Personal tools
You are here: Home Discussion Committees D Logs and Recordings Log of 2006/01/24 meeting
Document Actions

Log of 2006/01/24 meeting

by novalis last modified 2006-01-24 19:19

January 24, 2006

14:04 <@novalis_dt> Looks like we're approaching a quorum.  We can get started any time.
14:04 <+dondelelcaro> could everyone present announce their real name for the record?
14:04 <+dondelelcaro> Don Armstrong
14:04 <@novalis_dt> David Turner, FSF
14:04 <+Rickerby> David Rickerby
14:04 <+MarkDoliner> I'm Mark Doliner :-), Gaim
14:04 <+Jacob_Fenwick> Jacob Fenwick, The MITRE Corporation
14:05 <+ZakGreant> Zak Greant
14:05 <+massimotisi> Massimo Tisi
14:05 <+biella> Biella Coleman, Rutgers Unversity/Anthropologist
14:06 <+scalesda> Daniel Scales
14:06 <@fontana> Richard Fontana, Software Freedom Law Center
14:07 <@novalis_dt> obra (Jesse Vincent) and mick (Mick Wiess) said that they couldn't make it.
14:08 <@novalis_dt> OK, the first order of business is electing a coordinator for this meeing. Anyone want to volunteer?
14:09 <+Jacob_Fenwick> what will be the duties of the coordinator?
14:09 <@novalis_dt> Jacob_Fenwick: Basically, just running the meeting.
14:09 <+dondelelcaro> coordinating "things" ;-)
14:09 <@bkuhn> sorry, was afk, Bradley Kuhn, Software Freedom Law Center
14:09 <@novalis_dt> Jacob_Fenwick: Calling for votes, that sort of thing.
14:09 <@novalis_dt> Jacob_Fenwick: The notes from last meeting: http://gplv3.fsf.org/discussion-committees/D/minutes/minutes_20060116
14:10 <@novalis_dt> I can coordinate if nobody else wants to.
14:10 <+ZakGreant> Heh. I can step up like last time.
14:10 <+Rickerby> I nominate Zak was good.
14:10 <@novalis_dt> Ok, Zak for coordinator.
14:10 <+dondelelcaro> should we first take care of approving the minutes from last time?
14:10 <@novalis_dt> order_bot: newvote
14:10 <+order_bot> Voting started at Tue Jan 24 22:10:51 2006 UTC
14:11 <@novalis_dt> dondelelcaro: I think we can do that after the coordination
14:11 <@novalis_dt> order_bot: yes
14:11 <+dondelelcaro> this is voting for zak, right?
14:11 <@novalis_dt> dondelelcaro: Yes
14:11 <+dondelelcaro> order_bot: yes
14:11 <+Rickerby> order_bot: yes
14:11 <@novalis_dt> (say order_bot: yes or order_bot: no or order_bot: abstain)
14:11 <+Jacob_Fenwick> order_bit: yes
14:11 <+dondelelcaro> for those of you following allong, to vote: address the order bot; it will record your last vote..
14:11 <+MarkDoliner> order_bot: yes
14:11 <+massimotisi> order_bot: yes
14:11 <@fontana> order_bot: yes
14:11 <+scalesda> order_bot: yes
14:11 <+ZakGreant> order_bot: yes
14:11 <+dondelelcaro> if it doesn't respond, your vote was recorded
14:12 <+dondelelcaro> (at least, in theory. ;-))
14:12 <@novalis_dt> order_bot: endvote
14:12 <+order_bot> Vote ended at Tue Jan 24 22:12:20 2006
14:12 <+order_bot> Yes wins. Totals: YES: 8 NO: 0 ABSTAIN: 0
14:12 <+order_bot> Vote tally: scalesda: Y,ZakGreant: Y,massimotisi: Y,MarkDoliner: Y,novalis_dt: Y,dondelelcaro: Y,fontana: Y,Rickerby: Y
14:12 <+Jacob_Fenwick> it seems like making it reply to the voter would be better
14:12 <+dondelelcaro> hrm... ok.
14:12 <@novalis_dt> OK, ZakGreant is coordinator. Zak, take it away.
14:14 <+ZakGreant> First issue: International representation
14:14 -!- novalis_dt changed the topic of #committeed to: GPLv3 Committee D meeting 2200 GMT, January 24. Gobby server at archimedes.ucr.edu port 6522.
14:14 <@novalis_dt> Approve minutes from last time?
14:14 <@novalis_dt> Minutes at: http://gplv3.fsf.org/discussion-committees/D/minutes/minutes_20060116
14:14 <+ZakGreant> The committee currently has a very narrow representation on it.
14:15 <+ZakGreant> I don't think that this is necessarily a bad thing, as the role of the committee is as is stated in item 1 of the minutes from last meeting
14:15 <+ZakGreant> How do others feel about this issue?
14:15 <+ZakGreant> (Additionally, there is now a group that is focusing on international issues)
14:15 <+ZakGreant> err... committee
14:15 <@novalis_dt> Most of the people who were bothered aren't in fact here.
14:16 <+dondelelcaro> I don't really think it's something we can address until there are people with a more diverse international background who are interested in being involved come forward
14:16 <+ZakGreant> Why don't we defer this to a later meeting then?
14:16 <+ZakGreant> Motion: Table discussion til next meeting?
14:16 <@novalis_dt> OK, let's do that.
14:16 <+dondelelcaro> second
14:17 -!- tomislav_medak [n=apollo@83-131-129-86.adsl.net.t-com.hr] has joined #committeed
14:17 <@novalis_dt> Do we need to use order_bot here, or can we just do "all opposed"?
14:17 -!- mode/#committeed [+v tomislav_medak] by novalis_dt
14:17 <+ZakGreant> all_opposed?
14:17 <+dondelelcaro> novalis_dt: that's really up to the coordinator I guess
14:18 <@novalis_dt> dondelelcaro: Yep. I'm just proposing.
14:18 <+ZakGreant> passed
14:18 <+dondelelcaro> should we approve the minutes now?
14:18 <+dondelelcaro> (well, attempt to approve the minutes)
14:18 <+Rickerby> Motion to approve the minutes!
14:18 <+dondelelcaro> second
14:18 <+Jacob_Fenwick> second
14:19 <+ZakGreant> We just approved that at the start of the meeting.
14:19 -!- novalis_dt changed the topic of #committeed to: GPLv3 Committee D meeting 2200 GMT, January 24. Gobby server at archimedes.ucr.edu port 6522. Minutes of last meeting: http://gplv3.fsf.org/discussion-committees/D/minutes/minutes_20060116
14:19 <+dondelelcaro> we did?
14:19 <@novalis_dt> ZakGreant: I think we didn't.
14:19 <+ZakGreant> the order_bot voting was for this, no?
14:19 <+ZakGreant> We were just testing?
14:19 <+dondelelcaro> ZakGreant: no, it was for you to be chair
14:19 <@novalis_dt> ZakGreant: No, the order_bot was for you as coordinator :)
14:19 <+ZakGreant> D'oh
14:19 <+ZakGreant> Don't mind me - it is a bit late. ;)
14:20 <+ZakGreant> Ok. Regarding the motion to approve the minutes of the last meeting: all opposed?
14:20 <+Jacob_Fenwick> I have a question. Has anyone been going through the issues categorizing them as you went along?
14:20 <+ZakGreant> Not I.
14:20 <@novalis_dt> Jacob_Fenwick: Don has.
14:20 <+dondelelcaro> Jacob_Fenwick: yes
14:21 <+dondelelcaro> Jacob_Fenwick: http://svn.donarmstrong.com/don/trunk/projects/gplv3/issue_mailboxes/
14:21 <+ZakGreant> motion passed.
14:21 * Rickerby applauds Don's work on our behalf
14:22 <+dondelelcaro> Rickerby: thanks
14:22 <+ZakGreant> dondelelcaro: Nice work
14:22 <+dondelelcaro> I do suggest that everyone goes through the issues on their own though; I am definetly biased
14:23 <+dondelelcaro> Jacob_Fenwick: there's also a rss2email list that I created which you can subscribe to if you find mail more useful than the web based stuff
14:23 <+Jacob_Fenwick> I agree, I've been doing something similar, but I have nowhere near as much work put into as you do... I'm just wondering if it might behoove us to create a system of doing this, and then we could all get together and compare what issues we think are important
14:23 <+ZakGreant> Before we get to general discussion, let's try to stick to a brief agenda.
14:24 <+ZakGreant> Agreed?
14:24 <@novalis_dt> ZakGreant: OK, what's next on the agenda?
14:24 <+ZakGreant> Next issue: Mailing list archives - should the mailing list archives should not mail message ids?
14:25 <+dondelelcaro> do we mean message ids or mailing addresses of the people sending the message?
14:25 * ZakGreant has no opinion. Can someone summarize the benefits of this?
14:25 <+ZakGreant> Who made the note or remembers it clearly?
14:25 <+dondelelcaro> if we're talking aobut message ids, I oppose, because they're really useful for threading purposes; for e-mail addresses, I really don't care.
14:26 <+dondelelcaro> some mailing list archives munge senders in an attempt to thwart automatic harvesting of email addresses by spammers. My email address is everywhere already, so it doesn't matter to me
14:27 <+Rickerby> The email address I will use for this is not, so I prefer to be munged, if that matters.
14:28 <+dondelelcaro> (it would be nice for actual mboxes without munging to be available whatever we decide behind some sort of captcha or something... but that's an admin detail)
14:28 <+ZakGreant> What is the purpose of the item? What did we want to achieve? It seems that one goal is to help protect the mailing list members from spam. Any other goals?
14:28 <@novalis_dt> All of this is technically possible.
14:29 <+dondelelcaro> ZakGreant: that's the goal that I understood...
14:30 <+ZakGreant> Who has the experience to suggest the most sane way to do this? Don? Novalis? Brad?
14:30 <@novalis_dt> If you instruct me to implement it, I will have our sysadmins do it.
14:30 <@novalis_dt> Archives should already be available -- I know I was looking at them yesterday. But today, all the links seem to be pointing to the wrong place.
14:31 <+dondelelcaro> heh
14:31 <+ZakGreant> Motion: Instruction novalis_dt to cause magical anti-spam things happen for the mailing list archives.
14:31 <+Rickerby> Second magical thing
14:31 <+ZakGreant> all opposed?
14:31 <+dondelelcaro> lets clarify that if possible: munge in some manner the from/to addresses
14:31 <@novalis_dt> (a) make email archives public with (b) member addresses obfuscated, but (c) message-ids in appropriate headers not obfuscated
14:32 <+dondelelcaro> right
14:32 <+dondelelcaro> and if feasible, mbox archives accessible
14:32 <@novalis_dt> OK, I'll add that as (d)
14:32 <+ZakGreant> cancel last motion
14:33 <+ZakGreant> Motion: Instruct novalis_dt to make magical anti-spam things happen as described in a - d?
14:33 <+MarkDoliner> second
14:33 <+ZakGreant> all opposed?
14:33 <+ZakGreant> passed
14:34 <+sedwards> sorry I am late
14:34 <+ZakGreant> Next item: Commitee D should start picking issues to adopt.
14:34 <+jblack> Sorry I'm late
14:34 <+ZakGreant> sedwards, jblack: no worries
14:34 <@novalis_dt> sedwards and jblack: Welcome. To see what's been moved and passed so far, read scrollback or check the gobby server.
14:35 <+ZakGreant> sedwards, jblack: can you state your full names for the record
14:35 <+jblack> James Blackwell
14:35 <+sedwards> ZakGreant, Steven Edwards
14:35 <+ZakGreant> Next item: Commitee D should start picking issues to adopt.
14:36 <+ZakGreant> Don has a head start - anyone else been digging around?
14:36 <+sedwards> yes
14:36 * ZakGreant has not
14:36 <+sedwards> starting at the top. I agree with the comments I have read about the name change for the license
14:36 <+sedwards> Many non-gnu projects use the GPL
14:37 <+ZakGreant> Should we start digging into issues right now or do we need to discuss at a higher level first?
14:37 <@novalis_dt> ZakGreant: Other committees have apparently started digging, so it won't hurt for D to start.
14:38 <+sedwards> ok does the chair allow me the floor for a few lines of text?
14:38 <+ZakGreant> Ok. MarkDoliner pointed out that we have two other small bits on the agenda to handle.
14:38 <+ZakGreant> "Nominations for New Members" and "Scheduling Future Re-occuring√ā¬†Meetings"
14:38 <+sedwards> ok maybe we should do those first
14:38 <+ZakGreant> Yep.
14:38 <+ZakGreant> Scheduling Meetings is simple.
14:39 <+ZakGreant> (hopefully)
14:39 <+sedwards> I have one nomination for new membership
14:39 <@novalis_dt> I was under the impression that meetings would be weekly at this time and place.
14:39 <+MarkDoliner> This time and day is fantastic for me
14:39 <+sedwards> ditto
14:39 <+dondelelcaro> it's fine for me too
14:39 <+ZakGreant> novalis_dt: As was I.
14:39 <+MarkDoliner> I guess if the time and day wasn't ok for someone, they wouldn't be here to tell us :-)
14:39 <+Rickerby> We only approved the date for the first one. Motion: weekly meetings at this time and place.
14:39 <+dondelelcaro> I suppose we can just move to keep this time and place, and then allow ourselves to change it later if necessary.
14:40 <+dondelelcaro> seconded
14:40 <+ZakGreant> all opposed?
14:40 <+jblack> Its great for me too. (Ironically)
14:40 <+Jacob_Fenwick> fine for me
14:40 <+Rickerby> (the key is if they can't get here now, they're not here to vote against this. ;-) )
14:41 <+Rickerby> I suppose we could reconsider if there is later email static
14:41 <+dondelelcaro> right
14:41 -!- mako [n=mako@bork.hampshire.edu] has joined #committeed
14:41 <@novalis_dt> Rickerby: they would have mentioned it at the previous meeting, I thinnk.
14:41 -!- mode/#committeed [+v mako] by novalis_dt
14:41 <+mako> or sorry
14:41 <+mako> hello
14:41 <+ZakGreant> Rickerby: They could send email if this doesn't work.
14:41 * mako is in an ubuntu community council meeting also now.. will get more active as soon as that's over
14:41 <+ZakGreant> mako: Please state your full name for the record.
14:41 * sedwards proposes we move on to the next subject and view this issue as closed pending comment via email from other members
14:41 <+mako> Benjamin Mako Hill
14:41 <+ZakGreant> motion passed
14:43 <+sedwards> on the next subject. I would like to nominate Mike Nordell from the Abiword project for membership. He is very interested in the process, has been a long time supporter of freesoftware and is making comments regarding the gpl on the site
14:43 <+sedwards> he is also interested in joining us
14:43 <+sedwards> He goes by the handle of Tamlin
14:43 <+MarkDoliner> "
14:43 <+dondelelcaro> on the membership nomination front, we had agreed, iirc, to do voting in private for them, with one week lag between nomination and voting
14:43 <+ZakGreant> One key goal is to keep the size of the committee manageable.
14:43 <+MarkDoliner> Whoops
14:44 <+ZakGreant> dondelelcaro: I must have missed the one-week lag bit.
14:44 <+Rickerby> I suggested the one week lag time in email. That was not adopted.
14:44 <+Rickerby> It occured to me after the last meeting.
14:44 <+dondelelcaro> ah, right.
14:44 <+ZakGreant> Rickerby: Can you elucidate why this is a good idea?
14:44 <+dondelelcaro> well, the secret part is true, the rest is me just adding on things
14:45 <+jblack> I think it gives us time to research people.
14:45 <+Rickerby> What jblack said.
14:45 <@novalis_dt> Someone want to move that?
14:45 <+dondelelcaro> it also makes the voting simpler, as we can then use devotee without any modifications to do that
14:45 <+sedwards> I move: we should vote on the one week thing
14:45 <+ZakGreant> Motion: Nominate at the one meeting. Vote at the following meeting.
14:45 <+Rickerby> second
14:45 <@novalis_dt> ZakGreant: at, or before?
14:45 <@novalis_dt> (devotee is email driven, right?)
14:45 <+dondelelcaro> ideally, at any time during that entire week via e-mail
14:45 <+dondelelcaro> yes.
14:46 <+ZakGreant> novalis_dt: Before, via email.
14:46 <+ZakGreant> This provides anyone on the list a one+ week window to review and then vote.
14:46 <+dondelelcaro> you can change your vote as much as you want; I suggest that the voting period last for at least a week from the sending of the ballot, which is to happen as soon as practicable after a person is nominated
14:47 <+Rickerby> Makes sense. Zak want to restate motion?
14:47 <+dondelelcaro> (the first time will take a bit longer, because we'll need to set up devotee on whatever machine we decide to use and test it, but I suspect that won't take more than a day)
14:47 <@novalis_dt> I'll have it set up on gplv3.fsf.org if this passes.
14:47 <+ZakGreant> Before we make a motion - any issues with the process dondelelcaro suggests?
14:47 <+jblack> How are ballots collected?
14:47 <+dondelelcaro> jblack: by e-mail
14:48 <+jblack> To whom?
14:48 <+dondelelcaro> jblack: to a special address that leads directly to a script which processes them
14:48 <+dondelelcaro> jblack: they're not seen by anyone but the person who is actually running the balloting; I think that should be someone trusted at the FSF
14:48 <+dondelelcaro> (and indeed, the person running the balloting doesn't actually need to see them either, unless there is a problem)
14:49 <+jblack> Anyone else?
14:49 <+jblack> Does anyone else have any questions, that is
14:49 <+ZakGreant> jblack: Please be more specific
14:49 -!- soufron [n=soufron@84.4.219.82] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
14:50 <+jblack> Does anyone else have any questions concerning this issue that we're about to move on. :)
14:50 <@novalis_dt> If not, does someone want to restate the motion?
14:50 <+ZakGreant> jblack: Heh. Your clarification was fine. :)
14:50 <+ZakGreant> novalis_dt: Writing it now.
14:51 <+ZakGreant> Motion: Nominations for new committee members are made via email. Voting is performed via devotee, with results viewed by someone chosen by the FSF. Voting is open for one full week after the nomination.
14:51 <+jblack> I second the motion
14:51 -!- soufron [n=soufron@84.4.219.82] has joined #committeed
14:52 -!- mode/#committeed [+v soufron] by novalis_dt
14:52 <+tomislav_medak> i second the motion
14:52 <+ZakGreant> all opposed?
14:52 <+ZakGreant> passed
14:53 <+ZakGreant> sedwards: You wanted the, err..., floor?
14:53 <+sedwards> ZakGreant, thanks just for a sec
14:53 * ZakGreant .oO(Screen?)
14:53 <+sedwards> I work with a number of Free Software projects for Windows, Linux, OS/X, etc
14:53 <+sedwards> none of them are GNU projects
14:53 <+sedwards> its my feeling along with the comments i have read
14:54 <+sedwards> that its time to slightly rename the license
14:54 * soufron is psycho killer
14:54 <+sedwards> from the GNU GPL to something like the Free Software General Public License
14:54 <+ZakGreant> sedwards: This committee is not the forum for making comments. Please review the notes from the last meeting. These very clearly state our mandate.
14:54 <@novalis_dt> ZakGreant: There are comments to that effect in the comment system
14:54 <+dondelelcaro> ZakGreant: those comments have already been made, actually.
14:55 <@novalis_dt> ZakGreant: So, I think sedwards is proposing adopting them.
14:55 <+sedwards> I am speaking to comments already in the comment system
14:55 <+sedwards> I just happen to agree with them
14:55 <+Jacob_Fenwick> maybe you could site the comment #?
14:55 <+sedwards> I think they should be raised to issues
14:55 <+sedwards> one sec
14:55 <@novalis_dt> 617
14:55 <@novalis_dt> http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/rt/readsay.html?id=617
14:56 <+ZakGreant> bbi1m
14:56 <+dondelelcaro> 345, 617, etc.
14:56 <@fontana> The change suggested in comment 617 is out of the question. We aren't going to rename the GPL a "license agreement".
14:56 <+ZakGreant> spilled water on my keyboard
14:57 <+sedwards> http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/rt/readsay.html?id=345 is more the one I am thinking of
14:57 <+ZakGreant> novalis_dt: If sedwards is proposing that it be raised to an issue, great - I just don't want people raising issues here. :)
14:58 <+sedwards> sorry I thought that was the point of this part of the discussion
14:58 <@novalis_dt> sedwards: Are you making a motion to raise 345 to an issue, and to be the issue steward for that issue in this committee?
14:58 <+sedwards> was to review comments and raise issues
14:58 <+sedwards> novalis_dt, correct
14:58 <@novalis_dt> ZakGreant: That seems to be within the mandate.
14:58 <@bkuhn> As a point of order regarding the use of the commenting system, I suggest that the committee feel free to adopt comments into issues even if they aren't the heart of the matter.
14:58 <+ZakGreant> sedwards: We need to consider what the GPL v2 licensing notices tend to say - they don't say, "The blah blah blah license" they speak about versions of the GPL.
14:58 <@novalis_dt> I think that fontana is accurately representing Richard Stallman's likely view on the proposed name changes.
14:59 <+ZakGreant> arg: substitute issue for comment in my last statement. Sorry, more than a bit tired here.
14:59 <+sedwards> ZakGreant, I am not proposing to rename it from the GPL
14:59 <@bkuhn> The usage pattern I might suggest here is you adopt 345, make it an issue, and make 612 a child of it, and note why 612 isn't the right suggestion and 345 is.
14:59 <+MarkDoliner> novalis_dt: For both comments 345 and 617?
14:59 <@bkuhn> Again, I'm not suggesting a course of action regarding your mandate, just a suggestion regarding the tech resources.
14:59 <@novalis_dt> MarkDoliner: What Brad suggested.
14:59 <+jblack> I don't see where 345 goes through much effort to justify why this is a flaw and not a preference.
14:59 <+ZakGreant> bkuhn: That sounds sensible
14:59 <+Rickerby> and the point is that the GPL is a "license" but not an "agreement."
15:00 <@fontana> Rickerby: correct.
15:00 * soufron is harvardienne
15:00 <+sedwards> yes 617 is clearly wrong
15:00 <@bkuhn> And, of course, if this usage pattern doesn't work with what you are trying to do, please let me, novalis_dt, or fontana know so that we can modify the software to accomodate your needs.
15:00 <+sedwards> but 345 is closer to what I mean. I thought I had already commented in it
15:00 <+soufron> hello
15:01 <+ZakGreant> We should define how we proceed here.
15:01 <+Jacob_Fenwick> bkuhn: what software are you referring to?
15:01 <@bkuhn> yet another option would be to create your own issue on behalf of the committee, say what is actually right, and adopt related comments and explain on their traffic why they are mistaken and why your issue says what's right.
15:01 <+dondelelcaro> Jacob_Fenwick: the whole comments/issue system
15:01 <@bkuhn> Jacob_Fenwick: the commeting system: http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/
15:01 <+jblack> Pardon, my comment was in reference to 345, not 617
15:01 <@bkuhn> Also, if you weren't already aware, committee members have full RT access, if you are familiar with that interface, see http://gplv3.fsf.org/rt/
15:01 <+Jacob_Fenwick> bkuhn: Does the Upgrade to an Issue checkbox do anything?
15:02 <+dondelelcaro> right, 345 was one of the ones I discarded (demonstrating my bias) because I didn't see the point in changing the name of the licence at this stage in the game
15:02 <@novalis_dt> Jacob_Fenwick: It means that the committee has adopted the comments.
15:02 <+sedwards> The name GNU does not reflect the FreeSoftware community at large
15:02 <+dondelelcaro> sedwards: right, but no name ever willl
15:02 <+ZakGreant> Motion: Adopt 345, 617 and other related comments as a single issue.
15:03 <+Rickerby> unfortunately, I have to leave for another meeting. I look forward to reading the logs.
15:03 * Rickerby waives goodbye
15:03 <@bkuhn> Jacob_Fenwick: yes, only committee members can make something an "Issue". As I understand it (from the technology side, novalis_dt and fontana can comment on policy side) the goal is to get a set of "issues" that is substantially smaller than the comment pool, and have the issues be well formed considerations of many comments.
15:03 <@novalis_dt> Rickerby: Thanks for coming.
15:03 -!- Rickerby [n=drickerb@38.112.155.93] has quit []
15:03 <+sedwards> Firefox, OpenOffice, etc are FreeSoftware project. My proposal is simply to agree with the comment the name should be changed to something more generic such as the FreeSoftware GPL
15:03 <+sedwards> rather than the GNU GPL
15:03 <@novalis_dt> bkuhn: Right. And committees can issue reports on issues.
15:03 <+soufron> well well
15:03 <+ZakGreant> soufron?
15:03 <+sedwards> as if they agree with the principles of FreeSoftware then the license name change would fit more projects at large
15:03 <+Jacob_Fenwick> bkuhn: that's what I thought it was for, but where can I look at a list of what people have flagged as issues for the committee?
15:04 <@novalis_dt> (so that RMS can get all of the information he needs)
15:04 <+dondelelcaro> soufron: if you could state your name for the record, that would be useful...
15:04 <+soufron> Jean-Baptiste Soufron
15:04 <+soufron> hop
15:05 <+ZakGreant> ... before we break out into general chaos, let's talk about the process of raising comments to issues.
15:05 <+sedwards> ZakGreant, thanks
15:05 <+sedwards> that would be great
15:05 <+ZakGreant> We appear to have identified an issue
15:05 <+soufron> yes
15:05 <+ZakGreant> consisting of at least two comments
15:05 <+ZakGreant> I suspect the first step is to agree that it should be an issue?
15:06 <+sedwards> 4 once Mike Nordell and myself add comments to it
15:06 <+mako> yes
15:06 <@bkuhn> Jacob_Fenwick: http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/gplv3-draft-1?Query=%20'CF.DiscussionGroup'%20LIKE%20'D'%20%20AND%20'CF.NoteUrl'%20LIKE%20'gplv3-draft-1'%20%20AND%20Queue%20=%20'Issues'%20&Order=DESC&OrderBy=id&Rows= is a search to do what you are asking, from the main search page, I set "Type is Issue" and "DiscussionGroup contains D"
15:06 <+jblack> Yes. If its an issue, then we can go through the database and organize child/parent comments.
15:06 <+dondelelcaro> I think that we should vote for it to be an issue; then assign volunteers to plumb the depths of the issue for starters
15:06 <+ZakGreant> The next step should be to try and find related comments.
15:06 <+ZakGreant> dondelelcaro, jblack: yes
15:07 <@bkuhn> Jacob_Fenwick: main search page is http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/rt/changeshown.html?came_from=gplv3-draft-1 which should give you the committee fields (issue, DiscussionGroup)
15:07 <+dondelelcaro> the people involved in the issue, can then go out and find the comments that they feel are related, and keep an eye out for comments that are involved in a particular issue
15:07 <+dondelelcaro> (there's nothing really stoping a comment from being involved in multiple issues)
15:07 <+ZakGreant> Then once we have the issue, we stick to our mandate to flesh it out
15:07 <+ZakGreant> Our mandate being:
15:07 <+ZakGreant> The goal of Commitee D is to represent rather than advocate, to clarify and refine and, when needed, complete the range of views. Each member will seek input from the community, and provide input via the comment system as individuals rather than as a committee.
15:08 <+ZakGreant> dondelelcaro, yes and yes
15:08 <+jblack> I note that we already have two comments that are marked as issues.
15:08 <+ZakGreant> jblack: Let's stick to the meta bits for now
15:09 <+ZakGreant> Everyone agree on this very sketchy process (including what dondelelcaro added?)
15:09 <+dondelelcaro> should we restate it just to clarify?
15:10 <+ZakGreant> Note: Let's as Brad to help us understand the system as soon as we get down to turning comments into issues.
15:10 <+ZakGreant> dondelelcaro, yes
15:10 <+ZakGreant> dondelelcaro: Can you summarize?
15:10 <+dondelelcaro> sure
15:10 <+soufron> yeup yeup yeup`
15:11 <+dondelelcaro> 1. possible issue raised from comments; 2. committee votes 3. volunteers assigned to plumb issue, pulling more comments if necessary, keeping an eye out for future comments
15:12 <+dondelelcaro> the latter half of writing the report and voting for it I think we can tackle later
15:13 <+ZakGreant> General Note: I suggest that we stay far away from assigning our own values to the comments until after we are clear it is an issue.
15:13 <+ZakGreant> dondelelcaro, agreed
15:13 <+ZakGreant> Everyone agree with that rough process for now?
15:13 <+ZakGreant> Sorry.
15:13 <+MarkDoliner> Sounds good to me
15:13 <+jblack> Ithink it needs more clarification
15:13 <+ZakGreant> Motion: Follow the basic process outlined by dondelelcaro?
15:14 <+ZakGreant> Why don't we try it right now?
15:14 <+soufron> mmmh
15:14 <+jblack> There's not much discussion there as concerns nebulous issues; for example a general issue of grammer. It doesn't seem right to me to make child/parent comments
15:15 <+ZakGreant> bkuhn, can you comment on the system semantics?
15:15 <@bkuhn> sure.
15:15 <+dondelelcaro> jblack: I think we can group the grammar issues all toghether if necessary; how we actually group the issues is rather separate from how the system does it
15:15 <@bkuhn> Child/parent is a bit of goofy terminology.
15:16 <@bkuhn> But, the general principle is that an Issue contains multiple comments.
15:16 <@bkuhn> A comment could contain multiple comments, too.
15:16 <+Jacob_Fenwick> brb
15:16 -!- Jacob_Fenwick [n=kvirc@c-66-30-20-34.hsd1.ma.comcast.net] has quit ["KVIrc 3.2.0 'Realia'"]
15:16 <@bkuhn> The semantically meaning for that would likely be: "The parent comment states the point more succinctly and clearly".
15:17 <+ZakGreant> Are there any other concerns before we simply go out and try the system on the first two commments identified as comprising a single issue?
15:17 -!- Jacob_Fenwick [n=kvirc@c-66-30-20-34.hsd1.ma.comcast.net] has joined #committeed
15:17 -!- mode/#committeed [+v Jacob_Fenwick] by novalis_dt
15:17 <@bkuhn> ZakGreant: I don't think so. I think you should go ahead and make your Issue and make the comments in question an issue, and set Committee D flag on all relevant issues/comments.
15:18 <+ZakGreant> Proposed Issue: Commments 345 and 617 should comprise one issue.
15:18 <+dondelelcaro> I'll second the current motion then.
15:18 <+dondelelcaro> (since we haven't disposed of it yet)
15:18 <+ZakGreant> dondelelcaro, thanks
15:18 <+ZakGreant> all opposed?
15:18 <@bkuhn> One note, however. It is currently possible for multiple committees to claim a given issue or comment. So, please avoid "unclaiming" an issue/comment from another committee. That would be basically my only caveat for the whole process. Otherwise, we definitely want people to have at it and report any bugs to <tech@gplv3.fsf.org>.
15:19 <@bkuhn> ... (there is no harm, however, in adding yourself as co-claimant of a particular comment/issue)
15:19 <@bkuhn> s/yourself/youselves/
15:19 <+sedwards> sorry I have to leave the meeting early
15:19 <+sedwards> I added my comments to the exiting set of comments
15:20 <+sedwards> I hope the committee will vote to make it a issue, but I am called to run by co-workers
15:20 <+ZakGreant> bkuhn: Thanks for the clarification.
15:20 <+ZakGreant> going once
15:20 <+sedwards> sorry. I will follow the email/log and make the next meeting
15:20 <+ZakGreant> going twice
15:20 <+ZakGreant> sedwards: Thanks!
15:20 <+ZakGreant> passed
15:20 <+ZakGreant> Issue: Comment 345 and 617 should comprise one issue. All in favour?
15:20 <+dondelelcaro> sedwards: if we make it an issue, will you volunteer to deal with it?
15:20 <+sedwards> yes
15:20 <+dondelelcaro> order_bot: newvote
15:20 <+order_bot> Voting started at Tue Jan 24 23:20:55 2006 UTC
15:20 <+dondelelcaro> order_bot: yes
15:21 <+Jacob_Fenwick> order_bot: yes
15:21 <+ZakGreant> order_bot: yes
15:21 <+MarkDoliner> order_bot: yes
15:21 <+scalesda> order_bot: yes
15:21 <+jblack> order_bot: yes
15:21 <+massimotisi> order_bot: yes
15:21 <+marcell> order_bot: yes
15:22 <+dondelelcaro> order_bot: endvote
15:22 <+order_bot> Vote ended at Tue Jan 24 23:22:18 2006
15:22 <+order_bot> Yes wins. Totals: YES: 8 NO: 0 ABSTAIN: 0
15:22 <+order_bot> Vote tally: scalesda: Y,Jacob_Fenwick: Y,marcell: Y,massimotisi: Y,MarkDoliner: Y,ZakGreant: Y,dondelelcaro: Y,jblack: Y
15:22 <+ZakGreant> Ok. Who wants to press the buttons?
15:22 <@novalis_dt> I got it
15:23 -!- sedwards [n=steven@reactos/board/sedwards] has quit ["Leaving"]
15:23 <+ZakGreant> novalis_dt: Can you give the play by play?
15:24 <@novalis_dt> Upgraded 345 to issue. Assigned to D.
15:24 <@novalis_dt> 617 made child of 345
15:24 <@novalis_dt> Will add comment
15:25 <@novalis_dt> Comment: sedwards of Committee D is issue steward on this
15:25 <+ZakGreant> All: Visit http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/rt/readsay.html?id=345 to see the changes in state.
15:25 <@novalis_dt> dondelelcaro: Were you planning to raise as issues all the comments you organized?
15:26 <+dondelelcaro> novalis_dt: I can for at least the first 5 that I saw
15:26 <+dondelelcaro> do we still have people here? or should I wait for next time?
15:26 <+ZakGreant> Why don't we finish walking through the process?
15:27 <+dondelelcaro> I'm fine either way; the comments aren't going anywhere
15:27 <+ZakGreant> I bet that, in general, it is going to be easy for us to decide to raise issues via email, no?
15:27 <@novalis_dt> ZakGreant: Sure, that's fine with me.
15:28 <+ZakGreant> Ok. The comment has been raised to an issue.
15:28 <+ZakGreant> Other comments have been related to the issue.
15:29 <+ZakGreant> It seem to me that what we need to do from this point forward is:
15:29 <+ZakGreant> 3. Try to find additional related comments
15:30 <+ZakGreant> 4. Add notes to further refine the comments as presented - perhaps adding information to clarify or support the original comment.
15:30 <@novalis_dt> ZakGreant: Allison Randall of A has created an issue for general style comments
15:30 <+ZakGreant> 5. Attempt to determine if there is a key view that is held by the community, but that is not represented.
15:30 <+ZakGreant> novalis_dt: Would it be pertinent to review it now?
15:31 <+ZakGreant> novalis_dt: If so, please post the URL
15:31 <@novalis_dt> ZakGreant: 1 sec, refinding
15:32 <@novalis_dt> http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/rt/readsay.html?id=429
15:33 <@novalis_dt> (right now, it doesn't seem to reference 617 ,345, or obra's comment about s/management/mechanisms/
15:34 <+ZakGreant> novalis_dt: How is this relevant - I am not catching the relationship to what we are discussing.
15:34 <+jblack> That isn't aligned to a A yet. I notice that one can ctrl-select more than one group. Anybody mind if I experiment and see if an issue can belong to more than one group?
15:34 <@novalis_dt> "3. Try to find additional related comments"
15:34 <@novalis_dt> jblack: It can.
15:34 <@fontana> novalis_dt: I don't think this is a related issue.
15:34 <+ZakGreant> novalis_dt: Heh. I don't me now. Let's get through discussing how to do what we need to do, then finish doing it. :)
15:35 <+ZakGreant> s/me/&an/
15:35 <@fontana> The issue was attached to the title at the Committee A meeting for lack of a better way of anchoring the issue of general stylistic suggestions to the license text.
15:35 <@novalis_dt> fontana: The title seems to be a stylistic issue. But that's for the committees to decide anyway.
15:35 * dondelelcaro makes some weird comment about roses
15:35 <@fontana> novalis_dt: Agreed that it's for the committees to decide.
15:36 <@novalis_dt> OK, so I think people want to raise further issues via email. Anything else for this meeting?
15:36 <@fontana> I think the issue of the title may go beyond style. (To take the comment 617 example, there could be real legal consequences to changing the name of the license.)
15:37 <@novalis_dt> fontana: We did it for the LGPL, and I don't recall anyone complaining.
15:37 <@novalis_dt> fontana: (That is, we renamed the Library General Public License to the Lesser General Public License and just noted that it was a successor.)
15:37 <+ZakGreant> ... why are we discussing the merits of the comments now?
15:38 <+ZakGreant> Right - we are a bit over time (38 minutes). Shall we?
15:39 <+marcell> what do you think of opening parallel channel to discuss _about_ the comments and issues which they raise and discussing there not as member of comitee?
15:39 <+ZakGreant> Try to wrap up discussing the process for turning comments into issues and then, if we have the stamina, apply as much of this as is practical in the time remaining to the issue?
15:39 <+Jacob_Fenwick> I need to go... I'll see you all next meeting
15:39 <+dondelelcaro> marcell: I think we can do that here after the business of the meeting is done
15:39 <+marcell> dondelelcaro: agree
15:40 -!- Jacob_Fenwick [n=kvirc@c-66-30-20-34.hsd1.ma.comcast.net] has quit ["KVIrc 3.2.0 'Realia'"]
15:40 <+dondelelcaro> the only other issue that I think is useful is talking aobut the final output from the issues that we raise; however, we don't need to get there yet
15:40 <+ZakGreant> Hrm. Why don't I draft up a concrete process, send that out via email and we can discuss it on the list and/or at the next meeting?
15:40 <+dondelelcaro> since we've pretty much resolved how to get from comments to an issue, and then what the issue stewards should do with them
15:40 <+dondelelcaro> sounds good
15:40 <+marcell> dondelelcaro: maybe just adding notes to that channel about what we can discuss then (after the meeting)...
15:40 <+dondelelcaro> motion to adjourn until next week, same bat time, same bat channel?
15:41 <+ZakGreant> second
15:41 <+marcell> agree
15:41 <+jblack> agree
15:41 <+ZakGreant> all opposed?
15:42 <+ZakGreant> sold the hairy hacker in the GNU t-shirt for 1 cent
15:42 <+ZakGreant> Thanks All!
 

Powered by Plone

This site conforms to the following standards: