Attachment 'GNOME-20110629.log'
Download<andreasn> Hello everyone and welcome to the Foundation meeting <andreasn> meeting agenda is here https://live.gnome.org/FoundationBoard/MembersAgenda <yippi> thanks andreasn <andreasn> anything anyone wants to add to the agenda, please do so <andreasn> * Foundation elections are over. Welcome new board. <yippi> nice agenda <yippi> are all the new board members here? --> Pockey (~Pockey@119.121.75.163) has joined #foundation <ebassi> hi everyone <andreasn> as mentioned here https://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2011-June/msg00030.html <aday> congratulations everyone :) --> seb128 (~seb128@83.141.95.158) has joined #foundation <-- seb128 (~seb128@83.141.95.158) has left #foundation <andreasn> new board is Shaun McCance, Emmanuele Bassi, Stormy Peters, Bastien Nocera, Brian Cameron, Germán Póo-Caamaño, Ryan Lortie <andreasn> welcome everyone <ebassi> thanks andreasn, aday :-) <yippi> welcome shaunm, ebassi! <shaunm> thanks! <jjmarin> a good team :) <andreasn> stormy sent her regrets for not being able to attend this meeting, as she's giving a talk at a conference this very nw <andreasn> now <desrt> yippi: here <aday> thanks for your work last year, andreasn and yippi. much appreciated <yippi> the entire board did a pretty good job the past year. it was a challenging one, especially keeping things going when Stormy stepped down as ED <andreasn> all the new board members have been added to the private board list, but are not able to vote until the old board step down at Desktop Summit <yippi> i have a question about that <aday> yippi: i'm sure - thanks! <yippi> GUADEC isn't at the same time every year, right? so why does the board switch over at GUADEC? <yippi> shouldn't it switch over on a specific date? <zana> it used to do that, at the beginning of january <desrt> yippi: i think the convenience of having guadec to do the switch-over outweighs the slight inaccuracy <yippi> i think in the past it has switched at GUADEC, and we can continue that tradition, but it doesn't make for a full year <zana> but it turns out having a face-to-face switch was much better <yippi> sure, but GUADEC is quite late this year <desrt> it's usually in july <desrt> and this year it's in early august <desrt> really only a week or two later than 'normal' <yippi> GUADEC used to be in May --> pochu (~emilio@pasanda.collabora.co.uk) has joined #foundation <desrt> not for quite some time, i think :) <yippi> :) <ebassi> it's been five years ;-) <yippi> so, do we want to switch at the Desktop Summit or, perhaps sometime in July? <desrt> i want to wait <desrt> ebassi, shaunm; ? <ebassi> I have no strong opinion, but the in person switch-over is a nice tradition <yippi> I think its fine to switch at the Desktop Summit, as long as we recognize that terms aren't really year-long <ebassi> so I'm for waiting <shaunm> how formal is the switchover? <desrt> i believe the modification to the constitution a few years ago allows for that anyway <bkuhn> It seems to me the only problem is if an important vote must occur in between the time when the official transition must happen and the conference. <yippi> formal in the sense that you can vote <yippi> before the switchover, new board members can only vote on invitation <shaunm> how dumb would it be to do an official switchover on a set date, but still do an old-board-new-board thing at guadec? <yippi> we could switch voting in July and also have the meeting, yes <zana> yippi: you're talking about changing the bylaws, yes? <bkuhn> shaunm: it doesn't seem dumb to me at all. <desrt> the bylaws say <shaunm> I don't know if there are confidentiality issues with things that have to be dealt with <yippi> do the bylaws state the switchover happen at GUADEC? <desrt> Each of the directors shall hold office for one (1) year." to be changed as "Each of the directors shall hold office for one (1) year, or a period of up to two (2) years as determined by the Board and announced prior to an election being called. <desrt> (before and after) <yippi> perhaps i'm suggesting we follow the bylaws then. :) <andreasn> one thing I think we should consider is that a lot of decisions before GUADEC have to do with GUADEC itself, and the old board have more of a background on that. <yippi> sure, but when voting switches and when we stop meeting together can be separate dates <andreasn> at the same time, the new board can read up on the archives with the downside that the very thing they have to do is dive into a lot of GUADEC issues <andreasn> but apart from that, I don't have a strong opinion on either method <andreasn> sure <zana> just to be pragmatic, if you take the votes away from the old board, they probably are less likely to show up..... --> shmore (~shmore@dhcp-0-12-17-51-3b-2d.cpe.mountaincable.net) has joined #foundation <andreasn> but anyway, if the bylaws say we should switch after one year, we should probably follow those I guess <karenesq> the bylaws do say that the director shall serve until his successor is duly elected and qualified, and also says that they're elected in accordance with http://foundation.gnome.org/electionrules.html, which has a timetable --> hadess (~hadess@94-192-232-89.zone6.bethere.co.uk) has joined #foundation <desrt> it seems clear that the new board has no burning desire to sit immediately <bkuhn> desrt: (joke) but we have to make them stand the whole time until then? <desrt> and we're technically not violating the bylaws by having the old board stay on slightly longer <bkuhn> (sorry couldn't resist) <yippi> karenesq, what does the timeline indicate, then? <sumanah> could someone change the channel topic? <desrt> if we want to be pedantic we could identify that if guadec is in july next year then the newly-elected board will have sat slightly less than one year <desrt> but we could also amend the bylaws before then <yippi> its been a rough year <andreasn> sumanah, seems noone is op, does that mean anyone can change it? <sumanah> (congrats to new ED & new & reelected board members.) <yippi> I think we navigated a successful GNOME 3 launch without an ED, so give us a break. :) <andreasn> so, ready for next topic maybe? <yippi> we were able to hire people to help us out, thanks to everyone involved, I think it worked out better than expected <desrt> i propose that we let the board stay on for now (as is permitted by the bylaws), sit the new board at guadec, and fix the bylaws for next year <yippi> sure, we can take when the voting switches offline <desrt> any objections to that? <andreasn> desrt, I agree with that --> schendje (~jef@a80-101-22-31.adsl.xs4all.nl) has joined #foundation <desrt> okay. safe for next topic, i think :) <andreasn> * Welcome Karen Sandler, our new Executive Director. <desrt> karenesq: welcome :) <andreasn> so karenesq is our new Executive Director, hello karenesq <karenesq> thanks! :) <karenesq> and as others said before, thanks to the board for keeping things going in between EDs! <ebassi> karenesq: welcome :-) <aday> nice to have you with us, karenesq <desrt> karenesq: any plans for early shake-ups? <sumanah> welcome karenesq <karenesq> desrt: do you suggest any? :) <desrt> i have some in mind. i guess we can talk about that at guadec :) <andreasn> karenesq, do you want to quickly introduce yourself? <jjmarin> karenesq: we're happy to hire someone like you ;-) <karenesq> I hope everyone will talk to me with their ideas and their frustrations <karenesq> at guadec and online <karenesq> andreasn: sure! <karenesq> Until this week, I've been General Counsel at the Software Freedom Law Center <karenesq> I think many of you know me already <sumanah> http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2011/jun/21/Karen-Sandler-Named-New-Executive-Director-GNOME/ <sumanah> :) <karenesq> I'm a huge fan of gnome (obviously!), I've been a user for a long time and have loved my participation in the Gnome community through my role at SFLC <karenesq> I'm incredibly excited to become ED <andreasn> and we're really excited to have you! <karenesq> and I'm in the stage where I'm trying to ramp up --> jhs (~jhs@ppp-93-104-141-31.dynamic.mnet-online.de) has joined #foundation <karenesq> so I may be calling on each of you to help in various ways :) <karenesq> please feel free to contact me if I can help on any Gnome matters at all <andreasn> next item on the agenda is: <andreasn> * Making GNOME Foundation membership a bigger deal. <andreasn> aday, the floor is yours <aday> thanks andreasn <aday> this was something that came up at the last foundation meeting i attended and i wanted to follow it up <aday> there's an explanation on the agenda - https://live.gnome.org/FoundationBoard/MeetingAgenda <andreasn> I like these ideas <aday> the idea is to discuss how we can make foundation membership more meaningful to our existing members <aday> as well as encourage more people to join <jhs> aday: hmm, reading the Ubuntu membership thing it doesn't look that they have a bigger deal than we have. <aday> that's just one example <andreasn> this could also tie into making sure that people know if they are still members or not, as seen in latest elections <jhs> lwn.net is cool though but I doubt that we can pay for that. <aday> there are plenty of things we could do <aday> automatically giving out @gnome.org email addresses could be one example <aday> another might be an enhanced members page on gnome.org <shaunm> don't we already for foundation members? <ebassi> shaunm: it's not automatic <aday> you have to apply separately <ebassi> shaunm: it's a pre-requisite <jhs> revisiting the foundation website (and putting some info about the membership on the getting involved page) would be a start, too. <shaunm> ah, ok <aday> jhs: you're not wrong :) <aday> i think that's in progress, andreasn? <andreasn> yes, the foundation page will get a revamp soon <shaunm> could we require membership for e.g. shell access? are there non-members with shell access? <aday> bundling those together seems like a natural thing to do <ebassi> shaunm: ideally, Olav wants to get rid of ssh access <ebassi> shaunm: even for maintainers <sumanah> that makes sense <jhs> ebassi, shaunm: tie to git account would be an idea then. This could also automatically renew your membership as long as you are active... <shaunm> right now, ssh access == people.gnome.org space <bkuhn> I think one issues is that people don't know what the Foundation governs. <shaunm> jhs: that might be putting things in the wrong direction. getting git access is part of the vetting process that leads to membership <bkuhn> There has been a lot of debate in various fora about the level to which the Foundation governs the direction of GNOME, etc. <bkuhn> I would guess that developers don't really "care" about what the Foundation does, because they are most concerned with technical direction, which by design the Foundation doesn't govern. <bkuhn> I think therefore a related issue is getting a clear definition of what parts of GNOME is within the Foundation's purview. A single URL that has that list that can be shown to developers who would qualify for membership would help IMO. <shaunm> I have at least one very active docs contributor with no interest in being a member <bkuhn> shaunm: what reason does that contributor give? <shaunm> although, to be fair, he's also a very active ubuntu docs contributor, and doesn't want to be an ubuntu member <shaunm> some people just don't care about being members of things like that <andreasn> bkuhn, clarifying what the foundation is and is not about sounds like a good fit for the foundation website update <bkuhn> "I wouldn't join any club that would have someone like me as a member." -- Groucho Marx. :) <yippi> Yes, I think there has been a lot of debate lately about what "GNOME" means. I think this is the larger issue. Lately the board has been asked to answer a lot of questions about how the GNOME brand and logo can be used, for example. <yippi> The usage of the GNOME logo that the Debian community did, I think is an interesting one to consider, since Debian shares our free software ethic. <aday> the main reason for membership is voting, but that only happens once a year. i'd like to think of ways that we can put the spotlight on our membership more frequently <yippi> also, it would be cool to get more visibility of GNOME in OLPC products, I think. <yippi> a "GNOME Inside" logo or something? <jhs> yippi: I think defining GNOME and defining the GNOME foundation's tasks are different issues. <andreasn> aday, yes, I agree. Is there a wiki page for this somewhere? If not, lets create one <bkuhn> yippi: I agree completely it's a larger issue. I think it's related though. aday: folks won't want to join unless they know *what* they are joining and what their votes will control. andreasn: I agree with you, but again, I think it's related: better info about what it means to be a member will relate to membership interest. <jjmarin> Foundation is just a facilator to push forward GNOME IMHO <yippi> sure, and I think brand management is an important thing for the Foundation to manage. <aday> andreasn: yea, let's do that <yippi> and that should be done at the will of the larger Foundation community, I think. <shaunm> possibly disruptive question: if people really don't care about voting, should we really care if they're members? <shaunm> i.e. what's the reason for bolstering membership? <yippi> perhaps there should be more community voting? <aday> the membership is supposed to be the community, no? <yippi> we don't currently ask the larger community to vote on things other than by-law changes. <jjmarin> The profeessional side of being a GNOME Foundation member can be exploted <bkuhn> shaunm: Since GNOME is a membership org, I think it's important that GNOME Foundation be representative of the GNOME community. That'd be my reason. You don't want GF to be a "just whose interested" sort of thing; it should represent the community. <jhs> shaunm: legitimating the board? If nobody is a member the board doesn't really have much legitimation and as such not much power. <bkuhn> s/whose/who's/ <aday> shaunm: i remember stormy saying that funders of the foundation like to see high membership <shaunm> ok, all fair points <bkuhn> aday: My guess would be that she meant they like to see high *donating* membership, which is a different thing. But I don't know for sure that's what she meant; I just have an inkling that might have been what she meant. <karenesq> being a member makes people feel like they are officially part of the community, even if they only vote once a year and it helps keep them involved <jhs> another interesting point might be to have the quarterly reports more interesting for members so they feel to be part of something that works for them. <bkuhn> (I'm curious, anyone have a URL handy for how the voter turnout was for existing membership. I'm curious in relation to this discussion if we currently have a lot of inactive members) <sumanah> what's the current number of Foundation members? and number of contributors? <aday> karenesq: nod - that's what i'm getting at - membership as a way that people belong to the project * sumanah wants data <bkuhn> sumanah: http://foundation.gnome.org/membership/members.php <aday> the question isn't really to do with the foundation as a governing body; rather - 'how to enhance peoples' experience of gnome?' <yippi> 177 people submitted ballots in the 2011 elections <yippi> http://foundation.gnome.org/vote/results.php?election_id=16 <karenesq> aday: right, I'm just wary of asking them to vote on more things will have the opposite impact - feel like too much work and decrease the significance of the annual elections <sumanah> so, 348 members <shaunm> that's not a terribly high turnout <yippi> better than the turnout that elected Obama <bkuhn> Well, a 50% voter turnout would be amazing in a USA election ;), but for this purpose, shaunm, I agree it's not so good. <aday> karenesq: doesn't have to be voting. we could do more to publicise new and long standing members through the foundation blog, for example <bkuhn> It's so easy to vote (answering an email), that if existing members can't be bothered at a, say, 80-90% level, it's troubling. <ebassi> how was the turnout for the next-to-last debian elections? <yippi> in the last Annual Report, Foundation members over 10 years were given a special page <karenesq> aday: I agree it can and should be other things <yippi> there were only 6 of them. <aday> yippi: i didn't know that. it's a really good idea - could we put those profiles on the foundation blog? <shaunm> hasn't the foundation only been around for 11 years? <yippi> yes. <shaunm> I do like the idea of publicly recognizing long-standing members <yippi> and i guess most of the early Founation members are no longer members <karenesq> do we know whether there's a trend in the voting turnout? Were more people voting in the past? <aday> this year was particularly popular, but that's largely due to our interesting times, i would say :) <aday> *to do with <yippi> 2010 had more ballots 214 <yippi> 2009 also had a lot of votes http://foundation.gnome.org/vote/votes.php?election_id=13 <aday> andreasn: where would be a good place to put this on the wiki? <yippi> this sounds like marketing <yippi> why not on the marketing wiki? <andreasn> aday, the enhance membership thing? <aday> yep <andreasn> yeah, marketingish <andreasn> lets continue there <yippi> probably it belongs on foundation.gnome.org <yippi> foundation.gnome.org has bad marketing mojo <yippi> kind of like it was designed in 1997 or something <shaunm> yippi: it's still built with the wml stuff from git, yes? <andreasn> yippi, it's in progress to be updated <ebassi> was about to point it out <yippi> i know. :) --> victortyau (~victortya@206.132.224.107) has joined #foundation <yippi> but i think it would be nice if foundation.gnome.org made it more clear why the Foundation is cool <aday> i'll put some notes up here - https://live.gnome.org/GnomeMarketing/FoundationMembership <yippi> it could better highlight GNOME 3 <andreasn> there has been some e-mails to marketing-list about it recently <shaunm> we've been on this topic for 25 minutes. should we just push it to the wiki and move on? <andreasn> all right, lets move on to next subject since just a couple of minutes left <andreasn> * Improving GNOME's news facilities. This is a brief item to let people know that this is happening and to encourage them to contribute. <andreasn> * Improving GNOME's news facilities. <andreasn> I mean <sumanah> http://mail.gnome.org/archives/marketing-list/2011-June/msg00044.html is a relevant msg <jhs> It is a bit strange that news.gnome.org and gnome.org/news point to completely different things... <sumanah> https://live.gnome.org/GnomeMarketing/NewsRedesign is a place to discuss <aday> thanks sumanah :) <aday> jhs: yes, that's part of the tangle that we want to straighten out <andreasn> jhs, historical reasons, but yes, we should fix this <afranke> There were a lot of people that wanted to vote but couldn't due to membership renewal hiccups. <sumanah> I have been involved with GNOME Journal for a couple of years, and am going to decrease my involvement substantially -- I have a new fulltime job that is very time- and energy-consuming, and can't give proper attention to GNOME marketing & GNOME Journal <sumanah> (will be blogging this soon.) Just wanted to mention that as part of the GNOME news rethinking <karenesq> afranke: could that account for the entire decrease? Was that connected to the timing of the election? <afranke> I don't know, but that sure counts for a bit. <jhs> aday: I would propose to merge them. I mean, news.gnome.org has a lot of content quite a lot of projects contribute. gnome.org/news must be handeled by a dedicated news team. Haveing the merge means more content and also a better way to show of project progress. In addition, interesting blog posts about desktop-wide design & features might be manually added to the feed. <aday> we're just starting to formulate a plan for how to improve our news facilities. this meeting item is to make sure people know about it and encourage you to participate :) <aday> jhs: it'd be great to have your ideas on the marketing list. we'll be having a meeting soon too, hopefully <andreasn> yeah, lets make discussion happen on the mailing list and the wiki <karenesq> sumanah: congrats on the job! <andreasn> last item is: <andreasn> * Desktop Summit call for volunteers <andreasn> last meeting there was a question about volunteers for Desktop Summit <andreasn> all you need to know is now here https://www.desktopsummit.org/news/call-for-volunteers <jhs> aday: not subsribed to the list (and unlikely to be in the future). But you can drop me a line if you do a meeting. I won't be able to help much apart from ideas though. <sumanah> thanks karenesq ! and I must put in a tiny plug to mention that we're hiring http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Job_openings :-) <-- shmore (~shmore@dhcp-0-12-17-51-3b-2d.cpe.mountaincable.net) has left #foundation <yippi> I also wanted to remind people that the call-for-bids for GUADEC 2012 deadline is approaching <yippi> I was hoping for a bid from Quebec. :) <sumanah> the deadline for volunteer signup is in 3 weeks: July 18th * sumanah looks at http://live.gnome.org/GUADEC/2012/Bids <-- pochu (~emilio@pasanda.collabora.co.uk) has left #foundation <shaunm> is there a public list of the actual bids made? <andre> https://live.gnome.org/GUADEC/2012/Bids is useless. It lists lots of funny cities, but none of the REAL bids that have been received so far. <andre> I still don't get why it was created. <sumanah> andre: then what's the real list of bids received? <andre> Existing bids so far were Brno, Lyon and A Coruña, IIRC. <jhs> andre: can you delete it then, please? <andre> jhs: well, I don't want to make Bob Murphy and yippi angry - maybe they had some concept in mind that I don't understand yet. <zana> it looks like it should be made a private page for the committee members so that they can keep their drafts <andre> but some random "Candidate Locations" just because there's one GNOME contributor living around that area surely should not be listed on a page that says "2012" in its title. <aday> please add your ideas here, everyone! https://live.gnome.org/GnomeMarketing/FoundationMembership <yippi> no, i was joking. At GNOME.Asia Ryan Lorie said he wanted to submit a bid for Quebec, but I think he was only joking. <zana> andre: agreed; i think it was for the guadec committee to keep track of possibilities <zana> andre: and not for public consumption <andre> okay. I'll clean that page up. <yippi> There currently are not many Hackfests planned. https://live.gnome.org/Hackfests <yippi> I'd like to encourage people to think of ideas for hackfests and to make them happen. <yippi> also, I'm a little concerned about the Boston Summit this year. <yippi> It doesn't seem that there are any volunteers helping to make that happen in 2011. <andreasn> yes, J5 won't be able to help out organizing it this year <andreasn> preferably Boston locals <andreasn> it might be a good idea asking for help with this on foundation-list <yippi> Should we consider doing a call-for-bids for an American site? <shaunm> can we proactively ask somebody? any candidates? <yippi> we could ask jrb who might be a good person to help. doesn't novell also have an office in Boston? <yippi> i'm not sure who to contact there. <shaunm> yippi: that summit was done outside Boston once, and people seemed to agree it was bad <yippi> i attended the Brooklyn Summit, and it wasn't that bad <yippi> it is nicer to meet at MIT, sure --> xjuan (~xjuan@host6.190-226-221.telecom.net.ar) has joined #foundation <shaunm> yippi: I think it just wasn't as organized <karenesq> I think we might be looking at the Cambridge Innovation Center instead of MIT this year, but I'm not sure <yippi> I wouldn't think it should be hard to drum up enough people in Boston to organize it, but we do need volunteers. <bkuhn> FWIW, FSF used Bunker Hill Community college for LibrePlanet in Boston (FSF used to use MIT and/or Harvard), which was much cheaper. <shaunm> is the boston-social mailing list still active? that might be a good way to reach boston gnome people <xjuan> hi guys, I am a member and want to get a gnome.org alias to create a blog. Should i send a mail to accounts@gnome.org or fill the mango form? <yippi> last i heard it is still a useful way ot reach boston people, but the list is apparantly not very active <yippi> maybe this could give them some things to talk about <karenesq> I can mail the boston-social list <sumanah> Pika? <yippi> sure, but I think most of the people who work at Red Hat in Boston probably already know J5 has told us he won't be organizing the Summit this year <yippi> hopefully, the fact that boston-social has been inactive isn't because people are just disinterested in doing it again. <zana> that doesn't necessarily translate to them realizing we need someone else to step up =) <yippi> :) <shaunm> otherwise, yippi just volunteered to organize the chicago summit ;) <yippi> :) <yippi> we could do it with Flourish? <aday> any other business? seems like we're done <-- andre has quit (Ping timeout: 600 seconds) <andreasn> yes, seems so. Thanks everyone for attending <bkuhn> Thanks very much for coordinating the meeting, andreasn. <aday> thanks andreasn. thanks everyone <sumanah> thx <karenesq> thanks andreasn!
Attached Files
To refer to attachments on a page, use attachment:filename, as shown below in the list of files. Do NOT use the URL of the [get] link, since this is subject to change and can break easily.You are not allowed to attach a file to this page.