19:01:25 <kohsuke> #startmeeting
19:01:25 <robobutler> Let the Jenkins meeting commence!
19:01:28 <kohsuke> #info https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/JENKINS/Governance+Meeting+Agenda
19:01:44 <kohsuke> #topic advertisement on jenkins-ci.org?
19:02:30 <kohsuke> CloudBees marketing people are interested in putting ad on jenkins-ci.org
19:03:12 <hare_brain> Are they going to pay for the space? Do we get a TAC?
19:03:18 <kohsuke> They are willing to spend like a few 1000$s
19:03:52 <kohsuke> And I felt we needed to get the sense of how people react before starting to calculate what kind of impressions/calendar periods/etc that it translates to
19:03:56 <kohsuke> What is TAC?
19:04:02 <hare_brain> traffic acquisition cost.
19:04:28 <kohsuke> Is that different from "pay for the space"?
19:04:49 <hare_brain> Not for the purposes of this discussion.
19:05:04 <kohsuke> OK
19:05:28 <kohsuke> On the budget side, it's not that we are in need of urgent money
19:05:33 <hare_brain> I guess my first question would be what kind of ads.
19:06:17 <LisaWells> ads related to CloudBees Jenkins products
19:06:19 <kohsuke> I think it's quite negotiable,
19:06:38 <hare_brain> Oh, I meant what form of ads. Banners, sponsored links, etc.
19:06:53 <LisaWells> yup, negotiable!
19:06:56 <zxvff> kohsuke: I think it's a great idea, depending on what sort of ad it is
19:06:57 <kohsuke> I just assumed it is a banner
19:07:03 <LisaWells> we were thinking just a banner space but very open to suggestions
19:07:06 <sleepynate> just a user here, but "need someone to host your jenkins?" banner under the downloads would be amenable to me
19:07:11 <zxvff> might be good to negotiate a revenue share depending on the service advertised
19:07:19 <kohsuke> or maybe something like google adwords?
19:07:34 <zxvff> also find out what sort of company it is to try to get a better sense of what their budget is
19:07:39 <zxvff> google ad words will not be very profitable
19:07:40 <hare_brain> Sounds like no one is running away screaming from the idea....
19:07:45 <zxvff> <-- internet marketer
19:07:51 <kohsuke> hare_brain: yeah, that's good to know
19:07:58 <ojacobson> I'm not, but only because I already run adblock.
19:08:30 <ojacobson> My experience is that ad revenue is a trap; once you have it, it's hard to get rid of, and it repels a not-inconsiderable number of customers, diminishing "real" revenue. jenkins-ci.org doesn't *have* "real revenue", though, so that model may not be relevant
19:08:36 <LisaWells> we were hoping to offer ads for relevant things Jenkins users might want: training courses, hosted Jenkins, Jenkins Enterprise plugins, etc
19:08:38 <hare_brain> rtyler or abayer around to weigh in
19:08:58 <kohsuke> Just for the record, I'm totally fine if we say NO.
19:09:01 <rtyler> what's going on?
19:09:04 <abayer> My gut reaction is wariness, to be honest.
19:09:09 <hare_brain> Ad space on jenkins-ci.org
19:09:17 <abayer> I'm not strongly opposed, but I'm not a huge fan either.
19:09:18 <rtyler> I can't imagine why
19:09:26 <rtyler> what problem are we solving?
19:09:42 <hare_brain> Not a problem. An opportunity.
19:09:44 <sleepynate> well, it's not just any ads either, it's specifically cloudbees wants to advertise their jenkins stuff, right?
19:10:07 <hare_brain> I would say, that once you open the door to this stuff...
19:10:23 <kohsuke> sleepynate: yes, but I assume this would need to be non-discriminatory
19:10:32 <hare_brain> If we do it, and I'm not saying that we should, we should plan for additional requests, not just one off it for CloudBees.
19:10:46 <abayer> Strongly agreed.
19:11:43 <kohsuke> I thought codehaus used to put ads on their wiki but it doesn't look like they do
19:12:08 <rtyler> I'm against it but mostly for touchy feely reasons
19:12:15 <rtyler> I don't want the OSS project to be cloudbees leadgen
19:12:32 <hare_brain> So I think the questions to answer, in order of priority are: do we want to allow ads on jenkins-ci.org? what kind of ads? what pages to we want to allow ads on?
19:12:57 <hare_brain> rtyler those are valid.
19:13:06 <rtyler> what I think is totally acceptable, is to have cvontent on jenkins-ci.org about stuff that cloudbees is doing *WITH* jenkins
19:13:16 <rtyler> the same way we talk about praqma or whoever that is
19:13:47 <hare_brain> I am undecided myself. And it if we do put ads on, I feel it needs to be done in a way so that it's not disruptive to people trying to find stuff.
19:13:59 <hare_brain> No rollovers, pop-overs, whatever.
19:14:07 <rtyler> heh
19:14:15 <rtyler> "continue on to jenkins-ci.org [x]"
19:14:25 <hare_brain> Exactly.
19:14:35 <kohsuke> turns out codehaus does put ad on wiki. I forgot I had adblock
19:14:39 <rtyler> hah
19:14:40 <kohsuke> you can see it at the bottom of pages like http://groovy.codehaus.org/
19:14:40 <hare_brain> LOL
19:15:04 <hare_brain> That's not too bad.
19:15:19 <kohsuke> on pages like http://groovy.codehaus.org/Roadmap you see it in two places
19:15:23 <kohsuke> both at the top and the bottom
19:15:42 <kohsuke> looks like that is the standard design in Codehaus Confluence
19:15:53 <kohsuke> Not sure what they did to kill off the top banner in http://groovy.codehaus.org/
19:16:14 <hare_brain> Probably just don't have an ad well defined for that page.
19:16:31 <hare_brain> Or nothing scheduled against it.
19:17:49 <kohsuke> I note that ad being low key is very important to many people
19:17:49 <kohsuke> That's good to know
19:18:18 <kohsuke> Does it create a wrong impression about the independence of the project? How big a concern is that?
19:18:21 <hare_brain> rtyler is -1, sounds like abayer is -0.5, hare_brain is 0, zxvff was +1
19:18:28 <hare_brain> so far
19:18:52 <rtyler> I missed what product we're talking about
19:18:55 <rtyler> or is it just a general thing
19:19:04 <abayer> Yeah, I'm -0.5 at best. I'd probably be closer to -0 if it wasn't just CloudBees, to be honest.
19:19:05 <hare_brain> Impetus was CloudBees wanting to advertise.
19:19:44 <kohsuke> rtyler: I suspect it'd be used for all sorts of things. training, two products, "Jenkins as a service", ...
19:20:05 <rtyler> here's what I would propose
19:20:11 <hare_brain> I think the fact that many Jenkins contributors work for CloudBees, that impression of independence will always be harder than average.
19:20:19 <rtyler> I think that's *okay*, but we define a monthly sponsorship package
19:20:19 <hare_brain> This doesn't make it any worse, I don't think.
19:20:35 <rtyler> and define the criteria to make sure we're not displaying any ads that conflict with the mission of the open source project
19:20:50 <rtyler> jenkins training ads would be good IMHO
19:20:58 <rtyler> artifactory ads, notsomuch
19:21:09 <kohsuke> hare_brain: if anything, to me that is an argument for not doing anything (like this) that makes it more complicated to explain than today
19:21:30 <abayer> kohsuke: Yeah, that's my thought.
19:22:24 <abayer> Let's say I'm -1 if CloudBees is the only advertiser (despite my love for you guys!) due to the perception issue, +1 if there are multiple advertisers from the get go.
19:22:34 <abayer> And assuming the ads aren't obtrusive blah blah.
19:22:59 <hare_brain> How do we canvas to see if there's other interest to advertise on the site?
19:23:13 <kohsuke> rtyler: making it non-discriminatory while being selective is tricky, isn't it
19:23:20 <rtyler> heh, oh yes
19:23:21 <hare_brain> It sounds like rtyler is -1 for advertising commerical products.
19:23:42 <rtyler> hare_brain: for commercial products that would detract from jenkins OSS
19:23:51 <rtyler> artifactory was a bad example actually
19:23:54 <rtyler> more like atlassian
19:24:02 <rtyler> BETTER CI WITH BAMBOOZLE
19:24:06 <rtyler> TRY ATLOOSIAN
19:24:21 <LisaWells> is non-discriminatory really an issue? seems like "all ads / content subject to community approval" would cover things. you don't have to take all advertisers
19:24:42 <hare_brain> I am trying to understand the distinction you're making, rtyler. JFrog makes a commercial product too.
19:25:07 <rtyler> hare_brain: they don't make anything that could be competing with the Jenkins OSS provides though correct?
19:25:40 <hare_brain> Ah. I get where you're coming from now.
19:25:58 <kohsuke> LisaWells: yeah, but we need some guidelines ourselves to decide what to approve and what not to
19:26:09 <rtyler> artifactory and cloudbees provide tools that live in an ecosystem *with* jenkins
19:26:13 <rtyler> jenkins is better with jfrog
19:26:17 <rtyler> so I'm okay with that :)
19:26:50 <kohsuke> LisaWells:  And transparency would help to prevent someone from saying "look Kohsuke is preferentially treating CloudBees!"
19:26:51 <hare_brain> What if NetFlix came along and wanted to advertise? (Hyptotheically.)
19:27:09 <LisaWells> so guidelines might be content that promotes / supports Jenkins, nothing that detracts from / competes with the product, only relevant ads for things that will help developers as they use Jenkins
19:27:24 <rtyler> LisaWells: yes, that's along my line of thinking as well
19:27:41 <rtyler> I personally would like to see it not as an ad-deal based thing if we were to do it, but rather continued monthly or annual support
19:27:43 <hare_brain> So now we're talking about curating ads.
19:27:43 <LisaWells> if it's irrelevant, ugly, or distracting, it's out
19:28:05 <LisaWells> we were thinking monthly - give it a try for a few months and see how it does. if it works, keep it up!
19:28:43 <hare_brain> So instead of ads generically, maybe "Site sponsors"?
19:29:03 * rtyler nods
19:29:29 <rtyler> we do have bills to pay, and having sponsor opportunities is helpful
19:29:30 <hare_brain> Where sponsor is not necessarily a company, but possibly services or other offerings.
19:29:48 <hare_brain> Right. That's what I've been thinking about.
19:30:01 <kohsuke> So now abayer's concern is more relevant, that he'd feel better if there are other sponsors from get go
19:30:32 <hare_brain> (And having sponsors to help with the bills would make the need for fundraiser drives less necessary.)
19:30:42 <LisaWells> i think if you posted to the Jenkins CI Linkedin group, or just sent an email to the Users list, you'd get a few volunteers
19:31:10 <LisaWells> this year we had people lining up to sponsor JUC
19:31:34 <hare_brain> LisaWells does talking about site sponsorship change what CloudBees had in mind?
19:32:11 <rtyler> apologies, but this is about as much time as I can spend in here today
19:32:16 <rtyler> invoke my name again if necessary
19:32:23 * rtyler crawls back under a pile of work
19:32:33 <hare_brain> Thanks for your input rtyler. It was really helpful.
19:33:02 <kohsuke> Sounds like we should create a more concrete draft proposal
19:33:17 <hare_brain> Yeah.
19:33:22 <kohsuke> before today, I felt we need to first check this kind of proposal is not dead on arrival
19:34:27 <hare_brain> Sounds like resistance to generic ad space, but having focused, curated sponorships could fly, if we had sponsors other than just CloudBees.
19:34:35 <LisaWells> hare_brain: would have to check but most likely we'd love to sponsor. how would you envision that being different?
19:34:45 <hare_brain> Semantics, mostly. :)
19:34:54 <LisaWells> then it shouldn't be a problem
19:35:21 <LisaWells> we love to support Jenkins so that might even be better!
19:35:30 <kohsuke> All right, shall we move to the next topic?
19:35:45 <kohsuke> #topic JUC 2014 brainstorming
19:35:45 <hare_brain> Don't get me wrong. I think even with sponsorship, there is a lot of infrastructure to be set up on the site, and for the board to manage the accounting, but possibly less work than dealing with AdSense/AdWords, etc.
19:36:09 <LisaWells> btw if you just want 1-2 other sponsors and don't need to do an open 'call for sponsors', i can probably find them for you
19:36:50 <Alyssa_> on to JUC 2014 discussion ?
19:37:11 <kohsuke> Sorry, looks like I changed the topic bit too early
19:37:16 <kohsuke> But I think now it's OK
19:37:20 <hare_brain> Before we move on to that, are there any action items to take for that first oe?
19:37:22 <hare_brain> one
19:37:54 <kohsuke> #action LisaWells / kohsuke to come up with a more concrete plan for further consideration
19:38:10 <kohsuke> I think that's the main one
19:38:28 <kohsuke> #topic JUC 2014 brainstorming
19:39:00 <kohsuke> Alyssa_ got a lot of feedback on JUC Palo Alto, and she's already thinking about the one for the next year
19:39:16 <Alyssa_> there was suggestion for unconference
19:40:04 <kohsuke> there's another feedback that said a panel discussion was very interesting and some wanted to see that
19:40:07 <Alyssa_> is this what we still want to add onto JUC 2014?
19:40:32 <Alyssa_> ok. add panel discussion
19:40:52 <kohsuke> And another one that Alyssa_ told me, I think, was that some people felt there were too many sponsor talks and not enough genuine community talks
19:41:24 <Alyssa_> should we limit the # of sponsor talks?
19:41:26 <kohsuke> Also, this year, we did the right thing by having an option to opt-out from sponsors upon signing
19:42:00 <kohsuke> ... but I was told that so many people opted out and it would make LisaWells's work more tricky to line up sponsors
19:42:56 <kohsuke> I think one question therefore is whether a two-day event is workable
19:43:14 <kohsuke> It sounds like for us to add any more stuff to it (be it unconference, panel, or more talks), we'd need more hours
19:43:53 <Alyssa_> issue w/ more hours is budget
19:43:56 <hare_brain> Looking at the schedule, I'm visually counting 5 talks by sponsors out of 14, not including the keynote.
19:44:29 <kohsuke> #info http://www.cloudbees.com/jenkins/juc2013/juc2013-palo-alto.cb
19:44:34 <hare_brain> So that doesn't seem unreasonable.
19:45:04 <Alyssa_> actually 6 sponsor talks
19:45:20 <kohsuke> If some didn't even feel like a sponsor talk that's a good sign!
19:46:30 <hare_brain> If the content is interesting to people, whether it's sponsored or not shouldn't matter.
19:47:19 <kohsuke> Is it possible to get a venue free by shaking down the likes of Y!, Netflix, etc?
19:47:41 <kohsuke> if that helps cutting the cost drastically, that'd reduce various pressures, no?
19:48:09 <kohsuke> I remember Yahoo! had a huge conference rooms that we've used in some earlier meetups
19:48:14 <Alyssa_> yes it would. but that would limit # of attendees yes?
19:48:44 <kohsuke> Probably
19:48:59 <hare_brain> Those conference rooms wouldn't fit the number of people that showed up at JUC PA
19:49:39 <Alyssa_> I am anticipating 600 people for 2014
19:49:46 <hare_brain> And might be hard to get them all day.
19:50:17 <kohsuke> Universities really worked well elsewhere in the world
19:50:56 <hare_brain> How did those events avoid conflicting with classes?
19:51:02 <kohsuke> It was often free or next to free, and some class rooms can house a large number of people
19:51:10 <Alyssa_> hold event during weekend/summer
19:51:20 <kohsuke> Ones I did in Tokyo, we did it on weekends
19:51:37 <Alyssa_> we'd run into limited days in the year
19:52:52 <kohsuke> But I suppose most other events that I know weren't a fully day event
19:54:47 <hare_brain> OK, so venue is a problem.
19:54:54 <hare_brain> Challenge.
19:55:14 <hare_brain> Going back to sponsor talks vs community talks.
19:55:26 <hare_brain> I'm not sure I even know how to define "community talk"
19:55:30 <kohsuke> It's sounding like the current structure would likely remain, unless we have some breakthrough because of the constraints
19:56:10 <hare_brain> Having a panel session, or some forum for more general Q&A perhaps?
19:56:12 <LisaWells> data point: we had several more potential sponsors who wanted to do talks, but we ran out of slots
19:56:38 <LisaWells> and we had several who sponsored anyway but didn't get to talk (they got bag sponsorships, or Scalability Summit sponsorship instead)
19:56:39 <Alyssa_> hare_brain: yes
19:56:53 <hare_brain> To me, the key is whether the content of the talk would be of general interest to Jenkins users, not who is giving the talk.
19:56:54 <Alyssa_> i will add panel discussion for 2014
19:57:09 <kohsuke> My understanding is that for sponsor talks, we just have to give them a slot without us being able to control the content of the talk
19:57:10 <LisaWells> did we get any feedback that the sponsor talks were not relevant?
19:57:24 <LisaWells> we do control the content - we kicked several proposals back
19:57:47 <kohsuke> LisaWells: I did see some tweets to that extent
19:58:04 <Alyssa_> My requirement for all speakers, including sponsor is no product pitches.
19:58:05 <LisaWells> good to know - if you can share specifics, that's helpful
19:58:28 <Alyssa_> speakers do send in their slides prior to the event.
19:58:35 <kohsuke> LisaWells: yeah, I should have kept it somewhere
19:59:23 <hare_brain> btw, sign me up to help review talk proposals next year!
19:59:48 <Alyssa_> hare_brain: are you owen? sorry :o)
19:59:53 <hare_brain> Dean
20:00:11 <Alyssa_> hare_brain: sorry Dean :o)
20:00:20 <kohsuke> owen is autojack
20:00:34 <hare_brain> How dare you not remember. ;)
20:01:13 <hare_brain> We're at time.
20:01:17 <kohsuke> Would a smaller 2nd day for unconference in Netflix/Yahoo! be interesting?
20:01:41 <hare_brain> Would depend on the topic. Sounds like that scalability summit was a success.
20:01:42 <kohsuke> It would help us test the setup in a presumably smaller number of people without adding cost
20:02:02 <kohsuke> Yes, I enjoyed it a lot, and I think there was a lot of interest, indeed
20:02:17 <kohsuke> So I thought of scaling up that setup
20:02:24 <Alyssa_> i'm thinking we mimic what we did this yr but maybe add another smaller room if there's interest
20:02:51 <kohsuke> My understanding is that we need multiple small rooms for it to work well
20:03:10 <Alyssa_> I can check w/ Betflix re: additional rooms
20:03:17 <Alyssa_> Netflix
20:03:37 <hare_brain> Seems like we're going into logistics. Can we wrap up the meeting?
20:03:43 <kohsuke> Yes
20:03:44 <kohsuke> sorry
20:03:48 <kohsuke> #topic next meeting
20:04:05 <kohsuke> we decided to skip 25th, so the next one is ...
20:04:07 <hare_brain> Next year
20:04:08 <hare_brain> 1/8
20:04:17 <kohsuke> Jan 8th, OK
20:04:26 <kohsuke> See you then
20:04:33 <kohsuke> Have a good Chirstmas everyone
20:04:35 <hare_brain> Happy holidays to those I don't talkto regularly
20:04:36 <kohsuke> #endmeeting