Minutes: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2009-08-21/fedora-meeting.2009-08-21-17.00.html Minutes (text): http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2009-08-21/fedora-meeting.2009-08-21-17.00.txt Log: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2009-08-21/fedora-meeting.2009-08-21-17.00.log.html --- 17:00:03 <jds2001> #startmeeting FESCo meeting 2009-08-21 17:00:06 <jds2001> #chair dgilmore jwb notting nirik sharkcz jds2001 j-rod skvidal Kevin_Kofler 17:00:11 * nirik is here. 17:00:12 <Kevin_Kofler> Present. 17:00:16 * sharkcz here 17:00:16 * jwb is here 17:00:58 <jds2001> seems as though we have some minimal quorum 17:01:12 * notting is here 17:01:22 <jds2001> #topic Moblin feature 17:01:29 <jds2001> .fesco 244 17:01:46 * nirik goes to doublecheck the page now 17:01:58 <Kevin_Kofler> IMHO the rescoped feature is OK. 17:02:18 <jwb> i agree 17:02:20 <Kevin_Kofler> Not quite as exciting as the original (complete Moblin, spin), but still worth mentioning. 17:02:21 <nirik> yeah, I think so too. 17:02:26 * jds2001 too 17:02:30 <jds2001> +1 17:02:34 <nirik> hopefully if things go well the spin for f13 would be nice. ;) 17:02:37 <notting> works for me 17:02:48 <Kevin_Kofler> +1 to accepting the rescoped feature 17:02:48 <sharkcz> +1 17:02:53 * j-rod here 17:02:56 * mchua lurking 17:03:03 <j-rod> +1, fine with that too 17:03:08 <notting> +1 (making it official) 17:03:11 <jwb> +1 17:03:23 <jds2001> #agreed Re-scoped Moblin feature is accepted for F12 17:03:32 <jwb> yay. we aren't unreasonable 17:03:43 <jds2001> #topic jjames sponsor nomination 17:03:48 <jds2001> .fesco 242 17:04:03 <jds2001> I didn't see any objections to this. 17:04:25 <Kevin_Kofler> +1, no objections from me nor anyone else AFAIK 17:04:35 <jds2001> +1 17:04:41 <sharkcz> +1 17:04:47 <nirik> +1 from me. 17:04:50 <notting> +1 from me 17:05:05 <jds2001> #agreed jjames sponsor nomination is approved 17:05:08 <jwb> +1, though i think we need to address the NEEDSPONSOR thing a bit separately 17:05:30 <Kevin_Kofler> Uhm, how? What do you mean? 17:05:46 <jwb> his reasoning for wanting to be a sponsor (which is fine) is: 17:05:50 <Kevin_Kofler> (What's the problem and what's your proposed solution?) 17:06:03 <jwb> "This request is prompted by the large number of times that I have seen a package submission that I was personally interested in, only to find that the submitter needed a sponsor." 17:06:17 <jds2001> oh, we need more sponsors :) 17:06:19 <jwb> there is no reason he couldn't have reviewed it without being a sponsor 17:06:22 <jds2001> we just got one more :) 17:06:26 <nirik> no, we need more active sponsors. ;( 17:06:55 <jwb> anyway, this is a tangent 17:07:03 <jwb> we can come back to it during open discussion 17:07:06 <jds2001> anyhow, next 17:07:13 <jds2001> #topic libvdpau inclusion 17:07:19 <jds2001> .fesco 238 17:07:22 <jds2001> any updates? 17:07:26 <j-rod> no, I suck 17:07:39 * drago01 too 17:07:47 <drago01> but ajax mail is worth reading 17:07:54 <j-rod> was on my TODO list last night 17:08:00 <jds2001> alrighty then, deferred again.... 17:08:07 <jwb> drago01, yeah i found that to be a good email 17:08:13 <jds2001> #topic Open floor 17:08:21 <jds2001> that's all i had :) 17:08:31 <Kevin_Kofler> Are there any FPC guidelines pending ratification? A mail on the fedora-devel-list claimed there are. 17:08:35 <jwb> jds2001, was tomas' provenpackager not included? 17:08:37 <jds2001> there are? 17:08:46 <jds2001> jwb: no, because it came in yesterday 17:08:48 <jwb> ah 17:10:35 <jds2001> therew as a number of FPC guidelines that i didnt close the ticket for that we considered last week 17:10:40 <Kevin_Kofler> https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/245 17:10:52 <jds2001> .fesco 245 17:10:58 <Kevin_Kofler> This one is new and wasn't put on the meeting agenda (with the keyword) for some reason. 17:11:05 <Kevin_Kofler> I don't remember voting over this, at least. 17:11:08 <j-rod> wait... does ajax's argument sway anyone one way or another wrt libvdpau? 