17:04 #startmeeting CC Meeting 17:04 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 17:04 Available commands: action commands idea info link nick 17:04 #chair mhall119 pleia2 YokoZar 17:04 Current chairs: YokoZar dholbach mhall119 pleia2 17:04 #chair czajkowski 17:04 Current chairs: YokoZar czajkowski dholbach mhall119 pleia2 17:04 let's get started then :) 17:05 On the agenda we have one item 17:05 #topic Open discussion on community governance, concerns and proposals 17:05 Who wants to start? :) 17:05 Good to see everyone 17:05 what is the goal of this meeting? 17:06 I know I raised a set of ideas and questions, but is this meeting designed to move towards some policy changes/adjustments? 17:06 hey YokoZar :-) 17:06 I think we should put together an etherpad of ideas out there, and start putting together some action items 17:06 jono: I think we're still in the process of clearly identifying the problems to be solved 17:06 whether they be "don't do this" or "do this, our next step is..." 17:06 hey sabdfl 17:06 hello hello 17:07 hi sabdfl 17:07 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 and whether we as a group feel there is a problem in the first place 17:07 sure 17:07 or whether some English guy is rambling off the point :-) 17:07 in my mind there is nothing wrong with the current way in which Ubuntu is led and governed 17:08 the problem I feel is missed opportunity 17:08 There was a general sense of inertia in our governance process, correct? 17:08 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 YokoZar, I feel that is part of the problem 17:08 but not at the fault of CC members 17:09 just because we have been doing broadly the same thing for years 17:09 first off, I'd like to throw some data into the mix of gut feelings 17:09 mhall119, cool 17:09 LoCo team activities, measured by loco.u.c, spiked in the spring of 2011, and have been slowly declining since then 17:10 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 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 mhall119, do you have data on how active those members and developers are? 17:11 jono: no 17:11 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 mhall119, I figured that is tough to measure 17:11 we've had to do re-calls for both LoCo and IRC Councils this fall 17:11 so it sounds like we agree there is a general decline 17:11 jono: yeah, it might be possible digging through the archives and changelogs, but it would be a big task 17:12 (or at least, re-calls for nominees are in the wors) 17:12 let's step back a little bit 17:12 here's a general proposition 17:12 mhall119, dholbach wrote a script for me once that mapped our developer activity, might be useful 17:12 (still giving dholbach graphing work to do :-) ) 17:12 - something new that is timely and interesting will attract fresh participation 17:13 - 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 i think those two things are basically true 17:13 agreed 17:13 so, this would lead me to think it's normal that a (static) proposition will age and sag a little bit 17:14 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 yep 17:15 yes 17:15 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 now 17:15 there's nothing WRONG with collaborating around an archive 17:15 and it does continue to be super useful for all sorts of people 17:15 Xubuntu, MATE, lots of others in addition to the core "ubuntu desktop" and "ubuntu in the cloud" crowds 17:15 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 when in reality, the sphere of influence is still very wide 17:15 weeeeeelll 17:16 i think it has more to do with a feeling of congestion 17:16 and I think we can focus on how much the community can lead 17:16 "welcome! just don't play on the grass!" 17:16 thing is we've already figured out where we want the paths and where we want the lawns 17:16 right 17:16 and fresh young types feel that's a mountain to climb efore they get to Do Cool Stuff 17:16 there is a definitely feeling of unwelcomeness to contribute to some projects that Canonical leads 17:17 mhall119, is there any suggestion that contribution is unwelcome? 17:17 I don't think participation is unwelcome, but it is impractical 17:17 sabdfl: no, but a very strict set of what is acceptable and what isn't 17:17 examples? 17:17 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 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 it means you can't just contribute $COOL_NEW_FEATURE if it's not already been approved 17:17 most Open Source contributors want to feel an opportunity to influence direction and strategy, and with some Canonical projects that is unlikely 17:18 which, I think is the right decision for Ubuntu 17:18 YokoZar, agreed, there's a difference between governance and leadership, and a healthy project needs the right kind and balance of both 17:18 sabdfl: Unity is the primary example in the past, but anything heavily design-driven seems less likely to gain community contributors 17:18 it's unfortunate if people think the set of canonical projects == set of ubuntu projects 17:18 because that would narrow the arena a lot 17:18 now, we found a way to improve that with Core Apps, which are both very design-drive and fully developed by community 17:19 sabdfl, maybe some clarity in which are which could help 17:19 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 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 Hi, just joined ahead of membership board meeting for 22:00 UTC, and see an interesting discussion going on 17:19 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 sabdfl: yes, I think we have a lot of fresh territority that we can take better advantage of inthe same way 17:20 some of that territory is stuff that i think canonical will want to lead 17:20 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 but there is a LOT of stuff happening in open source that it's better to have others lead 17:20 YokoZar, so saith the competition ;) 17:21 it feels to me that "I can't contribute because Canonical is in charge" is too often an excuse 17:21 and I feel that is the malaise we need to break 17:21 it's a nice excuse! blame the corporation 17:21 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 sabdfl, exactly 17:21 and, this may seem harsh, I feel it is an epidemic in our community 17:21 dholbach, it's still by far the easiest way to actually participate in a real phone project 17:22 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 yes, Canonical does have leadership on some projects, but it is a small proportion of the wider Ubuntu commons 17:22 jono, yes, i think it "became acceptable" and then "became normal" to blame canonical 17:22 agreed 17:22 sabdfl, absolutely - and I wasn't blaming anyone 17:22 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 mhall119 's essay on the competitive sledging approach for poisoning projects is spot on 17:22 the difficult piece here is that I think we need our governance to help change this culture 17:22 Canonical members can't do this or it is seen as bias 17:22 well, that's again the issue with governance and leadership 17:23 to me, governance is about maintaining fairness 17:23 ahhh good point, I guess I am conflating governance and leadership 17:23 yes 17:23 yes 17:23 but I think I am doing that because I feel our governance should have that leadership position 17:23 so, let's talk about leadership 17:23 yes 17:23 and while similar not everyone neds to be in governance but anyone can get more involved and lead :) 17:23 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 sure 17:23 two scenarios 17:24 jono: governments rarely lead 17:24 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 1. bright young person with brilliant idea steps up to convince folks to try something new 17:24 2. toxic person with agenda steps up to convince folks to take a particular approach 17:24 both are, in effect, leadership 17:24 and the interesting problem i think we have to consider is: 17:24 * how do we welcome leadership of what is a very valuable community 17:25 * 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 I think the first step is clearly defining the parameters of where people can lead and influence 17:25 i think it's a very interesting question indeed, and thanks jono for making us think about it 17:26 I think the malaise from the trolls has created an atmosphere of a restrictive environment, which is not true 17:26 which is why I suggested an impact constitution 17:26 thanks sabdfl, I care about our future 17:27 I think maybe the CC could help paint a clear picture of the many ways in which participation can happen 17:27 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 mhall119, well, and some leaders are not really "leaders" 17:27 they are just "most interested in becoming leaders" 17:27 that's a very important nail you're hitting right on the head there mhall119 17:27 but this is an age old problem all communities have 17:28 succession is also interesting 17:28 but let's focus on how we can ensure that ubuntu is a place where people can *start* things 17:28 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 agreed 17:29 do we feel that painting a picture of the many places people can participate is a good step 17:29 jono: +1 17:29 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 No. 17:29 ...ok 17:29 highvoltage, no to what? 17:30 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 pleia2, I wonder whether that is because we need to condense the information into a short list 17:31 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 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 jono: things outside of that scope tend to look boring by comparison, but it doesn't mean that they're not important. 17:31 as opposed to the larger website - c.u.c could just present more detail 17:31 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 highvoltage, I disagree 17:32 highvoltage, it's a good idea to list more things there 17:32 but 17:32 highvoltage, I think Canonical are just better at encouraging participation 17:32 being on a list of things does not make one interesting 17:32 say you are inspired by telephone 17:32 highvoltage, some things do just become stale and less interesting to people 17:32 being active in places (forums, lists, discourse, etc) focused on THAT is a good way to attract people 17:33 and some things reduce in participation because there is no inspiration 17:33 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 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 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 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 boy, that sounded buzzword 17:33 sorry about that :-) 17:33 but true , jono :) 17:33 hehe 17:34 :-) 17:34 jono: no problem, I agree with both you and sabdfl on that 17:34 dholbach: yeah 17:34 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 so it sounds like we are identifying (1) clarity of places to contribute and (2) visibility of these places as key goals 17:34 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 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 there are some interesting examples, jono, that perhaps shed light on this 17:35 one is docker 17:35 right 17:35 "go read this list" isn't a way to contribute, it's the community version of RTFM 17:35 it's not an ubuntu project, but boy, is ubuntu the standard over there! 17:35 for now at least :) 17:35 it's an interesting question whether perhaps we failed to make room for someone to lead various parts of that IN ubuntu 17:36 Docker is an interesting example actually 17:36 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 Because maybe contributing docker containers is more interesting to people who 5 years ago might have been contributing to Ubuntu directly 17:36 right 17:36 agreed 17:36 though it's a little like contributing AMIs.... thanks for the giant unauditable blob! 17:36 well, there is innovation for Ubuntu and innovation that is on Ubuntu 17:36 packaging is hard, but the hard work means: 17:36 * people know it's built from source 17:37 * it's easy to integrate with the rest of the system 17:37 making a docker image is easy, and does neither of the above 17:37 but being easy, it's taken off like crazy 17:37 sabdfl: perhaps Ubuntu itself is being shifted from being the ends to being the means to an end 17:37 and ubuntu is at the middle of that though not lead from ubuntu 17:37 yeah 17:37 here's an even more interesting example 17:37 anybody heard of ROS? 17:38 which one is that? 17:38 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 :) 17:38 Robot operating system 17:38 Based on Ubuntu 17:38 the robot thing? 17:38 yeah 17:38 I love that 17:38 Open Source Robotics Foundation 17:38 is that why all the robotics videos show Ubuntu on screen? 17:38 pretty much, i think, mhall119 17:38 so, it's really interesting 17:38 non-profit group that's basically making it easy for robotics researchers and developers to share stuff 17:38 it's moving too fast for traditional packaging 17:39 it's like github-for-robot-people 17:39 but 17:39 it's all based on ubuntu 17:39 this is precisely where I feel Ubuntu has the opportunity - becoming the go-to platform for people to build interesting technology 17:39 it's like "install ubuntu then type this command to bring in the shared source before you work on your app" 17:39 right 17:39 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 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 mhall119, well, yes and no 17:40 it's just that these projects are not at ubuntu.com/foo 17:40 mhall119: a good problem to have in some sense. There was a time when we couldn't hammer ;) 17:40 mhall119, a community could help Ubuntu to be the best platform for robotics 17:40 how many developers have contributed click packages? 200? 17:40 YokoZar: I agree, I don't think it's a bad thing, it just means we need to change our focus 17:40 to create a sub-community that maintains packages, create docs, organizing online events and more 17:40 sabdfl: a little over, yes 17:41 how many linux distributions have 200 active contributors? 17:41 interestingly we have almost as many click package developers as we have Ubuntu Developers 17:41 indeed 17:41 fresh territory, fresh space 17:41 mhall119, that is near 17:41 neat 17:41 so the technology is pretty much there 17:41 also, fewer rules, fewer metadatas, fewer interlocks 17:42 we just need to reboot the fact that Ubuntu really is a commons 17:42 in tech, almost everything else has gotten easier 17:42 and not the Canonical prison some people make it out to be 17:42 it's easier to get a server today than 2004 (thanks cloud!) 17:42 it's easier to sell an app than in 2004 (thanks app store!) 17:43 it's easier to publish server side software (thanks paas!) 17:43 but 17:43 it's still damn hard to create a good debian package 17:43 there's a reason so much engineering has been about avoiding packaging systems 17:43 and while we measure participation much more broadly 17:43 but it's drastically easier! (thanks dh 7?) (sorry couldn't resist) 17:43 (even our own -- click packages are only barely debs) 17:43 evening all - got in late - just caught up 17:43 have a comment to make :) 17:44 welcome elfy 17:44 the engine of that participation (advocacy, loco, docs, translation, etc etc) is always "here's a useful thing" made up of packages 17:44 dive in elfy 17:44 hi elfy 17:44 I've just read 45 minutes of people talking about how to contribute by coding - apart from one sentence from sabdfl 17:44 phew 17:44 elfy, I don't think we all meant coding 17:44 now I know that the majority of you do that - so that's going to be where you'll be looking 17:45 jono: that's how it reads :) 17:45 I certainly didn't mean coding :-) 17:45 * mhall119 has some anecdotes to bring up about designers 17:45 I meant BBQ 17:45 :-) 17:45 lol 17:45 don't I've not eaten since yesterday ;) 17:45 mhall119: even design - similar to coding 17:46 not if you ask a designer (or coder) ;) 17:46 so - from where I'm sitting - this discussion on how to contribute would already have turned me off 17:46 while we ALL know that the support side is there for whoever - and wherever people can do so 17:46 elfy, I think we would all agree that participation is multi-disciplined 17:47 and THAT is a low bar to *acceptable* contributions to *buntu - it gets forgotten every time :) 17:47 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 so I'm mostly talking about getting into (4) then 17:48 I really do feel a key thing here is getting rid of the toxicity of "Canonical runs the show" 17:48 elfy, same here :-) 17:48 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 jono: agree with that :) 17:49 mhall119, observational data suggests we have lower participation 17:49 mhall119: I see a general decline in the main areas I contribute 17:49 jono: maybe I'm wrong for feeling that toxicity but often, and repeatedly, that has been my honest experience in ubuntu 17:49 highvoltage, well, I think we should be frank in where Canonical control does and doesn't exist 17:49 in my view, Canonical is leading the way in Mir, Unity, Juju as three key projects 17:50 but the archive is open 17:50 the app store is open 17:50 and *anyone* can help build new technology and do cool things 17:50 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 Canonical claims to control distribution of binary packages which is incorrect and very poisonous 17:51 Riddell, not true 17:51 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 yes it is 17:51 le toxic who calls that out. 17:51 elfy: fwiw, I'm also interested in building up interest in our existing "non-exciting" and non-coding communities within ubuntu 17:51 Riddell, no, that discussion was about fairness 17:51 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 fairness of how infrastructure and resources are utilized 17:51 highvoltage, yes, we do call the shots on some things, and occasionally we get it wrong 17:51 pleia2: ;) 17:52 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 this discussion is about how we make space for more leadership in new areas, not how we punish leadership 17:52 highvoltage, right, but that was a *long* time ago at the beginning of figuring out the company/community relationship 17:52 let it go, dude :-) 17:52 mhall119: it's hightly relevant if you're talking about why people might get off contributing to ubuntu 17:52 if you want more leadership, you have to accept that people will make decisions and occasionally they will get them wrong 17:52 agreed 17:52 the Ubuntu history is not perfect 17:53 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 but we are human beings 17:53 pleia2, elfy: agreed :) 17:53 Riddell: we aren't talking currently about why people are getting off of contributing 17:53 and we need to stop harking on the past and focus on the future 17:53 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 highvoltage, whoa, stop, i don't think your conclusions from that exercise are correct at all 17:53 it looks increasingly likely that the future of EVERY major platform involves an on and offline identity 17:53 every major platform 17:54 people want to contribute to things that will be successful 17:54 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 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 nut 17:54 s 17:55 I agree with sabdfl 17:55 leadership is hard precisely because it involves going into territory that undefined or awkward 17:55 and in any case it was *five years ago* 17:55 we cannot sit here and want to attract leaders while at the same time harping on cases where leadership itself was unpopular 17:55 in that case, the goal was not even wrong 17:55 we have all learning and grown in give years 17:55 five 17:55 telling the comm 17:55 (sorry) 17:56 if you want ubuntu to be limited to things you like, you're not going to be happy 17:56 same goes for me, frankly 17:56 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 it's fair to ask that everbody be allowed to participate in the discussion that leads to those choices though 17:57 highvoltage, that just isn't true 17:57 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 there *was* discussion, there was discourse 17:57 but ultimately Canonical did make a decision 17:57 i'm not upset that it's not under the auspices of the CC 17:57 and that is going to happen from time to time 17:57 this is how the relationship between companies and communities sometimes work 17:57 sabdfl: that doesn't necessarily exclude them from working within the project 17:57 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 but you are talking about a tiny fragment of Ubuntu 17:58 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 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 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 highvoltage, this would be the very definition of harping 17:58 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 highvoltage, this is an example of the problem 17:58 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 dholbach: yeah 17:59 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 the reason people create splits and forks and sub-projects is *so they can make decisions* 17:59 we all made mistakes back then 17:59 the intentions were good, but the execution was not perfect 17:59 dholbach: http://pad.ubuntu.com/LeadershipAndGovernanceDiscussion 17:59 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 but lets focus on the future instead of getting dragged back by the past 17:59 thanks mhall119 17:59 thanks a lot mhall119 18:00 well, jono, i agree that occasionally a decision being taken is perceived as abrasive 18:00 lets crisply define where Canonical does lead, and then promote the vast array of places where the community can lead 18:00 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 but if you tolerate intolerance of decisions, you end up a mess 18:00 i don't think we should accept a browbeating over decisiveness, for ANY leader in Ubuntu, canonical or otherwise 18:01 agreed 18:01 or we'll not solve the core question at hand, which is how we encourage folks to do there leading HERE 18:01 their, even 18:01 focus on previous discussions is good if we fail forward 18:01 but the blame game doesn't help anyone 18:01 I personally thought the focus on KDE4 wasn't wise, but I am not going to berate KDE leadership for it :-) 18:01 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 instead it is better for us to work together to pull away conclusions for how we can do better 18:02 sabdfl: absolutely 18:03 jono: what focus on KDE4? 18:03 Riddell, we can discuss this later, it is off topic 18:03 I'll drop an email to ubuntu-community-team@ with the logs to the meeting and the etherpad. 18:04 dholbach: thanks 18:04 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 thanks dholbach 18:05 thanks dholbach 18:06 thanks everyone, I better run 18:06 All right... is there any other business anyone wanted to bring up? 18:06 #topic Any other business? 18:06 wasn't the EC catchup scheduled for tonight? 18:07 dholbach: an update on the status of the claims over binary files would be appreciated 18:07 everybody please feel free to contibute to the Etherpad or further discussion on the mailing list 18:07 Riddell: we are still inquiring after that 18:07 * balloons just walks in 18:08 balloons, too late :) 18:08 dholbach, I noticed.. what a discussion! 18:08 highvoltage: it was - I mailed both Edubuntu and Lubuntu postponing on the 20th November 18:08 I'll take to the pad 18:08 elfy: ah sorry, I missed that. all good then. 18:08 thanks a lot everyone 18:08 mail sent: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-community-team/2014-December/000213.html 18:09 #endmeeting