18:59:35 <gaudenz> #startmeeting DebConf global team meeting
18:59:35 <MeetBot> Meeting started Mon Mar 25 18:59:35 2013 UTC.  The chair is gaudenz. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
18:59:35 <MeetBot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
18:59:47 <gaudenz> #chair gwolf
18:59:47 <MeetBot> Current chairs: gaudenz gwolf
19:00:04 <gaudenz> How is present, please say hi!
19:00:11 * gwolf heads to look at the topics to cover
19:00:11 <nattie> i'm half present
19:00:12 <gaudenz> s/How/Who/
19:00:13 <rafw> hi
19:00:15 * gwolf is present
19:00:32 <gaudenz> #info agenda: https://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf13/Meetings/20130325#Agenda
19:00:45 <gaudenz> #save
19:01:09 <gwolf> Ok... It seems we are who we are
19:01:14 <cate> hello
19:01:19 <gwolf> so we can aim at having a swift, quick meeting :)
19:01:22 <marga> I'm lurking. Will follow the chat but might not be able to participate at all.
19:01:27 <gaudenz> #topic DC12 - Final Report
19:01:49 <gaudenz> lazyboy wrote the budgeting part.
19:01:51 <gwolf> Lazyboy seems not to be online
19:01:56 * h01ger is not here. i should have left the keyboard an hour ago, but am still stuck with 4!&/"$(&("$!/ network issues. i'm absolutly not in meeting mood right now. and i need to leave too :(
19:02:01 <alphanet> passively listening.
19:02:15 <gwolf> ...I haven't been able to check what he posted. Has anybody?
19:02:19 * vorlon is present-ish
19:02:22 <gaudenz> A english native speaker to review it would be nice.
19:02:39 <vorlon> ITYM "an" english native speaker ;-)
19:02:40 <gaudenz> But I don't think this should block the release of at least an rc2 of the final report.
19:02:51 <gwolf> gaudenz: numbers are well presented with a strong DE accent ;-)
19:02:53 <vorlon> i.e. - sure, I can review
19:03:11 <vorlon> what's the exact bit that wants reviewing?
19:03:24 <vorlon> budget.tex?
19:03:26 <gaudenz> would be much appreciated, and if you have some latex fuu, converting the numbers to a table would be nice too
19:03:29 <OdyX> i'm half here, I can release the report
19:03:46 <vorlon> my latex-fu is weak, better if someone else could do this
19:04:02 <gaudenz> vorlon: budget.tex in reports/dc12 debconf-data svn
19:04:02 <gwolf> gaudenz: Making a TeX table out of them should be quite trivial, so if vorlon looks at the text, I can look at the TeX.
19:04:26 <gaudenz> #action vorlon to review the english of budget.tex for the DC12 final report
19:04:29 <OdyX> I could check in a week or so, am afk during easter
19:04:36 <gwolf> #info vorlon will review budget.tex to check the English; gwolf will work on the TeXifiction of the tables
19:04:58 <gaudenz> And I think after that we can declare the report finished.
19:05:07 <gwolf> so we can skip a RC2
19:05:10 <gwolf> we are quite close already
19:05:21 <gwolf> so I don't think there's too much need to rush a RC2 for that
19:05:30 <gwolf> unless somebody *wants* to do it
19:05:38 <OdyX> sure, no no
19:05:43 * gaudenz was typing the same as gwolf ...
19:05:49 <gaudenz> next topic?
19:05:52 <gwolf> #info There Is No RC2
19:06:11 <gaudenz> #topic DC13 - Accomodation and Pricing see the following proposals to the list
19:06:35 <gaudenz> the links to the mails I sent to debconf-team are on the agenda wiki page.
19:07:07 <gaudenz> I'm unsure if the relative silence means agreement or if everyone is just busy otherwise.
19:07:13 * gwolf is reading mails
19:07:28 <vorlon> busy otherwise
19:07:55 <cate> gaudenz: I read them quickly, but it seems a summery of old discussion, so no need to reply. I think we can agree and pass on
19:08:08 <gwolf> TBH, I have not got too much engaged in this discussion as I feel I don't know really the spaces (i.e. to talk about the ⅔ space filling)
19:08:32 <gaudenz> cate: In the first mail I summarized what I thought was agreed upon already. For the rest I don't think there was agreement before.
19:08:33 <gwolf> and don't have a real opinion on what we should charge/sponsor (as I'll most likely stay in 100% sponsored)
19:09:12 <gwolf> I mean, I have agreed in principle with the discussion that has been moving, but cannot say much regarding the specifics
19:09:56 * gaudenz is unsure about when to move forward. I would like to have a firm decision that won't be subject to change later on.
19:10:18 <gwolf> gaudenz: ...I fear that we will anyway face changes when we have real registration numbers
19:10:30 <gwolf> up to now, we are forecasting based on what we *expect* to see
19:10:48 <gaudenz> gwolf: but I don't think we can change prices and categories after people already started registering.
19:10:51 <gwolf> but our expectations will likely change whatever happens
19:11:10 <gwolf> right, of course, but percentages of filling... Or moving one category if it is underused, or something like that
19:11:35 <gaudenz> Some parts may be changeable, but the more important aspects IMO can not change unless we want to upset a large part of the registrants.
19:11:55 <gwolf> I understand...
19:12:17 <gaudenz> But if we promise not to fill certain rooms then we have to keep that promise. Otherwise we have to decide now to not give any such promise.
19:13:22 * gismo_ has arrived now, sorry
19:13:43 <cate> To me, your proposal seems sensible. We could eventually change it later, if we have a incredible high partecipation level (hoping that other people understand). In any case before reconfirmation people should have a clear vision
19:13:45 <gwolf> As for me (as I don't see any other active people), I'd defer that decision to you (and, of course, commit to uphold what you decide)
19:13:50 <rafw> I agree with Gaudenz and I do agree with the proposal of 2/3 limit of larges room as described in the email.
19:14:01 <gwolf> The arguments feel solid and good.
19:14:43 <gwolf> gaudenz: so... ?
19:15:16 <gaudenz> I'm fine with taking a decision now. The alternative to me would be to call for a registration meeting on April 5th and decide then.
19:15:29 <vorlon> so the people who already agreed with it still agree with it and the people who don't agree with it still don't
19:15:32 <vorlon> <shrug>
19:15:32 <gaudenz> But postponing even more seems too much.
19:15:35 <gwolf> So, I see no oppposition to your suggestion
19:15:42 <gwolf> and I didn't see it some days ago on the list
19:15:53 <gaudenz> vorlon: and those not agreeing were silent for more than a week now...
19:15:54 <gwolf> I think we should take it as accepted
19:16:03 <vorlon> gwolf: as stated above, my silence is not assent
19:16:13 <OdyX> I think the last word should be in debconf-team meeting
19:16:33 <gwolf> vorlon: right... And yes, you did answer to some mails on-list
19:16:35 <gaudenz> vorlon: But do you agree that it's not reasonable to block the decision by just being silent?
19:16:52 <OdyX> it's been stuck for too long imho
19:17:16 <vorlon> gaudenz: I was not silent; I prepared a wiki page, which is what was asked for in the last meeting
19:17:37 <OdyX> which has not made it to the list.
19:17:57 <vorlon> frankly, at this point I feel like you guys are going to do what you want regardless
19:18:00 <gaudenz> vorlon: last time I looked at the wiki page it did not seem to be ready. We need a real proposal, not just random thoughts...
19:18:09 * gismo notices that the list is plent of emails these days, thus difficult to follow regularly
19:18:14 <OdyX> vorlon not true...
19:18:52 <gaudenz> vorlon: I'm open to discussions, but without a real proposal I don't think it's possible to have an efficient discussion and I'm not going to write a proposal I don't support.
19:19:02 <OdyX> but we need to proceed either way.
19:19:25 <vorlon> I don't know how you define a "real proposal" then.  The wiki page lays out the proposed room allocations with rationale
19:19:28 <cate> when hug will return?
19:19:28 <vorlon> what more do you want?
19:19:29 <OdyX> and we can't vote
19:19:55 <OdyX> vorlon: mail the list...
19:19:58 <rafw> cate: end of March.
19:19:59 <gaudenz> vorlon: at least a mail to the list with a link to the wiki page so that people how care are actually aware of your proposal.
19:20:21 <cate> hug was the other proponent of vorlon's idea
19:20:23 <gaudenz> And at least for me it's still difficult to understand what you actually propose from the wiki page.
19:20:31 <Ganneff> gwolf: mail approved
19:20:35 <gwolf> Ganneff: thx
19:21:32 <gwolf> ...and so we reach another silent moment of the meeting :-|
19:22:24 <OdyX> decide, or nove on
19:22:25 <cate> let's postone the topic. I think the other topic are more important, and ev. we return to this
19:22:51 <gaudenz> cate: But we at least need a plan when to decide this.
19:22:52 <OdyX> I think we need to be able to decide
19:23:15 <gwolf> And we should probably decide (or have a clear view on what goes on) before the next meeting
19:23:23 <gwolf> as we are quite late already on the registration front
19:23:37 <OdyX> postponing because of unknown and silent opponents sounds bad
19:23:38 <vorlon> And who is making the decision?  OdyX says "we can't vote"
19:23:44 <vorlon> there's not going to be unanimity
19:23:49 <OdyX> can we?
19:23:54 <vorlon> and I'm not going to persuade OdyX
19:24:04 <cate> If we have a clear view on the rest of registration, let decide it at the end of the meeting. OTOH I think we need few more meeting before we open registration
19:24:14 <gaudenz> vorlon: If you get time until 5th April will you then push your idea on the team list?
19:24:17 <gismo> gwolf: we can not open the registration without knowing if there is one more week or not (this is how I read cate)
19:24:18 <OdyX> If we think we can, let's do it.
19:24:21 <vorlon> gaudenz: to what end?
19:24:28 <gwolf> do you feel the positions can be moved towards a compromise position? Or is it one vs. the other?
19:24:33 <vorlon> it's one vs. the other
19:24:39 <gwolf> cate: "a few" more meetings means May
19:24:40 <gaudenz> If yes I think it's worth having that discussion on list to see what others think about it, if not, we will be at the same point.
19:24:58 <OdyX> damn, have to go afk
19:25:02 <gwolf> gismo: right, and I wanted to bring up the topic in the "AOB" section :)
19:25:09 <cate> BTW I don't like vorlon's proposal
19:25:16 <vorlon> yep
19:25:44 <gaudenz> vorlon: I think your "Proposed occupancy (high)" could be a compromise if I understand it right
19:26:20 <vorlon> gaudenz: well, it's not a compromise wrt the position that we under-fill the largest rooms
19:27:02 <gaudenz> but at least it does not waist that much beds.
19:27:13 <gaudenz> s/waist/waste/
19:27:32 <OdyX> Imho it's a tie, we need a breaker
19:27:46 <rafw> I think that Gaudenz compromise is good. I am not sure about what vorlon's proposal is.
19:27:53 <vorlon> gaudenz: as far as I'm concerned, the decision of whether or not to "waste" beds should be driven entirely by whether the people you want to have in the sponsored accomodation are willing to tolerate communal rooms
19:27:56 <gaudenz> But still I'm not sure if it's good to trade more comfort for some people with less comfort for much more others.
19:27:56 <gwolf> Do you agree this can be delayed (again) until the April 5th meeting?
19:28:13 <gwolf> I say this because I feel several people are missing for this meeting
19:28:29 <vorlon> gwolf: who, and how would their presence change the outcome?
19:28:34 <gwolf> Even though we are quite late by now
19:28:48 <gaudenz> gwolf: I think delaying is only sensible if we use the time to discuss this on-list
19:28:57 <cate> vorlon: hug, for example
19:29:00 <OdyX> easter...
19:29:12 <gwolf> vorlon: I'm trying to gather the feeling of what has been said - Maybe I shouldn't have said "agree", as I'm not stating my own opinion
19:29:29 <gwolf> hug, moray, h01ger, at least
19:30:02 <vorlon> gwolf: that makes it no clearer to me how we're going to decide
19:30:03 <gwolf> Thing is, I don't think we are advancing too much on the lists... and I agree with gaudenz
19:30:08 <vorlon> we aren't going to get a consensus
19:30:14 <vorlon> some people are opposed to voting
19:30:17 <vorlon> how do we resolve this?
19:30:24 <gwolf> vorlon: by voting or by consensus :)
19:30:33 <gwolf> so, is there a consensus on whether we should vote?
19:30:36 <gaudenz> vorlon: Are there any other disagreements beside which beds to leave empty and which rooms to completely fill?
19:30:38 <Ganneff> or by someone (hey chairs) just saying "its like this, eot"
19:30:57 <gwolf> Ganneff: That's why I mentioned that h01ger and moray are not here (and I'm not really engaged in the topic)
19:31:13 <vorlon> gaudenz: that disagreement was the point of my pricing strawman page; I have a few other questions about related topics that I should ask on list
19:31:34 <OdyX> I said we can't vote because I'm afraid it wouldn't be seen as valid. but I'm all for it if the result holds
19:31:35 <gwolf> Ganneff, vorlon: My personal position would be to favor the people who have done the "ground work" and have really been there... But I really don't feel enough involved in this discussion (as I said, I have read the mails, but not kept the details on them)
19:31:44 <gaudenz> vorlon: My intention was that we could narrow the discussion to that point and declare the others decided.
19:32:33 <Ganneff> gwolf: you are chair. you dont need to have been involved down to the last bit either. you can decide still.
19:32:36 <vorlon> gaudenz: so I had questions about the categories - is it intended that sponsored attendees are sleeping bag only?
19:32:47 <vorlon> (that was how I read your mail)
19:33:07 <gwolf> Ganneff: yes. But I'm not involved enough in this topic. My decision would be a gut feeling, and I don't trust it to be strong enough.
19:33:08 <cate> we need either to vote or to pass to next topic. No meta-discussion
19:33:11 <Ganneff> gwolf: even if it turns out to be not-the-best decision later, it at least unties this.
19:33:15 <gaudenz> vorlon: yes the intention is to only allow upgrades upon availability on-site.
19:33:36 <vorlon> gaudenz: so you consider any nordique accomodations to be available only if people pay?
19:33:37 <gwolf> Ganneff: Well - As I stated: I favor the position of the people who have been there (although hug opposes)
19:33:43 <Ganneff> gwolf: a gut feeling is better than no decision and indefinite waits. if you want to always be involved down to the ground, you limit yourself very much
19:33:49 <Ganneff> but i stop now.
19:34:00 <gaudenz> vorlon: if you want to be sure to get it, yes
19:34:07 <gwolf> Ganneff: good, and thanks (and point taken)
19:34:23 <vorlon> gaudenz: I don't mean "be sure to get it", my question is whether the number of sponsored attendees is limited to the number of sleeping bag spaces
19:34:46 <gaudenz> yes that would probably a consequence of this.
19:34:55 <vorlon> ok
19:35:18 <vorlon> I think I'll follow up on the list to make sure that's clearly spelled out there (since there's been no discussion of this point at all on the list)
19:35:43 <gwolf> #info vorlon will follow up on the missing points that make the main difference between the two proposals
19:35:44 <OdyX> well I pused some calculations
19:36:02 <gwolf> #info we should all get involved in the list discussion (well, we should already have :-P )
19:36:18 <gwolf> #info a final decision on this issue should be taken no later than on the next meeting (Apr 5)
19:36:22 <gwolf> right?
19:36:23 <OdyX> yes.: :-)
19:36:28 <gaudenz> I propose that we postpone to April 5th (the next friday that is not good friday) and the chairs figure out the meta thing until then.
19:36:47 <gwolf> Anyway, on to the next topic
19:36:50 <gaudenz> #topic DC13 - Travel sponsorship questions
19:37:07 <gaudenz> This is another proposal that only got a few replies.
19:37:16 <gwolf> I agree with the presented questions
19:37:28 <gwolf> it gives only a marginally better understanding than what we have now
19:37:37 <gwolf> but it *does* look better
19:37:38 <gaudenz> To me this one seems to be less controversial.
19:37:56 <gwolf> "total travel costs" IMO leads to a bit of ambiguity
19:38:13 <gaudenz> gwolf: why?
19:38:22 <gwolf> i.e. does it include visa processing fees? Train from Zurich to Vaumarcus? Food on the seven-hour-wait at the airport?
19:39:01 <gwolf> "total" is too much
19:39:08 <gismo> as last year, I disagree with the vision of "with less than this, I cannot attend", since it is not an "absolute" value
19:39:27 <gaudenz> Do you think it would be better to skip the "total" and just label it "travel costs"?
19:39:29 <gwolf> gismo: how would you better phrase?
19:39:40 <gismo> gwolf: I disagree with the concept, not the phrase ;-)
19:39:41 <gwolf> gaudenz: It would be better IMO
19:39:44 <cate> And also I think 3 numbers are too complext (from the herb point of view)
19:40:09 <gwolf> gismo: well, but given we cannot fund 100% to everybody, we need to know how much each one needs
19:40:14 <gaudenz> gismo: Would you agree to "with less tahn this I will not attend"?
19:40:30 <gismo> gaudenz: again, I do not agree on the concept, nothing more, nothing less
19:40:39 <gismo> gaudenz: we already discussed that last year IIRC
19:40:45 <gwolf> gismo: how would your ideal split be?
19:40:48 <cate> I think we should encurage to put only the minimum ammount
19:40:48 <gaudenz> gismo: notice the difference between cannot and will not
19:41:15 <gaudenz> cate: Without making this absolutely explicit this failed in the past.
19:41:22 <cate> "Travel sponsorship *needed*"
19:41:35 <gaudenz> The 3 amounts are a way to make the distinction explicit.
19:41:44 <gismo> gaudenz: and what if "I will attend anyway, but being sponsorship would be better?" (considering the personal situation, not an absolute value)
19:41:56 <vorlon> I think "Travel sponsorship needed in order for me to attend DebConf" is the only question we should ask
19:41:59 <gismo> ops, s/sponsorship/sponsored/
19:42:30 <gaudenz> gismo then enter an amount in the requested amount field and enter 0 to the other amount.
19:43:19 <gaudenz> vorlon: With only one amount I fear we will have the same problems as last year with people entering different things.
19:43:20 <gismo> gaudenz: which almost always translates to "I will not get sponsorship"
19:43:33 <vorlon> gaudenz: not if you write the question correctly, which historically we have not done
19:43:34 <gwolf> Right, as we will always try to reach to more people
19:43:56 <cate> Anyway I still propose to to them in email, (with a long template), so we could put more explaination, and we could require longer information from the attendeee
19:44:01 <gaudenz> gismo: If the herb team thinks that's how they want to distribute the money then that's it yes. But at least everyone is judged by the same criteria.
19:44:14 <gwolf> if I requested US$1500, minimum 0, probably I will be approved in the first selection (Does he get?), but would remain at 0 at the second pass...
19:44:28 <harmoney> gismo: Isn't the idea that once those who *must* be sponsored are accomodated, then the sponsorship team can circle back around to those who would appreciate sponsorship assistance?
19:44:50 <gaudenz> vorlon: but last year it was "amount I'm unable to fund myself" IIRC, which at least to me does not sound ambigous, but nonethless we had people attend anyway.
19:45:21 <vorlon> gaudenz: "unable to fund" is not the same thing as "need"
19:45:30 <gismo> harmoney: the problem is that there are different visions/criteria in the herb team, so the "must" is not the same for everyone
19:45:41 <harmoney> Ah.
19:46:09 <vorlon> gaudenz: yes, we might have people who still find a way to attend even if they don't get the "needed" travel sponsorship, but that's not the same thing as saying they've asked for money they don't need
19:46:16 <gaudenz> harmoney: Yes my view is that after giving the absolute minimum to everyone we want to sponsor there should be some money left for a second round.
19:46:56 <gwolf> gaudenz: however, Herb work is hard and quite tedious
19:47:06 <gaudenz> gwolf: been there done that
19:47:17 <gwolf> so... asking Herb members to do a second round is... well, can be demotivating to prospective Herbers :)
19:47:46 * gaudenz thinks that it would simplify herb work to have those 2 numbers.
19:48:18 <gaudenz> Because it would avoid recurring discussions about who's definition of "need" to apply.
19:48:20 * vorlon thinks it's a horrible pain for the herb team to have to decide between two applicants' relative needs instead of just deciding between their relative value in attending
19:48:32 * gismo agress with vorlon
19:48:37 <vorlon> gaudenz: except it *doesn't* actually have that effect
19:48:52 <vorlon> it just means you now get to do handwavy math instead of handwavy gut feelings :)
19:49:35 <vorlon> in the end, that's all a second pass is
19:49:36 * gwolf is sliding towards vorlon+gismo's argumentation...
19:49:53 <cate> I want text, not only numbers. Ev. we could expand the text to include why they need such ammount
19:50:00 <gwolf> it is basically a simpler task - and it is impossible to be completely fair
19:50:09 <gwolf> cate: the second part of the questions/proposal includes that
19:50:12 <vorlon> cate: that also increases the burden on the herb team
19:50:12 <gaudenz> vorlon: In the past you either got the full amount requested or nothing. Which seemd quite unsatisfactory in many cases to me.
19:50:12 <gismo> cate: was not that what we had until last year?
19:50:16 <gwolf> and it aids people in ranking them
19:50:37 <cate> gismo: too short text. Impossible to understand correctly
19:50:42 <gwolf> gaudenz: one year (don't remember which one) we did include a partial funding (IIRC 80%) for a category
19:50:45 <gaudenz> cate: Did you read the proposal. It exactly adds that question.
19:51:06 <gwolf> people above a given threshold got 100%, below that and above the cutoff got a percentage
19:51:11 <vorlon> gaudenz: if the full amount you request is what you need in order to attend, that seems like a reasonable outcome to me!
19:51:22 <gwolf> (maybe in the end we saw we had enough money to give 100% to all? Can't really rememmber)
19:51:31 <gaudenz> gwolf: this was rejected last year on the ground that people already had entered ther very minimal amount, while at least to me it was obvious that this was not the case for everyone.
19:51:39 <cate> gaudenz: but the question seems more about ammount 2 and not 3. But ok, we can rephrase it
19:51:42 <vorlon> if the amount you requested was actually more than what you needed to attend, well, you didn't fill out the form correctly
19:51:54 <gwolf> gaudenz: we can ask for seven levels of minimality, and we will only care about the minimalest minimal
19:52:04 <vorlon> do we actually think we're going to have a surplus in the travel sponsorship budget?
19:52:15 <Ganneff> hahahahaha. (sorry)
19:52:27 <cate> vorlon: define "surplus"
19:52:46 <cate> Few people don't reclaim the ammount
19:52:50 <gaudenz> I seem to be the only one that thinks the minimal amount is usefull, so I won't insist on it.
19:52:51 <gwolf> I do feel we need the "total costs" value to help us decide, although it is still a very subjective reading
19:53:05 <vorlon> if there isn't going to be money left over, then the optimal use of the travel sponsorship money is to distribute it in the way that gets the maximum number of high-quality attendees to DebConf
19:53:42 <vorlon> so giving people more money than they "need" is reducing the number of attendees we've sponsored
19:53:42 * gismo agrees with vorlon (again)
19:53:47 <gaudenz> vorlon: You are very welcom to be part of the herb team this year to see the actual practical challenges. I wholly agree on that abstract level.
19:54:06 <vorlon> gaudenz: I have been part of the herb team in the past
19:54:23 <vorlon> and I stand by my statement that the herb team's job is made harder by asking for too much information
19:54:29 <gwolf> So, can we agree to skip the "minimal amount"?
19:54:45 <cate> vorlon: not so easy. local people will have less expenses, so asian and australian people will never get sponsoring
19:54:48 <gaudenz> gwolf: I think we should skip the "amount requested" not the minimal amount
19:54:55 <gwolf> to have just the "total amount" and...
19:55:02 <gwolf> gaudenz: right, that would amount to the same IMO
19:55:13 <gwolf> the middle value would jsut create confusion and be mostly ignored
19:55:16 <gaudenz> I liked vorlons phrasing, can you repeat it.
19:55:49 <gwolf> Ganneff: OT: Wanted to check some things, but it seems the Pentabarf web interface is down..?
19:55:59 <gaudenz> "Travel sponsorship needed in order for me to attend DebConf"
19:56:13 <gaudenz> do we agree on this question?
19:56:17 <vorlon> step 1) ask people how much travel sponsorship they need in order to attend, step 2) rank people in order of how valuable you think their presence is to the conference, step 3) draw a cut-off below which you don't believe people should be funded, step 4) distribute the money, step 5) *if* there is any money left over in the budget after funding everyone you believe should get sponsorship (which is not a likely occurrence), approach them ...
19:56:24 <vorlon> ... directly and find out if more travel sponsorship would help
19:56:26 <vorlon> I agree on that question ;)
19:56:34 * gwolf agrees.
19:56:57 * cate invites vorlon to the herb team
19:57:00 <gaudenz> Do people agree on the rest of the proposal?
19:57:01 <Ganneff> gwolf: hrm. apache and mongrels are running. i just kick em into a restart
19:57:16 <gwolf> #info We drop the intermediate value of the amount question; the low/minimum amount will be "Travel sponsorship needed in order for me to attend DebConf"
19:57:57 <gwolf> #info Instead of "Total travel costs" (high value), we will ask for "Travel costs".
19:58:37 <gwolf> Ganneff: Still 503ing for me - but I can wait until after the meeting
19:58:44 <Ganneff> yes, im looking.
19:58:59 <gwolf> Now, are the three qualitative answers OK for you?
19:59:02 <gwolf> Pasting them here:
19:59:13 <gwolf> - What  are your current contributions to Debian?
19:59:14 <gwolf> - How will your attending this DebConf benefit Debian? Examples   include collaboration with other attendees, giving talks, and   volunteering at DebConf.
19:59:14 <gwolf> - Why do you request help paying for your travel costs?
20:00:07 <gwolf> Ah, and there is a fourth question that I don't personally like: The "references" one:
20:00:24 <gwolf> These people can tell the travel sponsorship team more about my current work for Debian. I asked them to send a signed mail to herb@debconf.org to support my application.
20:00:32 <gwolf> I'd prefer that last question *not* to be asked
20:00:42 * gismo agres with gwolf
20:00:51 <cate> gwolf: it is an information, not a question
20:00:54 <gwolf> If a person requests sponsorship and lists their current contributions, we don't have to go around telling their friends they are requesting money
20:01:03 <vorlon> gwolf: agreed
20:01:14 <gaudenz> IIRC that was proposed by bremner back during DC12.
20:01:19 <vorlon> they should be able to give direct references to their work in the previous question, "What are your current contributions"
20:01:25 <gwolf> cate: If I tell you I work at this or that team, that should serve for Herb to know who the colleagues are
20:01:42 <gwolf> And if further information is needed, it can be asked person-to-person (i.e. to the applicant directly)
20:01:50 <cate> gwolf: anyway I agree not to include it, reading the comments
20:01:51 <gaudenz> gwolf: But then you can't ask them.
20:02:13 <gwolf> gaudenz: you can, if you tell the person you are doing this
20:02:27 <gaudenz> which you won't do because it's too much work.
20:02:54 <gaudenz> The idea was to make it easier for people that are not well-known becuase the work in a corner no one of the herb team knows about.
20:03:12 <harmoney> gaudenz: That's a "You won't ask them", not a "you can't ask them". There should be a clear differentiation there.
20:03:19 <gaudenz> But I'm neutral about it. As I said it was mostly bremners proposal.
20:03:24 <gwolf> gaudenz: I think that listing the teams should be enough...
20:03:39 <gwolf> right... I'm trying not to executively dismiss it (as Ganneff said I can do ;-) )
20:03:48 <gwolf> But anyway, the meeting is getting long
20:03:51 <gwolf> so... I'll just...
20:03:52 <gaudenz> harmoney: the you can't was refering that you can't because you would give a way sensitive information by asking directly.
20:04:19 <gaudenz> #info we drop the references part
20:04:20 <gwolf> #info We will drop the last stated question (on the references to people that can "vouch" for the applicant)
20:04:37 <gwolf> Good. Next, important point:
20:04:40 <gwolf> #topic DC13 - Extending the budget, DebCamp
20:04:45 <gwolf> grr
20:04:52 <gwolf> or - wait
20:04:59 <gwolf> wait, good thing that meetbot didn't listent to me
20:05:15 <gwolf> Do we need anything further during the meeting regarding travel sponsorship?
20:05:20 <gwolf> Makeup of the Herb team?
20:05:26 <gwolf> Dates and deadlines?
20:05:30 <gaudenz> gwolf: I don't think so at the moment.
20:05:33 <gwolf> Or just agreeing on those basic principles?
20:05:42 <gaudenz> But I would prefer to talk about Registration
20:05:51 <gwolf> oh, am I skipping points? Sorry
20:05:55 <gaudenz> the budget discussion is currently stalled because hug is away.
20:05:58 <gwolf> #topic DC13 - Registration
20:06:28 * gwolf whistles facing Central Germany.
20:06:30 <gaudenz> Ganneff: What needs to be done on the technical level for us to open registration and how much time does it take?
20:06:51 <Ganneff> change penta to reflect what changes are needed for dc13.
20:07:04 <Ganneff> about a day or two, depending on what is, at whatever point, finally decided.
20:07:29 <Ganneff> (that is, a day or two without constant interruptions)
20:07:46 <gaudenz> a day or two of work?
20:08:08 <gaudenz> Or two days after the last decision we have penta set up?
20:08:27 <Ganneff> it depends on how much we have to change. and includes yelling at rails and the code and whoever decided to change those options. :)
20:09:00 <Ganneff> if you just change some strings around, thats easy. if you get lots of (new) options, and even let one depend on another, that needs a few goats and a knife.
20:09:54 <Ganneff> if you get the stuff decided asap, i might even get time into it during easter.
20:10:10 <gaudenz> So it seems that around April 15th is reasonable if the accomodation questions are decided on april 5th
20:10:30 <gaudenz> Ganneff: I think for the travel sponsorship you can start implementing now.
20:11:39 <gaudenz> What do others think? Should we aim for April 15th?
20:12:19 * gwolf agrees
20:12:22 <cate> I'll prepare the email and the instructions (from last year), and I post in wiki, so that in the meeting we can decide all
20:12:46 <gwolf> #info Ganneff expects the implementation of what has been discussed to take 1-2 days of swearing at Penta
20:12:53 <Ganneff> hrm. wtf@pentabarf. everyone can connect to the database fine. why do you error out with an exception?
20:12:56 <gaudenz> #info cate to prepare the doku for the needed changes to penta in the wiki
20:13:14 <gaudenz> cate thanks
20:13:19 <gaudenz> next topic?
20:13:22 <gwolf> #info Registration decision should be settled by April 5; we should announce Penta to be ready around April 15.
20:13:25 <cate> gaudenz: really I was thinking things we put on web and in the emails
20:13:30 <gwolf> #info (ON april 15)
20:13:33 <cate> but ok also for the other point
20:13:54 <gaudenz> #info cate to draft mails to dda
20:13:57 <gwolf> So, without hug, we cannot talk about extending to a second week?
20:14:24 <gwolf> #topic local-global reponsibilites and decisions
20:14:32 <gwolf> #save
20:15:42 <gaudenz> During the last local team meeting there was unhappyness about the fact that many things are delayed because we need the agreement of the global team for everything.
20:16:10 <gaudenz> So the idea is the define some areas where the local team is empowered to take decisions by itself.
20:16:45 <gwolf> umh... And this time as well (due to several people missing from the meeting) I will also qualify all of my words on this topic to "gut feeling"
20:17:00 <gwolf> (yes, a ridiculous self-blocker :-P )
20:17:29 <gwolf> From what I see on the agenda, and from the time this is brought up... I think it is part of our "normal" yearly cycle
20:18:07 <gwolf> Right now, the "working" team is mainly made up of the local team and the chairs (and the three of us are really not as active as we should in several aspects)
20:18:21 <gwolf> ... But things that require budget changes *have* to be checked and approved
20:18:30 <gwolf> as that is part of the formal delegation
20:18:59 * gaudenz agrees that things that require budget changes need to be approved and discussed in the global team.
20:19:00 <gwolf> vorlon: (no, I'm not downplaying your role, and I'm very happy you are getting involved more actively in DC13 organization - I'm just saying "mostly" to things here)
20:19:51 <gwolf> I already stated that I tend defer to the locals  most of the issues regarding accomodation strategies, as I don't know the field situation and how deep should the concern be for the raised issues
20:20:06 <gaudenz> that's why my "proposal" in the agenda says "within the agreed upon budget"
20:20:11 <gwolf> So *I* won't block what you decide on the mentioned topics
20:20:30 <gwolf> Now, what requires additional money? DebianDay+anniversary party? The bar?
20:20:40 <gwolf> (of course, accom+food, which we already covered)
20:21:39 <gwolf> Network stuff: Of course the people who have done our networking in the past should have a say, but you can see how the fiber installation is going and what equipment we have and how the place works for signal propagation, etc.
20:21:50 <gaudenz> gwolf: My idea is rather that we discuss an upscaled budget in the global team and from then on some things are done by the local team without constant consultation.
20:22:07 <gwolf> gaudenz: upscaled how?
20:22:35 <gwolf> to inflate every applicable area and be able to move bits of money between areas?
20:22:36 <gaudenz> gwolf: We already have more sponsor money than budgeted, so we somhow need to decide how to use that money.
20:22:45 <gwolf> of course
20:23:07 <gaudenz> So I think we should make a new budget and get that one approved and then work from there.
20:23:32 <rafw> I didn't work so far on Debian Day and the party. But I will work on it end of week. It could bee two separate things on two different days.
20:23:46 <gwolf> hummm... ok, so we have our current one as a "base budget", and this would be the "desired maximum megabudget"?
20:24:32 <gaudenz> No I think it should be more like a new reasonable budget.
20:24:48 <gwolf> gaudenz: well, I guess that if you can present that as a proposal with clear numbers, it will be much easier for us all to understand what it entails - and quite probably approve it
20:25:05 <gwolf> gaudenz: Of course, it will have to include the possibility of a 10- or 15- day conference...
20:25:18 <gwolf> So I don't know how many dimensions it will end up covering
20:25:19 <gaudenz> gwolf: you mean the new budget?
20:25:26 <gwolf> yes
20:25:35 <gaudenz> gwolf: OK, that is planned anyway.
20:25:39 <gwolf> perfect :)
20:25:48 <gaudenz> We are just waiting for hug to return
20:25:58 <gwolf> gaudenz: I'm REALLY impressed with the work of the sponsor acquisition team
20:26:05 <gwolf> so I expect many things to "free up"
20:26:13 <gaudenz> IMO we can move to the next topic
20:26:17 <gwolf> but yes, we have to wait for hug, and we have to wait to... be more people.
20:26:31 <gwolf> Next topic is the last (planned) topic:
20:26:34 <gwolf> #topic Next meeting schedule and dates
20:26:44 <gaudenz> And after the budget approval it's probably easier to decide about the responsibilities.
20:26:53 <gismo> gwolf: most of the sponsor credits goes to rafw
20:26:56 <gwolf> Friday 19UTC is completely impossible for me :(
20:27:13 <rafw> nope, to the team :)
20:27:13 <gaudenz> gwolf: but that was the result of the Doodle poll :-(
20:27:13 <gwolf> rafw: Prods, congrats and thanks :)
20:27:30 <gwolf> gaudenz: right... So, I suggest we keep moving dates as we have done so far :(
20:27:49 <gwolf> it's more work, but at least it makes it easier for people to miss not-too-many meetings
20:28:02 <gaudenz> which was highly disliked by many and suggested as the cause of low attendence.
20:28:35 <gwolf> right... well, I can also participate only via mailing list and reading minutes
20:28:51 <gwolf> as, at least until late May, I won't be able to attend to any other meeting
20:29:00 <gwolf> (but hey, it's just two months...)
20:29:12 <gwolf> (two meetings I'd miss - not too terrible :)
20:29:31 <gaudenz> If we also do a meeting on April 5th it's 4 meetings.
20:29:54 <gaudenz> But we can also just shift the proposed dates by one week (earlier)
20:30:42 <gwolf> wait - by lucky coincidence, May 10th is a non-working-day here :)
20:30:45 <gwolf> so I can attend
20:30:47 <gaudenz> BTW thinking of it April 5th I won't be able to attend either.
20:31:23 <gwolf> So - I won't make more noise. If people think it's better to have a fixed day, it won't be too harmful if I skip a couple of meetings
20:31:36 <gwolf> And it's me against Doodle :)
20:32:22 <gwolf> Anything to add to this topic?
20:32:30 <gaudenz> So do we agree on 2013-04-05,  2013-05-10,  2013-06-07 ??
20:32:38 <gaudenz> or also  2013-04-12 ?
20:32:57 * gwolf shuts up.
20:33:27 <rafw> I am free at these dates.
20:34:41 <gismo> FWIW I will not be there on 2013-04-05
20:34:56 <Ganneff> gwolf: i have *NO* idea why it started acting up. without *any* change, rails does no longer connect to the database.
20:35:30 <Ganneff> *everything* else on the machine, using the same credentials, works just fine.
20:35:36 <gaudenz> It seems that 3 of us can't attend on 2013-04-05. So do we do another Doodle or what?
20:35:45 <gwolf> that scares me, as I have some oldish rails things that might start acting up :-|
20:36:22 <gwolf> gaudenz: Ah! And there is *also* the possibility of meeting clash
20:36:23 <Ganneff> you see the connection to postgres in its log - but it never auths.
20:36:29 <cate> Ganneff: the port of postgresql? Postgresql has the "feature" to change ports, so some program use library go ok, some other no
20:36:35 <gwolf> as on 2013-04-05 we have a DC14 decision committee meeting
20:36:43 <gwolf> (17:00UTC - Earlier)
20:36:52 <Ganneff> cate: this is running for 6 years. and has seen NO change in the basic setup for 4
20:36:53 <gwolf> but it can lead to meeting burnout to people staying to both
20:37:22 <gaudenz> So how want's to do a doodle poll?
20:37:35 <cate> Ganneff: it is not about changing setup (but did you moved the machine?) Anyway if you see it in the log, it is not that problem
20:38:37 <gwolf> Ganneff: the Rails console *seems* to be starting up fine
20:38:53 <gwolf> (or seems to be waiting like forever?)
20:39:27 <gwolf> /var/lib/gems/1.8/gems/momomoto-0.1.17/lib/momomoto/database.rb:54:in `connect':Momomoto::CriticalError: Connection to database failed: server closed the connection unexpectedly            (← and after a VERY long delay)
20:39:58 <gaudenz> Can we please first end the meeting!!!!
20:40:29 <gaudenz> If we just end it without any idea on how to get a date for the next meeting this will turn into a desaster.
20:41:01 <gwolf> It seems sensible to me to have another doodle... Or to wait for April 12
20:41:05 <gaudenz> And I'm mostly no longer willing to take the blame for always deciding the wrong thing.
20:41:06 <Ganneff> gaudenz: more than it already is?
20:41:18 <Ganneff> gwolf: yeah. and it makes no sense. it connects to postgres, but then just never does the auth
20:41:21 <gwolf> i.e. the dates as specified in the agenda
20:41:22 <gaudenz> Ganneff: maybe not ;-)
20:41:39 <gwolf> although that means delaying 7 days both the decision on accomodation and the lovely time where Ganneff has to curse at penta
20:42:03 <gwolf> gaudenz: never mind, you will be blamed for pushing people to decide under pressure :)
20:42:08 <vorlon> gaudenz: in this case, perhaps publishing these dates as "decided" gives people a chance to argue with them on the list and come up with better dates if they don't work? :)
20:42:33 <gaudenz> OK so we go with the dates in the agenda.
20:43:04 <gaudenz> #info next team meetings      2013-04-12
20:43:05 <gaudenz> 2013-05-10
20:43:06 <gaudenz> 2013-06-07
20:43:25 <gaudenz> #info next team meetings 2013-04-12 2013-05-10 2013-06-07
20:43:34 <gaudenz> endmeeting?
20:43:55 <cate> 2013-04-12 is late IMHO
20:44:09 <rafw> i think so too
20:44:11 <gaudenz> cate: So please do a doodle poll for an earlier date.
20:44:12 <gwolf> it is late IMO as well.
20:44:37 <rafw> cate: Can you organise to doodle ?
20:44:40 * gaudenz agrees that it's late. But finding dates has been so unrewarding in the past that I'm not going to invest my time for this anymore.
20:44:55 <gwolf> #info cate will do a Doodle poll for the next meeting, PLEASE everybody answer to the Doodle poll
20:45:04 <gwolf> #endmeeting?
20:45:14 <rafw> yes :)
20:45:21 <gaudenz> yes !!!
20:45:47 <gaudenz> #endmeeting