=============================================
#fedora-meeting: IRC Support SIG (2012-02-09)
=============================================
Meeting started by nirik at 17:00:02 UTC. The full logs are available at
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2012-02-09/irc-support-si...
Meeting summary
---------------
* init process (nirik, 17:00:03)
* Week in review (nirik, 17:01:45)
* LINK:
http://fedora.theglaserfamily.org/ircstats/fedora-weekly.html
(nirik, 17:01:45)
* Tickets (nirik, 17:04:03)
* LINK:
https://fedorahosted.org/irc-support-sig/report/1 (nirik,
17:04:03)
* more formal processes (nirik, 17:04:25)
* will allow another week for comment/changes to the current proposal.
Will revisit next week. (nirik, 17:31:13)
* Open Floor (nirik, 17:31:23)
Meeting ended at 17:32:51 UTC.
Action Items
------------
Action Items, by person
-----------------------
* **UNASSIGNED**
* (none)
People Present (lines said)
---------------------------
* nirik (58)
* EvilBob (24)
* DiscordianUK (20)
* Khaytsus (8)
* N3LRX (3)
* zodbot (3)
* plarsen (2)
* tatica (1)
* Southern_GMan (1)
--
17:00:02 <nirik> #startmeeting IRC Support SIG (2012-02-09)
17:00:02 <zodbot> Meeting started Thu Feb 9 17:00:02 2012 UTC. The chair is nirik.
Information about MeetBot at
http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:00:02 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
17:00:03 <nirik> #meetingname irc-support-sig
17:00:03 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'irc-support-sig'
17:00:03 <nirik> #topic init process
17:00:10 <plarsen> tatica, hey back
17:00:25 <nirik> tatica: the irc support sig. ;)
17:00:33 * N3LRX
17:00:34 * DiscordianUK is present
17:00:43 * EvilBob
17:01:01 <tatica> oka, perfect thx
17:01:42 <nirik> ok, lets go ahead and start in. Lets look at the past week
first...
17:01:45 <nirik> #topic Week in review
17:01:45 <nirik>
http://fedora.theglaserfamily.org/ircstats/fedora-weekly.html
17:02:13 <nirik> seemed busier this week for some reason... but nothing stands out.
17:02:54 * Southern_GMan
17:02:58 <DiscordianUK> That#s scary I'm at #1
17:03:09 <nirik> DiscordianUK: congrats. or something. ;)
17:03:44 <DiscordianUK> something
17:04:01 <nirik> ok, if nothing on review, moving on...
17:04:03 <nirik> #topic Tickets
17:04:03 <nirik>
https://fedorahosted.org/irc-support-sig/report/1
17:04:06 <nirik> no tickets this week.
17:04:25 <nirik> #topic more formal processes
17:04:54 <nirik> so, we have a proposal on the list that has gotten some positive
feedback...
17:05:11 <nirik> basically my proposal #3 + a change from N3LRX
17:05:32 <DiscordianUK> The so-called v4?
17:05:35 <EvilBob> Things look good but there is room for improvement/clarification
17:05:37 <nirik> yeah.
17:06:07 <EvilBob> I've been quite busy with other things and have not had time
to draft things out
17:06:14 <DiscordianUK> I like the look of that
17:06:19 <nirik> so, how about we do this: accept this for now, get it installed in
the wiki... then we can adjust from there using it's own process?
17:06:26 <DiscordianUK> +1
17:06:32 <plarsen> +1
17:06:37 <nirik> that would also let us start adding people if we want, or changing
things.
17:06:48 <nirik> it's at least a starting point.
17:07:00 <N3LRX> +1
17:07:01 <EvilBob> The big thing I see is all 4 channels are lumped in to one when
really they are not
17:07:05 <DiscordianUK> yeah a good starting point
17:07:20 <DiscordianUK> 4?
17:07:30 <nirik> EvilBob: yeah, I wanted simple... I can agree they are different.
17:07:48 <DiscordianUK> There are the main 2 and this
17:07:59 <DiscordianUK> I don't count -unreg
17:08:01 <EvilBob> We have end user channels(#fedora and #fedora-social) and we have
administrative channels (#fedora-ops and #fedora-unregistered)
17:08:25 <nirik> yeah
17:09:04 <nirik> but if we want to adjust this to split those out somehow we can...
17:09:07 <EvilBob> I think putting this in place with out clearing some of this up
is a mistake
17:09:18 <nirik> but I'd like to get something done. ;)
17:09:18 <DiscordianUK> But -ops is also for other Fedora channel ops too
17:09:45 <EvilBob> DiscordianUK: but that is questionable
17:09:45 <nirik> DiscordianUK: how so?
17:09:53 <EvilBob> DiscordianUK: that is what
17:10:12 <nirik> The #fedora-ops channel is for coordinating between operators of
the other 3 channels.
17:11:03 <DiscordianUK> well and we have people from #fedora-fr too
17:11:07 <nirik> or to add the rest of the paragraph:
17:11:09 <nirik> Operators in those 3 channels are welcome to join and idle in
#fedora-ops. Other folks can be
17:11:09 <nirik> allowed by nomination from an op and a second from any other
17:11:09 <nirik> operator. Those not in the above 2 groups are welcome to join and
17:11:10 <nirik> discuss an issue or concern with the other 3 channels, but will be
17:11:10 <nirik> asked to then depart after their issue or concern is noted.
