13:31:09 <spotz> #startmeeting UC
13:31:10 <openstack> Meeting started Thu Jan 16 13:31:09 2020 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is spotz. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
13:31:11 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
13:31:13 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'uc'
13:31:17 <spotz> #topic Roll Call
13:31:24 <aprice> o/
13:31:31 <belmoreira> o/
13:31:42 <melsakhawy> o/
13:31:50 <studarus> o/
13:31:59 <spotz> #chair belmoreira studarus melsakhawy jayahn spotz
13:32:00 <openstack> Current chairs: belmoreira jayahn melsakhawy spotz studarus
13:32:16 <spotz> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/uc
13:32:52 <spotz> That waas the original agenda though I think we should move the question of combining to the start
13:33:32 <aprice> +1
13:34:09 <belmoreira> yes
13:34:20 <melsakhawy> Sounds good
13:34:31 <spotz> #topic COmbining with the TC
13:36:44 <spotz> aprice had brougght this up in the fall and we tabled it to work on our goals. From Thierry's email it sounds llike there has been discussion on the TC side and they're in favor. From my repllies to the emaills you can see I'm in favor but with some reservatins oon whether any op/UC types would get elected. Similar to mnaserr I kind of straddle the line as being on one of the project teams and an operatoro
13:37:04 <jayahn> o/
13:37:42 <spotz> aprice You want to start?
13:38:05 <aprice> sure
13:39:10 <aprice> I think that's a good start, and I would love to get everyone's feedback on thierry's email. It does seem like a good opportunity to join forces and think of it as one contributor base so that support can be done from one body. I don't know if i have much more to add on top of that without getting folks' input on what's been shared so far
13:40:08 <melsakhawy> I am in favor of the merger,  especially with the issue we have with UC membership
13:40:39 <spotz> And this could solve the TCs as welll
13:40:45 <melsakhawy> There is probably many details to sort out, but in principal I think it's a good idea
13:41:14 <belmoreira> in my opinion consolidation will be good for the project.
13:41:28 <aprice> i also think that the TC has started to get involved with user oriented things like the ops meetups and user survey
13:41:40 <aprice> +1 belmoreira
13:42:19 <jayahn> i am also in favor of the merger. especially like this goal » My goal here is to unify the representation of "contributors" in a large
13:42:20 <jayahn> sense and avoid the distinction between ops and devs
13:42:32 <jayahn> from email thread
13:42:44 <spotz> studarus?
13:43:21 <studarus> as long as there is good representation across all the parties in the new entity
13:43:44 <aprice> i think that the onus of that will be on the ops community since self nominations are a big part of it
13:43:50 <aprice> but i agree
13:44:19 <spotz> Yeah that's been my concern as welll shich is why I asked if there would be set seats.
13:45:05 <spotz> Let's be totallly honest here, Devs are always more flashy then the ops. I've been thrilled to see hoow many OPS folks get to go to summit and then meetups but in many companies they don't
13:46:16 <aprice> i think that for devs, it's easier to see the direct value in being involved in the community where ops sometimes dont have the company approval to be involved or the value isn't as easy to see
13:46:20 <spotz> But I also think that the lack of a TC election shows there are room forr ops
13:46:27 <aprice> +1
13:46:43 <aprice> especially if we make a point out of there being a merger and why
13:46:50 <spotz> aprice trust me I've battlled it my whole career and just start doing stuff on my own
13:47:02 <aprice> oh i bet
13:47:13 <spotz> Hence me being concerned and defensive:)
13:47:45 <spotz> I like the idea of changing the name of the new grooup, I think Steering Committee willl help alot
13:48:11 <aprice> yeah i think that it would have to be a restructure of the name and goals for the group for it to work
13:49:05 <spotz> I know we have consensus but let's go ahead and make an official poll. Keep in mind this is probably 6-12 months away at the earliest
13:49:50 <spotz> #poll Work with OSF and TC to make one combined group for the coommunity vs TC and UC
13:50:05 <spotz> grr hang on let me find the rright command
13:51:06 <spotz> #vote Work with OSF and TC to make one combined group for the coommunity vs TC and UC
13:51:41 <spotz> #startvote Work with OSF and TC to make one combined group for the coommunity vs TC and UC
13:51:42 <openstack> Unable to parse vote topic and options.
13:51:55 <spotz> #startvote Work with OSF and TC to make one combined group for the coommunity vs TC and UC? yes no maybe
13:51:56 <openstack> Begin voting on: Work with OSF and TC to make one combined group for the coommunity vs TC and UC? Valid vote options are yes, no, maybe.
13:51:57 <openstack> Vote using '#vote OPTION'. Only your last vote counts.
13:52:07 <spotz> Thirds/forths the charm
13:52:37 <studarus> #vote yes
13:52:41 <melsakhawy> #vote yes
13:52:49 <jayahn> #vote yes
13:53:37 <spotz> #vote yes
13:53:49 <spotz> belmoreira: vote:)
13:54:41 <belmoreira> #vote yes
13:54:50 <spotz> #endvote
13:54:51 <openstack> Voted on "Work with OSF and TC to make one combined group for the coommunity vs TC and UC?" Results are
13:54:52 <openstack> yes (5): belmoreira, studarus, jayahn, melsakhawy, spotz
13:54:54 <belmoreira> sorry for the delay
13:55:06 <spotz> no prob, it's late for you
13:55:15 <spotz> well later anyways:)
13:55:50 <spotz> Ok so all are in favor of the merger. aprice you want to let Thierry know or I can reply to the emaill thread when we're done
13:57:02 <aprice> spotz: im happy to let ttx know, but I think it would be good to reply on the thread since youre the UC chair and discuss what next steps would look like
13:57:19 <spotz> aprice Ok will do
13:57:24 <aprice> thanks!
13:59:32 <spotz> So the question arises do we want to continue discussions of possibly reducing our numbers or table it in favor of the merger. There would still be 1-2 UC elections so it would potentially still have value to discuss but we have 2 other items (etherpad frrom summit) and Ambassador program changes
13:59:41 <melsakhawy> One side note, we probably should keep the UC membership the same number
14:00:04 <melsakhawy> I say we keep the same # of members
14:00:09 <spotz> :) So one tabling, anyone wnat to second?
14:00:24 <studarus> what is your reason to keep it the same?
14:00:31 <studarus> just less change?
14:00:33 <melsakhawy> In the upcoming elections
14:01:08 <belmoreira> honestly I believe we should continue with the change
14:01:12 <melsakhawy> With the merger and the ambassador program revamp there's much work to do
14:01:20 <studarus> or since we have a longer term plan (merge) there is no need to make short term changes?
14:01:28 <melsakhawy> Having less members will potentially affect that
14:01:38 <melsakhawy> Studarus  that's true as well
14:01:56 <belmoreira> my reasoning
14:02:18 <belmoreira> the merge with the TC is long term
14:03:08 <spotz> We would really need to either focus on downsizing the next few meeetings to have it workeed out before eleections. I still think for us Spring is the better election and I don't think therer will be another sprring election afterr this one
14:03:11 <belmoreira> considering what happen the last year it will be more and more difficult to have candidates the UC seats
14:03:31 <belmoreira> and next election will be 3 seats for voting
14:04:09 <spotz> Spring is 3, whiich is why if we downsize we do it now and just elect 1 person
14:04:22 <belmoreira> also reducing the size of the UC will also help justify the merge
14:04:51 <melsakhawy> True, and I agree with you in this regard. However with the size of upcoming work, we need as many members as we can
14:05:19 <melsakhawy> If we get one candidate,  they get elected
14:06:07 <melsakhawy> And the rest of seats are downsized. If we get more we have 3 charis to fill, we hold an election on the three seats
14:06:54 <melsakhawy> Honestly I think that initiatives will be affected if we just run by 3 members
14:10:12 <belmoreira> think it will be worst if the UC doesn't elect anyone for the available seats
14:11:14 <spotz> We have 20 minutes left so lets work through this in the remaining time and try to get a consensus. I can see both sides here. We may not have 3 candidates which does make the election harder but also shows the need to merge. And revamping the Ambassador program before the merger and other initatives might be harder with only 3 but could potentially get done
14:12:02 <melsakhawy> Did you decide yet if you want to rerun?
14:12:31 <melsakhawy> Pointing at spots studarus and belmoreira :)
14:12:36 <melsakhawy> Spitz
14:12:44 <melsakhawy> Sorry autocorrect
14:12:44 <studarus> I was planning on running if there are 3
14:12:53 <studarus> and probably not if there is only 1
14:13:29 <spotz> I'm honestly holding off until the board elections are over if I'm lucky enough to get elected I would continue my work there
14:13:37 <belmoreira> haven't decided
14:14:40 <melsakhawy> Best case scenario we get more than 3 candidates, worst case we have only one
14:15:06 <melsakhawy> I say we open 3 seats , with possibility of downsizing if candidates as less than 3
14:15:07 <jayahn> i leaning toward having election for 3 seats, even with the fact that it would be harder.
14:16:31 <spotz> jayahn so you would downsize, elect only 1?
14:16:41 <spotz> Just want clarify
14:17:06 <jayahn> nope, not downsizing. +1 on melsakhawy:
14:17:16 <jayahn> open 3 seats for this spring election
14:17:31 <spotz> Ahh ok so keep the election at 3 seats and 5 members
14:17:46 <jayahn> yes
14:18:05 <spotz> When you said harder I thought you might mean getting the work done
14:18:25 <studarus> so I'll start preparing the election webpage for 3 candidates
14:18:44 <jayahn> spotz: ah ;)
14:19:20 <spotz> That sounds like the consensus, Do we want to officially vote now that I know the command?:)
14:19:42 <belmoreira> it's not consensus :)
14:19:56 <studarus> do we need to vote if it is just business as usual
14:20:01 <studarus> do we need to vote if it is just business as usual?
14:20:19 <studarus> we aren't changing anything
14:20:39 <belmoreira> we discussed this for several meetings I think we should vote even if the outcome is the same
14:20:50 <spotz> belmoreira: Majority? Woording is ahard:)
14:21:20 <spotz> #startvote Leave UC size at 5 members? yes no abstain
14:21:21 <openstack> Begin voting on: Leave UC size at 5 members? Valid vote options are yes, no, abstain.
14:21:22 <openstack> Vote using '#vote OPTION'. Only your last vote counts.
14:21:44 <melsakhawy> #vote yes
14:21:45 <studarus> #vote yes
14:21:52 <belmoreira> #vote no
14:21:55 <jayahn> #vote yes
14:22:22 <spotz> #vote abstain
14:22:28 <spotz> #endvote
14:22:29 <openstack> Voted on "Leave UC size at 5 members?" Results are
14:22:30 <openstack> yes (3): studarus, jayahn, melsakhawy
14:22:31 <openstack> abstain (1): spotz
14:22:32 <openstack> no (1): belmoreira
14:22:40 <spotz> As I'm not needed to break a tie and I see both sides
14:22:57 <spotz> Which is why I like odd numbers:)
14:23:53 <spotz> Ok lets continue as usual, should the merger not happen the topic can be addressed again, preferably on a spring vote
14:24:16 <studarus> if you know anyone that would like to be an election official, please send them a note!
14:24:33 <jayahn> i will
14:24:43 <spotz> Yeah we won't have Ed this time
14:26:01 <spotz> Any new business? We have 5 minutes and I'm going to move our 2 topics we didn't get to today to next week
14:29:10 <spotz> #endmeeting