12:09 < stickster> <meeting>
12:09 < stickster> We have two agenda items, then on to AOB.
12:09 < stickster> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject/Meetings
12:09 < stickster> (shorter URL link, redirects to canonical page)
12:10 < stickster> The first thing up is a Docs status report for F8, let's let
couf and jmbuser elaborate
12:10 < EvilBob> BobJensen
12:10 < stickster> Hi BobJensen!
12:10 < couf> AG is shaping up to become something decent
12:10 < couf> it's come a long way
12:11 < jmbuser> +1
12:11 < stickster> There's quite a bit of new material there, kudos!
12:11 < couf> we were going to convert to cvs yesterday but due to some bad
schedules we missed that
12:12 < couf> I'm going to let it in the wiki for 1 more week before doing the
12:12 < stickster> Did you guys arrive at a consensus for doing CVS conversion? Is
that going to hamper contribution at all?
12:12 < couf> we're going to try and keep it in cvs then
12:12 < couf> it's a testcase
12:12 < couf> if it doesn't work out, well then it's back to the wiki
12:13 < stickster> I note that there's very little in the AG about the standard
GUI toolset (System > Administration > [...])
12:13 < couf> right, good point
12:14 < couf> I'm writing up something for the list to digest, points to
12:14 < stickster> Sure... People can add comments to the list traffic then
12:15 < stickster> I would like to see the Guide do more along the lines of solving
the simple use cases before it goes into tremendous detail about the ins and outs of
12:16 < couf> the thing is, people tend to find administration complicated and want
to read more then they can really use
12:16 < stickster> For instance, Users: 1. Adding a User; 2. Deleting a User; 3.
Adding a Group; 4. Deleting a Group; 5. Modifying a User's Group Membership; 6. User
Private Groups; 7. ....
12:16 < couf> I feel that's reflected in the current state
12:17 < stickster> Right, so to me *de-emphasizing* the complicated stuff, or
pushing it later in a chapter, makes more sense
12:17 < stickster> Start small, build the skill as the chapter goes along
12:17 < couf> right
12:17 < jmbuser> Agree
12:17 < EvilBob> IMO for every "Guide" there is also room for a
12:18 < stickster> EvilBob: Sure, I feel that each chapter/topic is really best
served up as a quick start, then a slightly less-quick start, then a slow deep dive
12:18 < EvilBob> yup
12:18 < couf> so that's an important part of my to-the-list message
12:18 < stickster> If you look at the goal of any document as a skill-building tool,
then you have to start with the most fundamental, elementary skills, then build on them
12:19 < stickster> couf: Great, we can delve into this more on-lis then
12:19 < stickster> *on-list
12:20 < stickster> couf: As the leader for that doc, you should feel free to
encourage the writers to follow your blueprint ideas
12:20 < couf> yeah, just noting: I probably won't be around for the rest off the
week so if someone could help and follow-up in my place, that would be great
12:20 < stickster> Let's also not forget that our deadline here is self-imposed
-- so if we need an extra week or two, it's there.
12:21 < stickster> jmbuser: Want to talk about the DUG? I know we had a few
contributors pop up to help.
12:21 < jmbuser> Yes, great to have the help...thanks to Marc and, just recently,
12:22 < jmbuser> Even had a few edits today
12:22 < stickster> jmbuser: There was a John Wess on the list too, who seemed keen
12:23 < stickster> Looks like he's got edit rights now, too
12:23 < jmbuser> yes, I need to see if I made contact with him yet
12:23 < stickster> Side note to all:
12:23 < jmbuser> I got generous with the approvals recently :-)
12:23 < stickster> This is always the most fertile time for getting contributors --
right after a new release
12:24 < stickster> The quicker we can grab onto those contributors and get them
started, the more likely they'll stick around and make lasting contributions
12:24 < jmbuser> especially a good release like fedora 8
12:25 < stickster> jmbuser: And don't worry about the CVS thing, like I said,
it's not a big worry
12:26 < stickster> Mainly I wanted people to be aware that translators don't
need to have cvsdocs access, one less hoop through which to jump ;-)
12:26 < couf> do we need to talk about that some more?
