Meeting:Board meeting 2009-01-13

From FedoraProject

Revision as of 16:55, 23 May 2009 by Pfrields (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Fedora Project Board Meeting :: Tuesday 2009-01-13

Roll Call

Attendees: John Poelstra, Paul Frields, Seth Vidal, Matt Domsch, Chris Aillon, Spot Callaway, Dimitris Glezos, Bill Nottingham, Harald Hoyer, Chris Tyler, and Jesse Keating

Welcome New Board Memebers

  • Chris Aillon
  • Dimitris Glezos
  • Reminder that as much business as possible should be conducted on the fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com mailing list
  • fedora-board-list@redhat.com should be used for confidential matters that cannot be discussed publicly
  • Non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) are not required for non-Red Hat members and the board would like to keep it this way
    • Ask that issues confidential and legal issues which cannot be discussed publicly remain confidential

Net Neutrality hearings in Canada

  • Chris Tyler may be participating in hearings and using Fedora as an example of an open source project
    • may request a letter from Fedora
  • Paul Frields also working to provide resources from Red Hat
  • ACTIONS:
    • Check back with Paul to see that information has been provided

FUDCon Fedora 11

Things That Went Well

  • No conflict with the Red Hat Summit like last time
  • Lots of talks at barcamp
  • Audio and video streaming very helpful for people not physically present
  • Hotel and venue close to T (public transpiration) was fantastic!

Observations and Possible Changes

  • Some participants felt that the overall conference was poorly organized
    • Hard to know how to get involved or what was going on when they showed up at Friday's hackfest
    • Examine structure of FUDCon and order of sessions--have barcamp on day #1 followed by two days of hackfest
    • Move to a Saturday, Sunday, Monday schedule?
  • Some barcamp sessions were not presented or organized very well
  • What if we required a slide deck prepared a week before FUDCon?
    • Doing pitches online could add more time to the barcamp day itself
    • Move last-minute topics or shorter topics to a "lightning talk" slots
  • Some sessions consumed a lot of time while presenter tried to get their demo to be functional
  • Could we message better what happens on each day and what people can expect?
  • Tension between between making conference more organized and stifling flexibility
  • Can we survey past attendees to identify other areas that were deficient?
  • Only five time slots for barcamp presentations
    • Lots of presentations which resulted in 45 total sessions
    • Resulted in too many conflicts
  • Some sessions were the "same old people" where the information being presented was already known by a majority of the audience
  • FUDPub worked well in the shared environment where it wasn't just a private party
  • By the third day a lot of people seem tired and less engaged
  • What about encapsulating the event and lodging in one location (hotel)?
  • Wireless connections were unreliable at MIT
  • Having FUDCon Boston in the heart of winter does not make a lot of sense
  • Extend barcamp day to have talks after dinner break
  • Break up days by having barcamp in morning, hackfest in afternoons across multiple days

Future FUDCons

  • Moving to Fedora Activity Day (FAD) structure
  • Will not be holding FUDCon in conjunction with Red Hat Summit in Chicago, September 2009
  • Funding for FUDCon in Boston in 2010 looks unlikely at this point
    • Would be a great time/location for a Fedora Activity Day
  • Why can't someone write a barcamp application do the counting, room scheduling, and conflict resolution?
    • Could this be a Google summer of code project?
    • Barcamps are happening everywhere--seems like there could be a lot of uptake from conferences

Xuropa

  • https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2009-January/msg00016.html
  • FEL/OEM requests for trademark clearance:
    • At first glance, TM guidelines appear to allow use of the trademark to show support for FEL/Fedora, provided other requirements are met
    • Is the revenue stream worth pursuing?
    • Transparency of accounting issues:
      • Max could track funds, which helps
      • Donors would need to know up front what fraction supports Fedora
      • Not sure this minor revenue stream is required or desirable