Session Start: Sat Dec 15 14:00 2012 [14:00] *** Now talking in #wplug [14:00] *** patbarron (~pat@lectroid.com) has joined the channel. [14:01] *** happylemur (~vance@69.72.36.111) has joined the channel. [14:04] *** Centinel (~justin__@dynamic-acs-72-23-94-83.zoominternet.net) has joined the channel. [14:04] hello world [14:04] Howdy... [14:04] Is anybody else actually...not AFK? [14:05] monkeybot, where is everyone? :-) [14:05] i don't know, patbarron [14:05] (I know Vance is here... :) ) [14:05] Well...that's about what I expected. [14:06] Joe is connected, probably afk [14:06] Should we wait for him? [14:06] yes, i am afk...or not [14:06] Oh [14:06] Howdy. [14:06] sorry, was playing with one of my dogs. :) [14:06] hey [14:07] So should we get started? [14:07] Agenda's yours, sir... [14:07] Alright, well, let's go ahead and begin. [14:07] Have all of you read the wiki page over the past week? [14:08] I know Vance and Pat have, of course. [14:08] i have, although admit i may not grok it completely [14:08] likely going to read it again while we converse [14:09] That's fine. Just as long as you have the general idea. [14:09] There were three main ideas this week. Pat brought up two and I brought up one. [14:09] Let's go through those, and then we can talk about anything else after we move past that. Well, I guess Pat technically only has one outstanding idea since he withdrew the first one. [14:09] * happylemur is Vance, btw. [14:09] * Centinel is Justin Smith [14:10] So let's start with Pat's remaining idea since it ought to be pretty straightforward. [14:10] okay, sounds good [14:11] Well, it's his idea, so I'll let him lead the discussion for this. [14:11] The idea was about changing the bylaws to be more permitting of virtual meetings. Take it away. [14:11] I think most of my thinking is encapsuated in the rationale section. The core of the idea is to put virtual meetings on an equal footing with in-person meetings. [14:12] Vance made some good points, and there might be some fine-tuning to the rules required. But in essence, I don't think it should matter if everyone's in the same place, or if meetings are conducted with people at remote locations. [14:13] Thoughts? Beyond what's in the web page? [14:13] I didn't post on this because I don't have anything else to add. I agree completely. [14:14] I think the "bootstrapping" provision can be eliminated relatively easily. [14:14] yes, i agree as well, since this will affect me personally...likely the beginning of march when virtual meetings will likely be all i can do through the rest of the year. [14:15] Are you contemplating that the membership could also have virtual meetings? [14:15] That wasn't my intent, but I'm not objectionable to it. Not sure how it would be helpful, though. [14:15] We have so few issues that end up having to be presented to the membership. [14:16] That was one of the ideas I included in WAG - virtual meetings. Essentially, we'd broadcast our meetings over Google+. [14:16] OK, just trying to get an idea of the scope. [14:16] That fellow who asked about Linux Mint at InstallFest - I can't remember his name - seemed to be spooked by virtual meetings. He said that he wouldn't attend the group if we did that. [14:17] I think the idea of virtual/G+ membership meetings is something we should solicit wider input on before proceeding. Yeah, Yaz (that's his name) indicated he wouldn't participate if meetings were broadcast. Privacy concerns. [14:17] yeah, i think we should focus just on virtual board meetings for now [14:17] Yeah, that's a good question to put to the group. [14:18] Though "broadcast" isn't quite the same as "virtual meeting" in this context. The "business meeting" portion of a GUM is members-only anyway (at least, only members can participate, though anyone can sit in) [14:19] we should make sure things are defined exactly, as to avoid misinterpretation [14:19] Should we bash on some wording (offline?) to try to come up with something we can present, that's at least consistent with the rest of the bylaws and rules? [14:20] sure, Google Docs (Drive?) has worked well in the past for collaboration [14:20] That's fine by me. [14:21] I'll draft up proposed wording in the next 24 hours, unless someone objects to that plan. I find it's more productive to have everyone lookng at a starting point, rather than trying to collaborate on the same doc in real time... [14:21] definitely makes sense, pat [14:21] (Google Docs is cool, but when three people are editng a doc simultaneously, it can get kinda weird...) [14:22] So we're all in favor of including this in RP1, right? [14:22] i am in favor [14:23] I know I am, as long as we agree on the wording. I don't want to accidenally do soething like with the coference call thing, where we inadvertently put in something contradictory. [14:23] I'm fine with it, as long as we get the wording right. [14:23] indeed [14:23] (Advance warning - there's a cat interfering with my participation... he's already tried to turn off the computer twice ... if I drop offline, that's why...) [14:23] Anyway, I yield the balance of my time. :-) [14:23] I don't use Google, but can help with the wording in other ways. [14:24] Alright, Pat's idea is added to RP1. [14:24] i have two dogs jumping around and getting between me and my laptops as well, so i can relate [14:24] We'll put it in the appropriate section after we finish the wording. [14:24] I think some of the questions Vance posted will come in handy for the wording. [14:25] The only other remaining idea is mine, so I'll take the floor for this. [14:26] unrelated: i have logging turned on here in case we want to have record of this conversation [14:26] cool [14:26] That's a good idea, Joe. We should post the transcript after we're done. [14:27] My idea is in regard to Robert's Rules. [14:27] I feel very strongly that people need to see the next board at least attempting to address what they view as problems in WPLUG. [14:28] In the past - from what I've read, anyway - people talked about ideas but sometimes didn't get around to implementing them. [14:29] And one of the complaints I've most frequently in my admittedly-limited time in WPLUG is that its rule structure is too complicated. [14:29] *most frequently heard in [14:29] The truth be told, even if Robert's Rules aren't that complicated, a certain perception exists in the group, and that's a problem. [14:29] It would be good to address that somehow. [14:30] Perhaps a HOWTO document may help? It may demystify certain things. [14:30] Yes, that was one of the remaining ideas. [14:31] There really aren't any workable alternatives to Robert's Rules out there, and we don't have time to design something from scratch, so that's a pretty good compromise. [14:31] (Sorry if I stole your thunder. :) [14:31] No, it's fine. Feel free to chime in any time. [14:31] Yeah, a certain amount of education would be good. And, I'm actually still stuck on the last question I asked... I've heard the complexitiy complaint too, more than once. But I can't figure out where it's coming from, from a member perspective. I mean, for the board, I understand complexity concerns. But I'm not sure where it hits the members, and what makes them uncomfortable. [14:32] Yes, that's the sticking point. Putting together a Robert's Rules guide SEEMS like a good idea, but we don't know if that would actually address the problem or not. [14:32] i think another problem is sometimes the business meetings at GUMs dominates the total alloted time. I think those business meetings should be done in 15 minutes or less, to inform people and let them air concerns. otherwise people get bored and think we're being way to formal and complicated. i know i'm not exactly hitting the point addressed here, but it's somewhat related. [14:33] jprostko: I agree, and I think a certain amount of that is just efficiency and focus. [14:34] It's particularly bad if our business meetings take a lot of time even though we have little to report. [14:34] Yes, the actions of the chair can make a meeting go quickly and painlessly. Or not. [14:34] (That's a really good point, though...) [14:34] So I think, even with the current set of rules, there's a lot we can already do to help ourselves. [14:35] That's right. You'll be able to help us out with this, Pat. [14:36] One problem I perceive ... if there's really nothing to "do" at a business meeting, we kind of meander along looking for "something to do", maybe out of a sense of duty more than anything... [14:36] One thing I've learned (professionally) about running meetings, is they need an agenda, and it needs to be followed. That way, everyone knows ahead of time what to expect. [14:37] I've always been told, if you don't have an agenda - cancel the meeting, because you have no reason to meet... [14:37] That's why we need to pass reform as quickly as possible: so that we make progress and people can see that in our business meetings. [14:37] Of course, that's in a business context, which is a little different. But I don't think it's entirely unrelated... [14:38] Yes, in particular officer/committee reports tend to turn into a free-ranging discussion. There's a pretty narrow set of things that should be taken up then. [14:38] New ideas/motions should come under New Business. [14:38] Right, and the chair needs to rein those in (or someone neess to call for Orders of the Day...) [14:38] s/neess/needs/ [14:39] personally, i kind of hate meetings in general (maybe I read too many 37 Signals books), but yeah, if we are to have them, they must stay on track and be as concise/fruitful as possible. [14:39] (business meetings, that is) [14:40] I have confidence in Pat's ability to keep things concise, and if we pass reform, we'll make sure that our business meetings are fruitful. [14:40] So that takes care of some of the complexity. [14:40] But ultimately, we're still not sure where this "complexity" comes from in the eyes of the membership. [14:41] In one of Pat's last posts for the week, he talked about how, in the past, WPLUG had come close to creating some sort of a survey but never actually did it. [14:41] Why don't we add that to RP1? Not as a bylaws/rules thing, but more in a "direction" kind of way - new emphasis on keeping meetings concise and focused? [14:42] well, i think maybe they see what other groups do. i mean, when i go to a python meetup, they jump straigh into the "fun stuff". i think people just don't like the nitty gritty stuff, even if it means they're involved in the process. [14:42] Sure, I Could support that. It's a reform, if even if it's not an actual proposal. [14:42] I can't say we "came close", but I know we talked about it. I think, in the end, it fell apart because nobody was specifically tasked/authorized to do it [14:42] a membership survey is definitely a good idea. we had the same issue when i was on the board of burgh bees though. nobody wanted to write the survey! [14:43] Meetings could be re-ordered; presentation first, then business meeting. Don't know if that's an improvement, though. [14:43] Before we get too far ahead here, let's take a vote on Pat's idea. [14:43] We publish a time schedule for GUMs, so if we're good at staying on schedule, people can actually avoid the business meeting entirely if they want. [14:43] +1 [14:43] business meeting last would hurt quorum [14:43] Yeah, just something that came to mind. [14:44] jprostko: I agree. And if the presentation runs long, it affects the schedule. I think people will care less if a presentation/event runs overtime than the business meeting. [14:45] Well, at the very least, we could put a non-binding statement about how we'll focus on efficiency. [14:46] Or "focus on focus"... :) Yeah, I know,awkward wording... [14:46] I feel like it would be better if we had something more concrete than that, but I can't think of anything. [14:46] Concrete as in, an actual change. [14:47] A proposal or something. [14:47] But I can't think of anything. [14:47] I think it is at least good to commit to paper (bits?) that there's a problem, we're aware of it, and propose a plan to address it. [14:48] AFK, brb. [14:48] The bigger "problem", if we were to go in the direction of major governance changes, would be a more sizeable undertaking that we really wouldn't be able to get done in a week or two anyway. [14:49] But the more I think about it, the more I think that wider perception of "complexity" and "formality" is really lack of efficiency and focus... [14:49] Back. [14:50] The only "concrete" change I can think of would be a time limit, but I don't think it would be a good idea to legislate that. [14:50] What if we gave some sort of a soft figure that we'd try to shoot for in future meetings? [14:50] Then we'd be setting a more measurable goal. [14:50] Well, we do publish a schedule (or at least, we had done so in the past) - should stick to it. [14:50] IE, business meetings will only take up X% of time. [14:51] See: http://www.wplug.org/wiki/Meeting-20120310 [14:51] (as just an example) [14:51] Ah, I had forgotten about that. [14:51] Well, in that case, I guess all we can do is say that we'll follow the schedule. [14:52] yeah, having a soft time limit would be good, maybe allowing another 5 minutes, and then closing the business meeting no matter what. [14:52] I think it will be easy to keep our business meetings lean if we implement online voting. That way, we only take up the really important stuff at meetings. [14:52] If we get off in the weeds, and at 2:45pm, we're still meandering about and trying to decide if the business meeting is over or not, people will get annoyed. [14:52] Yes, having someone serve as timekeeper for each meeting might help keep things on track. [14:52] A timekeeper! That's a good idea, Vance. [14:53] In the presidential election, I remember how they put in a timekeeper to make sure that candidates didn't blab on forever. [14:53] During debates, that is. [14:53] I'm not even sure online voting is necessary to solve this problem (though I endorse it as a "good thing", in general) - there are so few items that ever come up at WPLUG general member meetings that even need to be voted on... [14:54] Maybe that's the way it used to be, but the new board means business. [14:54] yeah, i think online voting should only be embrace to bolster our "technological group" image [14:55] So what if we included a statement about keeping to the schedule and made someone our unofficial timekeeper as Vance suggests? [14:55] Also, I'm referring only to GUMs in my comments - there's plenty to vote on at Board meetings, and a lot we can do to make that a better process too. Just thinking from a general member perspective. [14:56] Although...doesn't Robert's Rules basically give the chair the responsibility to be the "timekeeper" and keep things moving? [14:57] If someone moves to limit debate ... yes. From my (possibly flawed) understanding. [14:57] Yes, the chair should be the one to confine business to the current item. [14:57] But having someone to cue him would probably help. [14:58] (Though, yeah, not much in the way of "debate" is a problem - more general meandering than anything else...) [14:58] I agree with Vance. [14:59] The timekeeper could give periodic updates, inform the group when the time is officially up, and possibly having some sort of soft limit for us to go over. [14:59] I think that would be good to include in RP1. [15:00] Any thoughts on that? [15:00] I'm Ok with proposing an unofficial timekeeper. Sort of like those people at conferences that come into the room and let speakers know when they're time is almsot up... [15:00] s/they're/their/ [15:00] (Danged cats have me typing wrong...) [15:01] CAT-LIKE TYPING DETECTED [15:01] Well, it IS Caturday. [15:01] Indeed it is! [15:01] Who should this timekeeper be? [15:02] Or I guess it may not even matter. We could just ask someone there if they'd like to do it. [15:02] would it being somebody in attendance (other than the board) be good or bad? [15:02] Or we could use automation of some kind... [15:02] DEBUG: Tab completion used [15:02] patbarron: yes, or that [15:02] and have an obnoxious beeping once we hit it! ;) [15:03] I think it does not need to be a set person... whoever is willing at the meeting. [15:03] I just don't think it should be the Chair or Secretary, because they already have other tasks they're doing at the meeting. Other than that ... it's kind of open. [15:03] I feel like it would be better if we asked a person to do it. [15:03] A non-board person. [15:04] Yes, I think it should be someone who already has no specific duties at the meeting. [15:04] I can't imagine anyone would really mind. [15:04] Have a printout explaining what to do, and a list of timepoints they're supposed to signal. [15:04] We could do that... [15:05] That's very reasonable. [15:05] This is also a low-commitment way for people to get involved with WPLUG. Later we can suck them in to more demanding roles. :) [15:05] So, to sum it up: we draft a non-binding statement saying that we're going to focus on efficiency. It will also contain a provision for a timekeeper. [15:05] happylemur: LOL! :-) [15:06] We can only hope, Vance. [15:06] Alright, well, putting this in RP1 is a good start to addressing efficiency. [15:06] I'm good with this [15:06] If nobody else has anything else to add, I'd like to return to the idea of creating a survey. [15:08] No further comments on an efficiency statement and appointing a timekeeper? [15:08] OK ... just for clarification, do you propose that WPLUG (i.e., the Board) should do this, or CRW as an unofficial activity. [15:08] Not from me. [15:08] ? [15:09] (in the former case, CRW's proposal would be to ask the Board to perform the survey...) [15:09] I'm not sure. I guess I really hadn't thought of that. [15:10] It might be more expedient if we did it ourselves. [15:10] *** yue (~yue@c-71-199-115-64.hsd1.pa.comcast.net) has joined the channel. [15:10] (CRW) [15:10] I don't have a lot to say on what a survey should ask or its format. I will note that some sort of incentive (prize) may be necessary to get a response. [15:10] Well, lets talk about it a little first, just to get a handle on what we're even talking about. [15:10] good idea [15:10] That's another great idea - a prize. [15:11] Alright, so...what we'd ask. [15:11] yeah, make it worth their while [15:11] We'll come back to the other specifics, like the prize, after we talk about the general format. [15:11] good plan [15:12] I think it ought to start off fairly simply: do you feel that WPLUG's bylaws are too complicated? [15:12] should make the survey simple. one page, 10 questions or less. multiple choice, along with blank lines at the end or something. [15:12] DEBUG: Tab completion used [15:12] and that is a good starting point, Centinel [15:12] Yes, it's good to keep it short. [15:12] Things I can think off offhand (in no particular order or specific detail) - are they (the respondent) members; if so, why; if not, why not? What parts of WPLUG do they find useful? What parts do they find non-useful? [15:13] (I think, if not clear, that everyone in our larger community should be invited to do the survey, not just members...) [15:13] What would they like to see WPLUG do more of? What would they like to see WPLUG do less of? [15:13] That's one possible solution. We could either pose a general survey or a series of more specific surveys: say, a survey at the start of each month to get a baseline for discussion of that month's issues. [15:13] i agree. "membership survey" at this point is excluding a lot of good feedback. [15:14] It may be difficult to keep a general survey short. [15:14] On the other hand, people may not like being asked to fill out multiple surveys. [15:15] Ah, but there's that prize of a bootable Debian flash drive, or a mini-Tux doll, waiting for those patient enough to complete it. :-) [15:15] (i.e., limited number of prizes, and a drawing for those willing to reveal their identities as part of the survey) [15:16] we should have a "grand prize" too chosen at random, like a free RPi or something. but yeah, we do need to define these questions first. :) [15:16] (as one possible way to do it, since we're going to have to fund any incentives out of pocket) [15:17] I'm happy to chip in some cash. [15:17] If we're going to make this a general survey, we should consider that some people may not be aware of the full extent of what WPLUG offers. [15:18] So I think that, rather than making the questions open-ended, we give them a selection of answers to choose from and the ability to add more. [15:18] "Oh, I didn't think of that..." [15:19] Most survey mechanisms me might use offer the opportunity for "Any other comments you'd like to add?" at the end of the survey, I think. [15:19] s/me/we/ [15:19] The only survey maker I'm familiar with is Wufoo, and I know they offer that. [15:20] Maybe we should talk about a platform before we even address the questions. [15:20] If we know the technical capabilities of our platform, we'll be able to base the questions around that. [15:20] I'm not familiar with Wufoo. I used SurveyMonkey before. [15:20] I'm aware of SurveyMonkey and Formsite, though have never used either for anything "real". [15:20] Wufoo is owned by SurveyMonkey. [15:20] But yes, SurveyMonkey seems to be popular. [15:20] DEBUG: Tab completion used [15:21] Centinel: well, you know more than me then. :) [15:22] Why don't we take a few minutes here so that we can review the survey platforms we're not familiar with? [15:22] I.E., you look at Wufoo, I Look at Formsite, whatever. [15:22] Sounds reasonable. [15:22] i know the 37 Signals guys came up with something called Smiley. Not sure if it ever became public though, and it seemed really simplistic. [15:23] Alright, Smiley too. [15:23] eh, smiley seems a bit dumb atm, haha [15:23] Formsite is free for limited use, though free accounts show ads in your surveys. [15:24] It seems a lot like Wufoo. [15:24] Yeah, just looking at that now. Wufoo offers less forms to free users, but aside from that, looks similar at first glance. [15:25] If I remember correctly, Wufoo limits the number of responses to free surveys to something like 100. I don't think that would be a problem in our case, though. [15:26] I'd be very pleased if it was a problem. [15:26] Looking at SurveyMonkey, it also has a 100 response/month limit [15:26] (for free users) [15:27] It also limits the number of questions to 10. [15:27] We discussed this back in 2007 (but didn't carry through). One survey option proposed was phpsurveyor. [15:27] It is now known as LimeSurvey . [15:27] Ahh, look at that - LimeSurvey is open source! [15:28] You don't have to set up your own installation: . [15:28] Don't know pricing... looking. [15:29] It looks like their free hosting limits you to 25 responses. [15:29] That may or may not be a problem. [15:29] We don't have 25 members, but if enough non-members participated, we could hit the limit. [15:29] 100 responses costs $10. 250 would be $22. [15:30] is there a hosted solution that is possible? could be a pain to keep up to date and secure though. [15:30] It is open-source though. [15:30] (the limits being discussed are with their hosted service "LimeService"...) [15:30] Yes, the LimeService is a hosted version of LimeSurvey. [15:31] I could put up LimeService on my server if we don't want to use the WPLUG server. [15:31] Er, Survey. [15:31] It looks like Softaculous includes it. [15:31] i assume then the pay requirements vanish, right? [15:31] seeing as you are hosting it yourself [15:31] Presumably. [15:32] LimeSurvey currently offers: [15:32] Unlimited number of surveys at the same time [15:32] Unlimited number of questions in a survey (only limited by your database) [15:32] Unlimited number of participants to a survey [15:32] Yeah, it's GPLv2. [15:32] And I've got a pretty high bandwidth cap. [15:32] what's it use. php? [15:32] (i guess i should read before asking, hehe) [15:33] imeSurvey (formerly PHPSurveyor) is an open source online survey application written in PHP based on a MySQL, PostgreSQL or MSSQL database. It enables users without coding knowledge to develop, publish and collect responses to surveys. [15:33] okay, just need a *AMP setup, most likely [15:34] heck, is even more flexible than that [15:34] (If you guys have never used Softaculous, by the way, it's wonderful) [15:35] Unfamiliar with Softalicious - is it a hosting platform? [15:35] seems cool. the only thing like that i've used is Bitnami...assuming they are even in the same ballpark. [15:35] I don't know what exactly you'd call Softaculous, but it's like an automated script installer. [15:36] I can install all sorts of stuff with one click and demo it as well. [15:36] It's perfect for a non-coder like me. [15:37] Even if we don't issue surveys on a regular basis, I still think it would be good to keep something of our own around for that purpose. I like what I see from LimeSurvey. [15:38] Should we try some experiements with it? Even just playing with the hosted solution will show us what it does and doesn't do. [15:38] think my host switched from Fantastico to Softaculous, since Fantistico was always a bit clunky. [15:38] DEBUG: Tab completion used [15:38] patbarron: sounds like a plan to me [15:39] Sure. [15:41] http://js-wordsmith.com/lime/admin [15:41] username: admin [15:41] password: pass [15:41] Does someone feel up to drafting up a quick project plan for the survey? Again, not as bureaucracy - I'm talking less than a page, just to determine what our general strategy is, once we figure out what the platforms available to us can do? [15:42] i object to this login, Centinel. I am not Justin Smith! ;) [15:42] DEBUG: Tab completion used [15:42] It thinks I'm Justin Smith, too! :-) [15:42] You can all be me today. You should feel honored! :P [15:42] patbarron: as in compare/contrast the available options and give initial guidance? [15:43] Yeah, let's make a general outline now that we've at least got a general idea for the platform. [15:43] I think more sort of like - just in general - what do we want to find out from the survey (or, perhaps, from "the first survey" if there will be multiple). [15:44] Things I can think off offhand (in no particular order or specific detail) - are they (the respondent) members; if so, why; if not, why not? What parts of WPLUG do they find useful? What parts do they find non-useful? [15:44] (I think, if not clear, that everyone in our larger community should be invited to do the survey, not just members...) [15:44] What would they like to see WPLUG do more of? What would they like to see WPLUG do less of? [15:44] We should start with basic identification, like Pat said. Are you a member? [15:45] Is there anything else we'd need to know about the respondents? [15:45] Like I said, I get twitchy with the whole "let's all draft up something together, starting with a blank page" - I'd rather see a strawman first, that way I have something to shoot holes in. (Just kidding! :-) ) [15:45] Alright, well... [15:46] Maybe demographic info, but (like many surveys I've seen), if we do, should be at the very end, and optional. [15:46] I think we should ask if they're a former member, and if so, why they left. [15:46] That would be good too [15:47] But yeah, that and optional demographics should cover it. [15:47] For questions like that, we'll probably have to figure out some potential "likely" answers to present as multiple choice, with an "Other" at the end. [15:47] In terms of actual questions, I don't think it's a bad idea to go with what Pat suggested above. [15:47] But we'll give them multiple-choice selections as well as room for "other." [15:48] and A/S/L of course. ;) [15:48] IE, "What should you like to see more of? Meetings, events, social gathering, other" [15:48] I would hope this would be short enough to hold people's attention long enough so they don't bail out and abandon the survey due to "TL;DR'... [15:48] yeah, i hate "short surveys" that take up 20 minutes of my time and get me irritated along the way. [15:49] I don't think it has to be long at all. Let's look at the two areas CRW is supposed to cover: bylaws and general direction. [15:49] What Pat suggested above serves well for general direction. [15:49] Yeah, and the ones that, after 8 pages of answering questions, you get "Sorry, but from the answers you've provided, you're not the sort of person we're looking for answers from - but thanks for playing!" [15:50] I envision it like this... [15:50] Two sections, one for bylaws, one for general direction. [15:50] In each one, we pose a few general questions (like Pat's) and maybe a few specific proposals that we're thinking of. [15:51] Specific things that they wouldn't necessarily think of on their own. [15:51] Like for general direction, "Do you favor having some sort of virtual membership meeting?" [15:51] *meetings [15:54] If I can make a general suggestion (if you're going to show topic headings or something to participants), instead of "bylaws", instead say "structure" or "organization" (or some better word that I can't think of right now...). Since there are complexity/focus/etc. issues that are really more "people" problems than "bylaws" problems (in terms of how they get solved). [15:55] Maybe think about that offline, if you like... [15:55] good point, pat [15:56] Yeah, we could do that. [15:56] Maybe we could bring this up again at a later meeting after we've had time to think this over. [15:57] At very least, maybe someone can make a "strawman" survey and we can see where it goes? Could that be done relatively quickly? [15:57] Then we can base follow-ups off of that? [15:58] i think that's a strawman argument...um, i mean, yeah, sounds good to me [16:00] i admit the UI of this survey software leaves a bit to be desired [16:00] or else i'm just lacking brainpower today [16:00] one of those. :) [16:01] It's definitely not as easy to use as Wufoo. [16:02] I've got a very basic survey up if you want to take a look at it: http://js-wordsmith.com/lime/index.php/survey/index/sid/726771/newtest/Y/lang/en [16:02] I kind of get it now. It keeps make you hammering from top to down [16:03] Seems about as flexible as you want it to be, though, even if not streamlined... [16:03] It's 100% private and 100% free. A not-so-polished UI is a fair trade. [16:03] I like it. [16:04] Thanks for suggesting LimeSurvey, Vance. [16:04] A little slow ... but the price is right. :-) [16:04] Not really my idea. Thank Patrick Wagstrom. [16:05] does seem slow [16:05] Well, you remembered it, in any event. [16:05] It could be something to do with my server. [16:06] Shared hosting only gets you so far. [16:07] I'm going to have to go afk shortly; cats are driving me nuts because they're hungry, and no wet food in house right now. And the big dopey one barfed up his breakfast this morning, so he's been hungry ever since. If we're going to keep chatting, I can keep this chat window live while I'm addressing that issue.... [16:07] i hear you. the wplug server should be good for this if we do it. that said, limesurvey could use more "shiny", as it looks a bit dated. [16:08] Alright, well, that's about as far as we're going to get with the survey thing for now. We all agree that we want to do some sort of survey. [16:08] And that's really all the business we had today. [16:09] indeed [16:09] So, in conclusion: [16:09] We support Pat's idea on virtual meetings, and he will put together a draft [16:09] We support Pat's idea to draft a non-binding statement about efficiency and Vance's idea to appoint a non-board member timekeeper [16:10] We support conducting a WPLUG survey and will explore the possibility of using LimeSurvey [16:10] Just a few more things before we wrap it up here. [16:10] I will put togther draft wording for my virtual meeting proposal within the next day [16:10] When should we have the next meeting? [16:11] I'm generally free in evenings if it's to be a weekday. After 7pm, preferably. [16:11] Weekends are flexible [16:11] Next weekend is no good for me. 29-30 Dec would probably work. [16:12] Evenings can be iffy. Mondays and Wednesdays especially tend to be taken. [16:12] i can generally make most anything work at the moment [16:12] I'm out of work, so my schedule is wide open (unless I have a job interview or something) [16:12] You could do a . [16:12] We could try to squeeze in one last meeting before Christmas, but I don't want to push you guys if you have plans. [16:13] That's an interesting tool. [16:13] Far as I am aware, I only have specific plans on Xmas day. [16:14] Speaking for myself, I'd like it if we had a meeting later this coming week - say, on Thursday - and then another one on the weekend of the 29th. [16:14] We could finalize our plans for the survey this week, then finalize the finer details on the weekend of the 29th in time to bring it up during January. [16:15] January's user meeting, that is. [16:15] And it would give us several opportunities to work on the first two items we agreed to today. [16:15] I'm good Thursday evening. Remember also we're going to have to schedule a board meeting soon too. [16:15] i've used Doodle for scheduling before [16:15] Oh, that's right! Joe, you agreed to our prospective slate, then? [16:16] yes, i did [16:17] Alright, well, let's try to wrap this up. [16:17] Joe, Vance, thoughts on my proposed schedule? [16:18] schedule sounds doable [16:18] Thursday should be good. Friday is out. [16:18] Alright, let's pencil that in. [16:19] Sounds good to me [16:19] thurs is good [16:19] Friday evenings are out for me as well, on a rather permanent basis. [16:19] So let's say...7:00 on Thursday? [16:20] Sure. Same bat-IRC-channel, different bat-time... :-) [16:20] (unless someone wants to do a conference call or something - I have a conference bridge we could use in that case.) [16:21] The medium doesn't matter to me. [16:21] irc is fine for me [16:21] I'm fine either way too [16:21] Just have the option available, if we ever want it [16:21] OK then. [16:22] Joe, if you could put a copy of this log on the CRW wiki page, I'd appreciate it. [16:22] will do [16:22] I'll update the wiki with our next meeting dates and what we got accomplished today. [16:22] That should be all for now. [16:22] Thanks for organizing this - good work! [16:22] very good. talk to you all on thursday! [16:22] so long, everyone. [16:22] Good work, all. Later. [16:23] *** Centinel (~justin__@dynamic-acs-72-23-94-83.zoominternet.net) has quit IRC (Quit: Leaving) [16:23] monkeybot, bye bye... [16:23] patbarron: huh? [16:23] heh ... [16:23] Thanks for everyone's effort. [16:23] *** patbarron (~pat@lectroid.com) has quit IRC (Quit: Leaving.) Session Close: Sat Dec 15 16:24 2012