12:26 < stickster> This is one reason that we went to using a "po/LINGUAS"
file in CVS instead of editing the Makefile -- now translators can simply add themselves
in if they're translating a new locale
12:26 < stickster> couf: I'm not sure
12:26 < stickster> The key points are:
12:27 < stickster> (1) we don't have any problems giving people CVS access
12:27 < stickster> (2) translators don't need 'cvsdocs' group membership
to do their work
12:27 < stickster> (3) most CVS administrators feel better using least privilege
12:27 < couf> right
12:27 < stickster> (4) since there are other people involved in CVS admin duties
than just me and quaid, we'll err on the side of not giving the others heartburn :-)
12:28 < stickster> Having said that, people can author docs in our CVS in a
12:28 < couf> so do we want to flesh out the cvsdocs group?
12:28 < stickster> We don't want to prevent anyone from doing that
12:28 < stickster> couf: You mean, do we want to add new contributors to that
12:29 < couf> no, I think a new contributor on docs should have cvsdocs access
12:29 < stickster> sure
12:29 < couf> but there are a lot of translators in cvsdocs, which don't need
anything than cvsl10n
12:30 < stickster> couf: Good point that
12:30 < stickster> It might be a good reason to cull that list a little
12:30 < stickster> couf: Are you able to maybe raise this topic in
12:30 < couf> sure
12:30 < stickster> With the main reason being that 'cvsl10n' gives them
everything they need, and not because we don't love them
12:31 < couf> yep
12:31 < stickster> L10N ROXXX!
12:31 < stickster> \m/_ _\m/
12:32 < couf> all righty, next?
12:32 < stickster> OK, I'll look for that thread, thanks couf
12:33 < stickster> I know quaid might have some input too, he can pop in here to let
us know if there's something (new) dumb that I've done
12:33 < stickster> Well, roundup on Release Notes is probably in order
12:33 < couf> sure
12:34 < stickster> At least to note that we should be pressing a package update in
about a week or so
12:34 < stickster> That's 'nuff said, I think
12:35 -!- stickster changed the topic of #fedora-meeting to: Documentation Meeting:
12:35 < couf> elections yay
12:36 < stickster> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject/Policy/FDSCoElections
12:36 < stickster> I thought we had something out there, cool..
12:36 < stickster> This has some interesting implications with culling the
12:36 < stickster> But I think it makes sense
12:37 < stickster> Opinions?
12:37 < couf> it does, but I'm not sure translators need to vote on dsco, they
have lsco (or something like that)
12:38 < stickster> Right
12:38 < jmbuser> Should we cull the cvsdocs group before the election?
12:38 < couf> imo, ys
12:38 < couf> yes
12:39 < jmbuser> yes to culling
12:39 < stickster> jmbuser: Right, that's where I was pointing... I would hate
people to look at that and think we were trying to "disenfranchise" voters :-D
12:39 < stickster> OTOH, as couf said, l10n voters have their own committee
12:40 < stickster> Their work definitely dovetails with ours, certainly
12:40 < stickster> I guess I would lean toward culling the list before we put up
12:40 < EvilBob> If they are interested in Voting why not let them
12:40 < EvilBob> if they are not interested in our election they will not vote
12:41 < couf> true
12:41 < jmbuser> true
12:41 < EvilBob> I don't see why having someone that primarily does translation
vote in our election is a problem, our work here does effect them
12:41 < stickster> EvilBob: The only "why not" reason I could give would
be the same reason that, for instance, FESCo elections aren't open to people who
don't do any maintenance
12:41 < jmbuser> too many voters usually isn't the problem with our election
12:42 < stickster> But I don't see that as a good reason, so... ;-)
12:42 < stickster> I think the funny thing is, this is a good reason not to give out
CVS access willy-nilly
12:42 < EvilBob> I would say no culling until after the election
12:42 < stickster> But in a volunteer project where so many people work together
closely, it seems silly not to let people have a say
12:43 < stickster> Let's put it this way -- I coordinated a lot of POT work with
release notes for the last cycle.
