17:04 <dholbach> #startmeeting CC Meeting
17:04 <meetingology> Meeting started Thu Dec  4 17:04:17 2014 UTC.  The chair is dholbach. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology.
17:04 <meetingology> 
17:04 <meetingology> Available commands: action commands idea info link nick
17:04 <dholbach> #chair mhall119 pleia2 YokoZar
17:04 <meetingology> Current chairs: YokoZar dholbach mhall119 pleia2
17:04 <dholbach> #chair czajkowski
17:04 <meetingology> Current chairs: YokoZar czajkowski dholbach mhall119 pleia2
17:04 <dholbach> let's get started then :)
17:05 <dholbach> On the agenda we have one item
17:05 <dholbach> #topic Open discussion on community governance, concerns and proposals
17:05 <dholbach> Who wants to start? :)
17:05 <YokoZar> Good to see everyone
17:05 <jono> what is the goal of this meeting?
17:06 <jono> I know I raised a set of ideas and questions, but is this meeting designed to move towards some policy changes/adjustments?
17:06 <jono> hey YokoZar :-)
17:06 <pleia2> I think we should put together an etherpad of ideas out there, and start putting together some action items
17:06 <mhall119> jono: I think we're still in the process of clearly identifying the problems to be solved
17:06 <pleia2> whether they be "don't do this" or "do this, our next step is..."
17:06 <jono> hey sabdfl
17:06 <sabdfl> hello hello
17:07 <mhall119> hi sabdfl
17:07 <jono> pleia2, I think that sounds good, but to mhall119's point, it might be an idea for us to define the problems first
17:07 <jono> and whether we as a group feel there is a problem in the first place
17:07 <pleia2> sure
17:07 <jono> or whether some English guy is rambling off the point :-)
17:07 <jono> in my mind there is nothing wrong with the current way in which Ubuntu is led and governed
17:08 <jono> the problem I feel is missed opportunity
17:08 <YokoZar> There was a general sense of inertia in our governance process, correct?
17:08 <jono> I believe there are hundreds of people out there ready to be inspired and motivated to feel a sense of ownership in Ubuntu
17:08 <jono> YokoZar, I feel that is part of the problem
17:08 <jono> but not at the fault of CC members
17:09 <jono> just because we have been doing broadly the same thing for years
17:09 <mhall119> first off, I'd like to throw some data into the mix of gut feelings
17:09 <jono> mhall119, cool
17:09 <mhall119> LoCo team activities, measured by loco.u.c, spiked in the spring of 2011, and have been slowly declining since then
17:10 <mhall119> Summit attendees, as measured by summit.u.c registrations, also spiked in the spring of 2011, and held steady until the last in-person UDS in fall 2012
17:10 <mhall119> Both Ubuntu Members and Ubuntu Developers have been slowly but steadily increasing in numbers since 2009 (that's as far back as I could get reliable data)
17:11 <jono> mhall119, do you have data on how active those members and developers are?
17:11 <mhall119> jono: no
17:11 <pleia2> participation in governance itself has gone down since then, we struggle to even find enough candidates for our boards and councils, let alone enough to select a few out of a list
17:11 <jono> mhall119, I figured that is tough to measure
17:11 <pleia2> we've had to do re-calls for both LoCo and IRC Councils this fall
17:11 <jono> so it sounds like we agree there is a general decline
17:11 <mhall119> jono: yeah, it might be possible digging through the archives and changelogs, but it would be a big task
17:12 <pleia2> (or at least, re-calls for nominees are in the wors)
17:12 <sabdfl> let's step back a little bit
17:12 <sabdfl> here's a general proposition
17:12 <jono> mhall119, dholbach wrote a script for me once that mapped our developer activity, might be useful
17:12 <jono> (still giving dholbach graphing work to do :-) )
17:12 <sabdfl> - something new that is timely and interesting will attract fresh participation
17:13 <sabdfl> - over time any given initiative grows process, procedure and personality, so gets harder for new people to feel they can quickly get to a leadership role
17:13 <sabdfl> i think those two things are basically true
17:13 <jono> agreed
17:13 <sabdfl> so, this would lead me to think it's normal that a (static) proposition will age and sag a little bit
17:14 <sabdfl> the basic proposition of "come collaborate around the ubuntu archive to deliver debian packages on a cadence" is essentially unchanged in 10 years
17:14 <jono> yep
17:15 <mhall119> yes
17:15 <sabdfl> given that, i'm not surprised to see that it's harder to attract fresh eyes to what is easily considered both a solved problem and one where there are already lots of rules / leads / decisions taken
17:15 <sabdfl> now
17:15 <sabdfl> there's nothing WRONG with collaborating around an archive
17:15 <sabdfl> and it does continue to be super useful for all sorts of people
17:15 <sabdfl> Xubuntu, MATE, lots of others in addition to the core "ubuntu desktop" and "ubuntu in the cloud" crowds
17:15 <jono> I think at the heart of this is Stephen Covey's sphere of influence and circle of concern - it feels to me that the community feels their sphere of influence has shrunk to the point where they don't feel empowered to participate
17:15 <jono> when in reality, the sphere of influence is still very wide
17:15 <sabdfl> weeeeeelll
17:16 <sabdfl> i think it has more to do with a feeling of congestion
17:16 <jono> and I think we can focus on how much the community can lead
17:16 <sabdfl> "welcome! just don't play on the grass!"
17:16 <sabdfl> thing is we've already figured out where we want the paths and where we want the lawns
17:16 <jono> right
17:16 <sabdfl> and fresh young types feel that's a mountain to climb efore they get to Do Cool Stuff
17:16 <mhall119> there is a definitely feeling of unwelcomeness to contribute to some projects that Canonical leads
17:17 <sabdfl> mhall119, is there any suggestion that contribution is unwelcome?
17:17 <jono> I don't think participation is unwelcome, but it is impractical
17:17 <mhall119> sabdfl: no, but a very strict set of what is acceptable and what isn't
17:17 <sabdfl> examples?
17:17 <YokoZar> And I think there's an interesting question here about whether or not the project governance is a reasonable place to expect this leadership.
17:17 <YokoZar> Quite a few of us see our role as more getting out of the way and acting discretely (or at least quickly when we're gatekeepers)
17:17 <mhall119> it means you can't just contribute $COOL_NEW_FEATURE if it's not already been approved
17:17 <jono> most Open Source contributors want to feel an opportunity to influence direction and strategy, and with some Canonical projects that is unlikely
17:18 <jono> which, I think is the right decision for Ubuntu
17:18 <sabdfl> YokoZar, agreed, there's a difference between governance and leadership, and a healthy project needs the right kind and balance of both
17:18 <mhall119> sabdfl: Unity is the primary example in the past, but anything heavily design-driven seems less likely to gain community contributors
17:18 <sabdfl> it's unfortunate if people think the set of canonical projects == set of ubuntu projects
17:18 <sabdfl> because that would narrow the arena a lot
17:18 <mhall119> now, we found a way to improve that with Core Apps, which are both very design-drive and fully developed by community
17:19 <jono> sabdfl, maybe some clarity in which are which could help
17:19 <sabdfl> mhall119, i think that's an example of a place where the territory was fresh, there might be a strong design lead but there weren't lots of people saying "we've been doing it this way for 10 years"
17:19 <sabdfl> in other words, i think it's a good test of the idea that canonical's lead is not a blocker to participation
17:19 <OerHeks> Hi, just joined ahead of membership board meeting for 22:00 UTC, and see an interesting discussion going on
17:19 <sabdfl> it's more about creating fresh space where ideas can bubble up fast without having to go through a lot of "but we've already thought about that"
17:20 <mhall119> sabdfl: yes, I think we have a lot of fresh territority that we can take better advantage of inthe same way
17:20 <sabdfl> some of that territory is stuff that i think canonical will want to lead
17:20 <YokoZar> sabdfl: Regarding "contribution is unwelcome" -- there is the contributor's agreement, which has absolutely been a barrier (and blocker) for some.  Albeit only Canonical projects.
17:20 <sabdfl> but there is a LOT of stuff happening in open source that it's better to have others lead
17:20 <sabdfl> YokoZar, so saith the competition ;)
17:21 <jono> it feels to me that "I can't contribute because Canonical is in charge" is too often an excuse
17:21 <jono> and I feel that is the malaise we need to break
17:21 <sabdfl> it's a nice excuse! blame the corporation
17:21 <dholbach> I can see how some projects are harder and less attractive to get involved - if we just look at the phone right now - although the code is open, it's changing quite fast in a lot of places, with engineering teams and teams at the customers working very tightly together - some of the discussions happen in meetings somewhere, where it's harder to stay on top of what's happening
17:21 <jono> sabdfl, exactly
17:21 <jono> and, this may seem harsh, I feel it is an epidemic in our community
17:21 <sabdfl> dholbach, it's still by far the easiest way to actually participate in a real phone project
17:22 <YokoZar> More broadly though I would raise the question of whether distributions themselves are as interesting as they used to be.  We might just be part of a general trend of development moving towards other things
17:22 <jono> yes, Canonical does have leadership on some projects, but it is a small proportion of the wider Ubuntu commons
17:22 <sabdfl> jono, yes, i think it "became acceptable" and then "became normal" to blame canonical
17:22 <jono> agreed
17:22 <dholbach> sabdfl, absolutely - and I wasn't blaming anyone
17:22 <mhall119> there is some legitimacy though, if we only accept contributions if they're on the approved roadmap, and the community doesn't know what that roadmap is and wasn't involve in creating it, they don't know what they *can* contribute
17:22 <sabdfl> mhall119 's essay on the competitive sledging approach for poisoning projects is spot on
17:22 <jono> the difficult piece here is that I think we need our governance to help change this culture
17:22 <jono> Canonical members can't do this or it is seen as bias
17:22 <sabdfl> well, that's again the issue with governance and leadership
17:23 <sabdfl> to me, governance is about maintaining fairness
17:23 <jono> ahhh good point, I guess I am conflating governance and leadership
17:23 <mhall119> yes
17:23 <czajkowski> yes
17:23 <jono> but I think I am doing that because I feel our governance should have that leadership position
17:23 <sabdfl> so, let's talk about leadership
17:23 <YokoZar> yes
17:23 <czajkowski> and while similar not everyone neds to be in governance but anyone can get more involved  and lead :)
17:23 <popey> One thing Core Apps has done is make it more personal. It's not "Canonical" that impose restrictions on what you can do with Content-hub, it's "Ken", it's "Jamie" that you go for security.
17:23 <jono> sure
17:23 <sabdfl> two scenarios
17:24 <mhall119> jono: governments rarely lead
17:24 <popey> I realise this doesn't fully scale, but it makes a difference when you have people talking to people, and it isn't just seen as contributors blocked by The Man.
17:24 <sabdfl> 1. bright young person with brilliant idea steps up to convince folks to try something new
17:24 <sabdfl> 2. toxic person with agenda steps up to convince folks to take a particular approach
17:24 <sabdfl> both are, in effect, leadership
17:24 <sabdfl> and the interesting problem i think we have to consider is:
17:24 <sabdfl> * how do we welcome leadership of what is a very valuable community
17:25 <sabdfl> * while at the same time being willing to call BS on the toxic type, which WILL show up because it's a lot more fun to steer a lot of people to your agenda than start from scratch
17:25 <jono> I think the first step is clearly defining the parameters of where people can lead and influence
17:25 <sabdfl> i think it's a very interesting question indeed, and thanks jono for making us think about it
17:26 <jono> I think the malaise from the trolls has created an atmosphere of a restrictive environment, which is not true
17:26 <jono> which is why I suggested an impact constitution
17:26 <jono> thanks sabdfl, I care about our future
17:27 <jono> I think maybe the CC could help paint a clear picture of the many ways in which participation can happen
17:27 <mhall119> for the first one, I think we need a way to award (socially) the current leaders, and more importantly find replacements for them. Too often once we find a leader we run keep them in place until they burnout
17:27 <jono> mhall119, well, and some leaders are not really "leaders"
17:27 <jono> they are just "most interested in becoming leaders"
17:27 <highvoltage> that's a very important nail you're hitting right on the head there mhall119
17:27 <jono> but this is an age old problem all communities have
17:28 <sabdfl> succession is also interesting
17:28 <sabdfl> but let's focus on how we can ensure that ubuntu is a place where people can *start* things
17:28 <mhall119> so, since highvoltage is here I'll take him as an example, he and stgraber have been the only reason Edubuntu is still a think since *I* started getting involved in Ubuntu, there's nobody to take over for them if they have to step down
17:28 <jono> agreed
17:29 <jono> do we feel that painting a picture of the many places people can participate is a good step
17:29 <pleia2> jono: +1
17:29 <sabdfl> my view is things have their time, if there's no drive to continue them, it's best to accept that their time has passed
17:29 <highvoltage> No.
17:29 <jono> ...ok
17:29 <jono> highvoltage, no to what?
17:30 <pleia2> jono: a few weeks ago I believed we did this (with community.ubuntu.com), but discussions since on the mailing list made me realize that apparently it's not good enough
17:30 <jono> pleia2, I wonder whether that is because we need to condense the information into a short list
17:31 <highvoltage> jono: it doesn't necessarilly imply that their time has passed. some projects within ubuntu just get very little exposure to newcommers. if you visit a canonical page on community and how to get involved, it's *full* of whatever's important to canonical right now (typically phone / cloud stuff)
17:31 <jono> this is why I thought of the impact constitution, essentially 10 or 20 places where people can contribute - this could be easily shared on social media, in posters, and elsewhere
17:31 <highvoltage> jono: things outside of that scope tend to look boring by comparison, but it doesn't mean that they're not important.
17:31 <jono> as opposed to the larger website - c.u.c could just present more detail
17:31 <pleia2> jono: unfortunately I see it both ways, people wanting a "short list" and people saying there's not enough information, I don't know which way to go, or what will help (which is why it was nice to see some newcomers on the thread who could perhaps guide us to what would be useful)
17:32 <jono> highvoltage, I disagree
17:32 <sabdfl> highvoltage, it's a good idea to list more things there
17:32 <sabdfl> but
17:32 <jono> highvoltage, I think Canonical are just better at encouraging participation
17:32 <sabdfl> being on a list of things does not make one interesting
17:32 <sabdfl> say you are inspired by telephone
17:32 <jono> highvoltage, some things do just become stale and less interesting to people
17:32 <sabdfl> being active in places (forums, lists, discourse, etc) focused on THAT is a good way to attract people
17:33 <jono> and some things reduce in participation because there is no inspiration
17:33 <highvoltage> jono: indeed, ideally who care about the cause should ideally have more time to lobby (or do whatever) to get it listed there and get more exposure.
17:33 <dholbach> pleia2, yes, I think that's one of the things could try to improve - make it livelier, more inviting, better explain how you can have a chat with team members before starting a duplicated effort, but not to wait for somebody's approval to start doing something new, etc - making it more inviting, maybe have a couple of videos there would also help to convey how we work together (set the tone so to speak)
17:33 <jono> highvoltage, well, I think inspiration is the key - the greatest communities have people who help to translate the micro contribution to the macro impact
17:33 <sabdfl> highvoltage, i'd say the best way to get people into edubuntu is to be active in places where people who care about education hang out
17:33 <jono> boy, that sounded buzzword
17:33 <jono> sorry about that :-)
17:33 <sabdfl> but true , jono :)
17:33 <pleia2> hehe
17:34 <jono> :-)
17:34 <highvoltage> jono: no problem, I agree with both you and sabdfl on that
17:34 <pleia2> dholbach: yeah
17:34 <mhall119> so if somebody new comes along and says "How can I contribute?", those of us already contributing should be able to give an answer
17:34 <jono> so it sounds like we are identifying (1) clarity of places to contribute and (2) visibility of these places as key goals
17:34 <sabdfl> i think jono was driving at a deeper point, which is that free software continues to be a focus of innovation, but ubuntu hasn't been at the centre of those efforts
17:35 <mhall119> I like the idea of listing areas where people can contribute, but that should be a resource for us, not necessarily for new people
17:35 <sabdfl> there are some interesting examples, jono, that perhaps shed light on this
17:35 <sabdfl> one is docker
17:35 <jono> right
17:35 <mhall119> "go read this list" isn't a way to contribute, it's the community version of RTFM
17:35 <sabdfl> it's not an ubuntu project, but boy, is ubuntu the standard over there!
17:35 <sabdfl> for now at least :)
17:35 <sabdfl> it's an interesting question whether perhaps we failed to make room for someone to lead various parts of that IN ubuntu
17:36 <YokoZar> Docker is an interesting example actually
17:36 <sabdfl> but i think part of their story is in fact being cross-platform, and being IN ubuntu might have made that harder not easier
17:36 <YokoZar> Because maybe contributing docker containers is more interesting to people who 5 years ago might have been contributing to Ubuntu directly
17:36 <sabdfl> right
17:36 <jono> agreed
17:36 <sabdfl> though it's a little like contributing AMIs.... thanks for the giant unauditable blob!
17:36 <jono> well, there is innovation for Ubuntu and innovation that is on Ubuntu
17:36 <sabdfl> packaging is hard, but the hard work means:
17:36 <sabdfl> * people know it's built from source
17:37 <sabdfl> * it's easy to integrate with the rest of the system
17:37 <sabdfl> making a docker image is easy, and does neither of the above
17:37 <sabdfl> but being easy, it's taken off like crazy
17:37 <mhall119> sabdfl: perhaps Ubuntu itself is being shifted from being the ends to being the means to an end
17:37 <sabdfl> and ubuntu is at the middle of that though not lead from ubuntu
17:37 <sabdfl> yeah
17:37 <sabdfl> here's an even more interesting example
17:37 <sabdfl> anybody heard of ROS?
17:38 <mhall119> which one is that?
17:38 <dholbach> although the flow of the meeting feels a bit disrupted, I really like how everyone is bringing in ideas and problems related to the fields they're involved in - this is really great to see. maybe we could (after the meeting) try to use an etherpad to note down what we feel are common issues, or things we'd like to fix - no matter if it's a general fix or something in your area of involvement?
17:38 <sabdfl> :)
17:38 <YokoZar> Robot operating system
17:38 <YokoZar> Based on Ubuntu
17:38 <jono> the robot thing?
17:38 <sabdfl> yeah
17:38 <jono> I love that
17:38 <sabdfl> Open Source Robotics Foundation
17:38 <mhall119> is that why all the robotics videos show Ubuntu on screen?
17:38 <sabdfl> pretty much, i think, mhall119
17:38 <sabdfl> so, it's really interesting
17:38 <sabdfl> non-profit group that's basically making it easy for robotics researchers and developers to share stuff
17:38 <sabdfl> it's moving too fast for traditional packaging
17:39 <sabdfl> it's like github-for-robot-people
17:39 <sabdfl> but
17:39 <sabdfl> it's all based on ubuntu
17:39 <jono> this is precisely where I feel Ubuntu has the opportunity - becoming the go-to platform for people to build interesting technology
17:39 <sabdfl> it's like "install ubuntu then type this command to bring in the shared source before you work on your app"
17:39 <jono> right
17:39 <sabdfl> the reason i think this example is interesting is because i think it's a counter to the "sky is falling in" view
17:39 <mhall119> jono: which gets back to Ubuntu being the means, not the end. People don't contribute to a hammer, but they can contribute with one
17:40 <jono> mhall119, well, yes and no
17:40 <sabdfl> it's just that these projects are not at ubuntu.com/foo
17:40 <YokoZar> mhall119: a good problem to have in some sense.  There was a time when we couldn't hammer ;)
17:40 <jono> mhall119, a community could help Ubuntu to be the best platform for robotics
17:40 <sabdfl> how many developers have contributed click packages? 200?
17:40 <mhall119> YokoZar: I agree, I don't think it's a bad thing, it just means we need to change our focus
17:40 <jono> to create a sub-community that maintains packages, create docs, organizing online events and more
17:40 <mhall119> sabdfl: a little over, yes
17:41 <sabdfl> how many linux distributions have 200 active contributors?
17:41 <mhall119> interestingly we have almost as many click package developers as we have Ubuntu Developers
17:41 <sabdfl> indeed
17:41 <sabdfl> fresh territory, fresh space
17:41 <jono> mhall119, that is near
17:41 <jono> neat
17:41 <jono> so the technology is pretty much there
17:41 <sabdfl> also, fewer rules, fewer metadatas, fewer interlocks
17:42 <jono> we just need to reboot the fact that Ubuntu really is a commons
17:42 <sabdfl> in tech, almost everything else has gotten easier
17:42 <jono> and not the Canonical prison some people make it out to be
17:42 <sabdfl> it's easier to get a server today than 2004 (thanks cloud!)
17:42 <sabdfl> it's easier to sell an app than in 2004 (thanks app store!)
17:43 <sabdfl> it's easier to publish server side software (thanks paas!)
17:43 <sabdfl> but
17:43 <sabdfl> it's still damn hard to create a good debian package
17:43 <YokoZar> there's a reason so much engineering has been about avoiding packaging systems
17:43 <sabdfl> and while we measure participation much more broadly
17:43 <highvoltage> but it's drastically easier! (thanks dh 7?) (sorry couldn't resist)
17:43 <YokoZar> (even our own -- click packages are only barely debs)
17:43 <elfy> evening all - got in late - just caught up
17:43 <elfy> have a comment to make :)
17:44 <mhall119> welcome elfy
17:44 <sabdfl> the engine of that participation (advocacy, loco, docs, translation, etc etc) is always "here's a useful thing" made up of packages
17:44 <sabdfl> dive in elfy
17:44 <jono> hi elfy
17:44 <elfy> I've just read 45 minutes of people talking about how to contribute by coding - apart from one sentence from sabdfl
17:44 <sabdfl> phew
17:44 <jono> elfy, I don't think we all meant coding
17:44 <elfy> now I know that the majority of you do that - so that's going to be where you'll be looking
17:45 <elfy> jono: that's how it reads :)
17:45 <jono> I certainly didn't mean coding :-)
17:45 * mhall119 has some anecdotes to bring up about designers
17:45 <jono> I meant BBQ
17:45 <jono> :-)
17:45 <elfy> lol
17:45 <elfy> don't I've not eaten since yesterday ;)
17:45 <elfy> mhall119: even design - similar to coding
17:46 <mhall119> not if you ask a designer (or coder) ;)
17:46 <elfy> so - from where I'm sitting - this discussion on how to contribute would already have turned me off
17:46 <elfy> while we ALL know that the support side is there for whoever - and wherever people can do so
17:46 <jono> elfy, I think we would all agree that participation is multi-disciplined
17:47 <elfy> and THAT is a low bar to *acceptable* contributions to *buntu - it gets forgotten every time :)
17:47 <jono> but the conclusions we are coming to here are (1) we have the technology (2) Ubuntu is just the end but the means too (3) we are seeing a general decline and (4) we should focus our efforts on helping people to see the wider Ubuntu commons and how they can participate
17:48 <elfy> so I'm mostly talking about getting into (4) then
17:48 <jono> I really do feel a key thing here is getting rid of the toxicity of "Canonical runs the show"
17:48 <jono> elfy, same here :-)
17:48 <mhall119> jono: I don't agree with (3), I don't think we have enough data to say there has been a "general" decline
17:48 <elfy> jono: agree with that :)
17:49 <jono> mhall119, observational data suggests we have lower participation
17:49 <elfy> mhall119: I see a general decline in the main areas I contribute
17:49 <highvoltage> jono: maybe I'm wrong for feeling that toxicity but often, and repeatedly, that has been my honest experience in ubuntu
17:49 <jono> highvoltage, well, I think we should be frank in where Canonical control does and doesn't exist
17:49 <jono> in my view, Canonical is leading the way in Mir, Unity, Juju as three key projects
17:50 <jono> but the archive is open
17:50 <jono> the app store is open
17:50 <jono> and *anyone* can help build new technology and do cool things
17:50 <jono> so while I agree that if you want to hack on Unity 8 you are going to really need to fit within an already defined roadmap, that is a tiny % of the overall Ubuntu commons
17:50 <Riddell> Canonical claims to control distribution of binary packages which is incorrect and very poisonous
17:51 <jono> Riddell, not true
17:51 <highvoltage> jono: I literally cried when there was an Ubuntu One session in 2009 and the session started by "We're going to get Ubuntu One into the installer and it's already been decided internally and there will be no further discussion on this." - so if that type of thing continues you have to acknowledge that Canonical calls the shots on some things and be open to that. I think it's unfair to call peop
17:51 <Riddell> yes it is
17:51 <highvoltage> le toxic who calls that out.
17:51 <pleia2> elfy: fwiw, I'm also interested in building up interest in our existing "non-exciting" and non-coding communities within ubuntu
17:51 <jono> Riddell, no, that discussion was about fairness
17:51 <mhall119> Riddell: it's a complicated topic that isn't the focus of discussion right now, can it wait until after we get through this?
17:51 <jono> fairness of how infrastructure and resources are utilized
17:51 <sabdfl> highvoltage, yes, we do call the shots on some things, and occasionally we get it wrong
17:51 <elfy> pleia2: ;)
17:52 <pleia2> even with cool robot projects, we need people to do manual QA on a variety of hardware... actually, this is PARTICULARLY needed with cool robot projects!
17:52 <sabdfl> this discussion is about how we make space for more leadership in new areas, not how we punish leadership
17:52 <jono> highvoltage, right, but that was a *long* time ago at the beginning of figuring out the company/community relationship
17:52 <jono> let it go, dude :-)
17:52 <Riddell> mhall119: it's hightly relevant if you're talking about why people might get off contributing to ubuntu
17:52 <sabdfl> if you want more leadership, you have to accept that people will make decisions and occasionally they will get them wrong
17:52 <jono> agreed
17:52 <jono> the Ubuntu history is not perfect
17:53 <YokoZar> highvoltage: Yeah, we've been atoning for that sin ever since as a project.  It's bad community and bad software development process.  And I believe we're unlikely to repeat it.
17:53 <jono> but we are human beings
17:53 <dholbach> pleia2, elfy: agreed :)
17:53 <mhall119> Riddell: we aren't talking currently about why people are getting off of contributing
17:53 <jono> and we need to stop harking on the past and focus on the future
17:53 <highvoltage> oh there are plenty of more recent examples of that. I chose that because it was the first time it stung so hard
17:53 <sabdfl> highvoltage, whoa, stop, i don't think your conclusions from that exercise are correct at all
17:53 <sabdfl> it looks increasingly likely that the future of EVERY major platform involves an on and offline identity
17:53 <sabdfl> every major platform
17:54 <sabdfl> people want to contribute to things that will be successful
17:54 <mhall119> so, using the Robot OS as an example, why can't they make that contribution within the Ubuntu project? (not necessarily within the archive, just within the community project)
17:54 <sabdfl> and you're upset that someone one once suggested that ubuntu should be in the lead, rather than meekly waiting for every other platform to validate an idea?
17:54 <sabdfl> nut
17:54 <sabdfl> s
17:55 <jono> I agree with sabdfl
17:55 <sabdfl> leadership is hard precisely because it involves going into territory that undefined or awkward
17:55 <jono> and in any case it was *five years ago*
17:55 <sabdfl> we cannot sit here and want to attract leaders while at the same time harping on cases where leadership itself was unpopular
17:55 <sabdfl> in that case, the goal was not even wrong
17:55 <jono> we have all learning and grown in give years
17:55 <jono> five
17:55 <highvoltage> telling the comm
17:55 <highvoltage> (sorry)
17:56 <sabdfl> if you want ubuntu to be limited to things you like, you're not going to be happy
17:56 <sabdfl> same goes for me, frankly
17:56 <highvoltage> The mistake there didn't have anything to do with Ubuntu One itself, imho the mistake was to say that a controversial decision in Ubuntu has been made internally, at Canonical, and that no firther discussion on it will be allowed.
17:56 <mhall119> it's fair to ask that everbody be allowed to participate in the discussion that leads to those choices though
17:57 <jono> highvoltage, that just isn't true
17:57 <sabdfl> mhall119, well, i suspect part of the ROS question is that they wanted to set up an institution, and instititions needs to lead things
17:57 <jono> there *was* discussion, there was discourse
17:57 <jono> but ultimately Canonical did make a decision
17:57 <sabdfl> i'm not upset that it's not under the auspices of the CC
17:57 <jono> and that is going to happen from time to time
17:57 <jono> this is how the relationship between companies and communities sometimes work
17:57 <mhall119> sabdfl: that doesn't necessarily exclude them from working within the project
17:57 <cp1> And speaking of hard, I think Ubuntu needs to do more about contributing to Debian.  Debian has some problems now and if Ubuntu had more leadership in the area of contributing back to Debian it could be win win for both!
17:57 <jono> but you are talking about a tiny fragment of Ubuntu
17:58 <highvoltage> jono: hey, I was there, and that was exactly what was said in the beginning of a UDS session, but hey, I don't want to harp on that specific issue either, it was just an example of how you can't say that it's toxic of people to say that canonical sometimes calls the shots
17:58 <sabdfl> highvoltage, if the people who are going to do the work have made a decision, that's binding, even if none of them work for canonical
17:58 <dholbach> I'm not sure we're going to get a lot more out of this meeting at this point. Can we set up an Etherpad in which we feed concrete ideas, plans and work items?
17:58 <sabdfl> highvoltage, this would be the very definition of harping
17:58 <highvoltage> jono: because the fact is that canonical does often call the shots within ubuntu, and as you said earlier, it's good to have that defined
17:58 <jono> highvoltage, this is an example of the problem
17:58 <sabdfl> leadership is precisely about making decisions
17:58 * YokoZar has to go now -- thanks very much to everyone who showed up, and would like to discuss it further.
17:58 <pleia2> dholbach: yeah
17:59 <jono> we are trying to find new ways to inspire and motivate our community and you are derailing it with a conversation five years ago when we were all younger and stupider than we are now
17:59 <sabdfl> the reason people create splits and forks and sub-projects is *so they can make decisions*
17:59 <jono> we all made mistakes back then
17:59 <jono> the intentions were good, but the execution was not perfect
17:59 <mhall119> dholbach: http://pad.ubuntu.com/LeadershipAndGovernanceDiscussion
17:59 <sabdfl> and if they can't do that inside a project (because it will be unpopular and their day will be full of shit) then they go do it somewhere else
17:59 <jono> but lets focus on the future instead of getting dragged back by the past
17:59 <pleia2> thanks mhall119
17:59 <dholbach> thanks a lot mhall119
18:00 <sabdfl> well, jono, i agree that occasionally a decision being taken is perceived as abrasive
18:00 <jono> lets crisply define where Canonical does lead, and then promote the vast array of places where the community can lead
18:00 <dholbach> I would suggest we all do a bit of homework and add our thoughts and things we'd be interested and willing to work on into http://pad.ubuntu.com/LeadershipAndGovernanceDiscussion
18:00 <sabdfl> but if you tolerate intolerance of decisions, you end up a mess
18:00 <sabdfl> i don't think we should accept a browbeating over decisiveness, for ANY leader in Ubuntu, canonical or otherwise
18:01 <jono> agreed
18:01 <sabdfl> or we'll not solve the core question at hand, which is how we encourage folks to do there leading HERE
18:01 <sabdfl> their, even
18:01 <jono> focus on previous discussions is good if we fail forward
18:01 <jono> but the blame game doesn't help anyone
18:01 <jono> I personally thought the focus on KDE4 wasn't wise, but I am not going to berate KDE leadership for it :-)
18:01 <sabdfl> if it's OK to piss on my leadership, or yours, or canonical's, then frankly nobody is going to want to be a leader in the project for something new
18:02 <jono> instead it is better for us to work together to pull away conclusions for how we can do better
18:02 <elfy> sabdfl: absolutely
18:03 <Riddell> jono: what focus on KDE4?
18:03 <jono> Riddell, we can discuss this later, it is off topic
18:03 <dholbach> I'll drop an email to ubuntu-community-team@ with the logs to the meeting and the etherpad.
18:04 <elfy> dholbach: thanks
18:04 <dholbach> It'd be good if we could revisit the notes afterwards again and see who wants to team up on tackling some of the things mentioned.
18:04 <mhall119> thanks dholbach
18:05 <pleia2> thanks dholbach
18:06 <jono> thanks everyone, I better run
18:06 <dholbach> All right... is there any other business anyone wanted to bring up?
18:06 <dholbach> #topic Any other business?
18:06 <highvoltage> wasn't the EC catchup scheduled for tonight?
18:07 <Riddell> dholbach: an update on the status of the claims over binary files would be appreciated
18:07 <mhall119> everybody please feel free to contibute to the Etherpad or further discussion on the mailing list
18:07 <mhall119> Riddell: we are still inquiring after that
18:07 * balloons just walks in
18:08 <dholbach> balloons, too late :)
18:08 <balloons> dholbach, I noticed.. what a discussion!
18:08 <elfy> highvoltage: it was - I mailed both Edubuntu and Lubuntu postponing on the 20th November
18:08 <balloons> I'll take to the pad
18:08 <highvoltage> elfy: ah sorry, I missed that. all good then.
18:08 <dholbach> thanks a lot everyone
18:08 <dholbach> mail sent: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-community-team/2014-December/000213.html
18:09 <dholbach> #endmeeting