41
Here are the combined minutes and IRC log from the FDSCo meeting of
= 0. Report on meeting with Fedora Project Board =
* Followed agenda from mailing list, with additional short mention of
* Kudos around release notes, tools and processes, capabilities and
number of contributors; proper respects from FDP delivered about how the
quality of the distro has positively affected contributor levels in FDP
* Max and Karsten are going to work on the click-through CLA and
mapping it to ACLS, content control levels, and drift that by the
* During FUDCon Boston 2007, we are going to host a hackfest
session to hack on tools, Documentation Guide, etc.
* No red flags (concerns) raised by FPB about working across distros
and FLOSS projects on common docs; Karsten specified that we know some
of the pitfalls (potential problems)
- Aligns with Fedora stance on upstream contributions and sourcing
* FDP is going to help the QA/Testing folks with documentation; that
is going to give a proof point to show other projects that they can use
FDP tools and processes and have their world rocked.
* We need to better publicize the guideline that all Projects watch
their ProjectName.* namespace in the Wiki
== 0.1 Current Issues Blocking Success (Roadblocks) ==
1. L10N -- Max has some actions to help out ... bottom line is, we
have the permissions we need in the various projects, we just need
the resources and leadership in various projects to make it happen
2. RHEL content -- Max actions mainly from here; we've made it known
the various impacts on FDP and what can/cannot do, should/should not
3. Developer involvement -- Raised this perennial issue, asking for
ongoing input/oversight/hammer throwing from the FPB.
= 1. Elections moving forward - voting open 02 to 12 February 2007 =
* Putting together elections with current tools
* Putting up all FDSCo seats for (re)election
- Top 4 vote receiving seats act for 12 months
- Next 3 vote receiving seats are up for re-election in six months
- After that, election is every six months, rotating either 4 or 3
seats being selected
- Steering Committee elects its own chair, who is the effective
- Everyone who has CVS access ('cvsdocs' group) is eligible to vote
- Everyone is encouraged to run for a seat
* Elections are about standing up and being willing to show
leadership, and about getting support from the community to be a leader
* Self-nominations open within the next few days
- Need to finalize the policy page
(Note: Agenda item about meeting times and motivating FDSCo is put aside
until after the election; there is no point moving the meeting time
right now, and we'll let the refreshed steering committee handle it's
own motivation when the time comes.)
= Actions =
Karsten > Work with Max on the RHEL content situation.
Karsten > Get a "Needs release note" flag in bugzilla for Fedora side
 Need to make this match the reality of what we is actually happening
in this election, especially around voting technicalities.
## Begin full IRC log of meeting
17:17 < quaid> <meeting>
17:17 < quaid> ok, then
17:17 < quaid> 0. Report on meeting with with FPB
17:17 < quaid> We followed the agenda as posted on fedora-docs-list
17:18 < quaid> with a last minute addition that I said we were going to
actively tackle elections and leadership stuff in FDP
17:18 * quaid posts URL of the agenda thread
17:18 < quaid>
17:18 * stickster is here
17:19 < quaid> hey, that's a cool 00000 msg number for 2007
17:19 < quaid> a fuller report can be had by reading the IRC log that is
17:19 < stickster> Heh, I win the msg# lottery
17:20 < quaid> my summary is that we were heard on all issues, good
discussions had about them as well
17:20 < quaid> Max took a lot of actions from it, which is good since he
is paid to take care of such issues :)
17:21 * quaid cuts a kiwi, one sec
17:22 < quaid> back
17:22 < quaid> umm, what else was good ...
17:22 * quaid looks at the agenda we used for references ...
17:23 < quaid> * Agreed we need to work on diversity in the relnotes
contributors, scalability, etc.
17:23 < quaid> * Max and Karsten are going to work on the click-through
CLA and mapping it to ACLS, content control levels, and drift that by
the appropriate $BRAINS
17:24 < quaid> * No promises about FUDCon except we are going to host
hackfesting where we can
17:24 < quaid> so there is now a session we're running to hack on tools,
Documentation Guide, etc.
17:25 * stickster has added that to the Fudcon page
17:26 * stickster listed himself as leader but only because he felt
weird volunteering others
17:26 < stickster> quaid: What does "no promises" mean?
17:26 < stickster> That was <confused> not <taken_aback>
17:26 < quaid> um
17:27 < quaid> well, like, we can't promise to be productive
17:27 < stickster> Sure we can!
17:27 < quaid> or distracted by something more important or cooler
17:27 < stickster> :-)
17:27 < quaid> it's called the "Cali Caveat"
17:27 < stickster> Heh
17:27 < EvilBob> lol
17:27 < quaid> "Sure, dude, we'll do it ... unless something cooler
17:27 < quaid> where cooler could be your couch
17:28 < stickster> Well the hackfest is Sat+Sun, so between having
almost two days and a strong pair of handcuffs, I'm sure we can keep you
17:28 < quaid> oh, all right
17:28 < stickster> LOL
17:28 < quaid> um
17:28 < quaid> so
17:29 * stickster is only 1/2 serious
17:29 < stickster> OK, 1/4
17:29 < quaid> I brought up the stuff about working across distros and
FLOSS projects on common docs, mentioned we know the pitfalls, and no
one there screamed at us
17:29 < quaid> so that's good
17:29 < quaid> don't have to hold back jmbuser :)
17:29 < stickster> I think that's really in the keeping with "Fedora
points upstream" mantra
17:29 < quaid> right
17:29 < stickster> s/in the/in/
17:30 < quaid> and acknowledging this area is broken, who knows how to
17:30 * EvilBob goes to cook something, will be a little AFK
17:30 < quaid> * Mentioned that FDP is going to help the QA/Testing
folks with documentation, and be able to use that as a proof point to
show other projects how using our tools and processes will totally rock
17:31 < quaid> * We need to better publicize the guideline that all
Projects watch their ProjectName.* namespace in the Wiki
17:32 < stickster> Right, q.v. above (click-through CLA)
17:32 * stickster turns all pedantic for benefit of people reading IRC
log on the list
17:32 < quaid> roger that
17:32 < quaid> yeah, we got it through that the CLA is an impediment to
contributors on the Wiki and that it matters to fix this
17:32 < quaid> (just to stretch that note)
17:33 < quaid> so maybe one day Rik van Riel will get an account :D
17:33 < quaid> ok, onto the roadblocks
17:33 < EvilBob> heh
17:34 < quaid> 1. L10N -- Max has some actions to help out ... bottom
line is, we have the permissions we need in the various projects, we
just need the resources and leadership in various projects to make it
17:35 < quaid> 2. RHEL content -- Max actions mainly from here; we've
made it known the various impacts on FDP and what can/cannot do,
should/should not do.
17:36 < quaid> bottom line on that is going to be to do what is best for
the community, and I think we have some consensus on what that is :)
17:36 < stickster> I think the Board is realizing (in part because of #1
there) that the resource needs are really mounting up
17:36 < stickster> And it's going to take some serious cat-herding to
get people working on the right stuff
17:36 < quaid> 3. Developer involvement -- Raised this perennial issue,
asking for ongoing input/oversight/hammer throwing from the FPB.
17:37 < stickster> right on
17:37 < quaid> and that is the agenda
17:37 < quaid> My actions from it are:
17:38 < quaid> k> Work with Max on the RHEL content situation.
17:38 < quaid> k> Get a "Needs release note" flag in bugzilla for Fedora
17:38 < quaid> that's it :)
17:39 < quaid> I forgot ... was that last one a "talk to lmacken"
17:39 < quaid> ok, that was a long report
17:39 < stickster> Yes, I have a BZ session open right now to find out
the current lay o' the land
17:39 < quaid> ok, moving on in the agenda from here ...
17:39 < quaid> I'd like to move around the next stuff
17:40 < quaid> and talk Elections first, since I invited abadger1999 to
hang out and hear any questions we have about technical stuff
17:40 * abadger1999 waves
17:40 < quaid> so s/1. WTF .../1. Elections/
17:40 < stickster>
17:40 < stickster> Hi abadger1999
17:41 < quaid> abadger1999: we're using the FESCo processes and
modifying them to do FDSCO elections
17:41 < quaid> and figured the election tools would be a good thing to
work with too :)
17:41 < quaid> what do we have to do to get that going? what should we
17:41 < abadger1999> The documented on the wiki process or the "occurred
in the last election" process?
17:42 < quaid> stickster: not sure what those are? I'm thinking of a
flag that appears, a checkbox with "Needs release note", and it sounds
as if it is only implemented for RHEL and internal view
17:42 < stickster> Reality is probably the best place to start ;-D
17:42 < stickster> Might be
17:42 < quaid> abadger1999: ah, see, here you are already valuable :)
17:42 < stickster> quaid: I only have the normal "Fedora bugs" group
17:42 < abadger1999> k. the current cgi puts a ballot of candidates on
17:42 < quaid> abadger1999: I have this page up that we want to start
modifying to match reality and what can work ...
17:43 < abadger1999> quaid: Go ahead.
17:43 < quaid>
17:43 < quaid> sorry, had to find it
17:43 < quaid> urp
17:43 < quaid>
17:44 < quaid> so that is nearly a 100% copy, with s/FESCo/FDSCo/g
17:44 < abadger1999> Yeah, that looks familiar :-)
17:44 < EvilBob> stickster: is the Release notes bug stuff different
than the alias we have been using?
17:44 < quaid> yeah
17:45 < abadger1999> Are you going to wait until after F7 to hold the
17:45 < stickster> EvilBob: yes
17:45 < EvilBob> ok
17:45 < quaid> it's a special flag that probably does much the same
thing as putting in a blocker + a Cc:
17:45 < stickster> EvilBob: We are looking for a checkbox that
developers can simply tick to mark something for relnotes interest
17:45 < quaid> abadger1999: well, I dunno at this point
17:45 < EvilBob> stickster: Awesome
17:45 < quaid> abadger1999: I'd like to do it sooner, meant to do it
17:45 < stickster> EvilBob: Apparently such an animal exists on the
internal RH view for RHEL Release Notes in BZ
17:45 < quaid> EvilBob: it exists for RHEL, we just need a copy for
17:46 < quaid> abadger1999: do you have a recommendation on timing?
17:46 < EvilBob> I was just a bit confuzeld
17:46 < quaid> sure, i forget that people don't have all the view.
17:46 < abadger1999> Okay. Well, what we have now is slightly different
than the policy on the wiki. I'm planning on modifying the voting app
to match the wiki by F7 so FESCo can follow its own policy (unless the
merger changes things)
17:46 < quaid> s/view/same view/
17:46 < abadger1999> Currently:
17:47 < abadger1999> The app displays a ballot with all the candidates.
17:47 < abadger1999> You select a nuber of candidates equal to the
number of open seats.
17:47 < abadger1999> The vote is recorded for your Fedora account.
17:47 < abadger1999> At the end of the election period, the voting app
stops allowing votes.
17:48 < abadger1999> I read the table in the database that has the
results and tell you who got how may votes.
17:48 < abadger1999> Set up and tear down is currently manual -- You
give me a list of the candidates and the start and stop dates.
17:49 < abadger1999> I enter it in with a little script.
17:49 < abadger1999> I have to read the database to get the information
out to you afte rthe election.
17:50 < abadger1999> So if that's okay with you, you can hold the
election any time after you get the list of candidates and how many open
17:50 < quaid> ok
17:50 < quaid> the post F7 is a self-service version of the above?
17:50 < quaid> is voting open to all those with Fedora accounts? or
just e.g. 'cvsdocs'?
17:51 < abadger1999> That's one of the goals for the post-F7 world.
17:51 * quaid reads his own page
17:51 < quaid> it was a cvsextras account requirement, right?
17:51 < abadger1999> Yeah -- the voting is constrained to a group within
the accoutns system.
17:51 < abadger1999> You can set it to cvsdocs if you want.
17:52 < abadger1999> I set it to the ambassadors group when they held
their election earlier this year.
17:52 < EvilBob> cool
17:53 < EvilBob> My biggest question is "Do we have enough interest in
leadership to have an election"
17:53 < quaid> one way to find out
17:53 < quaid> offer an election :)
17:54 < stickster> right on
17:54 < EvilBob> How many seats do we want to have ttal
17:54 < EvilBob> total
17:54 < quaid> no fewer than 5 or more than 9?
17:55 < quaid> all seats? and what do we want to do about the chair?
17:55 < quaid> maybe we guage interest and constituents?
17:55 < EvilBob> Are all seats up for "the taking" or are some seat
secured for this first election?
17:55 < quaid> s/ua/au/
17:55 < stickster> I would say, let the elected members choose their
leader amongst themselves
17:55 < stickster> IOW, like most boards
17:55 < EvilBob> IMO keeping some seats to allow for transition can be
17:56 < stickster> EvilBob: Probably useful to do in the 2nd election +
17:56 < quaid> my thinking would be to _add_ to what we have in terms of
17:56 < stickster> I would say, make the 1st election "all seats" so we
can rightly claim that everyone is community-selected
17:56 < EvilBob> 70 or more percent turn over could be drastic and also
delay some of our long term goals
17:56 < quaid> right now there are three of us who regular make meetings
and (agree to) do shit
17:57 * quaid happily throws his hat into the ring
17:57 * stickster too
17:57 * stickster kicks EvilBob under the table
17:57 < quaid> maybe he knows something we don't :)
17:57 < stickster> heh
17:57 < EvilBob> IMO personally I would like to see the seats of you two
and Tommy as "transition" seats
17:58 < stickster> I only want to stay on FDSCo if the community wants
17:58 < stickster> I enjoy it and would miss it but I want to feel like
folks are happy with me doing it
17:58 < EvilBob> I will put my hat in the ring , next election you guys
can do the same, How long are the terms for?
17:58 < stickster> other than quaid who loves me no matter what
17:59 < quaid> are we big enough to "need" 5?
17:59 < quaid> stickster: true dat!
17:59 < quaid> or "need" 7?
17:59 < stickster> quaid: Whew, thanks
17:59 < quaid> or "need" 9?
17:59 < stickster> I would say 5 is a minimum
17:59 * quaid takes a big hit of crack
17:59 < EvilBob> I say we shoot for 7
17:59 < quaid> 12?
17:59 < quaid> 21?
17:59 < stickster> 3 just feels too much like a cabal
17:59 < stickster> 53 yo
17:59 < quaid> 42
17:59 < EvilBob> but elect 4 this election
18:00 < quaid> this is the election we should have had last Nov., the
18:00 < EvilBob> in 6 months we have another election and rotate the
other 3 heads
18:00 < quaid> and be planning now for the "all seats"
18:00 < EvilBob> Right
18:00 < quaid> any other thoughts in the channel?
18:00 < abadger1999> Oh, One thing I have found in FESCo is that it
works out to be a twelve month commitment because of Fedora's schedule.
18:01 < stickster> Yes, that's true.
18:01 < quaid> about "elect all to make it clearly a community
committee" v. "elect a majority of the committee from the community"
18:01 < stickster> So we're asking essentially for 1 year of volunteer
effort; we can be up front about that
18:01 < abadger1999> That seems to be a tad on the long side as it's
hard to predict how much time you'll have 12 months from now.
18:01 < quaid> true
18:01 < EvilBob> 12 month commitments, 1/2 elected on 6 month intervals
18:01 < abadger1999> OTOH, having votes every six months seemed like
18:02 < stickster> I think web votes and 1/2 turnover make this a lot
18:02 < quaid> abadger1999: even for a split of seats, only 1/2 up every
18:02 < stickster> It's not like you have to drive to the polls :-D
18:02 < stickster> I don't want to overthink it
18:02 < quaid> we need an even # of seats then
18:02 < quaid> ultimately :(
18:02 < quaid> :) that is
18:02 < abadger1999> The thought when we wrote the FESCo policy was that
wht counts is how many times the Fedora contributors would have to vote
18:03 < quaid> ah, hmm
18:03 < EvilBob> having elections every 6 months will allow for people
mid term to get out and be replaced
18:03 < abadger1999> If they have to vote separately for the Fedora
Board, FESCo, and Docs... each every six months, that would add up.
18:03 < quaid> how many people have that many votes to make?
18:03 < quaid> most wouldhave one project, and one board
18:03 < quaid> right?
18:03 < EvilBob> Yeah I am a freak
18:03 < EvilBob> LOL
18:04 < abadger1999> We tried to address some of this by trying to get
elections merged into one ballot and also holding elections on a
18:04 < EvilBob> I do not think we need an equal number of seats each
18:04 < EvilBob> We can do 4+3
18:04 < EvilBob> errr
18:04 < EvilBob> 4 and 3
18:05 < stickster> EvilBob: +1... any reason that wouldn't work?
18:05 < abadger1999> quaid: I don't know. I know I'm not hte only one
in multiple groups.
18:05 < quaid> but in FDP there aren't that many
18:05 < quaid> I think we can start with "every six months" and leave a
"room to reevaluate" in the charter
18:05 < quaid> I really want there to be a replacement room half way
through the year commitment
18:06 < quaid> then people can know there is a "drop out" target, and
they can trigger their seat to be added into the vote
18:06 < stickster> I just want to get elections rolling :-) The # of
votes is going to give us a GREAT idea how many people sub'd to the list
give a crap
18:06 < quaid> so every once in a while it's a X+Y v. just X
18:06 < EvilBob> In my last two years as part of FDP and the last year
as part of FDSCo Tommy, Paul and Karsten have done the most work, I
would like to see those seats "secured" for this first election, I would
assume that these parties would be re-elected even if they put their
hats in the ring
18:06 < stickster> Yeah, much like poker, there's really no reason you
can't draw 4 instead of 3
18:06 < abadger1999> quaid: Reevaluation and flexibility is always a
18:06 * stickster has easy house rules
18:07 < quaid> I like this best-of idea then:
18:07 < quaid> put up 4 seats now, so we are "majority community
18:07 < stickster> Yes
18:07 < quaid> then we can revote the Chair position and move forward,
18:07 < stickster> Yes
18:07 < quaid> so e.g. I could be replaced as Chair and still have
continuity of duties with pleasure :)
18:07 < stickster> heh
18:08 < EvilBob> If Tommy is against "securing his seat" or would like
to step down and not put his hat in I understand that
18:08 < EvilBob> We should give him that option
18:09 < stickster> All of us have that option :-D
18:09 < EvilBob> I have no problem putting my hat in the ring
18:09 < EvilBob> and would like to do so
18:09 < stickster> You're on, cowboy
18:09 < quaid> well, now, let's talk about this more ...
18:10 < stickster> Yes, let's
18:10 < quaid> what is the real risk that a coup or overriding of all
18:10 < EvilBob> We do need to keep 3 of the current board IMO
18:10 < quaid> but why not just put them all up to vote/
18:10 < stickster> Um, I think it's pretty low, and if it were to
happen, maybe we deserve it
18:10 < quaid> right
18:10 < quaid> that's my thinking ... it would just be better to wipe
clean and roll with that
18:10 < EvilBob> I think that keeping some seats will make the
18:10 < quaid> agreed
18:10 < stickster> This is what I was saying before... but I thought I
was a minority of one
18:11 < EvilBob> stickster: no not at all
18:11 < stickster> EvilBob: But how likely is it that we won't end up
with some folks re-elected anyway?
18:11 < quaid> well, this is the "first reevaluation of our decision"
18:11 < EvilBob> stickster: I also see value in what you are saying
18:11 * abadger1999 Notes that there was no coup when FESCo held its
18:11 < stickster> I think, pretty low... let's throw caution to the
18:11 < quaid> yes, caution, wind
18:11 < stickster> abadger1999: 'zactly
18:12 < abadger1999> It all depends on how many crazy^Wwell-meaning
candidates you have who want to be on the Board.
18:12 < quaid> my concern is there won't be enough :)
18:12 < quaid> one reason to make there be enough seats and candidates
18:12 < quaid> if we hold back three seats, we hold back three
18:12 < EvilBob> abadger1999: I honestly think we will have some trouble
fuilling seats with out help from a train
18:14 < BobJensen> getting railroaded in to helping is not a lot of fun
18:14 < BobJensen> it is one of the reasons that my hat was not in for
the ambassadors election
18:16 < BobJensen> How many seats? How many votes for each contributor?
18:16 < BobJensen> How do we railroad people in to being candidates?
18:16 * BobJensen ducks
18:17 < BobJensen> an odd number of seats is a must if the contributors
18:17 < stickster> OK, my feeling is, let's try to fill 7 seats... an
18:18 < BobJensen> with 7 seats I would say each contributor should get
18:18 < stickster> I think some of our new folks are going to be
interested in running... jmb, dg, ad...
18:18 * stickster gives gratuitous shouts
18:19 < BobJensen> if we only have 7 people running do we go with
everyone or reduce our head count to 5?
18:19 < BobJensen> ghenry: ping
18:20 < stickster> abadger1999: How did that work with FESCo?
18:20 < abadger1999> We held the election before the policy as
18:21 < abadger1999> We had an open call for candidates for 2+ weeks
because people were slow to sign up as candidates.
18:21 < stickster> abadger1999: yeah, just read it again
18:22 < stickster> BobJensen: Answer is, it stays open an extra week...
if still only 7, they all get confirmed
18:22 < abadger1999> Some people put themselves on as "conditional
candidates" ie: they would take a seat if no one else wanted it.
18:22 < stickster> abadger1999: Yeah, I remember that part
18:22 < abadger1999> When we wrote the policy we explicitly wanted to
avoid the conditional candidates.
18:22 < abadger1999> Because it was confusing.
18:23 < BobJensen> I agree there
18:23 < BobJensen> either you are in or you are out, no fence sitting
18:23 < abadger1999> We did come up with more than the minimum number of
seats. Even leaving off the conditional candidates we still had two
18:24 -!- megacoder [n=MegaCode(a)c-71-231-222-164.hsd1.or.comcast.net]
has joined #fedora-docs
18:24 < BobJensen> If you are not committed to making it to "most" of
the meetings and helping get stuff done then don't let others force you
18:24 < BobJensen> Hey tommy
18:24 < abadger1999> But we did have to talk to a few people on IRC and
make recommendations in private and on the mailing list soliciting
people we thought would be good.
18:24 < megacoder> BobJensen, hi
18:25 < stickster> Hey megacoder
18:25 < BobJensen> megacoder: I was just talking about you
18:25 < stickster> We're doing governance stuff... getting an election
18:25 < megacoder> BobJensen, my spider sense was tingling
18:25 < megacoder> stickster, ack
18:25 < BobJensen> megacoder: Cool, I put up the beacon but it is
overcast here, did not think you could see it
18:26 < megacoder> Did I get volunteered for something?
18:26 < BobJensen> megacoder: not yet
18:26 < megacoder> BobJensen, and you are where?
18:26 < stickster> quaid has gone silent but he may simply be ponderin'
18:26 < quaid> sorry
18:26 < BobJensen> east about 1200 miles
18:26 < quaid> I did get distracted by something :)
18:26 < stickster> one word, handcuffs :-D
18:28 < stickster> So the competing possibilities are:
18:28 < stickster> 1. Hold back a few seats and elect some more (4?)
18:28 < BobJensen> megacoder: we were talking about the election, I
suggested we "secure" a few of the seats this election to ensure a
graceful transition. I suggested that quaid stickster and yourself
remain on the board at this time
18:28 * quaid watches
18:28 < stickster> 2. Elect all the seats at once, not worrying about a
18:29 < stickster> 3. Uh, have a sandwich and a $BEVERAGE. No. There
is no 3.
18:29 < megacoder> BobJensen, OK by me, but my attendance is really
spotty of late.
18:29 < quaid> (and secretly being relieved if there is a coup, yay more
time for me!)
18:29 < stickster> lol
18:29 < BobJensen> I am wondering can both BobJensen and EvilBob run?
18:29 < quaid> nes
18:29 < BobJensen> LOL
18:29 < stickster> As long as you bribe me twice
18:30 < stickster> My vote is #2
18:30 < BobJensen> Anhow seriously I am on the fence right now as to how
we do this, I would like to see 6month elecions of ~1/2 the board
18:31 < megacoder> I wouldn't want to belong to any group that would
have members like me???
18:31 < megacoder> stickster, is that what you meant?
18:31 < stickster> Regardless, I like the idea of 6-month half-turnover
18:31 < BobJensen> But at the same time I can see the value of "starting
18:32 < stickster> BobJensen: We can do both
18:32 < quaid> ah, hmm
18:32 < BobJensen> in 6 months time we will be all community elected
18:32 < quaid> but how to choose which seats are up for election at the
6 mon mark?
18:32 < quaid> (if we start clean now)
18:32 < BobJensen> quaid: the X that were hed back this time and anyone
that wants out
18:32 < BobJensen> IC
18:33 < BobJensen> I do not know how that could/should/would work if we
start clean now
18:33 * stickster laughingly notes that the Board faces this very issue
in April :-D
18:34 < quaid> maybe this is another lesson we can relearn
18:34 < quaid> two choices I see:
18:34 < BobJensen> I think by keeping some seats back we eliminate that
18:34 < abadger1999> The half with the least votes are up for
re-election in 6 months?
18:34 < quaid> 1. Start clean, have 4 seats "1 year" and 3 seats "6
18:34 < quaid> 2. Start with +4 and draw lots as to who get the 3 left,
then spin those 3 in six months
18:35 < quaid> abadger1999: interesting third option
18:35 < BobJensen> Hmmm
18:35 < BobJensen> the 3 with the lowest number of votes is an
18:36 < BobJensen> I also think that we should make sure we try to
"revitalize" some of our people that have been on extended LOA also
18:36 < megacoder> Is there a motivating need to change the tenure and
18:36 < quaid> well, that's next
18:37 < quaid> after we announce is when we start talking amongst
ourselves to politick for more people
18:37 < BobJensen> personal email/contacts should be inorder IMO
18:37 < quaid> megacoder: how do you mean? "why elections?" or ?
18:37 < stickster> BobJensen: Of course, free to do that in addition to
posting the call on the f-docs-l and f-announce-l
18:37 < BobJensen> Tammy Fox is an example of someone that we should see
if we can get back in
18:38 < stickster> Is she still even active in the project?
18:38 < megacoder> quaid, I see discussions of split tenure, oddball
scoring and the like. I'm wondering what the problem really is.
18:38 < BobJensen> she has been around a little bit in the last 6 months
18:38 < quaid> megacoder: lack of acknowledged leadership, meaning FDSCo
is too quiet
18:38 < megacoder> Ah. OK, then
18:39 < stickster> Plus, it's a project requirement now.
18:39 < quaid> megacoder: also, the committee has never been community
elected, and that is the direction the rst of the Project takes
18:39 < quaid> ah, requirement, then
18:40 < BobJensen> quaid: should we check with someone from the
ambassadors steering comm to see how their transition went?
18:40 < megacoder> Well, since it's in The Rules...
18:40 < quaid> <singsong>The rules</singsong>
18:41 < quaid> ok, then
18:41 < quaid> do we have a consensus then?
18:42 < quaid> all seat open, lowest three votes are up again in six
18:42 < BobJensen> I say we take the two ideas to the community
18:42 < BobJensen> see what the community wants
18:42 < quaid> well, if we don't have a consensus nor a compelling
reason to force me to choose
18:42 < quaid> then the list it is!
18:43 < stickster> OK, let's make it a point to make a decision next
18:43 < megacoder> +1
18:43 < BobJensen> as I stated I am on the fence, if the others want to
vote we can
18:43 < BobJensen> stickster: +1
18:44 < BobJensen> can or should we vote on this internally?
18:44 < BobJensen> if you guys think it is OK for the 4 f us to make the
choice I am OK with that
18:44 < quaid> oh, we have such power, surely
18:44 < quaid> but
18:44 < quaid> is the fact we have no consensus a sign we need more
18:44 < quaid> yes
18:45 < quaid> fwiw, our charter for this committee specifically gives
us power to do stuff like this.
18:45 < BobJensen> I like the #1 option more and more
18:45 < quaid> the next FDSCo can dismantle all this and do something
18:45 < megacoder> We have repeatedly announced this is an open meeting,
with anyone invited. Those interested are probably here now.
18:45 < stickster> BobJensen: Uh, which was #1?
18:45 * stickster scrolls back
18:45 < BobJensen> all seats with the 3 low votes getting a second
chance in 6 months
18:46 < BobJensen> <quaid> 1. Start clean, have 4 seats "1 year" and 3
seats "6 mons"
18:46 < BobJensen> <quaid> 2. Start with +4 and draw lots as to who get
the 3 left, then spin those 3 in six months
18:46 < stickster> Yeah, if everyone hates us for it, they can always
take action at election-time
18:46 < quaid> megacoder: well, this is a the middle of the night in
EMEA and parts of APAC, so ...
18:46 < megacoder> Either we can make this decision or we're not
empowered enough to be here anyway AFAICT
18:47 < BobJensen> I vote for #1
18:47 < megacoder> I vote for #1
18:47 < stickster> I vote for #1
18:48 < quaid> sure, I like it, too
18:48 < megacoder> I am unanimous in that
18:48 < BobJensen> Looks done to me
18:48 < stickster> So are I
18:49 < BobJensen> Now we are targeting 7 seats, when will we have the
18:49 * quaid looks at a calendar
18:49 < stickster> abadger1999: If you're still around, what's required
to get this thing activated?
18:49 < BobJensen> weekend after fudcon?
18:49 < quaid> he just give him the list of candidates and the # of open
18:49 < abadger1999> Just information.
18:49 < megacoder> Where can I get matching campaign funds?
18:49 < quaid> yeah, I think we need FUDCon for publicity :)
18:49 < quaid> megacoder: here's some
18:50 < BobJensen> howmant votes does each contributor have?
18:50 < stickster> Yeah, plus it would be awkward if we all showed up
there as unelected people in event of a coup
18:50 < abadger1999> Send to me the list of candidates (preferably
account system usernames, but I can get it from any information in the
account sys: email, irc nick if there, real name, etc)
18:50 < stickster> megacoder: Rule says, you get 15 times your Fedora
18:50 < megacoder> stickster, wfm
18:50 < stickster> See Max for a check
18:50 < abadger1999> The start and end dates (I'll make them start and
end at midnight UTC.)
18:50 < quaid> BobJensen: one vote for each seat?
18:51 < abadger1999> How many seats.
18:51 < stickster> abadger1999: Does the voting app use the new range
18:51 < BobJensen> quaid: that seems extreme and would be a problem if
we only have 7 candiates
18:51 < quaid> I'm out of my depth with voting theory
18:52 < abadger1999> No. If you want that, you have to wait.
18:52 < stickster> Ah
18:52 < stickster> Well then, one vote per seat then :-)
18:52 * stickster does not want to wait
18:52 < BobJensen> quaid: If we have 7 seats and 4 votes it will allow
us to have some numbers of variance
18:53 < stickster> BobJensen: I don't think looking for variance is
18:53 < abadger1999> You do not have to cast every vote that you're
18:53 < BobJensen> stickster: as long as we have more than 7 people
18:53 < abadger1999> I could only vote for two people even if there's
four open seats.
18:53 < quaid> how about ... "Up to 7 votes, one per seat, vote as many
as you feel"
18:53 < BobJensen> OK
18:53 < stickster> That's how the app works IIRC
18:54 < megacoder> Yeah, that should prevent any hanging chads.
18:54 < BobJensen> I can live with that, not like we have a lot of
18:54 < quaid> if there is 100% vote:seat, then it's SEP
18:54 < quaid> Somebody Else's Problem
18:54 < quaid> i.e., the next board figures out how to come up with the
three seats for the next election.
18:54 < BobJensen> OK so if we are going this way we need to have a way
to get the 3 for the next election in the case of a 7 way tie
18:55 < BobJensen> Pass the buck?
18:55 < quaid> yep
18:55 < BobJensen> that works
18:55 < quaid> pass the buck
18:55 < stickster> yup
18:56 < BobJensen> Looks like we have it all figured out
18:56 < quaid> February 2007
18:56 < quaid> Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
18:56 < quaid> 1 2 3
18:56 < quaid> 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
18:56 < quaid> 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18:56 < quaid> 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
18:56 < quaid> 25 26 27 28
18:57 < quaid> how long should voting be open?
18:57 < stickster> One week
18:57 < megacoder> 1 week
18:57 < quaid> abadger1999: is that right/
18:57 < BobJensen> Start clean, have 4 seats "1 year" and 3 seats "6
mons", the three with the lowest number of votes are the 6 months, in
the case of a tie the new board sets the rule
18:57 < BobJensen> 10days
18:57 < BobJensen> 1st - 10th
18:58 < abadger1999> one week? It's up to you. FESCo made it so there
were two weekends of voting.
18:58 < megacoder> Yeah, 10 days, just in case someone is off on
vacation or TDY.
18:58 < quaid> 2 through 12
18:58 < stickster> quaid: +1
18:58 < BobJensen> quaid: +1
18:58 < stickster> Extra weekday on the end there
18:58 < quaid> opens on FUDCon and ends the second Monday following
19:01 * EvilBob goes to find "Vote for EvilBob" buttons to order online
19:01 < abadger1999> Bring them to FudCon ;-)
19:01 < quaid> ok
19:01 < quaid> wow, that was a nice long discussion :)
19:01 < EvilBob> yeah, nice change
19:02 < stickster> EvilBob: You should have two different and
opposite-colored buttons, "Vote for EvilBob" and "Vote for BobJensen"
19:03 < stickster> You could get twice as many votes that way
19:03 < BobJensen> LOL
19:04 < quaid> ok, the other item about meeting time and such
19:04 < BobJensen> I think one of my customers makes buttons
19:04 < quaid> we can just table that until we have a new committe to
wrangle out new timing needs
19:04 < stickster> +1
19:04 < BobJensen> quaid: Yes I agree
19:05 < abadger1999> FWIW, there are 89 people in the cvsdocs group so
that's your pool of voters.
19:05 < quaid> hmm
19:06 < BobJensen> abadger1999: and how many will be at fudcon so I know
how many buttons to bring? LOL
19:06 < quaid> how big is cvsextras?
19:06 < BobJensen> quaid: not a lot more IIRC
19:06 < quaid> abadger1999: btw, can you do 1+ groups to draw from?
i.e., if we wanted to add e.g. ambassadors or cvsextras?
19:07 < abadger1999> Hmm... That was a plan that I had.
19:07 < quaid> ok, no worries
19:07 < abadger1999> If the script doesn't presently do it, I can adapt
it pretty easily.
19:07 < quaid> just curious, not sure who else we'd open to
19:07 < BobJensen> quaid: trans maybe?
19:08 < abadger1999> 254 in cvsextras
19:08 < BobJensen> quaid: however I agree with what was said today that
we need to eliminate the seperation
19:09 < quaid> yeah, I like that pool of voters bigger
19:10 < abadger1999> ambassadors has 151
19:11 < quaid> well, we got what we got
19:11 < quaid> anything else for today?
19:11 < quaid> AOB?
19:12 < BobJensen> FUDCon Hackfest?
19:12 < quaid> stickster suggested we tackle Documentation Guide and
tools at that time, trying to sucker in some others to play with tools.
19:12 < BobJensen> What are we doing if anything? What's the plan?
19:12 < stickster> Yes
19:12 < stickster> See the page I helpfully set up
19:12 < abadger1999> BobJensen: (I think the translation teams are still
on elvis => RH box with a separate account system.)
19:13 < quaid> abadger1999: yes, correct
19:13 < BobJensen> abadger1999: Yes I know
19:13 < stickster> http://barcamp.org/FudconBoston2007HackFestDocs
19:13 < BobJensen> stickster: Sweet
19:14 < BobJensen> stickster: the Sonars are planing on driving up From
19:14 < quaid> do we get to invite our own people?
19:14 < quaid> or is that a Max list?
19:14 < quaid> like, megacoder
19:14 < stickster> Talk to Greg I think
19:14 < BobJensen> stickster: I have not added thier names to the list
for Greg yet
19:15 < stickster> I'm not sure if Fedora is paying for anyone other
than those who have been invited already
19:15 < stickster> But that is because I have no idea
19:16 < stickster> Only Greg knows right now
19:16 < stickster> Oh wait, that might not be true..
19:16 < megacoder> Bribes happily accepted but not excepted
19:17 < stickster> I see that Jon Steffan will be coming... See #3 on my
hackfest list :-)
19:18 -!- jassy [n=jsingh(a)184.108.40.206] has joined #fedora-docs
19:18 < BobJensen> stickster: Yup
19:18 < BobJensen> stickster: I need to talk to Greg about some funding
19:18 < BobJensen> stickster: well for me also
19:19 < BobJensen> is the meeting over then?
19:19 < BobJensen> or do we have ANOTHER 40 minutes?
19:19 < stickster> heh
19:19 < BobJensen> lol
19:19 < stickster> Someone call it please!
19:19 < stickster> 10 sec?
19:19 < BobJensen> this is what I was doing last weekend
19:20 < stickster> 5 sec
19:20 < stickster> 4
19:20 < stickster> 3
19:20 < stickster> 2
19:20 < stickster> 1
19:20 < megacoder> Time of death is 19>20
19:20 < stickster> </meeting>
Karsten Wade, RHCE, 108 Editor ^ Fedora Documentation Project
Sr. Developer Relations Mgr. | fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProjectquaid.108.redhat.com | gpg key: AD0E0C41
I should have started this thread on Wednesday but my home schedule has
been a bit topsy-turvy of late:
The Docs Project has been invited to participate in the next Fedora
Project Board meeting. We should be prepared to talk about the
successes we've had over the past two releases and what remains to be
done. The way I see it, here are some starter issues. I'd appreciate
plenty of input, but please keep in mind that the issues should be
things the Board cares about (e.g. blockers in other subprojects that we
haven't been able to resolve after repeated attempts, resource needs
that might require Real Funds -- things we can't provide by ourselves).
1. Best-in-the-world release notes, provided by the community.
2. Growing contributor base, including work on additional entry-level
to intermediate-level guides.
3. Progress toward integrating with the Fedora package universe.
1. Possible click-thru on Wiki will allow easier contribution without
all the GPG+SSH+CLA+EditGroup rigamarole
2. FUDCon presence will result in major updates to available docs,
making it easier for new people to learn processes
1. Translation Project disconnect - what do we need here in concrete
terms? App rewrites and process changes? Red Hat internal group(s)
originally had ownership of this, yet we've seen no progress in the past
months... or year(s).
2. Content from RH, licensed under our terms (OPL w/no options).
What else am I missing -- especially in the third area?
Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
Fedora Project Board: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board
Fedora Docs Project: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject
My name is Pedro Mondim, I'm portuguese (living in Porto) and I'm finishing
a licenciate's degree (something between a bachelor and a master) in
After some time using linux (started with Ubuntu, then Fedora Core) I
thougth I could give a small contribution to the portuguese translation
project. In spite of some initial confusion with the required steps to be
part of the project, I think I'm now in the correct path :)
This is the first time I participate in a project like this one but it
really seems to be a worthwhile thing to do.
The required GPG key and fingerprint:
pub 1024D/CD5870E9 2007-01-04
Key fingerprint = 5719 F367 CB8F 3BA0 6075 4A8C 1ED3 8D44 CD58 70E9
uid Pedro Mondim (dubhe) < pmondim(a)gmail.com>
sub 2048g/09ACAF10 2007-01-04
Finally, I'll use this self-presentation for a question: it's the first time
I'm using GPG keys and I'm not quite sure of what's needed to really use it;
what I wrote above (under "The required GPG key and fingerprint:") is enough
for signing an email or is it necessary to attach a "signature.asc" file, as
I've seen on some emails? (and how such file is created? just copy the key,
paste it and save file as .asc?) Thanks for your help!
With my best regards,
I am David Douthitt, a UNIX System Administrator living in Beloit,
Wisconsin, USA - just south of Madison, the capital city. I've
experience with a variety of Linux and UNIX variants on a variety of
platforms. Most relevant to Fedora is my experiences with Red Hat Linux
(since version 4), CentOS, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
I've also helped with other documentation needs, including documentation
in the CFEngine project and also in Wikipedia (mostly a lot of
proofreading). I've also written and published a book recently (about
advanced system administration), and am about to release another (a
guide to GNU Screen).
I've also just signed up for the Fedora Infrastructure Project. I'll
contribute here as time permits, and am always willing to write
something as desired.
I also have a basic knowledge of French (though not of technical French).
Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote:
> I do hate cfengine (probably party due to the way it's set
> up here), and I do not consider puppet to be a good alternative,
> mostly because it's "yet another config language" and because it's
> written in ruby.
Well.... I personally think that puppet being written in Ruby is a plus :-P
However, puppet itself is not Ruby; it is only developed in Ruby. Ruby
is also used extensively for the FreeBSD portsupgrade tool and for Ruby
on Rails. I suspect its more widely used than most realize, and if I'm
not mistaken, Ruby is included in one or more of the standard Red Hat
I must admit that the creation of my first customized Red Hat
installation CDROMs was largely done to include Ruby v1.4....