12:43 < stickster> That impacted a lot of L10N resources.
12:43 < EvilBob> after the election we can clean up the list and those that want to
be part of our process can get added back in
12:43 < couf> okay, I'm starting to turn into a cull after elections
12:43 < stickster> If people there hate how I handle things, why shouldn't they
be allowed to express it?
12:43 < jmbuser> no culling then
12:43 < stickster> Yeah, I think I'm having a mind-changing experience :-)
12:43 < couf> :-)
12:43 < EvilBob> I win!
12:44 < stickster> haha
12:44 < couf> lol
12:44 < couf> so dates?
12:44 < stickster> Let's back-burner this until post-election, but it will be
the responsibility of the new FDSCo to make sure it gets done within, say, two weeks after
12:44 < stickster> Should be a fairly easy job..
12:44 < EvilBob> stickster: +1
12:44 < couf> okay +1
12:45 < jmbuser> +1
12:45 < EvilBob> thanks guys
12:45 < stickster> Well, our charter says we should try to coincide with the FESCo
12:45 < stickster> I'll make sure abadger_afk knows we would like to do that
12:46 < stickster> for instance, by shouting abadger_afk
12:46 < EvilBob> stickster: yes and make sure he can handle two elections at one
12:46 < abadger_afk> stickster: yo!
12:46 -!- abadger is now known as abadger1999
12:46 < stickster> See, it's like magic! He's like our guardian democratic
12:47 < couf> when's the FESCo election? I thought that happend some time ago?
12:47 < stickster> couf: Already for post-F8?
12:47 < stickster> I couldn't have missed that news, could I? :-\
12:47 * stickster knows quite well he very well could have
12:47 * couf could be wrong
12:47 < abadger1999> FESCo has annual elections. So they were post-F7
12:47 < couf> aha
12:47 < stickster> Ah, not per release?
12:48 < abadger1999> Correct
12:48 < stickster> OK. Our charter has them per release, which I believe we
confirmed last cycle.
12:48 < couf> so we could maybe tie into the FAMSCo elections then?
12:48 < stickster> Sure.
12:48 < stickster> abadger1999: We just want to make sure we're not giving
people election fatigue
12:48 * EvilBob is listening to some local guys down on San Andres Island working a morse
12:49 < couf>
12:49 < stickster> Once we come up with dates, abadger1999, can I just get in touch
12:49 < abadger1999> Okay. We still don't have a way to hold multiple elections
at the same time :-(
12:49 < stickster> Oh, gotcha.
12:49 < EvilBob> OK
12:49 < abadger1999> No one's had time to rewrite the app.
12:50 < abadger1999> stickster: Yep. Go ahead and send me the details and I'll
set it up.
12:50 < stickster> That reminds me, I may have entered that issue in your trac db,
but I'm not sure.
12:50 < stickster> It was probably a "we'll get to this
post-apocalypse" issue :-D
12:50 < stickster> Thanks abadger1999, will do.
12:50 < stickster> All right, gang, we should probably figure out who's up this
time -- that should be easy to find out from looking at the post-F7 ML archives.
12:51 < stickster> Let's do that on-list, eh?
12:51 < EvilBob> I am not up this time, but I would like to offer up my seat as I
have not been that active.
12:51 < jmbuser> ok
12:52 < couf> euh, that would be post f6
12:52 < couf> we didn't have an election last time, due to lack of time
12:52 < stickster> Oh, is that right?
12:52 < stickster> whoops.
12:52 < EvilBob> couf: right
12:52 < couf> we were going to have one, but it just didn't happen
12:53 < couf> in that case, actually all seats should be up for election
12:53 < stickster> couf: Are you sure? I see updates on the Elections page back
around February 2007
12:53 < couf> unless we decide differently
12:53 < couf> we were going to have one in August too
12:53 < EvilBob> couf: no I think we simply pushed out the schedule
12:54 < stickster> Ah yes, I see where you're pointing couf
12:54 < couf> ah yeah, maybe we should reallign it with the more formal release
12:54 < stickster> Right. So this will be our mid-cycle election -- perhaps doing
this at some point significantly before Alpha, so that we don't end up doing this in
the middle of the release pushes
12:55 < couf> +1
12:55 < stickster> That would mean around three weeks from now -- maybe coinciding
somewhat with Christmas, although that shouldn't be a big problem with a two-week vote
12:56 < EvilBob> +1
12:56 < jmbuser> +1
12:56 < couf> yeah, alpha is scheduled for 15 Jan, so that would be okay
12:56 < EvilBob> stickster: so just after the ambassadors election?
