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