cloud wg official membership refresh?

[Matthew Miller]

Hey all. I can't help but noticing a significant disconnect between the
original wg membership (including last time we called for a check-in) and
the people who are coming to meetings and doing a lot of the work. This
doesn't reflect negatively on the original slate -- things just shape up
differently and whatever. Overall, in fact, I think it's a very positive
thing, because a) lots of new (and returning) faces (or names, at least,
because... online) and b) this hasn't gotten in the way of us doing anything
in any way.

But I think we should name and ratify a new slate to better reflect the
active state of the SIG in the past few months. Anyone opposed?

-- 
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
Fedora Project Leader

[Joe Brockmeier]

On 09/18/2014 12:09 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
>  But I think we should name and ratify a new slate to better reflect
> the
>  active state of the SIG in the past few months. Anyone opposed? 
No opposition here. +1

-- 
Joe Brockmeier | Principal Cloud & Storage Analyst
jzb(a)redhat.com | http://community.redhat.com/
Twitter: @jzb  | http://dissociatedpress.net/

[Haïkel]

Le 18 sept. 2014 19:11, "Joe Brockmeier" <jzb(a)redhat.com&gt; a écrit :
>  On 09/18/2014 12:09 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
>  > But I think we should name and ratify a new slate to better reflect the
>  > active state of the SIG in the past few months. Anyone opposed?
>
>  No opposition here. +1
>  
+1
Actually, we hardly reach the quorum so it's not even working.
If possible I'd like us to be more inclusive with the SIG, to make it
easier to include new people.

>  --
>  Joe Brockmeier | Principal Cloud & Storage Analyst
>  jzb(a)redhat.com | http://community.redhat.com/
>  Twitter: @jzb  | http://dissociatedpress.net/
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  cloud mailing list
>  cloud(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud
>  Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
>

[Frankie]

On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 10:42 PM, Haïkel <hguemar(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; wrote:

>  Le 18 sept. 2014 19:11, "Joe Brockmeier" <jzb(a)redhat.com&gt; a écrit :
>  >
>  > On 09/18/2014 12:09 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
>  > > But I think we should name and ratify a new slate to better reflect the
>  > > active state of the SIG in the past few months. Anyone opposed?
>  >
>  > No opposition here. +1
>  >
>
>  +1
>  Actually, we hardly reach the quorum so it's not even working.
>  
I think the biggest problem is getting a time that syncs for everyone. This
is just my opinion. I however would like to hear what folks will have to
say and how to move forward.

>  If possible I'd like us to be more inclusive with the SIG, to
> make it
>  easier to include new people.
>
>  > --
>  > Joe Brockmeier | Principal Cloud & Storage Analyst
>  > jzb(a)redhat.com | http://community.redhat.com/
>  > Twitter: @jzb  | http://dissociatedpress.net/
>  >
>  >
>  > _______________________________________________
>  > cloud mailing list
>  > cloud(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud
>  > Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
>  >
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  cloud mailing list
>  cloud(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud
>  Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
>
>  

-- 
Skype: Frankie.Onuonga
twitter: Frankieonuonga
irc #freenode: Frankieonuonga

[Joe Brockmeier]

On 09/19/2014 01:31 AM, Frankie Onuonga wrote:
>  I think the biggest problem is getting a time that syncs for
> everyone.
>  This is just my opinion. I however would like to hear what folks will
>  have to say and how to move forward.   
We'll never have a time that works for everyone. Regardless, no matter
what time the meeting is, attending meetings isn't the primary thing -
getting the work done is. We send out minutes, logs, and there's Trac
and the mailing list to coordinate.

Best,

jzb
-- 
Joe Brockmeier | Principal Cloud & Storage Analyst
jzb(a)redhat.com | http://community.redhat.com/
Twitter: @jzb  | http://dissociatedpress.net/

[Matthew Miller]

On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 06:27:14AM -0500, Joe Brockmeier wrote:
>  We'll never have a time that works for everyone. Regardless, no
> matter
>  what time the meeting is, attending meetings isn't the primary thing -
>  getting the work done is. We send out minutes, logs, and there's Trac
>  and the mailing list to coordinate. 
+1 (or more). Especially now when we're in a "doing" phase over a
"talking"
one.

-- 
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
Fedora Project Leader

Cloud WG proposed new slate [was: cloud wg official membership refresh?]

[Matthew Miller]

Okay, so, I went through the IRC logs, e-mail archives,
https://github.com/fedora-cloud/, and tickets. I identified this last of the
the most active cloud SIG members, and I think that the voting WG membership
should reflect this. This ends up dropping quite a few of the active
members, which I think is okay -- it's not a black mark or anything. We've
been operating very well with a blurred line and now formal distinction, and
this is just meant to bring the list into sync with activity.

If you're on this list but feel like you shouldn't be, speak up. (If, for
example, you're really not going to have time over the *next* three months.)
And if you aren't but think you really should be, just say so -- in private
or here or whatever -- I'm not meaning to leave out anyone who is actively
involved and I easily could have missed relevant activity not represented by
the sources above (and also, I haven't had much coffee yet this morning.)

So, proposed new slate:

* Andy Grimm (agrimm)
* Dusty Mabe (dustymabe)
* Ian McLeod (imcleod)
* Jared Smith (jsmith)
* Joe Brockmeier (jzb)
* Haïkel Guémar (number80)
* David Gay (oddshocks)
* Mike Ruckmman (roshi)
* Scott Collier (scollier)

(Why yes, that is in alphabetical order by IRC nick.)

You'll notice I left _myself_ off. That's not because of not caring, but
because of that "not having time over the next few months" thing — I really
need to focus on FPL duties. And, it's also because Red Hat is in the
process of hiring someone to replace my old role focusing on Fedora Cloud.
I'm not going to name names until the ink is dry, but it's someone who will
have no trouble jumping into the mix on merit in short order. (I'm also
really not concerned about number of members, by the way -- I think we
shouldn't make 9 a magic number and adjust up and down based on activity.)


-- 
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
Fedora Project Leader

Cloud WG proposed new slate [was: cloud wg official membership refresh?]

[Haïkel]

2014-09-29 16:16 GMT+02:00 Matthew Miller <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;:
>  Okay, so, I went through the IRC logs, e-mail archives,
>  https://github.com/fedora-cloud/, and tickets. I identified this last of the
>  the most active cloud SIG members, and I think that the voting WG membership
>  should reflect this. This ends up dropping quite a few of the active
>  members, which I think is okay -- it's not a black mark or anything. We've
>  been operating very well with a blurred line and now formal distinction, and
>  this is just meant to bring the list into sync with activity.
>
>  If you're on this list but feel like you shouldn't be, speak up. (If, for
>  example, you're really not going to have time over the *next* three months.)
>  And if you aren't but think you really should be, just say so -- in private
>  or here or whatever -- I'm not meaning to leave out anyone who is actively
>  involved and I easily could have missed relevant activity not represented by
>  the sources above (and also, I haven't had much coffee yet this morning.)
>
>  So, proposed new slate:
>
>  * Andy Grimm (agrimm)
>  * Dusty Mabe (dustymabe)
>  * Ian McLeod (imcleod)
>  * Jared Smith (jsmith)
>  * Joe Brockmeier (jzb)
>  * Haïkel Guémar (number80)
>  * David Gay (oddshocks)
>  * Mike Ruckmman (roshi)
>  * Scott Collier (scollier)
>
>  (Why yes, that is in alphabetical order by IRC nick.)
>  
Just to speak about the other people that are not me, they are all
worthy to join the WG.
I'm particularly excited to have representatives from doc & QA which
will be important topics
in the next releases.
Products without documentation and QA are not really products, no
matter how great they are ;-)

>  You'll notice I left _myself_ off. That's not because of not
> caring, but
>  because of that "not having time over the next few months" thing — I really
>  need to focus on FPL duties. And, it's also because Red Hat is in the
>  process of hiring someone to replace my old role focusing on Fedora Cloud.
>  I'm not going to name names until the ink is dry, but it's someone who will
>  have no trouble jumping into the mix on merit in short order. (I'm also
>  really not concerned about number of members, by the way -- I think we
>  shouldn't make 9 a magic number and adjust up and down based on activity.)
>  
*nods*
I'd like to thank you for your good services in the Cloud SIG then
Cloud WG, you did great :)

And I assume that everyone else wants the WG to remain open to any
Cloud SIG member.
Since we're using lazy consensus, as long as we keep membership at a
reasonable level,
it's not a problem to add few members.

Regards,
H.

>  --
>  Matthew Miller
>  <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
>  Fedora Project Leader
>  _______________________________________________
>  cloud mailing list
>  cloud(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud
>  Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Cloud WG proposed new slate [was: cloud wg official membership refresh?]

[Dusty Mabe]

On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 10:16:41AM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
>  
>  So, proposed new slate:
>  
>  * Andy Grimm (agrimm)
>  * Dusty Mabe (dustymabe)
>  * Ian McLeod (imcleod)
>  * Jared Smith (jsmith)
>  * Joe Brockmeier (jzb)
>  * Haïkel Guémar (number80)
>  * David Gay (oddshocks)
>  * Mike Ruckmman (roshi)
>  * Scott Collier (scollier)
>   
I am really happy to be a part of this list and I will do my best to remain active.
Please bear with me, though, if I don't volunteer for many work items as my time is
somewhat limited right now. Any work items that I sign up for will get done.

I'll be on the lookout for small/mid-size tasks that I can do to pitch in. Right now
the F21 testing efforts are in the foreground. 

Dusty

Cloud WG proposed new slate [was: cloud wg official membership refresh?]

[Joe Brockmeier]

On 09/29/2014 09:16 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
>  Okay, so, I went through the IRC logs, e-mail archives,
>  https://github.com/fedora-cloud/, and tickets. I identified this last of the
>  the most active cloud SIG members, and I think that the voting WG membership
>  should reflect this. This ends up dropping quite a few of the active
>  members, which I think is okay -- it's not a black mark or anything. We've
>  been operating very well with a blurred line and now formal distinction, and
>  this is just meant to bring the list into sync with activity. 
Should we have a "speak up by X date or hold your peace" on this?

(I generally favor lazy consensus, 72 hours.)

Best,

jzb
-- 
Joe Brockmeier | Principal Cloud & Storage Analyst
jzb(a)redhat.com | http://community.redhat.com/
Twitter: @jzb  | http://dissociatedpress.net/

Cloud WG proposed new slate [was: cloud wg official membership refresh?]

[Matthew Miller]

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 04:38:36PM -0500, Joe Brockmeier wrote:
>  > Okay, so, I went through the IRC logs, e-mail archives,
>  > https://github.com/fedora-cloud/, and tickets. I identified this last of the
>  > the most active cloud SIG members, and I think that the voting WG membership
>  > should reflect this. This ends up dropping quite a few of the active
>  > members, which I think is okay -- it's not a black mark or anything. We've
>  > been operating very well with a blurred line and now formal distinction, and
>  > this is just meant to bring the list into sync with activity.
>  Should we have a "speak up by X date or hold your peace" on this?
>  (I generally favor lazy consensus, 72 hours.) 
I'm in favor too, but technically, by the governance structure we agreed to
originally, this falls under "should be voted on in a ticket" --
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Cloud/Governance#Making_Decisions

I was thinking to give people a chance to say "wait, I'm going to be more
active" or "you totally left me out unfairly" (hopefully that didn't
happen,
but seriously, accidental if it did) or also "hold on I'm not going to be
able to do this so please don't add me" before making a ticket.


-- 
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
Fedora Project Leader

Cloud WG proposed new slate [was: cloud wg official membership refresh?]

[Mike Ruckman]

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 04:38:36PM -0500, Joe Brockmeier wrote:
>  On 09/29/2014 09:16 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
>  > Okay, so, I went through the IRC logs, e-mail archives,
>  > https://github.com/fedora-cloud/, and tickets. I identified this last of the
>  > the most active cloud SIG members, and I think that the voting WG membership
>  > should reflect this. This ends up dropping quite a few of the active
>  > members, which I think is okay -- it's not a black mark or anything. We've
>  > been operating very well with a blurred line and now formal distinction, and
>  > this is just meant to bring the list into sync with activity.
>  
>  Should we have a "speak up by X date or hold your peace" on this?
>  
>  (I generally favor lazy consensus, 72 hours.)
>  
>  Best,
>  
>  jzb
>  -- 
>  Joe Brockmeier | Principal Cloud & Storage Analyst
>  jzb(a)redhat.com | http://community.redhat.com/
>  Twitter: @jzb  | http://dissociatedpress.net/
>   
I didn't know I had to speak up :) I'm more than happy to be included in the 
list.

-- 
// Mike 
--
Fedora QA
freenode: roshi
http://roshi.fedorapeople.org