Tobiasisn't there supposed to be a meeting about now?
KevAn hour.
Tobiasah :)
Kev1900UTC, I think.
Tobiascouncil meeting now?
KevOr so the announcement said.
KevYes.
KevIf Council turn up :)
Tobiasah, then i got them mixed up
will.shewardhas joined
will.shewardhas left
Nÿcohas joined
Tobiasset the topic toXSF discussion room | Check http://xmpp.org/calendar/ for the next scheduled meeting | logs here: http://logs.xmpp.org/xsf/
MattJhas joined
MattJwhistles
Nÿcohi
KevAh, we have at least a reasonable number of members turning up for *this* meeting.
KevLet's hope the next Council can manage to turn up for their meetings :)
Tobiasif someone with admin right could adjust the log link to http://logs.xmpp.org/xsf , it's much shorter
MattJWill Alex send a reminder to the list?
KevHe sent one not long ago, I thought.
KevIndeed, 5 hours ago.
MattJYou have too much faith in our members if you think that's "not long ago" ;)
Nÿcowe can batch invite ;-)
TobiasMattJ: don't expect members to be late just because councilers were ;)
MattJI wasn't late, it was a "delayed entrance"
Tobiasgermans would call that hyperlate
Tobias:P
Neustradamushas left
Florobhas joined
ralphmhas joined
ralphmI wasn't late, space-time is just oddly shaped
Mick Thompsonhas joined
stpeterposts to identi.ca just for good measure
Johann Prieurhas joined
Ali Sabilhas joined
Steven Parkeshas joined
tofuhas joined
Johann Prieurhas left
johann.prieurhas joined
johann.prieurhi
stpeterhi
KevGuess it's time for the show to start :)
stpeterjust about :)
ralphmhas left
ralphmhas joined
Alexhi @all
luca tagliaferrihi
Alexok, lets start the meeting
zanchinhi!
Alexbangs the gavel
Alexhere is our genda for today:
http://xmpp.org/about-xmpp/xsf/meeting-minutes/xsf-member-meeting-2010-10-25/
Alexnew webpage ;-)
MattJFancy
Tobias with so much xmpp in the url
Tobias:P
stpeterheehee
MattJ"Where" is wrong :)
Alexjust made a change, please reload
stpeteryeah, we'll update that
Alex1) Call for Quorum
will.shewardhas joined
Alexas you can see 41 members voted via proxy
Alexwe have 72 members, so we have a quorum
Alex2) Items Subject to a Vote
ralphmyay!
stpeterMattJ: I'll fix that error when the meeting is over
Alexboard and council elections, you can see the applicants on the Agenda
MattJnp :)
MattJis just bug-hunting
Alex3) Opportunity for XSF members to Vote in the Meeting
Alexanybody here who has not voted yet via proxy?
stpeterargh, brb
Alexnobody, ok, let me prepare the results then
luca tagliaferrihas left
luca tagliaferrihas joined
MattJThis should be a good stress test for the new site as everyone sits refreshing the page :)
KevHeh.
Alexcounted, now leeme sort the results
KevWe already stresstested the new site when one of the plugins was hitting it thousands of times a second for the calender.
stpeternice!
ralphmwow
MattJKev, I guess that's one way to keep time
Alex4) Announcement of Voting Results
Alexwhen you reload the page you can see the results
MattJInteresting, not what I expected :)
Tobiassortable tables might be nice next time
Tobias:)
AlexTobias: they should work in wordpress, but I don't know yet how to create and use them ;-)
Alexhave to ask Will
will.shewardfor a fee, i'll teach you ;-)
Alexso our new board is:
Jack Moffit
Florian Jensen
Will Sheward
Mike Taylor
Nicolas Verite
Alexand the council:
Kevin Smith
Matthew Wild
Matthew Miller
Ralph Meijer
Nathanael Fritz
Alex5) Any Other Business?
stpeterrevote!
AlexI have 2 points for that
KevWe *just* managed to avoid the situation I was worried about for Council.
Florobwonders why Nathanael Fritz has less total votes then everyone else...
AlexKev: yes, thats my point no.1
stpeter:)
ralphmstpeter: don't steel my lines
Alexcan you please explain the issue?
KevCurrent 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.
KevYou also need to have >50% yes votes.
KevBecause 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.
stpeter(or Board)
Keve.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.
KevThe 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.
Alexhere 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
stpeteris in favor of Condorcet voting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method
Tobiasare those with the number a bit more left the persons with *adjusted numbers*? ;)
KevSo 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.
Mick ThompsonI think the names are reversed for Board/Council
MattJMick Thompson, hmm?
Mick Thompsonthe title in what Alex output from member bot
Mick Thompsonnot a big deal
ralphmyes
Kevstpeter: Condorcet is ok for choosing the top 5, but not for determining if people agree they're ok.
stpeterKev: I don't see a need to differentiate
Alexthe title is wrong, there are too many tabs
Kevstpeter: Ah, because you can have Condorcet winners that >50% of Members don't want, I think.
Alexthe problem I see is if we allow unlimited yes votes then too many people vote yes for everybody
KevAlex: Right, you can't do that, either.
stpeter"Bob is my #1 choice, but I'm not willing to have him serve" doesn't make any sense
Kevstpeter: No, but Bob is my #6 choice, but I am willing to have him serve makes a lot of sense.
Alexthere were too many good applicants for concil, so with more yes voted YES for 7 guys
stpeterKev: I think it would all work out in the wash :)
KevThere were more people standing for Council this year that I would be delighted to have on Council than there were 'yes' votes.
ralphmwhat about yes, no, abstain for each candidate?
Kevralphm: Doesn't help anything.
stpeterwould prefer to keep it simple
stpeterit's fairly simple to rank-order all the candidates
ralphmit does, because you don't count abstains against yes
KevThe problem with the current system is if you have too many candidates.
TobiasAlex: already found out about the issue Florob wrote about?
MattJI 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"
KevThe problem with only Condorcet is if you have too few good candidates.
KevMattJ: I'm not sure it's the only thing, but that sounds like it would work.
stpeterlet'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
Kevstpeter: What if there are only 5 candidates?
stpeterKev: recruit more candidates :)
KevHe gets fifth place, congratulations HAL, you're on Board!
KevOr Council, whichever.
HALhas joined
stpeterheh
HALHurrah!
ralphmKev: 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
ralphmand good candidates are likely to reach 50%
stpeterI'd prefer to solve the problem of "not enough good candidates" by recruiting more candidates, not by making the voting process more complicated
Florobso what if we have 20 candidates vote and it turns out 19 weren't good?
stpeterFlorob: then we have bigger problems
ralphmFlorob: we do another election?
Florobhmm... true
AlexTobias: typo, fixed, reload the page.
Tobiask
Alexthe new page rocks, much easier for a windows dummy like me ;-)
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.
Kevralphm: 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.
MattJPersonally I think there's no need to "solve" this now
MattJif it becomes a problem in a future election, we discuss it then
stpeterMattJ: agreed
KevIt 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.
MattJbut it hasn't been an issue so far, maybe it will be more so in future, but we don't know that yet :)
stpeterMattJ: well, we can solve it before then, but we don't need to solve it right now
TobiasMattJ: yeah, let future MattJ worry about that ;)
Kevless?
Kevfewer
MattJKev, haha, finally :)
stpetercheers for "fewer"
KevMattJ: It was close to being an issue this year.
stpeterI think it would be nice to solve this before next year's voting
KevRight.
KevIt doesn't need to be tonight.
stpeterexactly :)
KevAnd probably shouldn't be as only a couple of us have thought about it so far.
stpeterso we've raised the issue and can discuss it further among the membership
MattJKev, how about you post a summary of the problems to a new [members] thread?
ralphmKev: oh, I forgot to mention to still limit the amount of yeas to # seats
Kevralphm: So that's essentially the same system we have now, with the same problems :)
Alexokay, so until we decide something else I keep the rile with 5 yes votes for board and council in the bot
stpeterthinks he might do some research on voting systems
KevMattJ: That sounds like lots of fun.
KevI'll wait for the minutes to remind me to do so :)
MattJ:)
Alexthere 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
ralphmKev: no, cause you get a lot of abstains and the 50 percent issue goes away
KevNo, you *might* get lots of abstains.
stpeterhmm, I bet there's a nice open-source package for Condorcet voting :)
stpeterok
stpeteranyway
stpeterwhat is AOB #2?
Alexwebpage
Alexmany peole are confused becuase of the old and new page
stpeternotes that this meeting has already gone over Kev's limit :)
AlexI moved all member stuff and meeting minutes to the new page
stpeterAlex: so we need to set up redirects from the old to the new -- correct?
stpeterAlex: and thanks for moving the pages!
Alexit would be great when we find some volunteers to move over the rest and fix the issues if there afre still any
Alexand then get rid of the old page
Alexwe have to ask Will whats still left
will.shewardi have a list (still growing) will post to commteam tomorrow
stpeterMattJ: MUC room address fixed at http://xmpp.org/about-xmpp/xsf/meeting-minutes/xsf-member-meeting-2010-10-25/
stpeterwith xmpp URI, to ;-)
MattJFancy!
MattJxmpp: is all the rage
stpeteryou betcha
Alexok, thanks will.
Alexso we will solve this on the commteam list and ask for volunteers on the memberlist if we need some?
stpeteryes
will.shewardyes
Alexcould somebody put me on the commteam list?
stpeteryep
Alexother items?
Mick Thompsonme too? I'd like to help with this
MattJGuessing the meeting is drawing to a close I'm going to disappear to rescue my dinner from the oven :)
MattJThanks all, here's to 2010-11! :)
stpeterAlex: done
will.shewardthanks all
Alexstpeter: thanks
stpeteronce again, I'd like to thank Alex for handling the voting process!!!
XSF Discussion - 2010-10-25