19:00:05 #startmeeting 19:00:05 Meeting started Wed May 17 19:00:05 2017 UTC. The chair is OdyX. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 19:00:05 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. 19:00:27 #topic Round of names 19:00:30 Didier Raboud 19:01:15 David Bremner 19:01:20 fil, marga, keithp, hartmans, Mithrandir: ping 19:01:31 hi 19:01:34 Tollef Fog Heen 19:01:35 see above for hartmans 19:02:13 Keith Packard 19:04:05 #topic Review of previous meetings' TODOs 19:04:14 AFAIK all we discussed was done, thanks for it! 19:04:25 The longrunning TODOS still need doing though. 19:04:34 #topic #839172 TC decision regarding #741573 menu policy not reflected yet 19:05:08 The status there hasn't changed; it needs someone to draft a policy patch, and the plan is to do it during DebConf. 19:05:23 take it off the agenda for now, then? 19:05:29 sounds like a plan to me 19:05:42 Well, it's on the open bugs list, hence on the agenda. 19:05:50 #topic #836127 New CTTE Members 19:06:09 I emitted my opinions, but felt alone there. 19:06:28 yeah, apologies from me, I've been swamped with non-debian work. 19:06:43 I failed to emit opinions. I have no excuse, except I don't really know what to think. 19:07:27 do we already have a deadline for this? 19:07:38 The point is that we need to get to a decision, either on a name, or on postponing. I don't like leaving everyone (including us) in the expectative 19:07:44 hi 19:08:04 ohai 19:08:14 (sorry I'm late) 19:09:07 Any opinions how to proceed there? How can we move forward ' 19:09:08 ? 19:10:07 other than just running an internal ballot? 19:10:42 well. Running an internal ballot is a new opinion. Could you launch one 19:10:43 ? 19:11:18 yes, if that seems like a way to get things moving along 19:11:39 it kinda does, I suspect. 19:11:40 sorry, my IRC client crashed. :-( 19:11:47 figures 19:11:50 internal ballot sounds fine to me 19:11:53 software is unreliable. who knew? 19:12:20 :) 19:12:55 (does seem odd that hardware, which is intrinsically unreliable is more reliable than software, which is intrinsically reliable...) 19:13:44 ok, I'll gather the names we have and post a ballot to the list then, unless there's more discussion that people want to have before that 19:13:58 #action keithp to gather the names we have a post a ballot to the list. 19:14:00 #save 19:14:19 Seems like a good step forward; but we definitely need more data from all current members. 19:14:23 #topic Additional Business 19:14:35 FD is a fine answer to 'we don't have enough data yet' 19:16:10 Could we have a public discussion about what we're looking for? (sortof last topic) 19:16:55 I feel like people have strong ideas about principles that have been somewhat articulated on the private alias, but I wonder if we should try to be transparent about that part, if we can 19:17:04 you bet 19:17:26 that might provide more transparency in the process, which is always good. 19:18:19 The point, I'm afraid, is that we have a quite small set of candidates. 19:19:30 is that just a general problem, or you worry specifically about trying to discuss publicly leaking private things? 19:19:54 personally, I don't feel particularly qualified to have an opinion, and I'm strongly convinced that every interview process I've ever come accross was pretty broken, so I struggle to come up with any criteria that I can be happy about applying to this process 19:20:44 The process came up with bremner. How bad can it be ? :-P 19:20:51 * bremner coughs 19:21:17 :-) 19:22:04 well, one problem with our very subjective process is that it encourages us to find people like ourselves 19:22:32 We can still put a hold on the process, and discuss the question on impersonal terms with the projec 19:23:12 I've phrased the concern that we spend a considerable amount of our energy just for renewal, and that isn't solved if we let the process drag us until May-June in the year. 19:24:28 so there are two ways forward: stop & discuss; or get it done and postpone discussing. 19:26:09 I lean towards the latter currently. 19:26:18 keithp: I suspect that people self-select to some extent based on whether they think they'd fit, which overlaps with that effect. Also, the project is perhaps not the most diverse population. 19:28:03 agreed, but our process is pushing in the wrong direction here 19:28:10 Are we getting anywhere additional to the #info above ? 19:28:21 I don't think so. 19:28:24 I favour producing the candidates in a random ordering, and then asking for good reasons why not to select the first one that pops out of the machine -- might help address that concern. 19:28:38 yes, you've really helped here, thanks for that 19:29:14 Not that I dislike the chit-chat with you guys :) 19:29:22 Thanks for the discussion! 19:29:32 heh. agreed, probably enough for IRC 19:29:39 #endmeeting