IRC office hours/Office hours 2016-01-14

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Chat on Metrics Meeting
Thursday 14 January 2015
19:00 - 20:00 UTC

[19:03:23] <James_F> OK, we're starting.
[19:03:28] <halfak> p/
[19:03:30] <halfak> *o/
[19:03:31] <marktraceur> SO IT BEGINS
[19:03:38] <marktraceur> n/ halfak
[19:03:46] <halfak> \w/
[19:04:38] <halfak> Woo schana! Welcome!
[19:04:44] <marktraceur> Yay ema! (oh, he not here)
[19:04:44] <matt_flaschen> Welcome, everyone!
[19:05:16] <halfak> DarTar!
[19:05:42] <marktraceur> That was an heroic effort on gilles's name
[19:05:45] <gilles> yay
[19:06:05] <marktraceur> Damn, James_F, you're right, we're distracting as hell
[19:06:15] <James_F> Ooh, is pretty.
[19:07:30] <kaldari> why does Amelia Airheart have an adam's apple?
[19:07:35] <kaldari> just saying :)
[19:07:48] <awight> Also worth mentioning the Saturday community birthday at the office...
[19:08:51] <James_F> Oh, oops. Forgot to say:
[19:09:00] <matt_flaschen> Yeah, wish I could also make the Saturday one. It should be a good time, though.
[19:09:04] <halfak> kaldari, indeed seems to be an inaccuracy
[19:09:07] <heatherw> sorry we forgot that, awight! we added that last second
[19:09:25] <James_F> If you have any questions, sing them out in here. I'll try to get them asked, or even answered, either through IRC or at the meeting-end Q&A section.
[19:11:52] <kaldari> heatherw: Do you know who Outstandy is?
[19:12:13] <marktraceur> brendan_campbell: Lila's mic could be a mite louder.
[19:12:39] <heatherw> kaldari: I do
[19:12:39] <halfak>
[19:12:46] <brendan_campbell> marktraceur: are you local or remote today?
[19:12:51] <marktraceur> Remote
[19:12:58] <brendan_campbell> got it, thank you
[19:13:05] <foks> fwiw, it's loud enough in the office itself.
[19:13:16] <gilles> crank it up to 11
[19:13:24] <marktraceur> halfak:
[19:13:24] <brendan_campbell> just cranked the remote audio up to 11
[19:13:35] <marktraceur> > Anything very small; a minute object; a very little quantity or particle. Sometimes used adverbially.
[19:13:40] <halfak> marktraceur, my link is funnier
[19:13:43] <halfak> :D
[19:13:43] <marktraceur> True
[19:13:57] * halfak imagines tiny robot mites that will make Lila louder
[19:13:59] <Emufarmers> eee, cute bugs
[19:14:09] <halfak> :D
[19:14:46] <halfak> Policies are great. It's practices and process that need work
[19:15:09] <halfak> And always will -- some haven't adapted as fast as we'd like.
[19:15:20] <halfak> IMo
[19:16:17] * halfak interprets this summary of findings as "more everything and new technology"
[19:16:20] <gilles> just lost the youtube feed. is it just me?
[19:16:26] <halfak> Mine is still good.
[19:16:28] <gilles> ah, it's back
[19:16:34] <halfak> Looking at Potential approaches for reach
[19:16:52] <matt_flaschen> The policies are not all great.
[19:16:55] <pajz> gilles, not just you.
[19:17:27] <gilles> (I had to refresh the page to get it back)
[19:17:49] <pajz> same here
[19:18:26] <mark> keeps happening yes
[19:18:27] * legoktm raises hand
[19:18:40] <halfak> o/
[19:18:42] * leila raises hand
[19:18:47] * leila raises hand. :D
[19:18:50] * kaldari raises hand
[19:18:52] * James_F claps.
[19:19:04] * legoktm keeps hand raised
[19:19:08] <kaldari> Who's handling the IRC questions?
[19:19:09] <James_F> Is the image oddly-AR'ed or is it just me?
[19:19:19] * marktraceur does the hokey pokey
[19:19:23] <James_F> kaldari: Me.
[19:19:36] <gilles> gravity works differently at the office
[19:19:47] <EGalvez> There was a comment on a mailing list about having a strategy for the movement separate from the strategy for the foundation. Wondering if this is being considered?
[19:20:22] <leila> EGalvez: that's a very interesting discussion. We should contribute to the corresponding meta pages. It's too much to consider for this year, given that we have 1.5 month
[19:20:30] <fhocutt> ^ [QUESTION]
[19:20:33] <mark> considered by whom? the WMF? ;)
[19:20:36] <leila> that sounds like a project that requires 1-2 years of work EGalvez
[19:20:42] <James_F> EGalvez: Got it.
[19:20:46] <fhocutt> I can, if people would like
[19:21:23] <gilles> cut off again, it does keep happening
[19:21:25] <fhocutt> or James_F
[19:21:31] <meeple27> The current work is for the foundation strategy, since we still have the 2010 movement strategy in place
[19:21:32] <James_F> fhocutt: You can what?
[19:21:32] <subbu> on the hindi is wrong ...
[19:21:37] <fhocutt> handle questions
[19:21:54] <guillom> Whole WMF budget submitted to FDC next year? I'm impressed!
[19:22:02] <James_F> meeple27: I thought it had expired?
[19:22:03] <heatherw> Thanks, subbu can you email that to me?
[19:22:05] <gilles> ..and it's back after refreshing 5 times... and it's gone again
[19:22:07] <EGalvez> Thanks! I think its an important distinction to be made when communicating; is the WMF strategy the movement strategy? If not, maybe we want to make the distinction clear that the WMF doesn't "own" the movement strategy
[19:22:25] <subbu> heatherw, will do
[19:22:25] <James_F> fhocutt: Oh, thanks; in the run-through it was going to be me. You can come join me if you wish though. :-)
[19:22:27] <EGalvez> Thanks Frances! (if you will indeed handle questions :)
[19:22:33] <James_F> Gah.
[19:22:33] <meeple27> James_F: It's not a bottle of milk ;) but Lila just referred to it moments ago
[19:22:39] <James_F> People don't read. :-)
[19:22:44] <fhocutt> James_F: go ahead
[19:22:49] <James_F> meeple27: We stopped following it in 2011 though…
[19:22:50] <meeple27> all I know is that this current process is for the foundation, not the movement
[19:22:55] * James_F nods.
[19:23:18] <guillom> James_F: I also thought that the 2010-2015 strategic plan was no longer applicable.
[19:23:23] * James_F nods.
[19:23:35] <meeple27> definitely feel free to ask publicly if it would help raise awareness and understanding
[19:23:52] <ocaasi> guillom: it's the only specific guidance for grants to benchmark against. otherwise, i think the Call to Action is the '2015 default "strategy"'
[19:24:23] <ocaasi> so basically, no longer applicable but all we have
[19:24:24] <James_F> Also the 2010–15 strategy was for Wikimedia, not WMF.
[19:24:27] <James_F> ee for example.
[19:24:38] <James_F> ^S
[19:25:39] <foks> April 1st? That's a joke, right?
[19:25:43] <guillom> ocaasi: understood. It seems that "we" (the movement) should do something about that. It doesn't seem very wise to use 5-6 year-old data and insights to guide current work.
[19:25:52] * foks badumtishes.
[19:25:54] <ocaasi> +1
[19:26:48] <James_F> +∞
[19:28:04] <marktraceur> foks: We're going to be too busy with the telnet Wikipedia interface
[19:28:23] <guillom> I'm very much liking what I'm hearing in Luis's talk.
[19:28:45] <James_F> Me too. I hope we can stay true to the promise.
[19:28:48] <gilles> youtube is dead again, I should have watched this async later
[19:28:49] <ocaasi> guillom: thank siko and katy for that :)
[19:28:50] <pajz> stream's been down for ~5min now. just me?
[19:28:56] <guillom> ocaasi: I shall!
[19:29:03] <gilles> yeah it's been down for longer now
[19:29:10] <foks> brendan_campbell, ^
[19:29:21] <bd808> pajz: working for me (for what it's worth)
[19:29:27] <legoktm> stream is working for me...
[19:29:32] <gilles> I have a feeling it's down for people in europe
[19:29:32] <brendan_campbell> im monitoring the stream and it's working for me
[19:29:33] <cwd> mine is fine
[19:29:36] <marktraceur> WFM but I'm on my PS4 because I'm super special
[19:29:41] <Wittylama> stream is down for me (in italy)
[19:29:59] <foks> May be a Google issue?
[19:30:03] <Jane023> stream is down for me (NL)
[19:30:06] <pajz> gilles, could be (germany)
[19:30:09] <Wittylama> Should I call 'conspiracy!' at the fact the stream went down when the FDC was being discussed? :-P
[19:30:14] <brendan_campbell> stream working for any folks in europe?
[19:30:14] <gilles> I'm in France
[19:30:21] * varnent shakes fist at Google
[19:30:40] <gilles> that does sound like an issue with google's infrastructure
[19:30:45] <gilles> let me try with a US VPN
[19:30:50] <pajz> now works as I switched to a u.s. proxy.
[19:30:55] <Ainali> yes, down for me in Sweden
[19:30:55] <foks> hm, intersting.
[19:31:06] <brendan_campbell> very curious
[19:31:33] <Wittylama> just swapped to a US ip address with VPN - and now it works again :-)
[19:31:37] <gilles> yep, totally works through the VPN
[19:31:47] <subbu> heatherw, emailed
[19:31:57] <foks> really odd
[19:31:58] <Wittylama> of course - I get it back riiiiiight at the end of the fdc section, damnit!
[19:31:59] <gilles> must be google's streaming from US to Europe being unreliable. usually it cuts off once or twice during the meeting, this time it's a lot worse than usual
[19:32:05] <James_F> Any further questions? So far I just have EGalvez's question about the strategy Lila talked about being for WMF vs. Wikimedia as a whole.
[19:32:15] <heatherw> subbu: Thank you!!
[19:32:37] <James_F> Wittylama: lvillaWMF said you were horrible and FDC was terrible. ;-)
[19:32:45] <ocaasi> Wittylama: you missed the part where they dissed all lama's. consider yourself lucky. it was harsh.
[19:32:59] <brendan_campbell> is the stream still down in europe?
[19:33:08] <lvillaWMF> not true!
[19:33:11] <kaldari> James_F: I have a question for Lila
[19:33:13] <lvillaWMF> I said you were all good-looking
[19:33:22] <James_F> brendan_campbell: Wittylama has it back, at least?
[19:33:28] <kaldari> James_F: Lila mentioned how important it is for the staff to express their opinions on the draft strategic process, yet the period dedicated to staff refinement was limited to only 5 days which also happened to be the week of the Dev Summit and All Staff, when everyone was busy with other things. Due to this, there were only 5 comments from staff members
[19:33:28] <kaldari> during the refinement process. That seems like an incredibly low level of engagement. My question is, are we satisfied with that level of staff engagement, and if not, how can we get more staff to participate in the future?
[19:33:41] <pajz> brendan_campbell, yep
[19:33:41] <James_F> kaldari: Tanks.
[19:34:16] <James_F> Also, thanks.
[19:34:25] <Jane023> it's still down for me (no VPN to try either)
[19:34:27] <gilles> brendan_campbell: might be worth reporting to google
[19:34:31] <James_F> Fish tanks not included.
[19:34:41] <brendan_campbell> gilles: yeah, i will definitely file a ticket
[19:35:18] <EGalvez> A second question: Is there a plan to evaluate the strategy process? What are the KPI's for the strategy process so we can iterate and improve next time?
[19:35:51] <fhocutt> very good question, EGalvez
[19:35:56] <James_F> EGalvez: Got it.
[19:35:59] <gilles> brendan_campbell: and in case you didn't know, it's common for it to die for a short time and come back after a few seconds (requires a page refresh, though). to the point that I refresh immediately when that happens, out of habit. so it's not really a *new* issue, it's just a lot worse than usual
[19:36:32] <gilles> I guess everybody was doing the same thing which is why the european pattern wasn't noticed until now
[19:37:36] <brendan_campbell> gilles: that's good to know...i wasnt aware of this until now.
[19:37:50] <ocaasi> i really hope we leave enough time for Engagement and questions
[19:38:17] * James_F too.
[19:38:39] <fhocutt> +1 ocaasi
[19:38:46] <ocaasi> "Engagement was 63. And, that's all the time we have. Enjoy your weekend!"
[19:38:55] <James_F> ocaasi: We're on-schedule right now.
[19:38:59] <ocaasi> oh good
[19:39:58] <awight> EGalvez: Great question--I would not ask for KPIs however, I think that's the wrong framework. We need concrete methods to evaluate the process, but "performance" far downstream from the problems we can immediately identify.
[19:40:35] <greg-g> whoa, I just caught the name/title bar at the bottom, that's handy
[19:40:41] <marktraceur> greg-g: Right!? So great
[19:40:59] <guillom> "All of you have seen the results" of the employee engagement survey: This meeting is not for WMF staff, but mostly for the general public, who have /not/ seen the results.
[19:40:59] <EGalvez> awight: so you're saying that there are two parts (1) evaluating the strategy process and (2) evaluating the performance of the strategy?
[19:41:12] <awight> Hmm, that sounds like a very useful distinction
[19:41:12] <James_F> greg-g: Done manually by the awesome OIT team.
[19:41:20] <foks> ocaasi, hah
[19:41:30] <greg-g> James_F: we all love our OIT team
[19:41:31] <EGalvez> I believe BOTH is needed; given how our process has been all over the place for the last couple of years; we need more concrete goals for the strategy process itself; given how much staff time goes into it.
[19:41:32] <James_F> guillom: I disagree. This is an internal meeting that is publicly streamed because we're transparent, right?
[19:41:52] <Deskana> guillom: I imagine being stood in the exact same room looking at the exact same people as when the internal results are presented, and coupled with a bit of presentation nervousness, it's easy to forget.
[19:42:05] <guillom> James_F: My recollection is that the primary audience of this meeting isn't WMF staff.
[19:42:12] <James_F> greg-g: And rightly so.
[19:42:15] <awight> EGalvez: +1!
[19:42:32] <Deskana> guillom: Well noted, though.
[19:42:56] <varnent> tbf - I feel like staff compose the largest percentage of people actually watching it though - although I could be wrong (obviously)
[19:43:05] <guillom> Deskana: Sure; I'm not going to give anyone a hard time about this. But apparently James_F and I disagree on the purpose of the meeting itself :)
[19:43:16] <James_F> guillom: It seems to me it shifted significantly in 2011 to be an internal meeting, but ICBW.
[19:43:16] * James_F nods.
[19:43:26] <ragesoss> James_F: given that this meeting routinely involves Q&A with non-staff, it doesn't seem like an internal meeting.
[19:43:54] <fhocutt> "leadership development" is an interesting way to phrase that.
[19:43:55] <James_F> ragesoss: I don't think that's the principal criterion.
[19:44:01] <Ainali> James_F: Well, if the purpose of the stream is transparency it is a pretty opaque statement...
[19:44:01] <leila> James_F: I don't consider this an internal meeting. We do a lot of things to polish presentations, just because we are presenting it to the world
[19:44:04] * awight goes O_o at slide
[19:44:08] <Deskana> guillom: I suspect you two agree more than you disagree, really. :-)
[19:44:14] <ragesoss> well, it's never felt like an internal meeting to me.
[19:44:19] <guillom> Deskana: :)
[19:44:35] <James_F> Ainali: I don't run the meeting, I just attend it. :-)
[19:45:05] <varnent> there are 43 people watching online (some of them staff) and about 100-125 staff watching it in person - so public might be the hopeful audience - but staff seems to be the actual audience
[19:45:24] <gilles> a lot of people watch it later
[19:45:27] <Jamesofur> most of which are staff (remote)
[19:45:28] <halfak> James_F, Q: What is meant by performance management?
[19:45:30] <varnent> at least as far as live watching goes - so tbf - there are probably a lot more that watch it later
[19:45:30] <James_F> And yes, IIRC in general about 300 people watch live or later, of whom fewer than 50 are non-staff.
[19:45:34] <Jane023> well I would watch if I could
[19:45:36] <Jamesofur> but, yeah, it is certainly recorded for public
[19:45:37] <Ainali> James_F: :) I just hang around IRC, since the stream is still dead for me...
[19:45:54] <James_F> Ta.
[19:46:00] <brendan_campbell> Ainali: do you have access to the vpn?
[19:46:01] <HaeB> see - it was internal to staff in the beginning (2008), then expaned in 2011/2012 to be publicly streamed eventually
[19:46:05] <James_F> halfak: As in, yes, I've got it.
[19:46:09] <halfak> <3 James_F
[19:46:14] <leila> halfak: it's referring to the phrase that management do not handle poor performance properly, I think.
[19:46:27] <Ainali> brendan_campbell: What VPN?
[19:46:50] <guillom> Ainali is a volunteer and doesn't have access to the WMF VPN :)
[19:46:59] <brendan_campbell> Ainali: sorry, i meant the staff vpn. my apologies
[19:47:02] <James_F> halfak: Be happy when I manage to ask. :-)
[19:47:03] <ocaasi> this is an "extremely" abridged and obfuscated summary of the survey results
[19:47:14] <awight> re diversity: We need to have a search committee for any future leadership hires.
[19:47:15] <gilles> TIL we have a WMF VPN. I'm just using a commercial one I'm subscribed to
[19:47:19] <fhocutt> however, I would like to get an answer to halfak's question from Lila or Boryana
[19:47:24] <halfak> Nope. Still <3 James_F even if we don't have time for my Q's
[19:47:30] * James_F grins at halfak.
[19:47:44] <ocaasi> halfak: how we handle employees who are not "performing well"
[19:48:18] <James_F> Yeah, that's the normal meaning, but I want to ask it anyway.
[19:48:25] <HaeB> question re FDC: in the "annual report on the FDC process" covering the 2012/13 round (the last such report as far as I can see), Sue expressed the following concern:
[19:48:26] <halfak> +1
[19:48:29] <HaeB> "FDC process dominated by chapters perspectives: I am also concerned that the FDC itself [...] has very few non-chapter-related members: the majority of its members are also Board/former Board members of a chapter."
[19:48:34] <James_F> There might be some extra nuance for us, for example.
[19:48:42] <HaeB> ... Is there a sense that this concern has been resolved now, and the current composition of the FDC is more balanced?
[19:48:47] <greg-g> yay to the all staff organizers!
[19:48:50] <James_F> HaeB: Will ask.
[19:48:59] * halfak stands up
[19:48:59] <HaeB> (ref: )
[19:49:03] <James_F> (Or lvillaWMF can answer now in-channel.)
[19:49:10] * halfak sits back down
[19:49:23] * lvillaWMF looks up
[19:49:24] <ocaasi> ALL HANDS WAS AMAZING
[19:49:26] <lvillaWMF> which !?
[19:49:28] <HaeB> thanks James_F ;)
[19:49:37] <halfak> +1 All hands *was* amazing :)
[19:49:46] <EGalvez> HaeB: To understand your question a bit more, you are saying that we should include people who are not related to the WMF board or affiliates?
[19:50:00] <James_F> lvillaWMF: HaeB's question about FDC process being dominated by chapter board members.
[19:50:03] <leila> halfak: the exact phrase is "Managers not managing poor performance and poor attitude"
[19:50:03] * ragesoss applauds at the line 'pageview api'
[19:50:19] <lvillaWMF> I don't know the current mix offhand
[19:50:33] <EGalvez> HaeB - nevermind - I missed the "'non-chapter members bit"
[19:50:38] <halfak> leila, gotcha. Seems like a bit more would be good to hear, but I think that mostly answers my question.
[19:50:38] <fhocutt> which is fascinating, considering the level of staff concern as reported in the Signpost
[19:50:48] <lvillaWMF> but in a couple rounds of sitting in on their process I have not seen any particularly notable biases
[19:51:14] <leila> totally, halfak.
[19:51:17] <lvillaWMF> at least, not related to chapter/non-chapter-ness
[19:51:22] <HaeB> EGalvez: yes, i don't think there was concern about the presence of the wmf board liaisons on the FDC
[19:51:37] <James_F> HaeB: I'll de-prioritise your question then, but try to ask it if there's time.
[19:51:59] <James_F> OK, question time.
[19:52:28] <bd808>
[19:53:22] <kaldari> bd808: Thanks
[19:53:53] <HaeB> lvillaWMF: did you attend a session where a proposal by a non-chapter was discussed? disregarding amical (which is quite chapterish in many ways), i think the only such proposal was by WMF itself
[19:55:34] * awight <3 fhocutt
[19:55:40] <MBeat> +1 fhocutt
[19:55:51] <gilles> green dots, red dots...
[19:55:55] <awight> LOL
[19:56:00] <ragesoss> props to fhocutt. courage!
[19:56:02] <ocaasi> frances is strong, brave
[19:56:12] <gilles> thanks fhocutt
[19:56:20] <foks> fhocutt, thanks for that.
[19:56:25] <halfak> Thanks fhocutt
[19:56:28] <guillom> Yup, thank you, fhocutt.
[19:56:33] <leila> thanks for asking it fhocutt.
[19:56:46] <kaldari> +1 fhocutt
[19:57:20] <EGalvez> Thanks fhocutt!
[19:58:08] <James_F> Hey SPQRobin.
[19:58:11] <halfak> I might have missed it. Can someone help me. Was the question question about why we're glossing over the most concerning parts of the engagement survey addressed?
[19:58:29] <halfak> Maybe I misheard the question
[19:58:36] <James_F> halfak: I think Lila spoke to that?
[19:58:40] <James_F> But maybe I'm more easily satisfied.
[19:58:42] <foks> "Addressed"..
[19:58:43] <halfak> OK. Must have missed that.
[19:59:22] <fhocutt> thank you, all. And she spoke to some of it, in extremely general terms.
[19:59:34] <fhocutt> I would prefer to see more clarity and accountability.
[19:59:52] <awight> halfak: It's worse than glossing over--the results have been manipulated so that the top priorities are to discipline and threaten people who speak out.
[19:59:54] <James_F> kaldari: Is what Luis is saying now answering your question about the level of staff engagement?
[19:59:56] <halfak> fhocutt, yeah. I found that when I was done listening, I didn't feel like I knew the answer to your question.
[20:00:16] <ocaasi> awight: +1 this is not a representative report
[20:00:19] <fhocutt> halfak: please feel free to formulate a clarifying question; if you want, I can ask it as follow-up
[20:00:20] <leila> fhocutt: I think the metrics come from running the survey in six months, and seeing possible improvements. If they improve (we don't know by how much), we will be happy.
[20:00:25] <James_F> kaldari: Trying to save time for other questions not addressed.
[20:00:48] <ocaasi> fhocutt: halfak, that's because no on addressed the critical part 1 of the question
[20:00:53] <Jamesofur> halfak: no, that question was not addressed
[20:01:17] <kaldari> James_F: not entirely. I still want to know if staff engagement in the strategy process is actually a priority.
[20:01:27] <leila> fhocutt: the problem is that many of the numbers will improve in six months, since the numbers were very low this time around. I think the executives and the Board will look at those numbers and think about whether they are satisfied or not. It's not very scientific, and that may be okay.
[20:01:36] <James_F> kaldari: Lila specifically said she wanted all staff to engage. Did you mean something more?
[20:01:55] <James_F> (Engage publicly in the open or 'community' discussion.)
[20:02:06] <kaldari> James_F: you can skip my question if there isn't time
[20:02:06] <fhocutt> James_F: "wanting" and "providing the structure and support for" are very different
[20:02:18] <halfak> James_F: Q: Repeating Francis's question: Why are we not speaking clearly about the most concerning results of the engagement survey? (e.g. 10% trust in leadership)
[20:02:19] <lvillaWMF> HaeB: no, I have not sat through any of those. If anything, the new process will likely de-emphasize that (more of those will likely go through the simplified plan problem)
[20:02:23] <leila> fhocutt: I also think it will help if the dots are connected more clearly. For example, as Lila said, her weekly updates are to increase transparency for staff by telling us more about what she/we has/have been busy with. This is a good thing, and they should clearly connect it and put a check mark to it.
[20:02:44] <James_F> fhocutt: Why would staff get special treatment?
[20:02:51] <halfak> Honestly, I don't see how we can talk about improvements in engagement if we don't clearly understand where we are now.
[20:02:58] <James_F> Bah.
[20:03:09] <halfak> Oh well. Too late
[20:03:12] <James_F> Too many way-too-long questions from in-person people meaning remote people can't ask questions effectively. :-(
[20:03:14] <awight> Move to extend the Q+A by ten minutes.
[20:03:20] <lvillaWMF> that said, in my informal conversations, I don't think there is a lot of pressure to "chapterize"
[20:03:27] <halfak> awight, +1
[20:03:34] <halfak> I already ate lunch :)
[20:03:39] <foks> maybe if the questions were answered
[20:03:41] <ocaasi> flaschen with the stealth attack. love that brilliant man.
[20:03:48] <foks> :P
[20:03:53] <James_F> lvillaWMF: Thanks for answering HaeB's question.
[20:03:56] <leila> good question.
[20:03:59] <fhocutt> thanks, matt_flaschen
[20:04:01] <cwd> awesome
[20:04:13] <fhocutt> does that not come up in a standard background check?!
[20:04:29] <Sadads> really? Wow! We are kindof a high visibility org...
[20:04:31] <halfak> fhocutt, gotta add Google News to the standard background check
[20:04:33] <leila> in general it may be a good idea to allocate some of the MM time to ongoing discussions in wikimedia-l, or discussions that have been brought up there in the past month.
[20:04:43] <marktraceur> RIP it's over
[20:04:49] * leila claps.
[20:04:50] <kaldari> halfak: lol, no kidding
[20:05:12] <ocaasi> halfak: lmgtfy...
[20:05:28] <leila> okay. signing off from here. thanks everyone, especially James_F.
[20:05:37] <greg-g> James_F: I wouldn't blame the lack of time on the question askers, there was a lot to cover and not much time
[20:05:53] <EGalvez> Thanks James_F!
[20:05:58] <ocaasi> thanks everyone. we'll obviously need better fora to address deeper concerns
[20:06:19] <halfak> +1 ocaasi
[20:06:23] <James_F> Maybe a wiki.
[20:06:44] <halfak> It would be interesting if we had a wiki page for each meeting and used the talk page to keep the conversations going after each meeting
[20:06:56] <halfak> That would be awesome for me when I get to present on some research bits.
[20:06:57] <brendan_campbell> i apologize to all european friends, i will open a ticket with google this afternoon and try to figure out what's going on
[20:06:57] <James_F> halfak: We have a page. We've not used the talk pages for that, but we could.
[20:07:00] <HaeB> lvillaWMF: OK. i would think that such a chapter bias (if it exists) would show more clearly during the review of a non-chapter org's budget; i.e. that impressions from other sessions are less pertinent
[20:07:08] <awight> yeah, Q+A isn't the right format, cos we'll just hear the same platitudes piped back into the feedback machine
[20:07:18] <James_F> halfak: if you want to create a thread and ping people.