17:11:11 <jds2001> oh, oops 17:11:19 <jds2001> Kevin_Kofler: right, we didn't 17:11:25 <jds2001> sorry abuot that :( 17:12:49 <Kevin_Kofler> The mail talked about multiple ones, but that's the only open report I'm aware of. 17:13:04 <jds2001> right, I think the other ones were what we did last week 17:13:11 <jds2001> spot: ping 17:13:25 <spot> jds2001: yes? 17:13:28 * jds2001 occasionally sucks at closing old tickets 17:13:41 <jds2001> spot: the only outstanding FPC guideline I'm aware of is Fortran 17:13:55 * jds2001 forgot to throw that on the agenda today, sorry 17:14:01 <Kevin_Kofler> Yeah, 2 more FPC members confirmed that too to me. :-) 17:14:03 <jds2001> but you mentioned "several" in your mail. 17:14:06 <Kevin_Kofler> So Fortran it is. 17:14:16 <Kevin_Kofler> s/2 more/2/ 17:14:21 <spot> jds2001: 241 wasn't closed when i looked before 17:14:38 <jds2001> spot: oh, sorry about that, I sucked at closing tickets from last weeks meeting\ 17:15:02 <Kevin_Kofler> Can we vote over the Fortran guidelines now? 17:15:06 <jds2001> sure thing 17:15:08 <notting> seem reasonable as much as fortran is. +1 17:15:13 <jds2001> #topic Fortran FPC guideline 17:15:18 <nirik> yeah, same here... +1 from me. 17:15:52 <sharkcz> also here ... +1 17:15:56 <Kevin_Kofler> +1, guidelines look sane. 17:16:00 <jwb> fortan is not cutting-edge and not in line with Fedora's goals. -1 17:16:08 <jwb> oh wait... no. 17:16:09 <dgilmore> +1 i think they look fine 17:16:10 <jwb> +1 17:16:11 <jwb> :) 17:16:24 <jds2001> +1 17:16:59 <jds2001> #agreed Fortran guidelines are accepted. 17:17:09 <j-rod> +1 17:17:44 <jds2001> #topic Open Floor again... 17:17:56 <kwizart> ! 17:18:06 <Kevin_Kofler> kwizart: ? 17:18:07 <kwizart> About VDPAU, i've contacted Aaron Plattner from nvidia and more accurately the "freedesktop.org vdpau maintainer" to ask either or not patentless ffmpeg could implement vdpau, we could eventually have an answear from nvidia's Legal departement for the fedora case (then probably other FOOS distro). But that may take time... 17:18:11 <jds2001> go ahead, just jump in, no formality here 17:18:28 <kwizart> that's all for this week (i'm still in vacation) 17:18:28 <kwizart> eof 17:18:38 <jwb> ok 17:18:40 <Kevin_Kofler> Uh, I don't know how much Nvidia's legal department is going to be trusted around here. ;-) 17:18:54 <jds2001> :) 17:19:05 <nirik> For the record there are 101 reviews blocking needsponsor (some multiple packages by the same person, or just not properly cleaned up from review) and 80 sponsors. If we asked all sponsors to pick up some review we could clean out the needsponsor list pretty quick. 17:19:19 <jwb> nirik, so i have a question 17:19:33 <jwb> why can't existing maintainers do the review, and leave the final approval to a sponsor? 17:19:33 <dgilmore> kwizart: we really should ask fedora legal not nvidia legal 17:19:41 <kwizart> Kevin_Kofler, the problem is a patent problem, not a free or opensource problem IMO 17:19:41 <jds2001> jwb: they could. 17:19:43 <nirik> jwb: they can. 17:19:44 <dgilmore> jwb: they can 17:19:48 <Kevin_Kofler> Other companies' legal departments can do strange things for political reasons, like Sun's supposedly claiming Schilling's mix of CDDL and GPL is legal (though it might just be Schilling claiming that in their name). 17:19:53 <jwb> exactly. i think we need to remind people of that 17:20:02 <kwizart> dgilmore, you missunderstood the problem 17:20:03 <dgilmore> jwb: ive done that in the past 17:20:05 <jwb> i see people get scared off of a review because it blocks on NEEDSPONSOR 17:20:22 <drago01> Kevin_Kofler: or NVIDIA thinks that there driver is not derivered work of the kernel while some others do 17:20:29 <Kevin_Kofler> That too. 17:20:37 <kwizart> again, i've asked either or not a patenless ffmpeg version can implement vdpau 17:20:43 <nirik> anyone can comment/provide feedback/whatever on a review. If it's needsponsor it needs a sponsor to approve it. Otherwise