From Fedora Project Wiki

Roll Call

  • Present: Josh Boyer Mike McGrath, Chris Tyler, Dennis Gilmore, Colin Walters, Tom "spot" Callaway
  • Regrets: Matt Domsch, John Poelstra
  • Assigned meeting secretary: Christopher Aillon

Agenda

Fedora Talk

  • The Board is contemplating using Fedora Talk + gobby in place of public IRC for the next meeting on 2010-03-04
    • Held test call for this meeting just to knock out bugs and problems
  • Call status:
    • Mike -- calling in via RH VoIP then to DID
    • Josh -- dialed in via the Raleigh number
    • Paul -- calling direct via VoIP deskset
    • Chris T -- calling direct via VoIP Twinkle softphone
    • Dennis -- called direct using twinkle using bluetooth headset && sip hardware phone though local * server tunneneled to ftalk
    • caillon -- Sunnyvale #
    • walters -- connected via westford #
    • spot -- connected via physical SIP phone
      • Note: it sees muting causes call issues. likely something needing tweaking on the server.
  • limit this agenda item to 10 minutes
    • In the event of disaster, we are falling back to the normal call-in number at :15 past
    • If everything works well, we'll stay on Fedora Talk
  • testing recording/streaming capability
  • streaming currently not working, may need help from Infrastructure to find problem.
    • Is publictest6 still running an icecast server?
    • What is needed to make it active, if not?
  • Set date for next test, if applicable
  • several board members to meet tomorrow to test streaming at 4 pm Eastern

Improved metrics

  • STATUS: Matt and Paul held meeting with Legal on Friday 2010-02-19
    • Research is non-zero cost, must be fit into budget
      • privacy issues require dealing with other attorneys
      • Sometimes legal stuff takes a while and costs money
    • Paul is pursuing this internally as well to get it prioritized if possible
      • May not get a response before F-13, but will continue pursuing
  • ACTION: Status check in two weeks

Strategic Working Group outputs

Different default spin

  • STATUS: Paul presented write-up to SWG on Monday 2010-02-22, identified more opportunities to improve text
    • Paul will finish this up by next Monday's SWG meeting
  • ACTION: Status check on Monday

Spins audience issues

Removal policy

  • Currently, the Board has no problem that might require removing a member
    • Our succession planning is simply missing any policy that would help us handle this situation
    • PROPOSAL: That the following text be added to the Board/SuccessionPlanning wiki page:
      • REMOVAL: In the event of repeated absence without contact, or other serious misconduct or negligence, a Board member may be subject to removal. Before any other process occurs, the Board member in question will be personally contacted by the FPL to try to resolve the situation. If this contact does not successfully resolve the situation, the Board member in question may be removed by unanimous vote of the other members of the Board. Any resulting open seat will be filled through an interim appointment by the FPL, following consultation with the Board. The term of the interim appointment will be the remainder of the original term for that seat.
  • Adding this removal policy requires a 2/3 majority vote by the Board, and approval by the FPL
  • QUESTION: Does the Board agree with the proposed change?
  • VOTE: Shall the succession planning page be changed to add the proposed text?
  • DISCUSSION:
    • dgilmore - should be unanimous decision with all the board members + FPL?
    • stickster - FPL in some sense has the ultimate say here, since board membership is already subject to FPL approval
    • dgilmore - elected board membership should not be contingent upon FPL approval
    • mmcgrath: FPL acts as Red Hat liason; trust relationship is important for community
    • (discussion of evil FPL)
    • stickster - wants to make sure we don't avoid mentioning this in the policy, but doesn't want to blatantly give off the impression the process can or should be hijacked
      • the FPL is expected to honor community will
      • the FPL has ultimate responsibility/accountability to ensure Fedora Project works
      • the FPL has always had extensive power and responsibility, and the point is to use as little as possible
        • if someone is elected is removed for no good reason, it has the potential to hurt the community
        • FPL is accountable both to community, and to Red Hat, if he is kicking people out unwarranted and the community explodes -- say goodbye to that FPL
    • walters - should discuss how do we get to the point of wanting to remove someone, and how to avoid it (future item)
    • (discussion of possibility of criminal charges; don't need to explore right away probably, someone charged will likely not be able to attend board meetings)
    • if a vote the FPL would have to actively veto a removal
      • further ensures no renegade FPL action
    • (discussion on whether the vote should be unanimous)
    • walters - suggestion of recusing in the case of strong family/personal connection
      • stickster - we already have a policy of no abstention, but recusal would be okay in cases like this
      • members should almost expect to be removed if they are not showing up, not getting work done, not responding to mail, etc for a sustained period
      • spot - if two friends got elected, this could potentially throw a wrench into unanimity
    • dgilmore - should do 2/3s majority vote for removal, instead of unanimous
    • caillon - even in the two friends case, this could be vetoed by chair, but it could potentially lead to more chaos
      • stickster - agreed, that solution is worse than the problem maybe?
      • again, we're already, hopefully, dealing with an incredibly low-probability edge case
    • ctyler - favor unanimous strongly
    • caillon - also favor unanimous
  • VOTE TAKEN:
    • walters - +1 to what is written
    • mmcgrath - +1 to what is written
    • ctyler - +1 to what is written
    • caillon - +1 to what is written
    • poelstra - +1 to what is written (submitted earlier with comments)
    • spot - +1 to what is written
    • jwb - +1 to what is written
    • dgilmore - +1 to what is written (position stated earlier)
    • Note -- stickster does not generally vote, but is +1 as written as well
    • ACTION: Item passed unanimously. Paul will make changes to wiki

Next meeting

  • Proposed: Thursday, 2010-03-04, 1700 UTC/12:00pm EST
    • via Fedora Talk, recorded and streamed, if possible
    • in the event of technical gap, via IRC as usual
    • Decision to be made by Monday, 2010-03-01, and community informed via announcement per usual
Retrieved from "https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Meeting:Board_meeting_2010-02-25&oldid=156560"