Hello and welcome to this eighth FAMSCO weekly meeting summary. The latest meeting was hold on March 19th 2009 on #fedora-ambassadors Attendees: Francesco Fugolini Max Spevack Joerg Simon David Nalley Susmit Shannigrahi Regreted attendees: ThomasCanniot Rodrigo Padula Meeting agenda : 1. Open Issues 2. Tasks review 3. Budget 4. t.b.d. 1. Open Issues Francesco started by thanking Max for his summary on FAmSCo discussion about the cleaning of the ambassador's unused accounts and mentoring. Max stated that now FAmSCo should start making decisions and implementing policies right after the feedback period on the list. David then stated that some of the decisions are easy to vote on, like the inactive/active decision. Others would requiere a bit of work before being submitted to discussion. Franceso, David and Max then stated that a line should be drawn under the current process and have the new process started. JohnRose (inode0) intervened and expressed his worriness about being allowed to give feedbacks, as he seems that FAmSCo is rushing towards quick vote on these issues. He was happy to learn that a couple of week will be left before FAmSCo take a formal decision. Joerg insisted then to talk about the filter he suggested, i.e. "has to be a Contributor to another Sub-Project inside Fedora where a sponsor is needed" or, "is recommended by a Contributor to another Sub-Project inside Fedora who will take mentorship for that person" or, "has contributed to Fedora on a event before" or, "has to provide measureable, visible contributions before!" or, "has to spend money or whatever (if a company want to be Ambassador without doing work)". Francesco admitted that these points are good as basis, whereas Max expressed some little reserved on some. Francesco then recentered the discussion on what FAmSCo has to achieve in the next few weeks: take a decision after the comments are done on the proposal Joerg made. Joerg then asked if the "purging inactive Accounts" topic can be decided today and Max wondered if any feedbacks from Infrasdtructure were needed. To what David made it clear that Infrastructure guys have not yet decided anything but are thinking about stripping people of all groups if they have been inactive for a certain length of time. To which Max answered that we should wait for the Infratructure guys to be ready on this topic and apply a global FAS account cleaning as they wish, and wait for Ambassadors accounts to be cleaned at the same time. However, according to David, the Infrastructure guys encouraged to have our own Ambassador accounts cleaning, as they don't know at all when they will be able to handle this issue. Then FAmSCO decided he could handle its own account cleaning. Francesco adjourned the meeting.Title: 2009-03-26-famsco.log
| fugolini | Ok, just to start, roll call: | 19:04 |
|---|---|---|
| fugolini | Francesco Ugolini | 19:04 |
| ... join!#fedora-meeting -> asgeirf_(n=asgeirf 203-217-44-219 dyn iinet net au) | 19:04 | |
| ke4qqq | David Nalley | 19:04 |
| kital | JoergSimon | 19:04 |
| spevack | Max Spevack | 19:04 |
| susmit | SusmitShannigrahi | 19:05 |
| ... signoff!#fedora-meeting -> G(Remote closed the connection) | 19:05 | |
| fugolini | So, here is it the agenda. For this time I still used the same format of the past. Starting from the next one I'll work on a better done one :) | 19:06 |
| fugolini | 1. Open issues | 19:06 |
| fugolini | 2. Tasks review | 19:06 |
| fugolini | 4. Budget | 19:06 |
| fugolini | 5. t.b.d. | 19:06 |
| fugolini | *3 and 4 naturally | 19:06 |
| fugolini | 1. Open issues: I know this issue is too generic. I'm talking about the David proposal | 19:07 |
| spevack | ok | 19:07 |
| fugolini | first of all my thanks to Max for his great summary | 19:07 |
| spevack | Well, as everyone has seen, I wrote up the summary that I promised last week and sent it to the list | 19:07 |
| fugolini | of the FAmSCo discussion. | 19:07 |
| spevack | fugolini: no problem | 19:07 |
| spevack | ! | 19:07 |
| ... join!#fedora-meeting -> tatica_(n=tatica host-190-15-166-74 movilmax com) | 19:07 | |
| spevack | in writing it up, i felt like it made a pretty clear case for what the decisions should be | 19:08 |
| fugolini | spevack: take the voice, you | 19:08 |
| fugolini | :) | 19:08 |
| spevack | at this point, i don't have much to add. I guess my own views came across even though i tried to write | 19:08 |
| ... signoff!#fedora-meeting -> asgeirf(Read error: 145 (Connection timed out)) | 19:08 | |
| spevack | a unbiased summary | 19:08 |
| ... signoff!#fedora-meeting -> tatica(Nick collision from services.) | 19:08 | |
| ... nick!tatica_ -> tatica | 19:08 | |
| spevack | but i think we need to more or less | 19:08 |
| spevack | start making some decisions, and implementing new policies. | 19:08 |
| spevack | though some time for comments on the thread | 19:09 |
| spevack | and feedback | 19:09 |
| spevack | is worthwhile | 19:09 |
| spevack | that's all | 19:09 |
| * fugolini thinks that we can skip this formality if someone is directly involved in the discussion. Use it for questions/clarification (?) or suggestions (!) | 19:09 | |
| fugolini | +1 | 19:09 |
| ke4qqq | ! | 19:09 |
| spevack | ke4qqq: go for it | 19:09 |
| fugolini | ke4qqq: | 19:09 |
| ke4qqq | I think there are some parts of this that are ready to be baked - such as the inactive/active decision - seems like an easy vote to handle | 19:10 |
| ke4qqq | others such as raising the bar - sounds like we might be ready to start doing the leg work of drafting a proposal for a future meeting | 19:10 |
| ke4qqq | to actually vote on, though perhaps assigning those who would draft might be a discussion | 19:10 |
| fugolini | FAmSCo vote naturally :) (we represent all the community) | 19:10 |
| ke4qqq | eof from me | 19:11 |
| fugolini | ke4qqq: could be possible to formalize that proposal, in order to have a text to spread | 19:11 |
| fugolini | ? | 19:11 |
| susmit | ! ! | 19:11 |
| susmit | sorry | 19:11 |
| susmit | ! | 19:11 |
| fugolini | I know your email and the other ones are just clear enough, but I think we could take it as one, to help us | 19:12 |
| fugolini | susmit: | 19:12 |
| ke4qqq | fugolini: I am unclear on what you are asking - but you want me to restate here? | 19:12 |
| ke4qqq | for the log? | 19:12 |
| inode0 | ! | 19:12 |
| susmit | what happens to the existing but new (say 0-6 month old) ambassadors? Do we put the into the process again? | 19:12 |
| fugolini | ke4qqq: to make a formal voting request on FAmSCo list. Just that everyone could know perfectly what they are voting for | 19:13 |
| * susmit waiting for views | 19:13 | |
| ... join!#fedora-meeting -> fedora-angel(n=angel 116 193 168 179) | 19:13 | |
| fugolini | susmit: I'm sure we can use general principles, that says that new rules apply to new cases if they don't give a benefit to the previous situation | 19:13 |
| fugolini | *people that are just part of the project | 19:13 |
| fugolini | *principle | 19:14 |
| ke4qqq | fugolini: I did so for the inactive issue - and it was repeated verbatim in the email that spevack sent out | 19:14 |
| * ke4qqq is trying to find a link | 19:14 | |
| spevack | I think we need to draw a line under the current process, and once we have a new process basically just say "starting on THIS DATE, we now use THIS PROCESS" | 19:14 |
| fugolini | spevack: that's what I mean | 19:15 |
| fugolini | ke4qqq: are you talking about the official proposal? | 19:15 |
| ... join!#fedora-meeting -> G(n=njones fedora/G) | 19:15 | |
| susmit | spevack, exactly what I was trying to say, we had many ambassadors from India in last six months :) | 19:15 |
| fugolini | ke4qqq: ? | 19:16 |
| fugolini | ok, inode0 | 19:16 |
| kital | what do we need to have a quorum? | 19:16 |
| fugolini | kital: I think we can use 50% +1 of FAmSCo members (so 4 people) | 19:16 |
| ke4qqq | fugolini: this was what I proposed on famsco | 19:16 |
| ke4qqq | http://fpaste.org/paste/7063 | 19:16 |
| ke4qqq | and what max pasted back | 19:17 |
| fugolini | ke4qqq: I see the proposal, I mean have an email with this is what I'm asking to vote (really few lines), reply with +1 or -1 and give a reason | 19:17 |
| inode0 | I'm wondering if we (people not on FAmSCo) are being given a chance to give feedback? It seems you have already decided and are in a hurry to vote and be done with it? | 19:17 |
| fugolini | inode0: we are just doing this | 19:17 |
| fugolini | we opened the discussion to ambassadors list to give a chance to give a relevant position on the discussion | 19:17 |
| spevack | inode0: as far as i can tell, we're just talking. i already said that we need to give time for the thread i put on the list today to be discussed. | 19:18 |
| spevack | inode0: do you have any feedback for us? | 19:18 |
| inode0 | yes, and I gave quite a bit in another channel today - to respond by mail will take longer | 19:19 |
| susmit | I think we need to put up a date for voting...after a couple of week? | 19:19 |
| spevack | inode0: was it in #fedora-ambassadors? /me will make a point of going back and reading the channel logs | 19:19 |
| inode0 | yes | 19:19 |
| spevack | inode0: ok | 19:19 |
| inode0 | thanks, if we have a couple of weeks to discuss, then you take some time to consider the input, I'm happy | 19:20 |
| * kital thinks it is time to do it now | 19:20 | |
| ke4qqq | my concern is analysis paralysis - we've been discussing for weeks | 19:20 |
| * inode0 thinks he is getting that feeling it is decided already again | 19:21 | |
| kital | +1 ke4qqq | 19:21 |
| fugolini | sur | 19:21 |
| inode0 | that is all I wanted to say now | 19:21 |
| ... join!#fedora-meeting -> CheekyBoinc(n=CheekyBo port-92-196-94-178 dynamic qsc de) | 19:21 | |
| spevack | inode0: seriously, after all the time i took to bring that conversation out to ambassadors-list, you're not willing to give any benefit of the doubt? | 19:21 |
| spevack | inode0: no one is rushing towards anything | 19:21 |
| kital | inode0 if i understand your position right - than we have to decide personally that someone is ready to be a Ambassador - right? | 19:22 |
| inode0 | I can't explain it in 5 minutes in a meeting, I'm sorry. | 19:22 |
| kital | ok there are two topics on this | 19:23 |
| ke4qqq | at least two if not three | 19:23 |
| kital | Accounts which remained inactive for a period of greater than 30 days after a password reset has to be purged! | 19:23 |
| fugolini | didn't we discussed about 3 months? | 19:24 |
| fugolini | *discuss | 19:24 |
| spevack | inode0: i wrote that summary email particularly with you in mind, trying to make it clear who was advocating for what, and with different rationales | 19:24 |
| kital | this was my first suggestion 3 months after reset | 19:24 |
| kital | 30 days was the other suggestion by david | 19:25 |
| ... join!#fedora-meeting -> tkjacobsen_(n=tkjacobs pppoe2-ves broadcom dk) | 19:25 | |
| kital | so it is 6 month + 30days | 19:25 |
| inode0 | spevack: and I intended to thank you for sharing more details about internal FAmSCo business with us. Whatever I said here I were not the result of anything you have done. | 19:25 |
| fugolini | kital: what about the second topic? | 19:26 |
| kital | the other task is - how we can have more quality - now we could share our daily expiriences with new Ambassadors - we know the situation so we can skip this | 19:26 |
| kital | i have made proposals set a tightened filter | 19:27 |
| fugolini | sure we read, and, after seeing the situation, I agree with the points moved :) | 19:28 |
| spevack | I feel like we need to give people time to read the thread from today and respond. | 19:28 |
| spevack | and that famsco needs to make some decisions next week | 19:28 |
| ke4qqq | on both issues? | 19:28 |
| * spevack isn't sure | 19:28 | |
| * kital is not happy | 19:29 | |
| fugolini | at lead the first one | 19:29 |
| fugolini | *least | 19:29 |
| spevack | i just don't want to spend the next 30 mins re-writing stuff that I wrote this morning :) | 19:29 |
| * spevack sits back for a while and just listens | 19:29 | |
| kital | sure | 19:29 |
| kital | can we at least talk about if the filters i have suggested make sense | 19:29 |
| kital | ? | 19:29 |
| fugolini | sure, we can | 19:29 |
| kital | should i paste them here again? | 19:30 |
| * spevack worries whenever someone like kital says he is not happy. let's let kital talk :) | 19:30 | |
| ke4qqq | before we get started - do we not have a motion on the table? | 19:30 |
| fugolini | I personally agreed, like clint suggested in his mail, we should bring some filters as principle | 19:30 |
| fugolini | kital: sure | 19:30 |
| ... signoff!#fedora-meeting -> wwoods(Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) | 19:31 | |
| kital | - has to be a Contributor to another Sub-Project inside Fedora where a sponsor | 19:31 |
| kital | is needed | 19:31 |
| kital | - is recommended by a Contributor to another Sub-Project inside Fedora who | 19:31 |
| kital | will take mentorship for that person | 19:31 |
| ... signoff!#fedora-meeting -> nphilipp("Leaving") | 19:31 | |
| kital | - has contributed to Fedora on a event before | 19:31 |
| kital | - has to provide measureable, visible contributions before! (this can be done | 19:31 |
| kital | as soon as CLA is subscribed!) | 19:31 |
| kital | - has to spend money or whatever (if a company want to be Ambassador without | 19:31 |
| kital | doing work) | 19:31 |
| fugolini | ke4qqq: I think the 2 points moved by kital could be considered the motion: they are clear and simple redirect to topic discussed in the list | 19:31 |
| kital | recommended by a Contributor to another Sub-Project inside Fedora who will take mentorship for that person and has to provide measureable, visible contributions before! | 19:31 |
| kital | would be a good combination | 19:32 |
| fugolini | kital: I think those critieria are enought maybe we should bring them as parameters, giving a spectrum of choice to people | 19:32 |
| ... signoff!#fedora-meeting -> tkjacobsen_(Remote closed the connection) | 19:32 | |
| ... join!#fedora-meeting -> tkjacobsen_(n=tkjacobs pppoe2-ves broadcom dk) | 19:32 | |
| ... join!#fedora-meeting -> abadger1999(n=abadger1 12 185 22 226) | 19:32 | |
| ... join!#fedora-meeting -> mharris(n=mharris fedora/mharris) | 19:33 | |
| fugolini | kital: +1 for the last one, you were, like anytime, right having people that know the project | 19:33 |
| ... join!#fedora-meeting -> chitlesh_(n=chitlesh 56 1-200-80 adsl-dyn isp belgacom be) | 19:34 | |
| fugolini | we aren't like the beginning a small, not propely defined, project. After some years we have created a deep identity | 19:34 |
| kital | to match inode0's suggestion, regional mentors or qualified Ambassadors should turned into sponsors and decide by personal assessment <- i am not sure about that | 19:34 |
| ... join!#fedora-meeting -> thomasj(n=thomasj e180164076 adsl alicedsl de) | 19:34 | |
| fugolini | I think the guidelines you pasted above could be used as a parameter to judge | 19:34 |
| kital | spevack: not happy to have no decission - but i see that we have to refine this | 19:35 |
| spevack | kital: some of your points i agree with, and some of them i think are maybe a little bit too "harsh" | 19:35 |
| kital | sure they are just a proposal | 19:35 |
| spevack | kital: but generally, I think that we are on the right track. | 19:35 |
| fugolini | kital: I'm sorry I've not pushed for a fast decision, I preferred to wait till the situation was restored to a calm one | 19:35 |
| spevack | and I don't see anyone either in famsco or otherwise screaming that we're talking completely crazy. | 19:36 |
| spevack | am i wrong? | 19:36 |
| susmit | I am not sure if we can measure this by this "has contributed to Fedora on a event before" | 19:36 |
| ... signoff!#fedora-meeting -> mbacovsk_(Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) | 19:37 | |
| delhage | especially not for a new region? | 19:37 |
| fugolini | new region? | 19:37 |
| ... signoff!#fedora-meeting -> tkjacobsen(Connection timed out) | 19:37 | |
| * ke4qqq hasn't seen that this has been aynthing but a calm discussion | 19:37 | |
| fugolini | My proposal is to keep them as parameters, that could be | 19:37 |
| kital | delhage - as soon as one has signed the CLA he can contribute to Fedora | 19:37 |
| susmit | I know someone who volunteers at events but turned out to be not so good an ambassador | 19:37 |
| fugolini | ke4qqq: I'm talking about what happened in the list | 19:38 |
| fugolini | ke4qqq: see the "Reply to this mail" thread | 19:38 |
| delhage | I mean ambassaors in a region where there haven't been any before | 19:38 |
| fugolini | delhage: ah | 19:38 |
| * fugolini thinks he is completely understandable :/ | 19:39 | |
| ke4qqq | ahhh ok | 19:39 |
| kital | sure - but even in a new region fedora should be presented in the right way - and i am sure as i know you - you had find a way into Ambassadors through that filter | 19:39 |
| * delhage thinks he might have misunderstood | 19:39 | |
| fugolini | Just to repeat myself: instead of creating some strict criteria we should give some "parameters" and a range they could used, like "take part to an event --in real case--> if in XXX there wasn't event just check for the other ones | 19:40 |
| fugolini | So, just to summary what we discuss since now: | 19:41 |
| fugolini | 1) For next week meeting, after we have read feedbacks from the list, we have to take a decision on the 2 proposals Joerg moved | 19:42 |
| fugolini | 2) For the criteria, it seems people agreed having them. Discuss on how we should use them. | 19:43 |
| fugolini | isn't right? | 19:43 |
| fugolini | ... | 19:43 |
| kital | to 1) - purging inactive Accounts can be decided today? | 19:43 |
| kital | for the rest +1 | 19:44 |
| fugolini | sure we can | 19:44 |
| ... signoff!#fedora-meeting -> che__(Read error: 60 (Operation timed out)) | 19:44 | |
| spevack | do we have a definitive answer from Fedora Infrastructure | 19:44 |
| spevack | on whether or not they are implementing a global policy to deal with inactive FAS accounts? | 19:44 |
| spevack | because if they are doing that, then their decision "outranks" ours, doesn't it? | 19:45 |
| ke4qqq | ! | 19:45 |
| fugolini | ke4qqq: | 19:45 |
| ke4qqq | spevack: they have said they have no definitive plans yet, but do plan at some yet undefined point in the future to strip people of all groups if they have been inactive for a certain length of time | 19:45 |
| spevack | well, ok. | 19:46 |
| spevack | then... doesn't that settle it? | 19:46 |
| ke4qqq | specifically | 19:46 |
| ke4qqq | mmcgrath said: If you guys want to wait on our lead, it'll probably be something closer | 19:46 |
| ke4qqq | to 6 months for now and we'll basically take the user out of all groups | 19:46 |
| ke4qqq | and change their email address to something like: | 19:46 |
| spevack | we'll let the global FAS active/inactive policy apply for Ambassadors? | 19:46 |
| ke4qqq | We've got plans for all of this but none of them are | 19:46 |
| ke4qqq | totally set in stone yet. | 19:47 |
| ... signoff!#fedora-meeting -> ChitleshGoorah(Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) | 19:47 | |
| spevack | Then I guess my question to FAMSCo would be: | 19:47 |
| ... signoff!#fedora-meeting -> cassmodiah(Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)) | 19:47 | |
| ... join!#fedora-meeting -> ldimagg__(n=ldimaggi nat/redhat/x-b1f1fb6a8e7494b7) | 19:47 | |
| spevack | shouldn't we just allow the global policy for fedora accounts that Fedora Infrastructure is creating be the policy that we follow? | 19:47 |
| fugolini | +1 | 19:47 |
| spevack | i don't think they'd appreciate (or want) every sub-project coming up with its own policy. that would be broken for sure | 19:48 |
| fugolini | (for the reasons expressed in the list, even if the question was difference) | 19:48 |
| spevack | since one account is a member of (potentially) many projects | 19:48 |
| ke4qqq | they actually encouraged that | 19:48 |
| spevack | yeah, i'd assume so. | 19:48 |
| ... join!#fedora-meeting -> tkjacobsen__(n=tkjacobs pppoe2-ves broadcom dk) | 19:48 | |
| spevack | so.... what are we arguing about? :) | 19:48 |
| fugolini | spevack: yeah, it couldn't be a productive way to handle things | 19:48 |
| kital | we had to pirge the "Ambassadors from ..." also | 19:48 |
| ke4qqq | no | 19:48 |
| kital | s/pirge/purge | 19:48 |
| ke4qqq | I mean they encouraged us to do it on our own | 19:48 |
| fugolini | ke4qqq: why? | 19:48 |
| fugolini | ah | 19:49 |
| ke4qqq | rather than letting them hold the hot potato | 19:49 |
| ke4qqq | :) | 19:49 |
| fugolini | ghggh | 19:49 |
| ke4qqq | I don't know if that's the reason | 19:49 |
| ke4qqq | but mike said that he 'hate[s] makeing global changes like this' | 19:49 |
| ... signoff!#fedora-meeting -> thomasj_(Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) | 19:50 | |
| kital | what we want to clean up is not the Account itself only Group membership to Ambassadors - right? | 19:50 |
| fugolini | yes | 19:50 |
| susmit | yes | 19:50 |
| ke4qqq | so my concern is that I don't want to come across as shirking our responsibilibity - and dodging it because eventually someone else may handle it | 19:50 |
| ke4qqq | I know it's a hot potato | 19:50 |
| kital | the global clean-up that infrastructure is planning is the account - right? | 19:50 |
| fugolini | the hottest one :) | 19:50 |
| spevack | kital: yes, of course! | 19:50 |
| * spevack hits himself in the face | 19:51 | |
| spevack | there is a difference between the ACCOUNT and the AMBASSADORS GROUP MEMBERSHIP | 19:51 |
| * spevack is an idiot | 19:51 | |
| * spevack removes himself from al groups :P | 19:51 | |
| fugolini | lol | 19:51 |
| kital | hihi | 19:51 |
| susmit | :) | 19:51 |
| ke4qqq | lol | 19:51 |
| kital | so it is not so hot :) for us | 19:52 |
| ... leave!#fedora-meeting -> Khaytsus() | 19:52 | |
| ... join!#fedora-meeting -> wwoods(n=wwoods nat/redhat/x-8578a2521d6fd794) | 19:53 | |
| fugolini | So, at the end, should we make the purge on our own? | 19:53 |
| fugolini | My natural answer seems to be yes | 19:53 |
| * spevack wants to know what inode0 thinks is right | 19:54 | |