12:56 < stickster> EvilBob: what are their dates
12:56 < stickster> ?
12:56 < couf> see above link
12:56 < EvilBob> Nominations: 11/21/2007 to 12/2/2007
12:56 < EvilBob> Voting Period: 12/4/2007 to 12/11/2007
12:57 < stickster> self.head.conk()
12:57 < stickster> Sure, that seems opportune, then.
12:57 < stickster> We could do voting for a week or so, that seems plenty for
12:57 < stickster> Say, 12/11 - 12/18, or 12/12 - 12/19
12:57 < couf> self nomination untill 12/20
12:58 < couf> wow, I meant 12/12
12:58 < EvilBob> so 18th - 25th or the 1st?
12:58 < stickster> I would go for noms 12/4 - 12/11, then voting somewhere around
12/12 - 12/19
12:58 < couf> right
12:58 < EvilBob> if we start voting a week after ambassadors I think it might be
12:59 < stickster> I think the worry would be doing a week during the week of
Christmas -- bad idea
12:59 < stickster> Plus, we need some time between the election close and the
ramp-up of the Alpha release, to make sure we're getting our guides off the ground
13:00 < stickster> We can hit this more on list
13:00 < EvilBob> the holiday is the 25th, so the 18th start date would give a week
before then and 4 voting days before people leave for a week+
13:01 < stickster> I don't see what the extra week gains us, other than white
space on a calendar
13:02 < stickster> The priority I was looking at was moving back from the release
schedule milestone dates
13:02 < EvilBob> abadger1999: how soon after the ambassadors election can youhave
13:02 < stickster> We could always split the middle, do something like 12/15-12/22
13:03 < stickster> That has the added bonus of capturing all or part of two
13:03 < EvilBob> stickster: yeah I was just looking at the 14th here
13:03 < abadger1999> EvilBob: The next day. People usu. like to have two weekends,
13:03 < stickster> Maybe 15-22 Dec, or 15-23 Dec would be best.
13:03 < EvilBob> stickster: 14 -24?
13:04 < EvilBob> stickster: that gives us almost 2 weekend
13:04 < stickster> EvilBob: Sure. The length of the voting period seems excessive
for as small a number of votes as we're likely to get, but meh
13:04 < stickster> Let's do that.
13:04 < stickster> +1
13:04 < couf> and he wins again :-)
13:04 < stickster> EvilBob is active when it comes to arguing :-D
13:04 < jmbuser> +1
13:04 < EvilBob> nominations in by the 12th, voting 14-24
13:04 < EvilBob> stickster: LOL
13:05 < stickster> EvilBob: disco
13:05 < stickster> All right, AOB?
13:05 < jmbuser> EvilBob shoots...and scores!
13:05 < stickster> 15 sec
13:05 < couf> just noting: sorry to not enter into the sig/project thread, I seemed
to not have any pro/cons either way
13:05 * stickster clock resets
13:06 < stickster> Not a problem. I think we resolved it the right way
13:06 < stickster> cooler heads usually prevail.
13:06 < couf> yeah
13:06 < stickster> AOB?
13:06 < couf> anyway interesting discussion
13:06 < stickster> 15 sec
13:06 < EvilBob> none here
13:06 < stickster> 10
13:06 < couf> nope
13:06 < stickster> 5
13:06 < stickster> 4
13:06 < stickster> 3
13:06 < jmbuser> no
13:06 < stickster> 2
13:06 < stickster> 1
13:06 < stickster> </meeting>
Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
Fedora Project: http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug