XSF discussion room | Check http://xmpp.org/calendar/ for the next scheduled meeting | logs here: http://logs.xmpp.org/xsf/
MattJhas joined
MattJwhistles
Nÿco
hi
Kev
Ah, we have at least a reasonable number of members turning up for *this* meeting.
Kev
Let's hope the next Council can manage to turn up for their meetings :)
Tobias
if someone with admin right could adjust the log link to http://logs.xmpp.org/xsf , it's much shorter
MattJ
Will Alex send a reminder to the list?
Kev
He sent one not long ago, I thought.
Kev
Indeed, 5 hours ago.
MattJ
You have too much faith in our members if you think that's "not long ago" ;)
Nÿco
we can batch invite ;-)
Tobias
MattJ: don't expect members to be late just because councilers were ;)
MattJ
I wasn't late, it was a "delayed entrance"
Tobias
germans would call that hyperlate
Tobias
:P
Neustradamushas left
Florobhas joined
ralphmhas joined
ralphm
I 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.prieur
hi
stpeter
hi
Kev
Guess it's time for the show to start :)
stpeter
just about :)
ralphmhas left
ralphmhas joined
Alex
hi @all
luca tagliaferri
hi
Alex
ok, lets start the meeting
zanchin
hi!
Alexbangs the gavel
Alex
here is our genda for today:
http://xmpp.org/about-xmpp/xsf/meeting-minutes/xsf-member-meeting-2010-10-25/
Alex
new webpage ;-)
MattJ
Fancy
Tobias
with so much xmpp in the url
Tobias
:P
stpeter
heehee
MattJ
"Where" is wrong :)
Alex
just made a change, please reload
stpeter
yeah, we'll update that
Alex
1) Call for Quorum
will.shewardhas joined
Alex
as you can see 41 members voted via proxy
Alex
we have 72 members, so we have a quorum
Alex
2) Items Subject to a Vote
ralphm
yay!
stpeter
MattJ: I'll fix that error when the meeting is over
Alex
board and council elections, you can see the applicants on the Agenda
MattJ
np :)
MattJis just bug-hunting
Alex
3) Opportunity for XSF members to Vote in the Meeting
Alex
anybody here who has not voted yet via proxy?
stpeter
argh, brb
Alex
nobody, ok, let me prepare the results then
luca tagliaferrihas left
luca tagliaferrihas joined
MattJ
This should be a good stress test for the new site as everyone sits refreshing the page :)
Kev
Heh.
Alex
counted, now leeme sort the results
Kev
We already stresstested the new site when one of the plugins was hitting it thousands of times a second for the calender.
stpeter
nice!
ralphm
wow
MattJ
Kev, I guess that's one way to keep time
Alex
4) Announcement of Voting Results
Alex
when you reload the page you can see the results
MattJ
Interesting, not what I expected :)
Tobias
sortable tables might be nice next time
Tobias
:)
Alex
Tobias: they should work in wordpress, but I don't know yet how to create and use them ;-)
Alex
have to ask Will
will.sheward
for a fee, i'll teach you ;-)
Alex
so our new board is:
Jack Moffit
Florian Jensen
Will Sheward
Mike Taylor
Nicolas Verite
Alex
and the council:
Kevin Smith
Matthew Wild
Matthew Miller
Ralph Meijer
Nathanael Fritz
Alex
5) Any Other Business?
stpeter
revote!
Alex
I have 2 points for that
Kev
We *just* managed to avoid the situation I was worried about for Council.
Florobwonders why Nathanael Fritz has less total votes then everyone else...
Alex
Kev: yes, thats my point no.1
stpeter
:)
ralphm
stpeter: don't steel my lines
Alex
can you please explain the issue?
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.
Kev
You also need to have >50% yes votes.
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.
stpeter
(or Board)
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.
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.
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
stpeteris in favor of Condorcet voting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method
Tobias
are those with the number a bit more left the persons with *adjusted numbers*? ;)
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.
Mick Thompson
I think the names are reversed for Board/Council
MattJ
Mick Thompson, hmm?
Mick Thompson
the title in what Alex output from member bot
Mick Thompson
not a big deal
ralphm
yes
Kev
stpeter: Condorcet is ok for choosing the top 5, but not for determining if people agree they're ok.
stpeter
Kev: I don't see a need to differentiate
Alex
the title is wrong, there are too many tabs
Kev
stpeter: Ah, because you can have Condorcet winners that >50% of Members don't want, I think.
Alex
the problem I see is if we allow unlimited yes votes then too many people vote yes for everybody
Kev
Alex: 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
Kev
stpeter: No, but Bob is my #6 choice, but I am willing to have him serve makes a lot of sense.
Alex
there were too many good applicants for concil, so with more yes voted YES for 7 guys
stpeter
Kev: I think it would all work out in the wash :)
Kev
There were more people standing for Council this year that I would be delighted to have on Council than there were 'yes' votes.
ralphm
what about yes, no, abstain for each candidate?
Kev
ralphm: Doesn't help anything.
stpeterwould prefer to keep it simple
stpeter
it's fairly simple to rank-order all the candidates
ralphm
it does, because you don't count abstains against yes
Kev
The problem with the current system is if you have too many candidates.
Tobias
Alex: already found out about the issue Florob wrote about?
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"
Kev
The problem with only Condorcet is if you have too few good candidates.
Kev
MattJ: I'm not sure it's the only thing, but that sounds like it would work.
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
Kev
stpeter: What if there are only 5 candidates?
stpeter
Kev: recruit more candidates :)
Kev
He gets fifth place, congratulations HAL, you're on Board!
Kev
Or Council, whichever.
HALhas joined
stpeter
heh
HAL
Hurrah!
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
ralphm
and good candidates are likely to reach 50%
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
Florob
so what if we have 20 candidates vote and it turns out 19 weren't good?
stpeter
Florob: then we have bigger problems
ralphm
Florob: we do another election?
Florob
hmm... true
Alex
Tobias: typo, fixed, reload the page.
Tobias
k
Alex
the 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.
stpeter
http://www.faqs.org/docs/artu/ch01s06.html :)
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.
MattJ
Personally I think there's no need to "solve" this now
MattJ
if it becomes a problem in a future election, we discuss it then
stpeter
MattJ: agreed
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.
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 :)
stpeter
MattJ: well, we can solve it before then, but we don't need to solve it right now
Tobias
MattJ: yeah, let future MattJ worry about that ;)
Kev
less?
Kev
fewer
MattJ
Kev, haha, finally :)
stpetercheers for "fewer"
Kev
MattJ: It was close to being an issue this year.
stpeter
I think it would be nice to solve this before next year's voting
Kev
Right.
Kev
It doesn't need to be tonight.
stpeter
exactly :)
Kev
And probably shouldn't be as only a couple of us have thought about it so far.
stpeter
so we've raised the issue and can discuss it further among the membership
MattJ
Kev, how about you post a summary of the problems to a new [members] thread?
ralphm
Kev: oh, I forgot to mention to still limit the amount of yeas to # seats
Kev
ralphm: So that's essentially the same system we have now, with the same problems :)
Alex
okay, 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
Kev
MattJ: That sounds like lots of fun.
Kev
I'll wait for the minutes to remind me to do so :)
MattJ
:)
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
ralphm
Kev: no, cause you get a lot of abstains and the 50 percent issue goes away
Kev
No, you *might* get lots of abstains.
stpeter
hmm, I bet there's a nice open-source package for Condorcet voting :)
stpeter
ok
stpeter
anyway
stpeter
what is AOB #2?
Alex
webpage
Alex
many peole are confused becuase of the old and new page
stpeternotes that this meeting has already gone over Kev's limit :)
Alex
I moved all member stuff and meeting minutes to the new page
stpeter
Alex: so we need to set up redirects from the old to the new -- correct?
stpeter
Alex: and thanks for moving the pages!
Alex
it would be great when we find some volunteers to move over the rest and fix the issues if there afre still any
Alex
and then get rid of the old page
Alex
we have to ask Will whats still left
will.sheward
i have a list (still growing) will post to commteam tomorrow
stpeter
MattJ: MUC room address fixed at http://xmpp.org/about-xmpp/xsf/meeting-minutes/xsf-member-meeting-2010-10-25/
stpeter
with xmpp URI, to ;-)
MattJ
Fancy!
MattJ
xmpp: is all the rage
stpeter
you betcha
Alex
ok, thanks will.
Alex
so we will solve this on the commteam list and ask for volunteers on the memberlist if we need some?
stpeter
yes
will.sheward
yes
Alex
could somebody put me on the commteam list?
stpeter
yep
Alex
other items?
Mick Thompson
me too? I'd like to help with this
MattJ
Guessing the meeting is drawing to a close I'm going to disappear to rescue my dinner from the oven :)
MattJ
Thanks all, here's to 2010-11! :)
stpeter
Alex: done
will.sheward
thanks all
Alex
stpeter: thanks
stpeter
once again, I'd like to thank Alex for handling the voting process!!!