it needs a packager to approve it. 17:20:47 <dgilmore> jwb: its a great place for people looking to get sponsored to give feedback also 17:20:59 <drago01> I see no reason why it couldn't for codecs done fully in hw 17:21:03 <drago01> but IANAL 17:21:06 <jwb> dgilmore, right. so i think i'll send an email to fedora-devel reminding people of this 17:21:10 <jwb> that's all i meant earlier 17:21:34 <kwizart> if that can be... vdpau is legal in US, then it became a matter of choice to opt in the wrapper or not 17:21:37 <nirik> jwb: might also remind sponsors to try and approve those/sponsor people. ;) 17:21:46 <jwb> nirik, fair 17:21:49 <Kevin_Kofler> I still don't think we want to ship something which only does anything actually useful if you add something proprietary from elsewhere. 17:21:49 <notting> can we only have one conversation at a time? :) 17:21:54 <jwb> no! 17:22:07 <jwb> notting, mine is done now anyway 17:22:10 <nirik> notting: picky picky. ;) 17:22:23 <Kevin_Kofler> The stuff we ship all at least does SOMETHING without RPM Fusion stuff. 17:22:34 <kwizart> if a open source wrapper implement a patented part of h264 codec 17:22:47 <kwizart> then such opensource implementation become illegal in use 17:22:49 <kwizart> US 17:22:50 <Kevin_Kofler> E.g. gnash will decode Flash animations just fine without patented codecs, only audiovisual content is a problem. 17:23:02 <kwizart> sed wrapper/backend 17:23:05 <drago01> (which makes it useless for most users) 17:23:15 <Kevin_Kofler> So it makes sense to ship gnash in Fedora, it does something. 17:23:27 <jwb> i'm confused why we're rehashing our legal stance here? 17:23:36 <notting> Kevin_Kofler: libXNVCtrl? 17:23:36 * jds2001 not sure 17:23:41 <drago01> Kevin_Kofler: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-August/msg01117.html it does something too 17:23:45 <kwizart> flash is patentless unless it use some patentes codec (such as h264) 17:23:58 <Kevin_Kofler> libXNVCtrl should just go the heck out of Fedora. 17:23:58 <kwizart> and other patents might be involved 17:24:10 <kwizart> why ? it is opensource 17:24:12 <Kevin_Kofler> Just like ancient compat-libstdc++ crap which nothing in Fedora actually uses. 17:24:23 <drago01> well I doubt that anything but hello world is patentless 17:24:31 <drago01> the US patent system is too broken 17:24:53 <kwizart> we have to fight against patent 17:24:55 <Kevin_Kofler> You can actually crash an application if you link it against compat-libstdc++ and with ANY C++ library in Fedora (which in turn links in the regular libstdc++) at the same time. 17:24:57 <nirik> Kevin_Kofler: what about MPD clients? 17:25:14 <Kevin_Kofler> So there are even actual technical arguments for dropping compat-libstdc++. 17:25:32 <jwb> how on earth have to gotten to dropping compt-libstdc++ here? 17:25:33 <drago01> Kevin_Kofler: well we don't ship closed source apps but that does not mean that users who want to run them shouldn't 17:25:58 <jwb> notting, i'd like it if a single conversation could stay on a single topic 17:26:30 <Kevin_Kofler> jwb: All the stuff which only serves to make proprietary apps run needs to go away. 17:26:40 <jwb> that is your opinion 17:26:42 <Kevin_Kofler> I also alway hated libflashsupport, thankfully that one is obsolete. 17:26:48 <Kevin_Kofler> *always 17:27:00 <drago01> well nobody forced you to install it 17:27:01 <jwb> are you making a proposal? 17:27:09 <jwb> if not, can we get back to the meeting... 17:27:13 * nirik wonders if we have a topic here. Or shall we end the meeting? 17:27:15 <kwizart> Kevin_Kofler, having closed source content kicked out from fedora is fine 17:27:19 * jds2001 would very much like to see a written proposal if so. 17:27:26 <jds2001> nirik: im all for ending it 17:27:28 <drago01> kwizart: we don't have any 17:27:32 <jwb> jds2001, i have one final question before we end 17:27:36 <jds2001> jwb: sure 17:27:40 <jds2001> actually i have one too 17:27:49 <kwizart> having closed source content been imposible to run on fedora, is a really different thing IMO 17:27:50 <nirik> I would like proposals for this to consider MPD as well. 17:27:51 <jwb> drago01, kwizart, Kevin_Kofler: we're moving on. take that elsewhere pelase 17:27:56 <kwizart> yes 17:28:07 * kwizart back to hollidays 17:28:12 <drago01> jwb: or to /dev/null 17:28:19 <jwb> jds2001, i'm curious how many of the FESCo members plan on attending FUDCon Toronto 17:28:27 <jwb> and if we want to attempt a face to face 17:28:27 <notting> jwb: i'm likely o 17:28:31 <notting> jwb: i'm likely to 17:28:36 * jds2001 is likely to 17:28:46 <j-rod> I'm a maybe 17:28:53 * Kevin_Kofler is not, sorry. 17:29:01 * sharkcz is not going there 17:29:05 * nirik is hoping to. 17:29:08 <jwb> i'm undecided 17:29:30 <jwb> dgilmore, ? 17:29:34 <jds2001> jwb: why? 17:29:44 <jwb> jds2001, why what? 17:29:54 <jds2001> why are you undecided? 17:29:58 <jwb> oh :) 17:30:12 <jwb> mostly because i haven't even thought about it, talked to the family, etc 17:30:15 <jds2001> and why do you want to know, I guess :) 17:30:22 <jwb> face to face FESCo meeting 17:30:32 <jwb> we did that at FUDCon Boston 17:30:35 <jds2001> yes, that worked well last time we had it. 17:30:42 <jwb> well, sort of 17:30:52 <jds2001> but we had a very specific topic that required high bandwidth discussion 17:31:23 <jwb> i'm sure we could come up with something if enough members were there to make it worthwhile 17:31:35 <jds2001> and the aftermath of "zomg you guys decided something in person!" 17:31:38 <Kevin_Kofler> IMHO it's a bad idea, it discriminates against non-US-based FESCo members. 17:31:53 <jwb> Kevin_Kofler, you can apply for travel assistance 17:32:18 <jwb> and i think discriminates is a slightly strong word there 17:32:42 <Kevin_Kofler> or rather, non-US/Canada-based ones to be more precise ;-) 17:32:47 * nirik is fine with waiting and seeing how many people will be there, etc. I don't think we will need to have a regularly scheduled meeting then. 17:33:00 <jwb> yeah, i was just curious 17:33:26 <notting> although, *if* people are going, we may want to reschedule the immediately prior meeting if it conflicts with a bunch of people travelling 17:33:32 <notting> but we can cross that bridge if we come to it 17:33:54 <nirik> yeah, first day is a saturday... so people might well be traveling that friday. 17:34:07 <jwb> FESCo via airport wireless! 17:35:25 <dgilmore> jwb: ill likely be at fudcon 17:35:40 <jwb> jds2001, ok. i think you had something else? 17:35:44 <jds2001> yeah 17:35:53 <jds2001> dgilmore: what about that threat assessment? 17:36:02 <dgilmore> jds2001: im a failure 17:36:09 <notting> jds2001: FUDCon: Threat or Menace? 17:36:12 <dgilmore> it needs a minor update 17:36:14 <jds2001> lol 17:36:30 <notting> jds2001: sorry, i'm a little slow on the context switch 17:37:44 <Kevin_Kofler> So, what threat assessment are we talking about? 17:37:59 <Kevin_Kofler> I get it that it has nothing to do with FUDCon. ;-) But that's all I got... 17:37:59 <jds2001> Kevin_Kofler: the one we want to publish 17:38:16 <nirik> Kevin_Kofler: it was last fesco. We had mmcgrath do a security/threat assessment. 17:38:35 <nirik> Kevin_Kofler: there were some minor changes that dgilmore was going to make to it and we were going to make it publicly available. 17:39:41 * nirik can get Kevin_Kofler and any other new fesco folks a copy if they would like to look at it before it's published. 17:40:46 * jds2001 is looking for it 17:41:36 <Kevin_Kofler> There's only one other "new FESCo folk", it's skvidal (who's back in FESCo after a period of not being in it). 17:42:15 <jds2001> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/private/fedora-extras-steering/2009-April/msg00026.html 17:42:52 <nirik> yeah, there. ;) 17:43:38 <nirik> anyhow? shall we end the meeting? 17:44:00 <jds2001> I think that's all I had. 17:44:12 * jds2001 ends the meeting in 30 17:44:45 <jds2001> #endmeeting -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
