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


  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


  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


  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


  70. stpeter


  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


  77. Alex

    ok, lets start the meeting

  78. zanchin


  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


  83. Tobias

    with so much xmpp in the url

  84. Tobias


  85. stpeter


  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


  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


  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


  110. ralphm


  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


  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


  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


  174. HAL


  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


  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


  196. Kev


  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


  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


  219. stpeter


  220. stpeter

    what is AOB #2?

  221. Alex


  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


  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


  239. will.sheward


  240. Alex

    could somebody put me on the commteam list?

  241. stpeter


  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


  253. Alex

    too fast

  254. ralphm

    thanks alex

  255. Alex

    6) Formal Adjournment

  256. Alex

    I motion that we adjourn

  257. ralphm


  258. Alex bangs the gavel again ;-)

  259. will.sheward has left

  260. stpeter


  261. ralphm


  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