== Meeting information == * #ubuntu-meeting Meeting, 20 Mar at 17:05 — 17:59 UTC * Full logs at [[http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2014/ubuntu-meeting.2014-03-20-17.05.log.html]] == Meeting summary == === Checking in with the Loco Council === The discussion about "Checking in with the Loco Council" started at 17:05. * ''LINK:'' http://lococouncil.ubuntu.com/2014/02/16/interim-report-on-2014-census-effort/ has an interim report published a month ago === Any other business... === The discussion about "Any other business..." started at 17:58. == Vote results == == Done items == * (none) == People present (lines said) == * jose (55) * dholbach (52) * pleia2 (33) * PabloRubianes (31) * elfy (23) * cprofitt (14) * mhall119 (13) * coolbhavi (12) * czajkowski (7) * meetingology (7) * YokoZar (4) == Full Log == 17:05 #startmeeting 17:05 Meeting started Thu Mar 20 17:05:08 2014 UTC. The chair is dholbach. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology. 17:05 17:05 Available commands: action commands idea info link nick 17:05 #chairs YokoZar mhall119 17:05 hum 17:05 #chair YokoZar mhall119 17:05 Current chairs: YokoZar dholbach mhall119 17:05 hi 17:05 aha! 17:05 #chair elfy 17:05 Current chairs: YokoZar dholbach elfy mhall119 17:05 a wild elfy appeared! 17:05 o/ 17:05 #topic Checking in with the Loco Council 17:05 #chair pleia2 17:05 Current chairs: YokoZar dholbach elfy mhall119 pleia2 17:06 PabloRubianes, jose: thanks a lot for joining us today 17:06 How are you doing? How is the LoCo Council doing right now? 17:06 hello hello :) 17:06 hello 17:07 aloha 17:07 I think PabloRubianes should go, he's been there before I joined :) 17:07 well here I go 17:07 hey coolbhavi 17:07 I think that with the addition of the new members we had a new energy in the team 17:07 hey dholbach 17:08 that's great 17:08 always good to hear about new energy 17:08 mainly in the this period we had a LoCo Check in 17:09 we contact all the LoCos listed in the loco portal 17:09 this is something we want to do every 6 months cicle 17:10 is not part of the verified process just a "hello how are you? can we help in something?" 17:10 It's a good idea ;) 17:10 An inspired one, even 17:10 yep 17:10 is it doable though 17:10 yes and the response was also quite good except few teams who failed to respond 17:10 it is then :) 17:11 even after say a week 17:11 we got in the past some feedback of not been as present as LoCos expected so this can help with this 17:11 http://lococouncil.ubuntu.com/2014/02/16/interim-report-on-2014-census-effort/ has an interim report published a month ago 17:11 great... I could imagine that if you run something like this the first time, you get a few who don't respond 17:11 coolbhavi: who did you contact was it the person listed on LP or LTP or how did you directly contact the team ? 17:11 did you mail the contacts of the loco or their mailing lists? 17:11 :) 17:11 #chair czajkowski 17:11 Current chairs: YokoZar czajkowski dholbach elfy mhall119 pleia2 17:11 the contacts directly, mostly we wanted to see if the contact was still active and how the team was doing 17:11 czajkowski: team contact 17:12 czajkowski, we contacted the team contacts 17:12 dholbach: great minds :) 17:12 I think that our main goal is to demonstrate teams and team contacts (who often have some questions) that there's people there to give a hand when needed, and we tried to achieve that with the check-ins 17:12 that's great 17:12 * coolbhavi remembers the d-a-t reachout feedback cycle here 17:13 seems a lot of loco's didn't respond then 17:13 that was the main issue, yes 17:13 I could imagine that in some cases you hit LoCos whose contacts got too busy, or where it might make sense to explain the distinction between "a contact" (somebody who can be contacted) and a "team leader" :) 17:14 dholbach: busy or not the contact anymore 17:14 yes again few who responded said our loco team is not so active 17:14 sometimes LoCo info gets outdated 17:14 did you have follow-up conversations with some of the teams? like the ones who said "yeah, we actually do need help" 17:14 jose: can I suggest mailing the teams directly as I know some contacts may not be the contact any more nad there could be others who running things 17:15 czajkowski: that's actually a good idea, which is what actually happens in ubuntu-de, maybe we can try that with the teams that didn't respond 17:15 jose: +1 17:15 dholbach, yes basically and the questions that we got were mostly on loco resources 17:16 and on LoCo activity 17:16 the need of new members or members who want to organize is common 17:16 about that contact/team leader thing, we're trying to define it as usually the contact doesn't have contact with the team leader, and it's more useful to have team leaders as contact 17:16 s 17:17 jose, I think that it'd be super helpful to get that message across 17:17 would a blog post stating that sound good to you? 17:18 yeah, that might be a good start :) 17:18 it would sound good to me too :) 17:18 added to our trello board :) 17:19 so I'm not so sure about that 17:19 another stuff we were working in 17:19 pleia2: about what? 17:19 I like the contact is a delegated thing, if a leader doesn't want to do it they can tell someone else to be contact 17:19 requiring leaders to take on specific responsibilities seems a bit odd 17:19 making it more clear that contacts and leaders must communicate is good, but requiring leaders to handle that administrative thing... no so much 17:19 pleia2: possibly so - but if the contact isn't contactable then I'd say that at the least a leader should be 17:20 Does the loco council feel that the situation with Loco logistic support (CDs, etc) is better than in the past? 17:20 how about getting the mails on the mailing list if available so that if members see it they would be able to respond? 17:20 I'm happy to be a leader and contact, by my two co-leaders seem quite happy not to have to deal with that responsiblity 17:20 pleia2: of the 156 teams contacted, the council only received responses from 53 teams would suggest that something needs to be looked at 17:20 elfy: oh of course, I just don't like top down mandates of roles ;) 17:20 ha, and now I'm late 17:21 :) 17:21 contacts and leaders must work together, but I don't think they need to be the same people 17:21 pleia2: I think that what you're mentioning may work for some teams, but for others it doesn't, contacts are the ones that usually drop more quicker 17:21 I think that you're right to try something new 17:22 jose: that's kind of my point :) teams organize how they organize, mandating that a leader must be a contact also won't work for everyone, so why not just say that contacts and leaders must work together? 17:22 pleia2, hum... that's at least how I understood the conversation earlier - that a team leader doesn't need to be the contact, but that we need somebody who's contactable 17:22 YokoZar: I think we're good with it, communication with Canonical in those terms is good since I joined, and Michelle/Cezzaine have been super responsive to all our enquiries 17:22 and see if something needs to be tweeked/changed slightly in order to get more feedback from the teams 17:22 (or maybe I misunderstood the last parts of the conversation now) 17:23 my concern really is just that we don't want to enforce structure on teams 17:23 ok 17:23 pleia2: I would agree with that - it should be up to the loco and council - but to have a loco uncontactable doesn't work for anyone 17:23 "have a contactable contact" sounds like a reasonable request to me ;-) 17:23 I'd be annoyed if my team were required to all of a sudden make our trio of leaders contacts too 17:24 dholbach: yeah 17:24 when you say you want leaders to be contactable, what does that mean? that they subscribe to loco-contacts? That you (the LC) can sent them email directly? 17:24 mhall119: they emailed all contacts directly, many didn't reply 17:24 I'd say that when us (LC) email them directly they respond 17:24 * pleia2 nods 17:25 it seems to me that it's a judgement call, whether a particular message should go to just team contacts, or contacts *and* leaders 17:25 for example, if it's to announce global jam, that's appropriate for just contacts, if it's for a team health check, that should be both contacts and leaders 17:26 in this case, which was about health, we tried to contact leaders without getting an answer from many of them 17:26 global jam-like things are usually announced via the loco-contacts ML, so it goes to the contacts 17:26 in that case, it sound like a separate issue from who is listed as a contact 17:27 I never did like the name of the loco-contacts mailing list ;) 17:27 should just be locoteams, everyone should subscribe 17:27 (indeed, I tell people to subscribe all the time) 17:27 * mhall119 isn't opposed to that, but sounds like it should be it's own topic 17:27 yeah 17:28 I think we need to further discuss how can we make team leaders contactable in case we need it, and still don't enforce structure on the teams 17:28 * pleia2 nods 17:28 yeah, leaders should always be responsive to direct emails from the LC 17:29 IMO, that is one of the responsibilities of being a leader 17:29 contact is the person who is the liason for 3rd party things (supplies from canonical, books from publishers) 17:29 one thing that I saw was that when the LC directly contacted a team leader in a certain team, he didn't respond, but when he got an email from another team member saying to contact us he did respond 17:29 and can reply to inqueries 17:30 requiring that person to be a leader is... a different skillset :) 17:30 pleia2: +1 17:30 I don't understand why there is an issue with a 'leader' being contactable 17:31 elfy: it's just that some of them aren't, for unknown reasons 17:31 elfy: there is a difference between "contact" and "contactable" 17:31 yea - I get that :) 17:31 pleia2: agreed 17:31 leaders should respond, certainly 17:31 but "contact" is a specific role 17:32 mmm 17:32 so we're going to further discuss that and we'll report the results to the CC 17:32 thanks jose 17:32 thanks jose 17:32 great - thanks a lot 17:32 what has been keeping the LoCo Council busy in the last cycle? 17:32 :) 17:33 we've basically had some discussions about how things are moving 17:33 we discuss everything on a Trello board and have a voting system there 17:33 cool 17:33 any LC member can propose an item to be discussed, and once it has 4 votes it's moved for discussion 17:34 we've also set bug status definitions on the ubuntu-locoteams project (see https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LoCoCouncil/BugStatus) 17:34 dholbach, reverification rebranding and reachout 3R's basically and internal discussions. 17:35 about verification, we're using both the traditional meeting method, where the team leader attends the LC meeting set to be done on this channel and we check things, and our new bug/email method 17:35 a bug is created on the ubuntu-locoteams project for each (re-)verification to be done on the cycle, and with those bug statuses we've set we track the progress of the (re-)verification 17:36 and that's working well? 17:36 works better than I expected, most leaders prefer to do it via email 17:37 so how it works is, once they post the link to their verification application, we check it, and once the first vote is casted all LC members have 7 days to vote 17:37 nice :) 17:37 in case not all votes have been casted within the first 7 days, then it only needs only +4 votes, which would make it positive even if the other 2 missing people voted -1 17:38 it's interesting to see which forms of organisation work well for which teams :) 17:38 :) 17:38 I think it's basically because timezones suck :) 17:38 ha ha ha 17:39 that makes a lot of sense :) 17:39 * elfy likes the "votes have been casted within the first 7 day ..." thing and ponders 17:39 oh, and we're trying to encourage as many teams as possible to be verified so they can get their DVD pack from Canonical 17:39 dholbach, we call it a vote shot clock and as jose said differing timezones are sometimes tough to handle 17:40 yeah, I remember a few other boards having similar issues - mailing list threads going on forever, people forgetting to vote, etc 17:40 the verification system allows this to be more efficient than approval as teams find it easier - we only check that the leader/contact have signed the CoC, that all resources are set up and follow the naming standards, and they're alive and have good health 17:40 so this is interesting to see :) 17:41 yes, this is good to see 17:41 hey, cprofitt! 17:41 hello jose 17:41 Did you get many direct enquiries from LoCos themselves? I think I recall this taking up the majority of time of the LC in the past. 17:41 jose: are the verification requirements listed somewhere? 