17:11:25 <DiscordianUK> yeah I read that
17:11:31 <DiscordianUK> I'm +1
17:11:58 <nirik> so, other people can be added when their input is
needed/welcome/desired.
17:12:10 <DiscordianUK> Yes indeed
17:13:25 <nirik> so, anyhow... I'd like to at least start from here. If we want
to adjust it for the other channels, we can down the road. I'd like to think we can
get _something_ done in a month.
17:13:46 <EvilBob> -1 from me
17:14:02 <EvilBob> I don't think that the proposal is clear enough
17:14:22 <nirik> sorry to hear it.
17:14:46 <EvilBob> more things need to be fleshed out before putting it in to place
because once it is in place it will be a pain to fix it
17:15:06 <nirik> it would just be a vote on the changes, no?
17:15:11 <EvilBob> "Oh we can fix it later" never works
17:15:44 <nirik> well, "must fix before we put it in place" hasn't
worked to stellar either. ;)
17:15:46 <DiscordianUK> The proposals have been on the table for weeks
17:16:14 <EvilBob> There is no reason we can't work on it for another week or 3
and make it better.
17:16:53 <nirik> the problem is that we lose energy, and in the end things peter off
and we don't get anything done.
17:17:10 <nirik> I'd be ok with working on it more if we have a fricking
deadline.
17:17:56 <nirik> I also think just setting this and changing it if it needs changes
would be not so horrible
17:18:11 <EvilBob> I can +1 the deadline idea then everyone is on the same page
17:18:20 <DiscordianUK> I think we should adopt v4 now
17:18:36 <DiscordianUK> and set a deadline to revise it within a timeframe
17:18:54 <EvilBob> I disagree more with V4 than I do with V3
17:19:05 <nirik> how about another week? if no changes we adopt.
17:19:26 <DiscordianUK> That seems reasonable
17:19:55 <EvilBob> I disagree with anyone nominating people for the sig to deal
with, there is no reason that an existing op should not be required to sponsor someone
before the SIG as a whole has to deal with them.
17:20:51 * nirik doesn't think it matters much.
17:21:15 <nirik> if someone nominates who is unknown by the existing voters, they
would not vote for them.
17:22:05 <nirik> anyone else care to weigh in on waiting a week?
17:22:13 <EvilBob> How about we work more on this final vot on March 1
17:22:24 <Khaytsus> I've read on v3 but where was v4?
17:22:33 <EvilBob> Khaytsus: Kinda
17:22:47 <EvilBob> Khaytsus: amendment to v3
17:22:51 <Khaytsus> Is v4 a delta on v3 I missed?
17:22:57 <nirik> Khaytsus: v3 + one change... to allow anyone to nominate
17:23:00 <Khaytsus> k
17:23:46 <nirik> I'd really prefer to pass something sooner than march 1st. We
should be able to at least have something as a framework that we adjust. Trying to make it
perfect and account for everything is going to lead us to never getting anything in
place.
17:24:28 <Khaytsus> Looks fine to me. I assume "we don't need any ops
currently" is a valid voting reason.
17:24:33 <DiscordianUK> if we must defer I suggest we set a deadline for next week
17:24:38 <EvilBob> I just feel there are a lot of things here that need to be looked
at and dealt with line by line not grouped in to a big proposal allowing details to be
missed.
17:25:10 <nirik> EvilBob: please feel free to start threads on specific issues you
have with specific parts.
17:25:33 <EvilBob> I've said that before and I suggested it in a previous
meeting that the items be split apart for discussion'
17:25:48 <Khaytsus> It shouldn't have to be overly complex.
17:26:02 <Khaytsus> Does it need to be? I don't think so.. Clearly EvilBob
thinks so..
17:26:36 <EvilBob> Khaytsus: Problem is that it is complex and will be even more so
if it is not cleared up and simplified now.
17:26:39 <nirik> if you wish to discuss a small section, start a thread on that?
17:26:46 * nirik doesn't get the issue there.
17:27:11 <Khaytsus> Yes, split it out, define what's complex and needs more
detail. But IMO we don't need Section XXI Paragraph 15 Section B to define who a
voter is.
17:28:45 <nirik> If it would help, I'd be happy to repost a v4 to avoid any
confusion... and discussion can take place from there.
17:29:00 <N3LRX> The plan for now is frame work. If stated so I don't see a
problem with making changes down the road.
17:30:00 <nirik> I suppose the only wrinkle there is if voting members change... so
some people would vote not to change their voting status.
17:30:07 <EvilBob> Work on it for another week, see where we are at, absolute
deadline of the 1st?
17:30:22 <EvilBob> nirik: right
17:30:22 <nirik> I'm ok with another week, we can revisit then.
17:30:39 <nirik> but I'm getting impatient to actually have something in place.
;)
17:30:50 <Khaytsus> Put out v4, EvilBob can take it apart and point out the
concerns, we can discuss.
17:31:13 <nirik> #info will allow another week for comment/changes to the current
proposal. Will revisit next week.
17:31:23 <nirik> #topic Open Floor
17:31:27 <nirik> anything for open floor?
17:32:27 * nirik will close out in a minute if nothing more comes up
17:32:51 <nirik> #endmeeting