XSF Discussion - 2010-10-25


  1. bear has left
  2. bear has joined
  3. bear has left
  4. Tobias has joined
  5. Tobias has left
  6. Tobias has joined
  7. Kev has joined
  8. Nÿco has joined
  9. Tobias has left
  10. Tobias has joined
  11. Tobias has joined
  12. Tobias has joined
  13. Tobias has left
  14. Neustradamus has left
  15. Neustradamus has joined
  16. luca tagliaferri has joined
  17. bear has joined
  18. Tobias has joined
  19. Nÿco has left
  20. Kev has left
  21. Kev has joined
  22. Tobias has left
  23. will.sheward has joined
  24. will.sheward has left
  25. zanchin has joined
  26. Alex has joined
  27. stpeter has joined
  28. Tobias has joined
  29. Tobias isn't there supposed to be a meeting about now?
  30. Kev An hour.
  31. Tobias ah :)
  32. Kev 1900UTC, I think.
  33. Tobias council meeting now?
  34. Kev Or so the announcement said.
  35. Kev Yes.
  36. Kev If Council turn up :)
  37. Tobias ah, then i got them mixed up
  38. will.sheward has joined
  39. will.sheward has left
  40. Nÿco has joined
  41. Tobias set the topic to XSF discussion room | Check http://xmpp.org/calendar/ for the next scheduled meeting | logs here: http://logs.xmpp.org/xsf/
  42. MattJ has joined
  43. MattJ whistles
  44. Nÿco hi
  45. Kev Ah, we have at least a reasonable number of members turning up for *this* meeting.
  46. Kev Let's hope the next Council can manage to turn up for their meetings :)
  47. Tobias if someone with admin right could adjust the log link to http://logs.xmpp.org/xsf , it's much shorter
  48. MattJ Will Alex send a reminder to the list?
  49. Kev He sent one not long ago, I thought.
  50. Kev Indeed, 5 hours ago.
  51. MattJ You have too much faith in our members if you think that's "not long ago" ;)
  52. Nÿco we can batch invite ;-)
  53. Tobias MattJ: don't expect members to be late just because councilers were ;)
  54. MattJ I wasn't late, it was a "delayed entrance"
  55. Tobias germans would call that hyperlate
  56. Tobias :P
  57. Neustradamus has left
  58. Florob has joined
  59. ralphm has joined
  60. ralphm I wasn't late, space-time is just oddly shaped
  61. Mick Thompson has joined
  62. stpeter posts to identi.ca just for good measure
  63. Johann Prieur has joined
  64. Ali Sabil has joined
  65. Steven Parkes has joined
  66. tofu has joined
  67. Johann Prieur has left
  68. johann.prieur has joined
  69. johann.prieur hi
  70. stpeter hi
  71. Kev Guess it's time for the show to start :)
  72. stpeter just about :)
  73. ralphm has left
  74. ralphm has joined
  75. Alex hi @all
  76. luca tagliaferri hi
  77. Alex ok, lets start the meeting
  78. zanchin hi!
  79. Alex bangs the gavel
  80. Alex here is our genda for today: http://xmpp.org/about-xmpp/xsf/meeting-minutes/xsf-member-meeting-2010-10-25/
  81. Alex new webpage ;-)
  82. MattJ Fancy
  83. Tobias with so much xmpp in the url
  84. Tobias :P
  85. stpeter heehee
  86. MattJ "Where" is wrong :)
  87. Alex just made a change, please reload
  88. stpeter yeah, we'll update that
  89. Alex 1) Call for Quorum
  90. will.sheward has joined
  91. Alex as you can see 41 members voted via proxy
  92. Alex we have 72 members, so we have a quorum
  93. Alex 2) Items Subject to a Vote
  94. ralphm yay!
  95. stpeter MattJ: I'll fix that error when the meeting is over
  96. Alex board and council elections, you can see the applicants on the Agenda
  97. MattJ np :)
  98. MattJ is just bug-hunting
  99. Alex 3) Opportunity for XSF members to Vote in the Meeting
  100. Alex anybody here who has not voted yet via proxy?
  101. stpeter argh, brb
  102. Alex nobody, ok, let me prepare the results then
  103. luca tagliaferri has left
  104. luca tagliaferri has joined
  105. MattJ This should be a good stress test for the new site as everyone sits refreshing the page :)
  106. Kev Heh.
  107. Alex counted, now leeme sort the results
  108. Kev We already stresstested the new site when one of the plugins was hitting it thousands of times a second for the calender.
  109. stpeter nice!
  110. ralphm wow
  111. MattJ Kev, I guess that's one way to keep time
  112. Alex 4) Announcement of Voting Results
  113. Alex when you reload the page you can see the results
  114. MattJ Interesting, not what I expected :)
  115. Tobias sortable tables might be nice next time
  116. Tobias :)
  117. Alex Tobias: they should work in wordpress, but I don't know yet how to create and use them ;-)
  118. Alex have to ask Will
  119. will.sheward for a fee, i'll teach you ;-)
  120. Alex so our new board is: Jack Moffit Florian Jensen Will Sheward Mike Taylor Nicolas Verite
  121. Alex and the council: Kevin Smith Matthew Wild Matthew Miller Ralph Meijer Nathanael Fritz
  122. Alex 5) Any Other Business?
  123. stpeter revote!
  124. Alex I have 2 points for that
  125. Kev We *just* managed to avoid the situation I was worried about for Council.
  126. Florob wonders why Nathanael Fritz has less total votes then everyone else...
  127. Alex Kev: yes, thats my point no.1
  128. stpeter :)
  129. ralphm stpeter: don't steel my lines
  130. Alex can you please explain the issue?
  131. Kev Current Bylaws say that to be on Council you have to be in the top X (decided by Members, currently 5) people sorted by vote count.
  132. Kev You also need to have >50% yes votes.
  133. Kev Because we limit you to giving 5 yes votes in memberbot (but not in the bylaws), you can get situations where you don't have a full Council because of this.
  134. stpeter (or Board)
  135. Kev e.g. if you have 11 people standing, each of whom gets an even number of votes, you have no-one with >50% yesses, and no people on Council/Board.
  136. Kev The problem is that we have bylaws that require both ordering and "Yes I'm willing to have them serve, no I'm not", and a memberbot that only gives ordering.
  137. Alex here are my stats of the current vote, you can see we were close to such an issue: NAME YES NO TOTAL % Board: ====== Kevin Smith 37 3 40 92,5 Matthew Wild 32 8 40 80 Matthew Miller 30 10 40 75 Ralph Meijer 26 14 40 65 Nathanael Fritz 24 16 40 60 Tobias Markmann 19 21 40 47,5 Waqas Hussain 18 22 40 45 Abhinav Singh 8 32 40 20 Council: ======== Jack Moffit 38 2 40 95 Florian Jensen 37 3 40 92,5 Will Sheward 37 3 40 92,5 Mike Taylor 33 7 40 82,5 Nicolas Verite 22 18 40 55 Guillaume Le Gales 20 20 40 50
  138. stpeter is in favor of Condorcet voting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method
  139. Tobias are those with the number a bit more left the persons with *adjusted numbers*? ;)
  140. Kev So It may be that everyone agrees that 5 people standing are good for C/B, but because the voters were limited to 5 votes, and those 5 people standing that everyone would be happy with forming C/B weren't in enough people's top 5, so they don't get the yes votes.
  141. Mick Thompson I think the names are reversed for Board/Council
  142. MattJ Mick Thompson, hmm?
  143. Mick Thompson the title in what Alex output from member bot
  144. Mick Thompson not a big deal
  145. ralphm yes
  146. Kev stpeter: Condorcet is ok for choosing the top 5, but not for determining if people agree they're ok.
  147. stpeter Kev: I don't see a need to differentiate
  148. Alex the title is wrong, there are too many tabs
  149. Kev stpeter: Ah, because you can have Condorcet winners that >50% of Members don't want, I think.
  150. Alex the problem I see is if we allow unlimited yes votes then too many people vote yes for everybody
  151. Kev Alex: Right, you can't do that, either.
  152. stpeter "Bob is my #1 choice, but I'm not willing to have him serve" doesn't make any sense
  153. Kev stpeter: No, but Bob is my #6 choice, but I am willing to have him serve makes a lot of sense.
  154. Alex there were too many good applicants for concil, so with more yes voted YES for 7 guys
  155. stpeter Kev: I think it would all work out in the wash :)
  156. Kev There were more people standing for Council this year that I would be delighted to have on Council than there were 'yes' votes.
  157. ralphm what about yes, no, abstain for each candidate?
  158. Kev ralphm: Doesn't help anything.
  159. stpeter would prefer to keep it simple
  160. stpeter it's fairly simple to rank-order all the candidates
  161. ralphm it does, because you don't count abstains against yes
  162. Kev The problem with the current system is if you have too many candidates.
  163. Tobias Alex: already found out about the issue Florob wrote about?
  164. MattJ I think the only thing that would satisfy Kev's would be something along the lines of "These are the candidates I would like to see in council, in this order of preference"
  165. Kev The problem with only Condorcet is if you have too few good candidates.
  166. Kev MattJ: I'm not sure it's the only thing, but that sounds like it would work.
  167. stpeter let's say HAL is running for Council -- I think most people would rank him (it?) low on the order of candidates so he wouldn't be elected
  168. Kev stpeter: What if there are only 5 candidates?
  169. stpeter Kev: recruit more candidates :)
  170. Kev He gets fifth place, congratulations HAL, you're on Board!
  171. Kev Or Council, whichever.
  172. HAL has joined
  173. stpeter heh
  174. HAL Hurrah!
  175. ralphm Kev: my point was that you'd vote no if you don't think someone is qualified. If he gets more nos than yeas, he's out
  176. ralphm and good candidates are likely to reach 50%
  177. stpeter I'd prefer to solve the problem of "not enough good candidates" by recruiting more candidates, not by making the voting process more complicated
  178. Florob so what if we have 20 candidates vote and it turns out 19 weren't good?
  179. stpeter Florob: then we have bigger problems
  180. ralphm Florob: we do another election?
  181. Florob hmm... true
  182. Alex Tobias: typo, fixed, reload the page.
  183. Tobias k
  184. Alex the new page rocks, much easier for a windows dummy like me ;-)
  185. stpeter (i) Make each program do one thing well. To do a new job, build afresh rather than complicate old programs by adding new features.
  186. stpeter http://www.faqs.org/docs/artu/ch01s06.html :)
  187. Kev ralphm: The problem with simple yes/no if you have many very good/good/acceptable candidates is that they all get yes. Then they get selected at random, instead of by preference, which may have had clear leaders.
  188. MattJ Personally I think there's no need to "solve" this now
  189. MattJ if it becomes a problem in a future election, we discuss it then
  190. stpeter MattJ: agreed
  191. Kev It only needs to be solved before there's a year with many good candidates (this year is an example), or less than X good candidates.
  192. MattJ but it hasn't been an issue so far, maybe it will be more so in future, but we don't know that yet :)
  193. stpeter MattJ: well, we can solve it before then, but we don't need to solve it right now
  194. Tobias MattJ: yeah, let future MattJ worry about that ;)
  195. Kev less?
  196. Kev fewer
  197. MattJ Kev, haha, finally :)
  198. stpeter cheers for "fewer"
  199. Kev MattJ: It was close to being an issue this year.
  200. stpeter I think it would be nice to solve this before next year's voting
  201. Kev Right.
  202. Kev It doesn't need to be tonight.
  203. stpeter exactly :)
  204. Kev And probably shouldn't be as only a couple of us have thought about it so far.
  205. stpeter so we've raised the issue and can discuss it further among the membership
  206. MattJ Kev, how about you post a summary of the problems to a new [members] thread?
  207. ralphm Kev: oh, I forgot to mention to still limit the amount of yeas to # seats
  208. Kev ralphm: So that's essentially the same system we have now, with the same problems :)
  209. Alex okay, so until we decide something else I keep the rile with 5 yes votes for board and council in the bot
  210. stpeter thinks he might do some research on voting systems
  211. Kev MattJ: That sounds like lots of fun.
  212. Kev I'll wait for the minutes to remind me to do so :)
  213. MattJ :)
  214. Alex there are still some mebers who did not understand the process, next time I will explain it in detail on the list or add more text to the welcome message of memberbot
  215. ralphm Kev: no, cause you get a lot of abstains and the 50 percent issue goes away
  216. Kev No, you *might* get lots of abstains.
  217. stpeter hmm, I bet there's a nice open-source package for Condorcet voting :)
  218. stpeter ok
  219. stpeter anyway
  220. stpeter what is AOB #2?
  221. Alex webpage
  222. Alex many peole are confused becuase of the old and new page
  223. stpeter notes that this meeting has already gone over Kev's limit :)
  224. Alex I moved all member stuff and meeting minutes to the new page
  225. stpeter Alex: so we need to set up redirects from the old to the new -- correct?
  226. stpeter Alex: and thanks for moving the pages!
  227. Alex it would be great when we find some volunteers to move over the rest and fix the issues if there afre still any
  228. Alex and then get rid of the old page
  229. Alex we have to ask Will whats still left
  230. will.sheward i have a list (still growing) will post to commteam tomorrow
  231. stpeter MattJ: MUC room address fixed at http://xmpp.org/about-xmpp/xsf/meeting-minutes/xsf-member-meeting-2010-10-25/
  232. stpeter with xmpp URI, to ;-)
  233. MattJ Fancy!
  234. MattJ xmpp: is all the rage
  235. stpeter you betcha
  236. Alex ok, thanks will.
  237. Alex so we will solve this on the commteam list and ask for volunteers on the memberlist if we need some?
  238. stpeter yes
  239. will.sheward yes
  240. Alex could somebody put me on the commteam list?
  241. stpeter yep
  242. Alex other items?
  243. Mick Thompson me too? I'd like to help with this
  244. MattJ Guessing the meeting is drawing to a close I'm going to disappear to rescue my dinner from the oven :)
  245. MattJ Thanks all, here's to 2010-11! :)
  246. stpeter Alex: done
  247. will.sheward thanks all
  248. Alex stpeter: thanks
  249. stpeter once again, I'd like to thank Alex for handling the voting process!!!
  250. Alex bangs the gavel
  251. luca tagliaferri thanks all
  252. Alex ups
  253. Alex too fast
  254. ralphm thanks alex
  255. Alex 6) Formal Adjournment
  256. Alex I motion that we adjourn
  257. ralphm seconded
  258. Alex bangs the gavel again ;-)
  259. will.sheward has left
  260. stpeter heh
  261. ralphm whambam
  262. johann.prieur has left
  263. Mick Thompson has left
  264. Ali Sabil has left
  265. Steven Parkes has left
  266. abhinavsingh has joined
  267. abhinavsingh hello.... i probably am late...
  268. abhinavsingh has left
  269. Florian has joined
  270. petermount has joined
  271. petermount probably not as late as I am :-/
  272. Florob has left
  273. petermount has left
  274. Nÿco has left
  275. MiGri has left
  276. alexey.melnikov has joined
  277. alexey.melnikov has left
  278. MiGri has joined
  279. Alex has left
  280. HAL has left
  281. Tobias has left
  282. MattJ has left
  283. luca tagliaferri has left
  284. tofu has left
  285. stpeter has left