XSF Discussion - 2010-10-25


  1. Tobias

    isn't there supposed to be a meeting about now?

  2. Kev

    An hour.

  3. Tobias

    ah :)

  4. Kev

    1900UTC, I think.

  5. Tobias

    council meeting now?

  6. Kev

    Or so the announcement said.

  7. Kev

    Yes.

  8. Kev

    If Council turn up :)

  9. Tobias

    ah, then i got them mixed up

  10. 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/

  11. MattJ whistles

  12. Nÿco

    hi

  13. Kev

    Ah, we have at least a reasonable number of members turning up for *this* meeting.

  14. Kev

    Let's hope the next Council can manage to turn up for their meetings :)

  15. Tobias

    if someone with admin right could adjust the log link to http://logs.xmpp.org/xsf , it's much shorter

  16. MattJ

    Will Alex send a reminder to the list?

  17. Kev

    He sent one not long ago, I thought.

  18. Kev

    Indeed, 5 hours ago.

  19. MattJ

    You have too much faith in our members if you think that's "not long ago" ;)

  20. Nÿco

    we can batch invite ;-)

  21. Tobias

    MattJ: don't expect members to be late just because councilers were ;)

  22. MattJ

    I wasn't late, it was a "delayed entrance"

  23. Tobias

    germans would call that hyperlate

  24. Tobias

    :P

  25. ralphm

    I wasn't late, space-time is just oddly shaped

  26. stpeter posts to identi.ca just for good measure

  27. johann.prieur

    hi

  28. stpeter

    hi

  29. Kev

    Guess it's time for the show to start :)

  30. stpeter

    just about :)

  31. Alex

    hi @all

  32. luca tagliaferri

    hi

  33. Alex

    ok, lets start the meeting

  34. zanchin

    hi!

  35. Alex bangs the gavel

  36. Alex

    here is our genda for today: http://xmpp.org/about-xmpp/xsf/meeting-minutes/xsf-member-meeting-2010-10-25/

  37. Alex

    new webpage ;-)

  38. MattJ

    Fancy

  39. Tobias

    with so much xmpp in the url

  40. Tobias

    :P

  41. stpeter

    heehee

  42. MattJ

    "Where" is wrong :)

  43. Alex

    just made a change, please reload

  44. stpeter

    yeah, we'll update that

  45. Alex

    1) Call for Quorum

  46. Alex

    as you can see 41 members voted via proxy

  47. Alex

    we have 72 members, so we have a quorum

  48. Alex

    2) Items Subject to a Vote

  49. ralphm

    yay!

  50. stpeter

    MattJ: I'll fix that error when the meeting is over

  51. Alex

    board and council elections, you can see the applicants on the Agenda

  52. MattJ

    np :)

  53. MattJ is just bug-hunting

  54. Alex

    3) Opportunity for XSF members to Vote in the Meeting

  55. Alex

    anybody here who has not voted yet via proxy?

  56. stpeter

    argh, brb

  57. Alex

    nobody, ok, let me prepare the results then

  58. MattJ

    This should be a good stress test for the new site as everyone sits refreshing the page :)

  59. Kev

    Heh.

  60. Alex

    counted, now leeme sort the results

  61. Kev

    We already stresstested the new site when one of the plugins was hitting it thousands of times a second for the calender.

  62. stpeter

    nice!

  63. ralphm

    wow

  64. MattJ

    Kev, I guess that's one way to keep time

  65. Alex

    4) Announcement of Voting Results

  66. Alex

    when you reload the page you can see the results

  67. MattJ

    Interesting, not what I expected :)

  68. Tobias

    sortable tables might be nice next time

  69. Tobias

    :)

  70. Alex

    Tobias: they should work in wordpress, but I don't know yet how to create and use them ;-)

  71. Alex

    have to ask Will

  72. will.sheward

    for a fee, i'll teach you ;-)

  73. Alex

    so our new board is: Jack Moffit Florian Jensen Will Sheward Mike Taylor Nicolas Verite

  74. Alex

    and the council: Kevin Smith Matthew Wild Matthew Miller Ralph Meijer Nathanael Fritz

  75. Alex

    5) Any Other Business?

  76. stpeter

    revote!

  77. Alex

    I have 2 points for that

  78. Kev

    We *just* managed to avoid the situation I was worried about for Council.

  79. Florob wonders why Nathanael Fritz has less total votes then everyone else...

  80. Alex

    Kev: yes, thats my point no.1

  81. stpeter

    :)

  82. ralphm

    stpeter: don't steel my lines

  83. Alex

    can you please explain the issue?

  84. 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.

  85. Kev

    You also need to have >50% yes votes.

  86. 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.

  87. stpeter

    (or Board)

  88. 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.

  89. 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.

  90. 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

  91. stpeter is in favor of Condorcet voting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method

  92. Tobias

    are those with the number a bit more left the persons with *adjusted numbers*? ;)

  93. 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.

  94. Mick Thompson

    I think the names are reversed for Board/Council

  95. MattJ

    Mick Thompson, hmm?

  96. Mick Thompson

    the title in what Alex output from member bot

  97. Mick Thompson

    not a big deal

  98. ralphm

    yes

  99. Kev

    stpeter: Condorcet is ok for choosing the top 5, but not for determining if people agree they're ok.

  100. stpeter

    Kev: I don't see a need to differentiate

  101. Alex

    the title is wrong, there are too many tabs

  102. Kev

    stpeter: Ah, because you can have Condorcet winners that >50% of Members don't want, I think.

  103. Alex

    the problem I see is if we allow unlimited yes votes then too many people vote yes for everybody

  104. Kev

    Alex: Right, you can't do that, either.

  105. stpeter

    "Bob is my #1 choice, but I'm not willing to have him serve" doesn't make any sense

  106. Kev

    stpeter: No, but Bob is my #6 choice, but I am willing to have him serve makes a lot of sense.

  107. Alex

    there were too many good applicants for concil, so with more yes voted YES for 7 guys

  108. stpeter

    Kev: I think it would all work out in the wash :)

  109. Kev

    There were more people standing for Council this year that I would be delighted to have on Council than there were 'yes' votes.

  110. ralphm

    what about yes, no, abstain for each candidate?

  111. Kev

    ralphm: Doesn't help anything.

  112. stpeter would prefer to keep it simple

  113. stpeter

    it's fairly simple to rank-order all the candidates

  114. ralphm

    it does, because you don't count abstains against yes

  115. Kev

    The problem with the current system is if you have too many candidates.

  116. Tobias

    Alex: already found out about the issue Florob wrote about?

  117. 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"

  118. Kev

    The problem with only Condorcet is if you have too few good candidates.

  119. Kev

    MattJ: I'm not sure it's the only thing, but that sounds like it would work.

  120. 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

  121. Kev

    stpeter: What if there are only 5 candidates?

  122. stpeter

    Kev: recruit more candidates :)

  123. Kev

    He gets fifth place, congratulations HAL, you're on Board!

  124. Kev

    Or Council, whichever.

  125. stpeter

    heh

  126. HAL

    Hurrah!

  127. 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

  128. ralphm

    and good candidates are likely to reach 50%

  129. 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

  130. Florob

    so what if we have 20 candidates vote and it turns out 19 weren't good?

  131. stpeter

    Florob: then we have bigger problems

  132. ralphm

    Florob: we do another election?

  133. Florob

    hmm... true

  134. Alex

    Tobias: typo, fixed, reload the page.

  135. Tobias

    k

  136. Alex

    the new page rocks, much easier for a windows dummy like me ;-)

  137. 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.

  138. stpeter

    http://www.faqs.org/docs/artu/ch01s06.html :)

  139. 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.

  140. MattJ

    Personally I think there's no need to "solve" this now

  141. MattJ

    if it becomes a problem in a future election, we discuss it then

  142. stpeter

    MattJ: agreed

  143. 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.

  144. 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 :)

  145. stpeter

    MattJ: well, we can solve it before then, but we don't need to solve it right now

  146. Tobias

    MattJ: yeah, let future MattJ worry about that ;)

  147. Kev

    less?

  148. Kev

    fewer

  149. MattJ

    Kev, haha, finally :)

  150. stpeter cheers for "fewer"

  151. Kev

    MattJ: It was close to being an issue this year.

  152. stpeter

    I think it would be nice to solve this before next year's voting

  153. Kev

    Right.

  154. Kev

    It doesn't need to be tonight.

  155. stpeter

    exactly :)

  156. Kev

    And probably shouldn't be as only a couple of us have thought about it so far.

  157. stpeter

    so we've raised the issue and can discuss it further among the membership

  158. MattJ

    Kev, how about you post a summary of the problems to a new [members] thread?

  159. ralphm

    Kev: oh, I forgot to mention to still limit the amount of yeas to # seats

  160. Kev

    ralphm: So that's essentially the same system we have now, with the same problems :)

  161. Alex

    okay, so until we decide something else I keep the rile with 5 yes votes for board and council in the bot

  162. stpeter thinks he might do some research on voting systems

  163. Kev

    MattJ: That sounds like lots of fun.

  164. Kev

    I'll wait for the minutes to remind me to do so :)

  165. MattJ

    :)

  166. 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

  167. ralphm

    Kev: no, cause you get a lot of abstains and the 50 percent issue goes away

  168. Kev

    No, you *might* get lots of abstains.

  169. stpeter

    hmm, I bet there's a nice open-source package for Condorcet voting :)

  170. stpeter

    ok

  171. stpeter

    anyway

  172. stpeter

    what is AOB #2?

  173. Alex

    webpage

  174. Alex

    many peole are confused becuase of the old and new page

  175. stpeter notes that this meeting has already gone over Kev's limit :)

  176. Alex

    I moved all member stuff and meeting minutes to the new page

  177. stpeter

    Alex: so we need to set up redirects from the old to the new -- correct?

  178. stpeter

    Alex: and thanks for moving the pages!

  179. Alex

    it would be great when we find some volunteers to move over the rest and fix the issues if there afre still any

  180. Alex

    and then get rid of the old page

  181. Alex

    we have to ask Will whats still left

  182. will.sheward

    i have a list (still growing) will post to commteam tomorrow

  183. stpeter

    MattJ: MUC room address fixed at http://xmpp.org/about-xmpp/xsf/meeting-minutes/xsf-member-meeting-2010-10-25/

  184. stpeter

    with xmpp URI, to ;-)

  185. MattJ

    Fancy!

  186. MattJ

    xmpp: is all the rage

  187. stpeter

    you betcha

  188. Alex

    ok, thanks will.

  189. Alex

    so we will solve this on the commteam list and ask for volunteers on the memberlist if we need some?

  190. stpeter

    yes

  191. will.sheward

    yes

  192. Alex

    could somebody put me on the commteam list?

  193. stpeter

    yep

  194. Alex

    other items?

  195. Mick Thompson

    me too? I'd like to help with this

  196. MattJ

    Guessing the meeting is drawing to a close I'm going to disappear to rescue my dinner from the oven :)

  197. MattJ

    Thanks all, here's to 2010-11! :)

  198. stpeter

    Alex: done

  199. will.sheward

    thanks all

  200. Alex

    stpeter: thanks

  201. stpeter

    once again, I'd like to thank Alex for handling the voting process!!!

  202. Alex bangs the gavel

  203. luca tagliaferri

    thanks all

  204. Alex

    ups

  205. Alex

    too fast

  206. ralphm

    thanks alex

  207. Alex

    6) Formal Adjournment

  208. Alex

    I motion that we adjourn

  209. ralphm

    seconded

  210. Alex bangs the gavel again ;-)

  211. stpeter

    heh

  212. ralphm

    whambam

  213. abhinavsingh

    hello.... i probably am late...

  214. petermount

    probably not as late as I am :-/