agenda for 06-Mar-2007 FDSCo meeting

[Paul W. Frields]

On Fri, 2007-03-02 at 19:40 +0100, Bart Couvreur wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Karsten Wade schreef:
> > We have a few items that have backed up to deal with; please help me
> > make sure that enough of these *decision* items make it on the agenda.
> > Bringing them up on-list means we can work out the details *before the
> > meeting*.   This is a new paradigm for FDSCo, but one we have all spoken
> > of following (iirc). ;-)
> > 
> So let's get the on-list decision stuff done then :)
> 
> > 0. Meeting time -- [LIST DECISION]
> 
> So I've been looking through our previous thread[1] on this very subject
> and the small consensus seemed to be the three-hour window.
> 
> Tue 2100 UTC +3  to     Tue 0000 UTC +3
> Tue 1800 UTC     to     Tue 2100 UTC
> Tue 1300 EST     to     Tue 1600 EST
> Tue 1000 PST     to     Tue 1300 PST
> 
> Is this still probable? We should identify specific "full committee"
> decisions ahead of time, to make sure we have a quorum hanging around.
> (candidates see below)

I have two problems here, one of them selfishly motivated and the other
decidedly not:

1.  Selfish reason:  That's smack in the middle of my workday, and my
$DAYJOB cuts me *ZERO* time for Fedora.  That's not to say I don't sneak
some in here and there, but Fedora is the first thing that gets
eliminated when I have deadlines or priorities to meet.  I would REALLY
like to be involved in these meetings, but I simply can't commit to it
during these hours. :-(  Nevertheless, there's always IRC logging and
catchup that would make up for it somewhat, and waiting for me to get
home automatically pushes our European contingent into very late hours,
so I understand.  

Is there no one interested in a weekend meeting?  (I know, we all need
lives.)

2.  Unselfish reason:  This project has really begun to do a LOT of work
on IRC and not on the mailing list.  The number of people on IRC is
*FAR* fewer than the number of people on the mailing list, and I worry
that our opportunities for public collaboration are being stifled in
that regard.  We have a lot of lurkers who might be drawn in by the
right conversation or idea.  The 3-hour meeting idea might contribute to
this, but I'm not sure.  If I'm retreading old ground or reversing
myself, mea culpa, I am legion.

> > 1. Elect new chair/project leader [MEETING DECISION]
> >    1.1 Decide if chair is 12 mon. or 6 mon. position? [MEETING DECISION]
> >        -- on-list discussion?
> - -> This would be a candidate
> > 
> > 2. Meetings on #fedora-docs v. #fedora-meeting [MEETING DECISION]
> > 
> > 3. Confirm FDP schedule for F7 [LIST DISCUSSION],[MEETING DECISION]
> 
> We should consider L10N workload here, maybe only do a final version of
> guides on L10N-level.

The benefit of pushing it a couple times is that small changes (which
inevitably happen from the last test => final, regardless of whining to
the contrary!) can make it into the guides.  We've made a lot of
progress toward minimizing string changes so I would hope the extra work
would be minimal, unlike the release notes situation we landed in last
release, which was unintentional and shouldn't recur with our current
procedures.

Pushing twice also means that if a translation team puts off one project
in favor of the other (relnotes, guides), they have that opportunity
without having to accomplish everything at one time on a short deadline.
(Yikes!)

-- 
Paul W. Frields, RHCE                          http://paul.frields.org/
  gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233  5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
      Fedora Project:  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PaulWFrields
  irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-docs-list/attachments/20070302/e263a2dc/attachment.sig>