| ... join!#fedora-meeting -> mcepl(n=mcepl 49-117-207-85 strcechy adsl-llu static bluetone cz) | 19:55 | |
| ... signoff!#fedora-meeting -> fcrippa("Leaving") | 19:55 | |
| susmit | fugolini, I think we should. | 19:55 |
| fugolini | inode0: ping | 19:55 |
| spevack | fugolini: i believe i agree with you, though | 19:55 |
| kital | +1 | 19:55 |
| ke4qqq | +1 | 19:56 |
| inode0 | sorry, I need to read a little back | 19:56 |
| ... signoff!#fedora-meeting -> tkjacobsen_(Connection timed out) | 19:56 | |
| fugolini | 5/7, it's passed so | 19:56 |
| ... join!#fedora-meeting -> MrTom(n=MrTom fedora/MrTom) | 19:56 | |
| ... signoff!#fedora-meeting -> drago01(Remote closed the connection) | 19:57 | |
| fugolini | nothing that needs a POV but just something concrete :) | 19:57 |
| MrTom | hi 'im sorry i just came home :( I was busy with Solution Linux stand materials | 19:57 |
| fugolini | Anything to say. I think our time is coming to an end. I'm sure those 3 points today were cleared enough | 19:57 |
| spevack | MrTom: that's a huge event, and very important for your time! | 19:58 |
| fugolini | MrTom: don't worry | 19:58 |
| MrTom | I have a Fedora banner horizontal | 19:58 |
| MrTom | antoher one vertical | 19:58 |
| fugolini | So, is ok if we adjourn meeting to next week (NA FAmSCo Regional Meeting) | 19:59 |
| fugolini | ? | 19:59 |
| spevack | fugolini: i'm glad next week is NA, because I'm worried that we're 1/3 through this quarter, and we've barely spent any money yet! | 19:59 |
| kital | do we have a decission? | 19:59 |
| * spevack needs herlo, inode0, and ke4qqq to start spending money :P | 19:59 | |
| fugolini | OO | 19:59 |
| fugolini | loooooooooool | 19:59 |
| fugolini | sure they have!!! | 19:59 |
| fugolini | I'll collects topic from the Ambassador List thread about it | 20:00 |
| kital | purging inactive accounts | 20:00 |
| fugolini | I invite all NA Ambassadors to suggests topic to discuss. Naturally 1) Budget :) | 20:00 |
| spevack | fugolini: did we make a decision? | 20:00 |
| fugolini | kital: sure | 20:00 |
| fugolini | (07:56:28 PM) fugolini: 5/7, it's passed so | 20:00 |
| ... signoff!#fedora-meeting -> ldimaggi_(Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) | 20:00 | |
| susmit | kital, 5/7 | 20:00 |
| susmit | :) | 20:01 |
| spevack | so can we summarize here exactly what we decided | 20:01 |
| spevack | so that it is also clear what we did NOT decide | 20:01 |
| spevack | and to hopefully prevent confusion later | 20:01 |
| spevack | though /me assumes that confusion will always exist | 20:01 |
| * spevack is grupmy, apparently | 20:01 | |
| ... signoff!#fedora-meeting -> ldimagg__("Leaving") | 20:02 | |
| ... signoff!#fedora-meeting -> abadger1999(Remote closed the connection) | 20:02 | |
| fugolini | 1) We decided to purge inactive Accounts from Ambassadors FAS Group after | 20:02 |
| ke4qqq | spevack: wish for me to write that summary? | 20:02 |
| spevack | ke4qqq: that would be wonderful | 20:02 |
| ke4qqq | ok | 20:02 |
| fugolini | +1 too | 20:03 |
| fugolini | During the meeting we have made some summaries (I'm sorry for the language, I hope to improve soon :)) | 20:03 |
| fugolini | I hope they could useful. | 20:03 |
| fugolini | BTW, can we adjourn the meeting? | 20:03 |
| kital | +1 | 20:04 |
| spevack | +1 | 20:04 |
| spevack | fugolini: thank you for leading a difficult meeting | 20:04 |
| kital | thanks fugolini | 20:04 |
| susmit | good night :) | 20:04 |
| fugolini | I'm sorry if the language barrier make my lead not so useful | 20:04 |
| kital | cu | 20:04 |
| susmit | or have a nice day ;) | 20:04 |
| fugolini | ehehe, cu too | 20:05 |
| susmit | bye | 20:05 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature