Meeting:Board meeting 2010-08-06

Roll Call

 * Present: Matt Domsch, Jon Stanley, Máirín Duffy, Jared Smith, Paul Frields, Colin Walters, Rex Dieter, Christopher Aillon, Stephen Smoogen, Tom Callaway
 * Regrets: Chris Tyler
 * Assigned meeting secretary: Paul Frields

MeeGo spin

 * Linux Foundation attorneys have approved "MeeGo Spin by Fedora" which is the preferred usage
 * Jstanley asked if folks will know what a 'spin' is
 * This is defined on the spin download page
 * Fedora calls it "the meego spin"
 * Using the MeeGo TM is pursuant to passing the LF's compliance test suite (not yet provided)
 * Conclusion here is that we're waiting on LF's compliance test suite and will go ahead with 'MeeGo Spin by Fedora'

Upcoming FUDCons

 * September 17-19, 2010 - Zurich
 * Concerns about the availability of funds?
 * The money is available -- the organizers have been given guidance on how to deal with paying for things
 * For small bills, pay and Comm-Arch will reimburse (or pay)
 * For big bills, Comm-Arch or F-Eng will pay directly and charge to Comm-Arch budget
 * January 29-31, 2011 - Tempe
 * Restriction on how many people are in a room?
 * Is it possible to bunk 3/room, e.g. if we have an odd number of female attendees?
 * ACTION: Paul will check with the hotel on this.
 * Some airlines haven't opened up booking yet
 * Note that flights from west coast to PHX tend to be more $$$ than from east coast
 * ACTION: Jon to work on packing list for FUDcon (jstanley) -- https://fedorahosted.org/fudcon-planning/ticket/6

Old tickets
them, or delete?
 * Fair number of tickets that haven't been touched in months -- act on
 * goal: have those tickets - plan of action to attack them / archive tickets we don't have a plan for by next phone meeting in 2 weeks
 * All Board members asked to review the list and help push them to either an actionable question or close them.

fedoracommunity.org domains

 * Have we come to any resolution on fedoracommunity.org domains?
 * What do we want to see?
 * Are we getting those sorts of sites now?
 * If so, what needs to change?
 * Are we setting expectations appropriately?
 * discussion
 * jstanley: doesn't prefer simple translation of fedoraproject.org content. We have facilities for that.
 * Local language forums and blogs, things that support Fedora in a way that existing Fedora Infrastructure can't or won't provide
 * ??: Dynamic vs. static content
 * mdomsch: If we could host a forum in fp.o, the need would probably drop.
 * spot: Pretty heavy investment of time/effort; don't want to slight fedoraforum.org either.
 * mdomsch: Could we ask fedoraforum.org to host language-specific forums?
 * smooge: It's not a big deal from software perspective, but how do you moderate it in another language? Need teams of people to do any single language to start with.
 * mizmo: There's an alternative to forum software though. You could have a mailing list gateway in software that gives it a forum appearance, and attach that to our existing locale-specific users lists.
 * jsmith & jstanley: potential problems with making these translate properly into threading for people staying on email?
 * mizmo: The IXDA (http://ixda.org) uses this software successfully across mailing lists for an easier forum-like presentation
 * smooge: Would like to look at what mizmo is seeing, and can it be implemented in our hsoted services
 * jsmith: Let's get back to high-level purpose and goals.
 * Allow local communities to support their own locales
 * But also feed that energy back to the main Fedora Project
 * mdomsch: Some communities can't afford their own hosting.
 * spot: Problem of content. If we host it, we have to keep an eye on the content.
 * mdomsch: Could we solicit or find a sponsor for these types of content?
 * pfrields: Notes that we do get offers of hosting space sometimes which is not sufficient for mirroring, but might be for community sites.
 * Suggest that we let Infrastructure know to be on the lookout for those offers if so.
 * mdomsch: Didn't realize we had so many of these sites.
 * mizmo: Not all of the sites in the mockups are *.fedoracommunity.org. (only 5 are) Some of them point to localized pages on our wiki.
 * jstanley: Some of these may not be completed. Need to make sure these are all actually substantial landing pages.
 * spot: One way to avoid that issue is to have a minimum content guideline before we set them up. Poll the ambassadors to see what people are looking for to get help in figuring out reqs?
 * mizmo: Some communities have multiple sites, like Brazil and China.
 * smooge: In e.g. Ubuntu community you sometimes even see sites per city or locality.
 * mdomsch: Some sites have blog aggregators for local community folks.
 * spot: Important to remember people feel they can get involved at this level -- local action and providing service. We should focus on making sure these communities have a good experience.
 * jsmith: What are the expectations for how we set these up? Regions or languages?
 * spot: We don't want someone to enter a site name thinking one thing, and find something completely different (i.e. is 'ar' Arabic or Argentina?)
 * ACTION (jstanley) need to add policy to fedoracommunity.org hostnames to wiki (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Local_community_domains): two-letter country codes for countries; open for other usages ('arabic' for arabic language) -- include both the *.fc.o and the TLA'd, privately bought domains in this guideline.
 * ACTION (mdomsch) to ask ar.fedoracommunity.org requestor if the 'arabic.fedoracommunity.org' hostname is acceptable
 * ACTION (mdomsch) Suggest that both el. and gr.fedoracommunity.org forward to Greek community site (an exception to the rule)

Community Working Group idea (Rex)

 * rdieter explained his idea a bit -- not necessary to ACTION today?
 * http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/advisory-board/2010-July/008599.html
 * As part of addressing toxicity in the community, might be helpful to have a CWG that proposes guidelines
 * How to deal with the "poisonous people" problem
 * How to deal with contentious issues in a constructive way
 * opinions wanted from the Board:
 * Do we support doing this?
 * How do we identify candidates for the group?
 * spot: How is this working group different from the Board?
 * rdieter: More focused, an abstraction layer -- the "FESCo of people issues"
 * smooge: Some people object to the non-democratic nature of the Board
 * spot: Board oversight is important.
 * jstanley: Sounds like a Code of Conduct. Many projects have them: GNOME, KDE, Ubuntu, others.  How are violations dealt with?
 * rdieter: Here's an example.
 * http://ev.kde.org/workinggroups/cwg.php
 * The long-term goal of the Community Working Group is to help to maintain a friendly and welcoming KDE community, thereby ensuring KDE remains a great project enjoyed by all contributors and users.
 * http://www.kde.org/code-of-conduct/
 * Set up short, mid, long term goals
 * short term: Set up mailing list for reporting and addressing problems, assisted in writing the CoC
 * mid, long term: entering phase of actively mediating and managing expectations, preventing burnout.
 * spot: Reiterating, the Board needs to have oversight here if it's not going to perform the actual work.
 * rdieter: Good idea, annual charter renewal. Also agree that Board should be responsible for approving what the CWG proposes.
 * mizmo: Group seems very reactive, not sure that's the most effective way to deal with the issue of community interaction
 * How do we prevent negative interactions to begin with?
 * rdieter: Agreed -- talked to KDE CWG and they made the point that proactive approach is important as well
 * mizmo: What has the KDE CWG done proactively to work on problems they see?
 * What about looking at historical data and using that to fuel a proactive approach based on observations?
 * rdieter: CWG usually is careful to avoid public conflagration. Maybe we should invite one or more CWG members to one of our Board meetings to talk to us about how they address proactivity?
 * jstanley: How does this impact hall monitors?
 * jsmith: Don't need to worry about that until we are setting up process
 * spot: Let's have the working group we form talk directly to them.
 * ACTION: (rdieter) Write a draft charter for the CWG

start.fedoraproject.org

 * jsmith: Hold this discussion for a later meeting?
 * Do we agree we want something different?
 * difference between what to do for existing users vs new/future installs of Fedora
 * mdomsch: Just pointing people at a Join page without any context doesn't ensure a positive outcome
 * mizmo: We're working very hard on the main www.fp.o site redesign for F14. If we just put new chrome on existing pages, might or might not be the solution.
 * jsmith: Let's think about this for the next week, and if there's something that doesn't require redesign to use.

Vision for Fedora?

 * jsmith wants to present this, and will be blogging about some of the pieces of this over the next week or so
 * If you have particular things you want answered please feel free to IRC, email, etc.

Next week's meeting

 * mdomsch: Next week is IRC, how do we want to conduct the meeting?
 * pfrields: Made a suggestion to advisory-board how to do that
 * ACTION Board members to comment on the suggested approach

Next meeting

 * Next meeting: 2010-08-13 UTC 18:00, public IRC meeting
 * jsmith to update the wiki schedule
 * Let's discuss format on the mailing list and have a logistics plan before next Wednesday
 * Regrets: Matt Domsch (on a plane home from LinuxCon)