This is the recent traffic on the #SPF-council IRC channel on irc.pobox.com. Anyone may join the channel, but only council members can talk.

If you do not have access to IRC, you may view the recent traffic at: http://www.schlitt.net/spf/spf-council/now/irc_log.html.

This log can be can be viewed at: http://www.schlitt.net/spf/spf-council/2005/11/21_irc_log.html.

IRC nicknames:
freesideMeng Weng Wong
gconnorGreg Connor
grumpyWayne Schlitt
JulianJulian Mehnle
MarkKMark Kramer (asarian-host.net)

--- Sun Sep 25 22:02:32 UTC 2005 ---
22:02<Julian>grumpy: If we aren't going to serve the current (old) website under http://www.openspf.org, then wouldn't it be appropriate to begin serving the new site under that URL right away?
--- Fri Oct 7 11:23:48 UTC 2005 ---
11:23<Julian>re arrr.
11:24<Julian>Uh, strike that.
--- Sun Nov 20 18:06:33 UTC 2005 ---
18:06<grumpy>Hmmm... freeside's rDNS problems apparently cause the bots to not like him either...
19:30<Julian>Time sync, it is 19:30 UTC now.
19:32<Julian>grumpy: Do we have an agenda?
19:32<grumpy>no, not yet.
19:32<Julian>Shall we compile one?
19:32*grumpy is trying to catch up on email and write one
19:32<Julian>Ok, mee too.
19:32<Julian>Ok, me too.
19:33<grumpy>Let me try to compile a rough draft, and I'll bounce it off you
19:34<Julian>Nah, unnecessary. Just let me think about non-obvious items and let me raise them here before you send out the agenda.
19:35<Julian>(I don't think I need to raise the obvious ones... *g*)
19:40<grumpy>Well, so far, the only two agenda items I know of are the elections and maybe something on an official reference implemenation
21:04<Julian>grumpy: I agree that the council should clarify the status of M:S:Q wrt whether it is the reference implementation or not. But do you really think we need to discuss whether it should be doing "best guess" processing?
21:04<Julian>I think the latter can be resolved entirely on spf-discuss.
21:04<Julian>(I do have a position on that, BTW.)
21:06<Julian>Or was there a request for a formal resolution?
21:08<grumpy>there was a request. I forget who made it.
21:08<grumpy>hang on
21:13<Julian>Oh my. Frank and Hector need to cool down. About 5e4 Kelvin or so.
21:15<grumpy>*blush*
21:15<grumpy>the request was made by MarkK on spf-council.
21:15<grumpy>no wonder I couldn't find it on spf-discuss
21:17<Julian>Uh, then I'd better *blush*, too.
21:17<Julian>And MarkK. ;-)
21:22<grumpy>Julian: have you finished with the agenda?
21:22<grumpy>we should probably get it out soon.
21:22<Julian>grumpy: soon.
21:23<Julian>hi gconnor_l
21:23<grumpy>gconnor_l: send your agenda requests to Julian.
21:24<Julian>No, send 'em to grumpy, he's the chair. I just didn't want to send extraneous items to grumpy when compiling my own list of item suggestions.
21:24<Julian>...so I asked him to show me his list in advance.
21:25<gconnor_l>Hi all.35 min to meeting time, correct?
21:26<grumpy>yep
21:29<Julian>Ok, I guess I'm in sync with spf-discuss now. List of suggested additional agenda items coming any minute now.
21:35<Julian>Sent to grumpy.
21:37<Julian>grumpy: Uh, make that second "X." item read "Should a (new) project charter be created by the outgoing council?".
21:39<Julian>The initial wording really doesn't make much sense. The outgoing council cannot mandate a new one with tasks.
21:40*grumpy wanders back
21:42<grumpy>Hmmm.... Meng won't be able to make it until at least 01:00 UTC?
21:42<grumpy>I think that is a little late for you guys...
21:42<grumpy>Erh, I guess MarkK isn't hear.
21:42<grumpy>here, even
21:42<gconnor_l>fyi "mountain" time is GMT-0700
21:43<Julian>Now I'm confused. I thought Meng had already calculated the UTC times? ("i believe that is 2153 to 2325
21:43<Julian>UTC. so i should be able to make it. i hope.")
21:43<gconnor_l>It is currently 13:43 where I am (pacific), and 14:43 mountain
21:47<grumpy>Julian: according to his subject: line, the flight changed
21:48<Julian>grumpy: Didn't he send that message to spf-council? I don't see his message...
21:51<grumpy>no, he just sent it to greg, you and me.
21:52<Julian>Oh, so it ended up in my general inbox. Haven't looked there of course... *sigh*
21:52<gconnor_l>oh, duh, I see the message now
21:53<Julian>17:35 -07 = 00:00 UTC == 01:00 +01
21:54<Julian>Uh, 17:35 -07 = 00:35 UTC = 01:35 +01
21:54<MarkK>good evening
21:54<Julian>hi MarkK
21:55<Julian>grumpy: Re your agenda's subject: 11-20 (today) is Sunday, not Monday. But never mind.
21:55*Julian was shocked for a moment for the apparently unilateral change of the meeting date. :-)
21:55<grumpy>Uh, sorry.
21:55<grumpy>cut and paste w/o proper editing.
21:56<Julian>I'm no native English speaker, so is "outgoing council" a sensical term (and does it mean what I think it means)?
21:56<gconnor_l>Well, 22:00 is *almost* monday. I bet it's monday *somewhere*
21:56<Julian>Heh.
21:57<MarkK>we're still on for tonight, right? Haven't heard of any change
21:57<Julian>MarkK: No change has been planned yet.
21:57<MarkK>ok, good
21:57<grumpy>Well, Meng just sent an email saying he is now flying to Denver and won't be available until 01:00 UTC...
21:57<MarkK>hope Meng can make it in time, though
21:57<gconnor_l>Appears Meng won't make it at the posted time. Looks like everyone else is here tho
21:57<MarkK>ah
21:58<Julian>s/01:00 UTC/01:35 UTC/
21:58<grumpy>MarkK: Julian pointed out that the day-of-week in my agenda post is wrong.
21:58<MarkK>ah, ok; I see
21:59<grumpy>Ok, well, we are all here now, except for Meng, and it doesn't look like he will make it.
21:59<grumpy>Do we want to change times, or plow ahead w/o him?
22:00<Julian>17:35 -07 = 00:35 UTC = 01:35 +01
22:00<MarkK>I am at my parents' house here; so I cannot continue until 3 or 4 AM in the night
22:00<Julian>That means that Meng isn't going to show up before 01:35 +01.
22:00<grumpy>right
22:00<MarkK>so lets start now, as far as I'm concerned
22:00<gconnor_l>Hmm, that is 2.5 to 3.0 hours from now, if I read that right. I will still be available, but I'm also just as fine going ahead without him
22:00<grumpy>at the earliest
22:00<Julian>Let's go ahead w/o Meng.
22:01<gconnor_l>There is still a chance that if we wait, he won't be able to get online anyway
22:01<grumpy>Ok, well, I guess we should start.
22:01<grumpy>gconnor_l: right
22:01<grumpy>Ok, I'm calling the meeting to order
22:01<grumpy>has everyone seen the draft agenda?
22:01<Julian>Yes.
22:01<MarkK>Yes.
22:01<Julian>Uh, _I_ have.
22:02<gconnor_l>No...
22:02<grumpy>gconnor_l?
22:02<grumpy>ok, I posted it to the spf-council list....
22:02*grumpy is digging out the URL
22:02<gconnor_l>oh wait yes I have
22:02<gconnor_l>I thought you were sending another one just now
22:02<grumpy>http://archives.listbox.com/spf-council@v2.listbox.com/200511/0017.html
22:03<grumpy>Ok, first up is Agenda bashing...
22:03<grumpy>does anyone have any changes the would like to make?
22:03<Julian>Not me.
22:03<grumpy>gconnor_l? MarkK?
22:04<gconnor_l>Nope, I have nothing to bash at this time :)
22:04<Julian>$gmail->bash();
22:04<MarkK>nope, I 'my' stuff is on there :)
22:04<grumpy>ok
22:04<grumpy>on to item 2: Minutes from prev meeting (Julian)
22:05<Julian>...
22:05<grumpy>(thanks)
22:06<Julian>Ok, as you probably guessed, I cannot present you any new meeting minutes today. However, I pledge to write them before the outgoing council's term ends (which I currently assume to be on 2005-11-02). For this reason, among others, I also request at least one more council meeting before the term is over.
22:06<Julian>I would like the outstanding minutes to be approved during that last meeting.
22:07<Julian>I will submit them some time _before_ that meeting, of course, so everyone has the time to read them.
22:07<Julian>EOT
22:07<grumpy>Ok, sounds reasonable.
22:07<gconnor_l>sounds OK to me
22:07<MarkK>ok
22:07<grumpy>Ok, I guess on to item 3: chair's report
22:08<grumpy>I really don't have a lot to report
22:08<grumpy>There has been a request that we should have more regular meetings, so maybe we can make up for the lack of meetings by having another one next week. ;-)
22:09<Julian>Next week is not too good for me. Perhaps on 2005-11-30?
22:09<grumpy>I've sent updates to spf-discuss about the SPF I-D status. Basically it appears that we have been skipped over by the RFC Editor due to an IESG deferemant (the appeals probably).
22:09<grumpy>Julian: 11-30 *is* in next week....
22:09<grumpy>Or, are you saying about the only day next week that you can make it is the 30th?
22:10<Julian>Uh, here in Europe, the weeks start on Monday, so "next week" starts tomorrow. ;-)
22:10<grumpy>We can also do this on the mailing list..
22:10<gconnor_l>11-30 is OK with me
22:10<grumpy>Oh. Sorry.
22:10*grumpy forgets
22:10<Julian>Sorry, too. I didn't think about the US calendar.
22:10<Julian>(But let's discuss the next meeting date at the end.)
22:11<grumpy>Uh, I guess that is all I have to report on.
22:11<grumpy>are there any questions for the Chair?
22:11<grumpy>type ... quickly
22:11<grumpy>Ok, on to item 4: ED report (Meng). Looks like we will have to skip that one
22:11<grumpy>item 5: election stuff
22:12<grumpy>Uh, I'm really not sure abouthow to answer any of the questions...
22:12<Julian>a. who should vote?
22:12<grumpy>should we just go down the list, or does anyone have comments about how we should address this?
22:12<gconnor_l>...
22:12<Julian>That question has two dimensions: what would be _right_, and what would be _practical_?
22:13<Julian>grumpy: I think the order is fine.
22:13<grumpy>Julian: agreed.
22:13<gconnor_l>I saw some pretty good suggestions on the list. Some I like and agree with. Holding them in January is a good idea.
22:14<Julian>We're now at "a. who should vote?", aren't we?
22:14<grumpy>gconnor_l: yeah, that is part of "when", I think.
22:14<MarkK>yes, janury is ok
22:14<grumpy>Ok, let's address c first:
22:14<grumpy>I think January makes a lot of sense also.
22:15<grumpy>I would phrase things like "starting the first monday after day-of-month" for the various items.
22:15<Julian>I don't see any good reasons not to vote before 2005-12-02. Are there any?
22:15<grumpy>e.g. All nominations must be in on the first monday after the 7th of January
22:15<grumpy>Julian: we don't have nominations, we haven't accepted nominations, etc.
22:16<gconnor_l>Julian: Just that some list members asked to have time for nominations and discussion, and we would need time to organize the election itself
22:16<Julian>(Yes, voting before 2005-12-02 would probably mean starting preparations _immediately_.)
22:16<grumpy>I reall can't see us getting an election run before 12-02.
22:16<grumpy>Also, as I mentioned in a post, here in the US there is a major holiday coming up where many people will probably not be reading the list.
22:17<MarkK>yes, thar is why january is a reasonable time
22:17<gconnor_l>I don't see anything wrong with doing it sooner rather than later, but let's not rush the process itself... 3 weeks is probably reasonable for nominations, discussion and vote, I think
22:17*grumpy agrees with gconnor_l
22:17<Julian>Nomination period 11-21..11-23, discussion period 11-24..27, election period 11-28..12-02 -- would that be possible?
22:18<gconnor_l>i.e. we could start now, but can't really conclude before 12/20
22:18<grumpy>Julian: do you have objections to pushing the vote back to Jan?
22:18<Julian>grumpy: When is that US holiday?
22:18<grumpy>It happens this coming Thursday, but traditionally, it is a family thing where there is a lot of traveling involved.
22:18<grumpy>many people leave late Wed and don't get back until the weekend.
22:18<Julian>I think we should have _good_ reasons for delaying the vote and thereby extending the current term.
22:19<gconnor_l>Most US companies will have a day off for 12/26 and a day off for 1/2, and two days for 11/24-11/25 I think
22:19<grumpy>Julian: I think the good reason is: We don't have time to do a reasonable election now.
22:19<grumpy>yes, shame on us for blowing it off.
22:19<gconnor_l>Additionally one listmember asked to extend voting over the weekend and someone else agreed, I think
22:20<Julian>I do not have _specific_ objections to delaying the vote, though. Only the general objection of requiring a good reason.
22:20<gconnor_l>2 weeks feels compressed, to me
22:20<grumpy>I think officially moving the elections to fixed times in January would be a good thing.
22:21<Julian>I actually think we may have to answer "b. how should we vote?" before we answer "c".
22:21<grumpy>Julian: ok.
22:21<gconnor_l>I agree with grumpy, to me the holidays season qualifies as a good reason to delay.
22:22<grumpy>I think we need *at least* a week for nominations to be collected, a week for acceptance of the nominations/discussions, and a week of voting.
22:22<Julian>gconnor_l: Well, we did have the holiday season last year, too.
22:22<grumpy>Julian: and it was somewhat messed up due to thanksgiving...
22:22<MarkK>during it during the holidays might feel to some like we are rushing it by them
22:22<grumpy>and we got started *MUCH* earlier.
22:22<Julian>grumpy: True. :-|
22:23<grumpy>What do people think about the time allotments I mentioned?
22:23<grumpy>it would mean that an election would drag out over three weeks.
22:23<Julian>grumpy: I can generally agree with those.
22:23<gconnor_l>I agree with 7 days each for nominations, accept/discuss, and vote
22:23<MarkK>me too
22:23<grumpy>Ok.
22:23<MarkK>a week for each is fair
22:23<grumpy>Do we want to use CIVS to run the vote?
22:24<Julian>Are we at "b. how should we vote?" now?
22:24<gconnor_l>That seems consistent with the listmembers' suggestions
22:24<grumpy>Julian: yeah...
22:24<gconnor_l>What is CIVS again?
22:24<Julian>http://www.google.com/search?&q=civs+voting
22:24<grumpy>gconnor_l: a complicated voting system that works well in practice. ;-)
22:25<Julian>In particular, it is a nice implementation.
22:25<grumpy>we used it for the domain name voting.
22:25<grumpy>I guess one thing about the schedule is that it would be hard to fit it into Dec, what with various holidays and such.
22:25<Julian>See <http://new.openspf.org/Community_Vote/Official_Project_Domains> for instance (click the "results" link).
22:25<gconnor_l>OK. I have no objection to it myself. The only possible hitch might be that people who don't understand it might not believe the results 100%.
22:26<grumpy>I don't think we had many objections whent he domain name vote happened.
22:26<Julian>_If_ we choose to delay the vote by more than a week, then it doesn't matter if we delay them until Dec or Jan.
22:26<grumpy>(we had objections about not enough warning that the vote was going to happen...)
22:27<Julian>So if we choose to delay the vote, we should delay it until January as many have suggested on spf-discuss.
22:27<grumpy>Ok, so have we answered "b. how should we vote"?
22:27<grumpy>that is, should I put forward a motion?
22:27<Julian>grumpy: I'm not sure.
22:28<Julian>Does anyone have objections to using CIVS?
22:28<Julian>Has anyone read objections on spf-discuss to using CIVS?
22:28<gconnor_l>Not I
22:28<MarkK>it worked for the domain voting too
22:29<Julian>...and quite nicely, I think. :-)
22:29<gconnor_l>Have not seen any. I think our community is smart enough to understand it.
22:29<grumpy>gconnor_l: agreed.
22:29*grumpy is trying to type up a motion....
22:30<Julian>(grumpy: I request another agenda item: "c2: appointing an election officer".)
22:30<grumpy>yeah
22:30<grumpy>Uh, that would need to be done before nominations, right?
22:30<grumpy>or could it be decided during the same week?
22:31<grumpy>and, is there any reason why the election officer couldn't be decided on by the council?
22:31<Julian>Let's finish a, b, and c first, ok?
22:31<gconnor_l>Same week is probably fine... only risk is appointing someone and then s/he doesn't have enought time to do it
22:31<Julian>*sigh*
22:31<gconnor_l>ok holding :)
22:31*Julian is losing track of the discussion's structure.
22:31<grumpy>yeah, me too.
22:31*gconnor_l waits for Grumpy's motion
22:33<Julian>Motion: CIVS <http://www5.cs.cornell.edu/~andru/civs/> shall be used for future council elections.
22:34<Julian>Please let grumpy second that motion.
22:34<Julian>If he doesn't, he's working on his own version, and that's fine by me.
22:35<gconnor_l>I am reading that CIVS has a variant for picking a "proportional set" of representatives, rather than just the top vote-getters. anyone think we should use it? to me it sounds like something we want
22:35<grumpy>motion: Elections will be held in January of each year for all 5 seats. Terms will begin on February first. Nominations for the positions will be made starting on the first Monday after 7th of January and will close after a week. Discussions about the nominations and acceptances of the nominations will start on the first Monday after the 15th of January and will close after a week. Voting will start the first Monday after the 22nd of January and will
22:35<grumpy>close after a week. Voting will be held using CIVS <http://www5.cs.cornell.edu/~andru/civs/>. Voting results will be published before the 30th of January.
22:35<gconnor_l>http://www5.cs.cornell.edu/~andru/civs/proportional.html
22:36<grumpy>that is a long motion.....
22:36<Julian>grumpy: Yes, it is, so I forgive you for taking to long to type it. ;-)
22:36<gconnor_l>How about "first monday on or after"?
22:37<grumpy>For all of the dates?
22:37<gconnor_l>I think so
22:37<grumpy>I think we want at least a week after Jan 1
22:37<gconnor_l>Just to keep people from being confused :)
22:37<gconnor_l>OK in that case I would phrase it as "on or after the 8th"
22:37<Julian>Let's not fixate the start of the term to 02-01.
22:37<grumpy>the difference is whether the process starts on the 7th or 8th, right?
22:38<grumpy>Julian: why not?
22:38<Julian>It should be in January, shouldn't it?
22:39<grumpy>Well, it could, but it would have to be a strange date near the end.
22:39<grumpy>Oh, I forgot to put in a dispute resolution date...
22:40<grumpy>Maybe the voting will be counted within 2 days and all disputes must be finished within a week?
22:40<gconnor_l>If we start on or after the 8th, worst case would be 1/14 - 2/3 (if the month started on Tuesday)
22:41<Julian>grumpy: Sounds reasonable.
22:42<Julian>We have two ways of defining the date chain: by the term's start (work backwards from there), or by the election process's start (work forward from there).
22:42<Julian>I think we should go by the first variant.
22:43<grumpy>Ok.
22:43<gconnor_l>Julian: Agreed
22:43<MarkK>agreed
22:43<Julian>The question then is: what is the earliest safe day of the year so that the election process will never begin before 01-07 (or 01-08?)?
22:43<grumpy>I guess my two points are: 1) we should start on Monday, and 2) we shouldn't start on Monday Jan 1st.
22:44<Julian>I agree to (1).
22:44<Julian>I also agree to (2). Duh. :-)
22:45<gconnor_l>Agreed. I can go for starting as early as 1/2, I figure people will find time to catch up once or twice that week :)
22:45<Julian>So 01-07 (worst case) + 3 weeks = 01-28 (worst case), right?
22:46<grumpy>Julian: that was my counting.
22:46<grumpy>but we need a little more time for dispute resolution.... :-<
22:46<Julian>Uh, right...
22:46<Julian>What would potential disputes be about?
22:47<grumpy>Well, say the software broke.
22:47<Julian>The ballot counting (i.e. CIVS technicalities)?
22:47<grumpy>yeah
22:47<gconnor_l>How about an additional week between the results being final and the term starting, for any last-minute business, including dispute resolution if any?
22:47<MarkK>I do not foresee much dispute
22:47<grumpy>or, say we find after voting that someone was able to game the system and have more than one vote.
22:48<grumpy>MarkK: I don't see much dispute either
22:48<Julian>Hmm, ok, so the worst case for the start of the term would be 01-07 + 4 weeks = 02-04. Not nice, but I can see having it that way.
22:48<grumpy>but, as a programmer, I like to account for every case. ;-)
22:48<Julian>Nah, error checking is for ll4m4s.
22:48<MarkK>grumpy: me too, but a week seems a long time for that
22:49<MarkK>how about 3 days?
22:49<Julian>How about 2 days?
22:49<grumpy>I'm not sure...
22:50<Julian>The dispute period should not hold up the new term for too long in any case.
22:50<gconnor_l>How about, the election official can call for up to a week if needed to certify the election?
22:50<grumpy>it isn't like we can expect everyone to be available and dedicated to SPF...
22:50<Julian>So either we make it short, or we make the dispute period non-deferring.
22:51<grumpy>or we move up the start....
22:52<Julian>Hmm, no, I don't think that would be good.
22:52<grumpy>you think we need an entire week after the first?
22:52<Julian>Ok, what the hell, I don't care _that_ much about the term beginning in January...
22:52<grumpy>Do we really need an entire week to do nominations?
22:53<Julian>grumpy: One entire week after 01-01 == worst case.
22:53<grumpy>Julian: you mean school term? or council term?
22:53<Julian>We could even merge the nomination and discussion period, forbidding new nominations during the last 3 days of the combined period.
22:53<Julian>grumpy: Council term.
22:54<MarkK>grumpy: yes, a week for nominations; not everybody may be present within a a few days window, who would still like to nominate
22:54<grumpy>Well, you also need a period where nominations are accepted, and that could take a while.
22:54<grumpy>if someone gets nominated and they are out of town for a week.
22:54<Julian>I think we cannot prevent discussion during the nomination period, so we could as well merge the nomination period into the discussion period.
22:54<MarkK>yeah, stuff like that
22:54*Julian scrolls back.
22:55<MarkK>julian: that merge seems ok with me (it is what happens in practice anyway)
22:55<gconnor_l>Nominations should be accepted during nominations week as well, but perhaps could be accepted later. To the candidate's disadvantage, but... we should encourage people to nominate early
22:55<grumpy>I think there should be at least a week to accept nominations and to vote. All other time periods are not as important to me.
22:56<grumpy>(a week each, not combined)
22:56<grumpy>There is also the option to punt this to spf-discuss.... ;-)
22:57<gconnor_l>Especially if we tell people ahead of time when nominations will be accepted... then they should be able to nominate and accept within 1 week. I would still like 1 week for discussion though.
22:57<gconnor_l>I don't want to rush things without a good reason. If someone only reads the list once or twice a week, they should still be able to participate.
22:58<grumpy>agreed
22:58<MarkK>gconner: I agree
22:58<Julian>...
22:58<grumpy>I think we could start the nomination process as early as the 2nd of Jan.
22:58<gconnor_l>Agreed.
22:59<grumpy>Especialy if there is a reminder sent out once or twice in Dec about the upcoming elections and nominations.
23:00<Julian>"start as early as 01-02" + "start on Monday" == "start as late as 01-07"
23:00<Julian>...
23:01<gconnor_l>make that as late as 1/8
23:02<Julian>Suggestion: start on Monday. z: start of nomination/acceptance/discussion, z+7d: end of nomination, z+10d: end of acceptance/discussion, start of voting, z+17d: end of voting, start of dispute period, z+24: end of dispute period, start of term. z=[01-02..07] => z+24=[01-26..31].
23:02<Julian>Uh, start on Friday, that is.
23:02<Julian>That makes the term start on Monday.
23:03<Julian>All of nomination/acceptance/discussion/dispute periods include at least one full weekend.
23:03<Julian>What do you think?
23:04*grumpy ponders
23:04<gconnor_l>Latest start is actually 1/8
23:04<gconnor_l>if we say Monday 1/1 would not be valid to start that is.
23:04<Julian>Oh, right.
23:04<grumpy>yeah
23:04<grumpy>I think I like the one week increments better.
23:05<grumpy>I think it is easier for people to understand and remember
23:05<MarkK>me too
23:05<Julian>If we shortened the nomination-free period before the end of acceptance/discussion to 2d (instead of 3d), it would work.
23:05<grumpy>I would be much more willing to push the start of terms into mid Feb.
23:05<Julian>Alright, I already said that it isn't that important to me.
23:05<gconnor_l>I don't have a strong preference between julian's schedule and the 1-week-each schedule, though if there isn't a good reason for compressing I would like to err on the side of extending.
23:06<Julian>Another thing...
23:07<Julian>What I liked about having the term start _before_ the end of the year was the quiet time while doing the first council work.
23:07<Julian>(But that's just a minor thing.)
23:08<Julian>Well, I don't want to hold this issue up any longer, let's go by grumpy's one-week periods and risk the term starting in Feb.
23:08<MarkK>julian: agreed
23:09<grumpy>Ok, should I make another stab at a motion?
23:09<Julian>Go, grumpy!
23:09<gconnor_l>If we make the "dispute/publishing" period optional (at the officer's discretion) we would have a much better chance of making it before Feb 1
23:09<grumpy>I think a consistent start of term date is best.
23:10<Julian>I don't think that the dispute period should be optional.
23:11<Julian>Please include one more item in your motion: that this resolution can only be changed with formal approval by the community.
23:11<gconnor_l>Ok.. latest start of 1/8 still completes voting by 1/28 and starts the term on the 5th or so of feb
23:12*grumpy is typing...
23:13<Julian>I have been thinking about CIVS' proportional representation option. I think we could use it.
23:14<grumpy>motion: Elections will be held in January of each year for all 5
23:14<grumpy>seats. Terms will begin on the second Monday in February. Voting
23:14<grumpy>will done with the CIVS method. (e.g. http://www5.cs.cornell.edu/~andru/civs/ or similar.)
23:14<grumpy>Nominations for the positions will be made starting on the first
23:14<grumpy>Monday on or after 2nd of January and will close after a week. The
23:14<grumpy>sitting council will select an election officer no later than the
23:14<grumpy>first Monday on or after the 9th of January. Discussions about the
23:14<grumpy>nominations and acceptances of the nominations will start on the first
23:14<grumpy>Monday on or after the 9th of January and will close after a week.
23:14<grumpy>Voting will start the first Monday on or after the 16th of January and
23:14<grumpy>will close after a week.
23:14<grumpy>Voting results will be published and certified within 2 days of the
23:14<grumpy>end of voting. All disputes must be registered within a week of the
23:14<grumpy>end of voting. Disputes will be resolved by the sitting council.
23:14<Julian>Wait.
23:15<grumpy>comments?
23:15<Julian>1. CIVS specifically means http://www5.cs.cornell.edu/~andru/civs/. Condorcet Method != CIVS. CIVS _uses_ the Condorcet Method, but there probably are indeed other Condorcet tools on the 'net besides CIVS.
23:16<Julian>So, either "Condorcet method (e.g. $CIVS_URL or similar)", or "CIVS ($CIVS_URL)".
23:16<grumpy>true... my understanding is CIVS selects a tie-breaking method, while Condorcet along doesn't have one
23:16<Julian>True.
23:17<gconnor_l>The proportional option would probably give mostly the same results, but for a 5-seat body it would seem to be slightly more representative in some corner cases.
23:17<Julian>Then, either "Schulze/CSSD method (e.g. $CIVS_URL or similar)", or "CIVS ($CIVS_URL)".
23:17<Julian>2. If disputes will be resolved by the sitting council, then members of the sitting council should not be allowed to submit disputes.
23:18<grumpy>Wouldn't they just need to exclude themselves?
23:18<gconnor_l>Re: 2, I am OK with members submitting disputes, but the member submitting one would be barred from voting on it.
23:18<grumpy>and discussing it
23:18<Julian>grumpy: True, that would be a possible way to go.
23:18<gconnor_l>ok
23:18<MarkK>ok
23:19<Julian>3. "Terms will begin on the second Monday in February." -- Why is that needed? The following sentences make it redundant, if not just plain wrong.
23:20<grumpy>I don't see why it is redundant. We could have the terms start 3 months after the election is finished.
23:21<grumpy>I confess that I changed "first" to "second" just to be safe with the math... ;-)
23:21<Julian>The term always starts the day after the dispute period ends.
23:21*Julian doesn't like "second Monday in Feb".
23:21<grumpy>Julian: that is not my experience.
23:22<grumpy>what do other people think?
23:22<Julian>grumpy: When would it be not the case?
23:22<gconnor_l>I am OK with the term starting later by a week or so... not a strong preference
23:22<Julian>What for?
23:22<gconnor_l>Latest completion of the 4-week process would be Monday Feb 5, I think
23:22<grumpy>Well, in just about all the elections I know of (US mostly), terms start weeks, if not months after the election ends and the dispute period is over.
23:22<MarkK>I think we should just vote on the second monday, and leave it at that :)
23:23<Julian>We're not a bureaucracy like the US or the EU or any other country. :-)
23:23<gconnor_l>Mark- I don't understand what you meant
23:24<MarkK>gconner: I meant I am ok to say "Terms start at the second Monday in Februari"
23:24<gconnor_l>I am equally OK with saying "The term starts when the dispute period is over"... which could put it in January some years :)
23:25<MarkK>I am ok with that too
23:25<Julian>We should not artificially (i.e. w/o good reason) prolong the whole election process.
23:25<grumpy>Well, after the dispute period is over, there has to be a council meeting to decide things.
23:26<grumpy>Julian: I agree, although I think simplicity has a reasonably good reason.
23:26<gconnor_l>decide what? oh you mean decide on the pending disputes?
23:26<grumpy>right
23:26<Julian>grumpy: Yes, let's make the term begin right after the dispute period ends.
23:26<grumpy>"fred register 1000 accounts and was able to vote himself into the council"
23:27<Julian>Unless 3 or more persons do that, there's no problem.
23:27<grumpy>Ok, so someone figures out that fred gamed the system on the last day of the dispute period. when will the council meet?
23:27<MarkK>last time we did not see any such problems either
23:27<Julian>grumpy: Within 7d.
23:28<gconnor_l>What do you guys think about shortening the period to enter a dispute to 3 days, then resolve it within 4?
23:28<Julian>Sure, why not?
23:28<MarkK>so as to all get it in one week, sure
23:28<grumpy>how long for the election officer to publish the results?
23:28<Julian>Directly after the voting period ends.
23:29<grumpy>right now, it is 2 days, with 5 days to raise disputes
23:29<gconnor_l>We could plan on having the last official meeting of the term the week after elections are held...
23:30<Julian>In most cases, no further meeting of the old council will be needed.
23:30<Julian>Only if there actually are disputes.
23:30<grumpy>Julian: true.
23:31<Julian>Let me try to propose a new timeline...
23:31<Julian>(including the latest suggestions)
23:33*grumpy assumes Julian is typing..
23:34<Julian>...
23:37<Julian>z: start of nomination period. z+7d: sitting council select an election officer on or before; start of acceptance/discussion period. z+14d: end of acceptance/discussion period; start of voting period. z+21d: end of voting period; start of dispute period; election results to be published; start of dispute/dispute-resolving period. z+24d: end of dispute period. z+27d: end of dispute-resolving period; start of new term in absence of successful
23:37<Julian>disputes.
23:37<Julian>EOT
23:37<Julian>Uh, s/z+27d/z+28d/
23:37<Julian>What do you think?
23:38*grumpy is reading
23:38<gconnor_l>Good. I like it.
23:38<MarkK>sounds good; can we have it in motion form? :)
23:38<grumpy>motion: I will write something up and send it to spf-discuss for discussion
23:38<grumpy>;-)
23:39<Julian>We need to resolve this issue before 2005-12-02.
23:39<grumpy>We can then have spf-discuss ratify it within the next couple of weeks.
23:39<MarkK>I am happy with this timeline, at least
23:40<gconnor_l>I think we are close to consensus, and that showing it to the list is a good idea. Can we send it out and complete our voting on it by email?
23:40<Julian>Shall we decide on the timeline at least? Or is everything up for discussion on spf-discuss?
23:40<grumpy>I think everythign should be up for discussion.
23:41<MarkK>if 23:38 was a serious motion, then 23:3u: seconded
23:41<grumpy>I suspect that most people would agree to this, in general.
23:41<grumpy>MarkK: I'm somewhat serious, yeah.
23:41<gconnor_l>I think the 7/7/7/3/4 timeline is good. We should probably not alter it unless someone mentions something important we forgot.
23:41<grumpy>gconnor_l: agreed.
23:42<MarkK>gconner: agreed
23:42<Julian>23:38u: seconded, too.
23:42<grumpy>but I don't want to rule out altering it.
23:42<grumpy>Ok, votes on 23:38u?
23:42<gconnor_l>In that case I vote yes to [ <grumpy> motion: I will write something up and send it to spf-discuss for discussion ]
23:42<Julian>23:38u: yes
23:42<MarkK>23:38u: yes
23:42<grumpy>2338u: yes
23:42<gconnor_l>2338u: yes
23:42<grumpy>Ok, motion passed. I'll try to send something out tonight.
23:42<grumpy>Ok.
23:43<Julian>Fine.
23:43<grumpy>now we still need to decide *who* gets to vote.
23:43<Julian>...
23:43<Julian>Wait.
23:43<grumpy>Oh, and whether we should have an option to disolve the council on the ballot.
23:43*grumpy waits for Julian
23:43<Julian>grumpy, when you send it to spf-discuss, remember the following issues, ok?
23:43<Julian>1. CIVS specifically means http://www5.cs.cornell.edu/~andru/civs/. Condorcet Method != CIVS. CIVS _uses_ the Condorcet Method, but there probably are indeed other Condorcet tools on the 'net besides CIVS.
23:43<Julian>2. If disputes will be resolved by the sitting council, then members of the sitting council should not be allowed to submit disputes.
23:44<Julian>EOT
23:44<grumpy>Julian: My latest write-up had both of those things incorporated into it.
23:44<Julian>(re 1: either you write "Schulze/CSSD method (CIVS or similar)", or you specifically say "CIVS (with proportional representation)" (p.r. is a CIVS-specific feature).)
23:45<MarkK>or 2): if disputes will be resolved by the sitting council, then council members are excluded from voting on disputes they brought in themselves.
23:45<grumpy>oh 2) was "sitting council members must not participate" rather than "must not submit disputes"
23:45<Julian>MarkK: Uh, yeah, you're right. Mine was an old version.
23:45<grumpy>Uh, I picked the former. How would p.r. work for us?
23:45<Julian>http://www5.cs.cornell.edu/~andru/civs/proportional.html
<
23:46<gconnor_l>The proportional option would probably give mostly the same results, but for a 5-seat body it would seem to be slightly more representative in some corner cases.
23:46<Julian>Proportional representation shall be up for discussion on spf-discuss, too.
23:46<gconnor_l>Like, if a simple majority gets it together enough to vote in a block...
23:46<grumpy>it says it is experimental.
23:47<Julian>Yes, they say it's experimental.
23:47<Julian>AFAIK it hasn't been under deep scientific scrutiny yet.
23:47<Julian>(as opposed to Condorcet/Schulze in general)
23:48<gconnor_l>I am OK with either method... I don't think the outcome would be much diffferent. I'm also OK with leaving it to the election officer
23:48<grumpy>Well, I'll let the spf-discuss folks chew on it for a bit, but I'm leaning against p.r.
23:48<grumpy>Ok, can we move on to 4.d.?
23:48<gconnor_l>ok
23:48<Julian>No, it must not left be up to the election officer. It should be part of the resolution.
23:49<grumpy>should we have "shut down the council" as an automatic option?
23:49<Julian>Yes, let's move on to 4d.
23:49<Julian>Uh, c2.
23:49<grumpy>c2?
23:49<grumpy>can you copy that again?
23:49<Julian>Uh, c2 we have already resolved by including it in the resolution.
23:49<Julian>"c2. appointing an election officer"
23:49<grumpy>that's what I thought, but I'm not sure.
23:49<grumpy>Oh, right.
23:49<grumpy>ok.
23:49<grumpy>let's move on to 4.d.
23:49<Julian>Sorry for confusing you.
23:50<grumpy>I'm in favor of it.
23:50<grumpy>what do others think?
23:50<MarkK>what is 4.d?
23:50<grumpy><grumpy> should we have "shut down the council" as an automatic option?
23:50<Julian>No, "d. additional ballot item to give (dis)approval of that election timing decision, along with retroactive (dis)approval for the terms and election timings so far"
23:50<MarkK>ah
23:51<grumpy>Oh, wait, I'm wrong.
23:51<Julian>But what grumpy said is also an issue.
23:51<Julian>Let's discuss both.
23:51<grumpy>ok
23:51<MarkK>ok, I thought that was 5.d; but ok :)
23:51<Julian>Yeah, 5d.
23:51<grumpy>MarkK: Uh, I renumbered and added "1. Agenda bashing"
23:51<grumpy>sorry for the confusion.
23:51<MarkK>I see
23:52<Julian>...
23:52*grumpy hates dangling pointers
23:52<Julian>If proportional representation is chosen, we cannot combine the candidates with other, non-candidate options into a single vote.
23:53<Julian>(Of course we could, but the results would be b0rken.)
23:53<gconnor_l>I think the council can decide on terms and timing itself and ask for approval (informal or formal) from the community. I don't think it needs a formal vote of its own
23:53<MarkK>after discussing it on spf-discuss, I see no much point in 4.d
23:53<Julian>...
23:53<grumpy>I think I agree with gconnor_l and MarkK
23:54<gconnor_l>What mark said. Discussing it on list is enough "informal" acceptance of the community to be official
23:55<Julian>Now that we have decided to let the community decide whether our plan to vote in Januaries (and in _this_ January in particular) is ok, we should hold a community vote before the end of this year to ratify that plan.
23:55<Julian>That would also ratify our decision to prolong _this_ term.
23:55<grumpy>I think that is reasonable. It would also give people another chance to see CIVS in action.
23:56<gconnor_l>OK by me :)
23:56<Julian>...and thus "5d" would be obsolete and we could move on to the next agenda item. ;-)
23:56<grumpy>Oh, no, we have not resolved 5a yet. :-<
23:56<grumpy>(or, at least we can't move on to 6 yet)
23:56<Julian>...whatever the next agenda item is.
23:57<grumpy>Ok, let's try to have an election ASAP to ratify our election process.
23:57<grumpy>"boot strap!"
23:57<gconnor_l>5a. how about "same criteria as last election, subject to minor changes by the officer"
23:57<MarkK>I think that sounds fair
23:57<Julian>Define "minor changes".
23:57<Julian>The wording is far too vague.
23:57<grumpy>gconnor_l: that was everyone who had ever registered for any of the SPF lists.
23:58<Julian>Remember the "what's right" and "what's pracical" dimensions?
23:58<MarkK>well, last year's procedure worked fine, right? I have no problem doing the same this year
23:58<Julian>pracTical, even.
23:58<grumpy>I'm really not sure if we want someone who registered <x> years ago, but has never posted and hasn't been subscribed for <x-1> years to be able to vote.
23:59<MarkK>In practise I think it is really just the active folks that vote
23:59<grumpy>It also makes it hard to check for duplicate email addresses.
23:59<gconnor_l>OK. We don't really have historical data on who subscribed when. How about "anyone currently subscribed at X arbitrary date, plus anyone who posted within the last year but is not currently subscribed"
23:59<grumpy>gconnor_l: we do have data about who subscribed and when.
23:59<gconnor_l>really? cool
23:59<Julian>grumpy: Do we?
23:59<grumpy>the listbox software keeps it around.
23:59<Julian>Ok.
--- Mon Nov 21 00:00:05 UTC 2005 ---
00:00<grumpy>yeah, when you unsubscribe, you get marked as "inactive".
00:00<MarkK>hhhm, no, I think ppl should be subscribed still" to show a minimal interest in SPF, as such.
00:00<grumpy>I think when you subscribe again, you get your old options back.
00:00<gconnor_l>If we can get ready access to it, cool. I would say anyone who was subbed at all during the 12 months before the start of nominations
00:00<grumpy>gconnor_l: I can agree with that.
00:01<grumpy>which lists?
00:01<Julian>I think only those should be allowed to vote who are subscribed at the time the vote starts (z+14d).
00:01<grumpy>spf-help, spf-discuss, spf-announce, srs-devel, spf-rt?
00:01<gconnor_l>If we can't get historical data, current lists (all spf lists) plus any posted-from addrs
00:01<MarkK>I dunno; if ppl unsubscribed, is that not itself an indicaton they are no longer minimally interested in SPF?
00:01<grumpy>Julian: that invites attempted ballot box stuffing.
00:02<Julian>Hmm, right.
00:02<gconnor_l>Mark- Usually yes, but it's possible someone got unsubbed by accident or something
00:02<grumpy>such as bouncing their email
00:02<Julian>There's another issue. CIVS voting requires registration through the SPF website (like we did for the community vote on the domain name).
00:02<grumpy>Julian: Hmmm... So, start registering at the start of nominations maybe?
00:03<Julian>I mean, we need voters to register, because otherwise all spf-discuss subscribers would get a voting ticket mail from CIVS.
00:03<gconnor_l>grumpy: that would be OK
00:03<Julian>grumpy: Ok.
00:04<MarkK>sounds good; then you immediate know who is active (and present)
00:04<grumpy>So, anyone could register? how do we restrict it to SPF people?
00:04<Julian>No, not anyone.
00:04<Julian>Only those who we want to allow to vote.
00:05<grumpy>do we do that checking up front, or after they have registered?
00:05<gconnor_l>i.e. we build the list, and then people come to the site and enter their email addr?
00:05<Julian>The registration issue is orthogonal.
00:05<MarkK>people subscribed email addresses are on record
00:05<Julian>We check before registration starts.
00:05<Julian>gconnor_l: Exactly.
00:06<grumpy>Ok, so at the beginning of nominations, we would get a list of subscribers, we put that into CIVS, and then they would have to register?
00:06<MarkK>yes
00:06<Julian>No, the other way round.
00:06*grumpy is glad he asked. ;-)
00:06<MarkK>huh?
00:06<gconnor_l>"That email address is not found in the list of participants. If you have participated in SPF discussion lists, please enter the email address which you used to subscribe to the list"
00:07<grumpy>Julian: can you please explain?
00:07<Julian>We take the list of spf-discuss subscribers (or whatever we decide the consituency to be), feed it into our own registration system and then let people register themselves for the vote. Then, when the vote begins, we take the list of people who have registered and feed it into CIVS.
00:08<grumpy>Oh, that was your postgresql stuff, right?
00:08<Julian>Yeah.
00:08<gconnor_l>So, "eligible" means "can register" and "registered" means "Will get email from CIVS"
00:08<Julian>gconnor_l: Exactly.
00:08<grumpy>ok
00:08<MarkK>Ok
00:09<grumpy>Uh, I think it would be a good idea to test this once before the council elections... ;-)
00:09<grumpy>hi Julian!
00:09<Julian>Ugh.
00:09<gconnor_l>In that case we have to make it clear that you must register before the start of elections
00:09<MarkK>yes
00:09<Julian>gconnor_l: Absolutely. That should be included in the election announcement.
00:09<gconnor_l>You can't just show up 2 days in and vote if you haven't regsitered yet.
00:10<Julian>Right.
00:10<Julian>(Theoretically, it could work, though.)
00:10<gconnor_l>do we need a motion or are we content to let grumpy summarize the above in his post?
00:10<Julian>(CIVS allows late additions to the voters list.)
00:11<Julian>Let's add it to grumpy's post.
00:11<grumpy>Uh, I'm still not clear *who* should be allowed to vote.
00:11*Julian neither.
00:11<grumpy>this is actually more of the "how" part (5c)
00:11<gconnor_l>If we can get ready access to it, cool. I would say anyone who was subbed at all during the 12 months before the start of nominations ; If we can't get historical data, current lists (all spf lists) plus any posted-from addrs
00:12<gconnor_l>(repeated... not sure if that's what we agreed just now)
00:12<grumpy>gconnor_l: weird... most of your text came out blank until I highlighted it.
00:12<gconnor_l>Funny, possibly copy/paste artifacting.
00:13<grumpy>So, should we try using the same set of mailing lists as last time?
00:13<Julian>(grumpy, for the record: let registration begin at z (start of nomination period) and end at z+14d (start of voting period).)
00:13<gconnor_l>that should be "if we can get ready access to historical subscription data"
00:13<grumpy>Julian: agreed
00:14<gconnor_l>grumpy: I think any spf list should be a candidate. have we added any lists? webmasters, right?
00:14<Julian>grumpy: re blank text: it's an X-Chat bug.
00:14<grumpy>Oh.
00:14<grumpy>gconnor_l: yeah, I think that's about it.
00:15<grumpy>Well, should I try to write this up as part of my post to spf-discuss?
00:15<Julian>Only spf-discuss (and perhaps spf-announce) should be authoritative.
00:15<grumpy>I guess I should crosspost it to any lists that involved
00:15<grumpy>I think we allowed spf-help last time too.
00:15<Julian>Also: "plus any posted-from addrs" -- No, that gives more than one vote to some subscribers.
00:16<Julian>No, not spf-help. Actually, I'm not even comfortable with spf-announce.
00:16<gconnor_l>Julian: I think the "main" lists will give us mostly the same list.. but I can imagine a future when there are more lists and they are all specialized
00:16<grumpy>I'm more comfortable with spf-help than spf-announce.
00:17<grumpy>IIRC last year, there were some people who were significant on spf-help but not active on spf-discuss.
00:17<MarkK>yes, those ppl should get a fair shot at it via spf-help
00:17<grumpy>Let me investigate last years arangement and give that as the default for this year. If people object on spf-discuss, then we can change it.
00:18<Julian>Look, the election announcement will go out on spf-announce -- perhaps 14d or 30d before the nomination period starts. The announcement will include a note that anyone who wants to participate in the election will have to subscribe to spf-discuss (and thus take part in the discussions, at least passively).
00:18<gconnor_l>On the other hand, I don't think we would get a much-different list by including all spf lists. I'm OK with trying to be more inclusive. The list may be longer, and the people not on spf-discuss probably won't show up... but it's better than excluding someone who might want to vote
00:18<grumpy>spf-announce has a huge number of people who aren't on any of the other lists.
00:18<Julian>The election announcement should always go out at least on spf-announce.
00:18<grumpy>and considering how inactive spf-announce has been, many might not even remember what SPF is. :-<
00:18<gconnor_l>Does that mean it would make our lives easier to exclude them? or that there is a reason they shouldn't vote?
00:19<MarkK>lets exclude annouce; it is not an active list to begin with: just to passively hear about annoucements
00:19<Julian>People not remembering what spf-announce is about are not our problem. If we can't use spf-announce for announcements anymore, what's the point?
00:19<grumpy>Again, we hashed this out last year, and I think last year will make a good starting point.
00:20<Julian>I'm probably going to "object on spf-discuss". So feel free to go ahead. :-)
00:20<gconnor_l>J: I think Mark is saying that we can announce on spf-announce, but we don't need to use its membership list for voting.
00:20<MarkK>gconners: exactly
00:20<Julian>Oh, ok.
00:20<Julian>That's what I meant, too.
00:20<grumpy>Well, I suspect that this is something that there isn't a rough consensus on.
00:21<gconnor_l>I don't have a strong preference... I just didn't want to exclude anyone who might want to vote. Unless we think that there should be a minimal level of participation to "qualify"
00:21<Julian>grumpy: That's why it is on our agenda today.
00:21<Julian>gconnor_l: "I just didn't want to exclude anyone who might want to vote" -- well, then we'd have to allow *@*.
00:22<gconnor_l>I thought that the reason for limiting eligibles and asking people to register is simply to prevent gaming the system. If there's a consensus that announce-only people don't count, we should state that
00:22*Julian is sort of unhappy with moving all this stuff back for debate to spf-discuss.
00:22<grumpy>Julian: I can kind of understand.
00:22<Julian>Why was this on our agenda again?
00:22<gconnor_l>No, I don't want to encourage "debate"... I want Grumpy to come up with a solid proposal and we should all be able to stand behind it at that point.
00:23<grumpy>Really, I think the election process and timeline will be accepted with minor mods.
00:23<grumpy>I'm not at all sure about this "who should vote" thing. It is a core issue about who we are as the SPF community.
00:23<Julian>gconnor_l: I can't give grumpy a blank check.
00:23<gconnor_l>We should do most of the hard work here and then ask people if we missed something important, or if the proposal is "an" acceptable way forward
00:24<MarkK>I think 'annouce' ppl generally subscribe for the purpose of passively hearing about annoucement; I look at it from the point of 'minimal interest'. People who do not subscribe to the discuss list, and just announce, I think can be well said not to have a minimal enough interest to give a vote.
00:24<Julian>gconnor_l: No, the hard work should have been done by spf-discuss, then we take the arguments that have cropped up, weight them, and make a decision.
00:24<grumpy>Well, I'm not comfortable making a decision w/o investigating what we did last year.
00:24<Julian>grumpy: I can understand that.
00:25<grumpy>How about I write up some stuff and send it to spf-council for approval?
00:25*Julian doesn't want to write the minutes for _this_ meeting.
00:25<gconnor_l>Julian: You're right. There have actually been a couple reasonable proposals floated on the discuss list. I think what we're discussing now are the finer points.
00:25<grumpy>yeah, but I haven't seen anyone talk about the "who should vote" issue.
00:25<gconnor_l>(i.e. we didn't dissolve the council and we didn't vote ourselves another 12-month term :)
00:26<grumpy>gconnor_l: right
00:26<Julian>BTW, spf-help subscribers also don't _participate_ in the SPF project. They just ask for help.
00:26<grumpy>and someone suggested the January date.
00:26<grumpy>no, they also answer questions.
00:26<Julian>"How about I write up some stuff and send it to spf-council for approval?" -- Ok.
00:26<gconnor_l>"Who should vote" - I don't want to impose any arbitrary restrictions, other than the minimum needed to prevent gaming the system
00:27<Julian>grumpy: Those on spf-help who answer questions are also on spf-discuss.
00:27<grumpy>gconnor_l: Well, I think we need tomake it a rule that a person can only vote once. Using multiple email addresses should cause all of them to get tossed.
00:27<Julian>(...ok, except for those who are mostly newbies themselves.)
00:27<grumpy>Julian: I'm not so sure about that.
00:27<MarkK>julian: nit sure aboyt that: sof-help folks tend to often see it as a form of 'discuss' too; plus like grumpy said, there have been some very helpful ppl on help, that deserve a fair chance at getting voted in by the ppl they helped
00:27<gconnor_l>grumpy: that's fine
00:28<grumpy>gconnor_l: however, I also think that people should have *some* involvement with the SPF project.
00:28<gconnor_l>How about this. IF we limit it to just one list, we need to announce that well ahead of time.
00:29<gconnor_l>(side note, are we almost done? I'd like to wrap up in about 1/2 hour if possible)
00:29<grumpy>Julian: I think some people see spf-discuss as just politicing and not "real SPF work", so they avoid it.
00:29<Julian>gconnor_l: I don't want to allow csv-discuss@opencsv.org-only people to be allowed to vote in an SPF council election. So there should be more than the absolute minimum of restriction.
00:29<Julian>Argh.
00:30<Julian>SPF council elections are nothing but politics.
00:30<gconnor_l>what is csv-discuss@opencsv.org?
00:30<freeside>moo
00:30<grumpy>hey freeside!
00:30<freeside>i just landed in denver. sorry...
00:30<gconnor_l>Good to have you!
00:30<MarkK>hey Meng! ltns
00:30<grumpy>no problem. We are on item 2....
00:30*grumpy trolls
00:31<freeside>brb, getting off plane.
00:31<Julian>And to what MarkK said: "deserve a fair chance at getting voted in by the ppl they helped" -- they get the election announcement, so if they want to participate, they can always subscribe to spf-discuss. Or we would have to CC election-related discussions from spf-discuss to spf-help, too. Argh.
00:31<grumpy>Uh, I think I agree with gconnor_l, we should be wrapping this up soon.
00:31*Julian can't type at this rate anymore...
00:32<Julian>"what is csv-discuss@opencsv.org?" -- *sigh* It's the fictional equivalent of spf-discuss.
00:32<grumpy>and people we don't want to vote in an SPF election.
00:32<gconnor_l>Right. I should have said "Any SPF list"
00:32<grumpy>just like they would probably not want spf-discuss folks voting in theirs.
00:32<Julian>..._if_ they're not involved in the SPF project.
00:32<grumpy>right.
00:33<gconnor_l>not "any list anywhere" :)
00:33<grumpy>Well, should I write up some stuff, send it to spf-council and then we can approve it to be sent on to spf-discuss?
00:33<Julian>Ok.
00:33<MarkK>ok
00:33<grumpy>gconnor_l?
00:34<gconnor_l>I am OK with telling people ahead of time that they need to subscribe to spf-discuss in order to be eligible. It may exclude some people on other lists but not if they are paying attention.
00:34<gconnor_l>grumpy: ok
00:34<grumpy>Ok.
00:34<grumpy>I think that finished up item 5.
00:34<Julian>Incredible!
00:34<gconnor_l>last point...
00:34<grumpy>next item: 6: should a report on the outgoing council's work be created?
00:35<grumpy>I say "no", we have everything recorded anyway.
00:35<Julian>s/report/summary/
00:35<Julian>*sigh*
00:35<grumpy>Or, at least, "no, if someone expects me to write it" ;-)
00:35<gconnor_l>If we limit our selection to just spf-discuss, we should say why we are excluding the other lists. A good reason might be "We want to make sure all voters get the benefit of the election-related discussion"
00:35<grumpy>gconnor_l: good point.
00:35<Julian>gconnor_l: You're right.
00:36<grumpy>Ok, what do people think about a report?
00:36<gconnor_l>I don't have a strong preference to a completion-report. If someone wants to write it :)
00:37<gconnor_l>Would it be worthy of a press-release if we summarize the year as bullet points?
00:37<Julian>Well, honestly, I would volunteer to write it if I hadn't the meeting minutes left to write. But now that the election probably isn't going to happen before Jan, I might have the time. But if Mark volunteered to write up a short summary (perhaps a page or so), I wouldn't object either. ;-)
00:37<grumpy>Maybe.
00:37<MarkK>I think a report would make more sense after we have the RFC. We now are kinda in the middle of things still.
00:37<Julian>Yes, it would be worth a PR I think.
00:37<gconnor_l>OK. I can also volunteer to write it, if a one-pager is acceptable
00:37<Julian>It would be a "Council's work" report, not a "RFC report".
00:38<Julian>This is more of a courtesy for the community folks.
00:38<gconnor_l>Though it would be a better PR if the rfc is complete, for sure :)
00:38<Julian>gconnor_l: Agreed, without question.
00:38<gconnor_l>It also makes a good hand-off to the new council-term
00:39<Julian>BTW, I'm against prolonging the current council term "until the RFC is done".
00:39<MarkK>gconner: that is what I mean: I rather not report: "We're kinda still working on it". But yes, a summary might still be useful
00:39<gconnor_l>Right.
00:39<MarkK>Julian: agreed, that might take another year perhaps even
00:39<grumpy>It could be a good thing to have along with the election announcement.
00:39<Julian>So who would write the summary?
00:39<Julian>grumpy: Yes, that was the idea.
00:40<grumpy>(btw: I'm just doing some research: spf-project was included in last years election, and other than a few messages a 79 days ago about repurposing the list, that is all that has been sent to it.)
00:40<gconnor_l>I'll volunteer
00:40<grumpy>Whee!
00:41<Julian>I can even try to finish the outstanding meeting minutes before X-mas, so the summary could mostly be a summary of the minutes or so.
00:41<grumpy>you see, this is why we need elections. It gets new blood into the organization...
00:41*grumpy feels burnt out.
00:41<gconnor_l>I understand what you mean. I also think we should be more aggressive in recruiting others to do work, besides the 5 of us.
00:42<grumpy>yes.
00:42<grumpy>Ok, so gconnor_l has volunteered to write up a report?
00:42<gconnor_l>(I'd like to wrap in 18 min if possible)
00:43<gconnor_l>Yes, I can totally do that
00:43*grumpy would like to s/min/sec/, but...
00:43<Julian>gconnor_l: If you want, I'll hurry up with the meeting minutes. Then you can draft the report and send it to spf-council for review, ok?
00:43<grumpy>btw Greg, thanks for doing the research for the PR...
00:43<gconnor_l>OK that is even better, Julian./
00:43<gconnor_l>Hey no problem :)
00:44<grumpy>Ok, so should we move on to item 7 now?
00:44<MarkK>yes
00:44<Julian>If we don't kid around, we can finish item 7, yes.
00:44