17:42 dholbach: not that much, what consumes most of our time is discussion as well as verifications and guiding people for a successful verification 17:42 Another topic that we are working is the subteam thing 17:42 mhall119: we have https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LoCoCouncil/TeamVerificationGuidelines 17:42 czajkowski: might remember this 17:42 thanks jose 17:42 sure 17:43 oh, yep, the subteams issue 17:43 we are trying to see which is the best solution for this 17:43 as some teams want to divide but we dont have resources for all 17:43 and some of the divisions could kill teams 17:44 and we have the fact that USA for example is divided 17:44 the issue of sub-teams is a complex one... 17:44 cprofitt: yes it is 17:45 but we want to have a conclusion to this topic soon to move forward this 17:45 it becomes difficult to monitor teams as the number grows... but I do understand the desire to organize on a smaller geographic region 17:45 cprofitt: I always believe the brazilian model is the best 17:46 one main team and subteams within the team 17:46 not separate locos 17:46 and it's only considered as one team, with a board, though 17:46 PabloRubianes: just keep in mind there is no solution that everyone will be satisfied with ... you have to do what you feel is withing the capabilities of the community to handle and is healthy for the loco teams 17:46 cprofitt: +1 17:47 cprofitt: yes 17:47 What I have always been concerned with is the splintering of teams due to personalities and not other factors 17:47 cprofitt: we also care about the resources as DVDs and conf packs too 17:47 that is something that should never happen, conflicts are to be resolved 17:48 jose, the podcast you're doing on Saturday(?) - how many of them did you do before? 17:48 dholbach: 0, it's the first edition ever 17:48 dholbach: is a hangout 17:48 ah... yes, a hangout - right :) 17:48 PabloRubianes: I think the resource issue can be dealt with regardless of how many teams / sub teams there are... but the question would be how much time would be necessary to manage it... 17:48 nice :-) 17:48 I'm looking forward to it 17:49 that takes us to the next point, in our efforts to engage with the community we'll be having a monthly ubuntuonair show, the LoCo Teams update (http://lococouncil.ubuntu.com/2014/02/28/loco-teams-update-on-air/) 17:49 Nice, what do you plan on covering in these? 17:49 the show is to be community-focused, so it's a show made by LoCo Teams for LoCo Teams, anyone can submit news 17:50 basically what teams have been doing 17:50 nice 17:50 jose, I added a few small things to your notes :) 17:50 we want to recognize the efforts of the loco community, and also use it to announce a couple things or give some advice in terms of event organizing 17:50 dholbach: cool, I'll check them in a while 17:51 I think it's great - especially if you showcase great work which has been happening elsewhere 17:52 we expect it to happen more frequently if needed (if teams send so many events we can't cover all of them doing a monthly 1h session) 17:52 yeah, I'm really looking forward to the results from this :) 17:52 we thought on a Saturday as most LoCo people are off-work that day 17:52 that all sounds like good stuff 17:52 yes having events in not working days is something we find important 17:53 I think there are a lot of positive angles to it and look forward to seeing it in action 17:53 Is there anything the CC could help with? 17:54 well, if you guys can give us some input about the subteams thing that would be useful 17:54 yeap 17:55 input on sub-teams... 17:55 I could imagine that that could result in a loooooooooooooooong discussion. :-) 17:55 again 17:55 I think you should look at both sides of that issue and determine the road blocks 17:55 again for you pleia2 :p 17:55 shall we take that offline or discuss in a hangout on air maybe? 17:55 once you have that list you could submit it to the CC for input 17:55 elfy: there have been many threads about pros and cons on loco-contacts 17:55 I don't doubt it :) 17:56 I'm done with questions... pleia2, cprofitt, elfy, czajkowski, mhall119, YokoZar: anything else from you? 17:56 I'm good 17:56 nothing from me 17:56 nothing ele from me 17:56 I recall the pains when czajkowski sergio chris n myself went through brainstorming on this when we started 17:56 thanks everyone :) 17:56 * mhall119 needs to get his team re-verified 17:56 I'm good, thank you guys :) 17:56 nothing from me thanks 17:57 well, if you have anything to say the team is completely open to suggestions, we want to make the loco experience better than ever :) 17:57 great, thanks so much for your hard work on the LC 17:57 yes thanks to all the CC members too :) 17:57 hugs! :) 17:57 thanks everyone 17:58 and thanks for making time 17:58 * jose hugs dholbach 17:58 #topic Any other business... 17:58 no problem thanks for having us 17:58 :-) 17:58 Does anyone have anything else to discuss? 17:58 Looks like all's good. 17:59 Thanks everyone! 17:59 #endmeeting Generated by MeetBot 0.1.5 (http://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology)