Minutes/Summary from today's FESCo meeting (2011-01-19)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



===================================
#fedora-meeting: FESCO (2011-01-19)
===================================

Meeting started by nirik at 17:35:34 UTC. The full logs are available at
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2011-01-19/fesco.2011-01-19-17.35.log.html

Meeting summary
---------------
* init process  (nirik, 17:35:34)
  * cwickert unable to attend today, left feedback in tickets.  (nirik,
    17:36:05)

* #516 Updates policy adjustments/changes  (nirik, 17:37:08)
  * LINK: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Proven_tester   (nirik,
    17:38:39)
  * AGREED: Send email to packagers noting proventesters group and how
    to join and ask interested folks to join. Additionally, add note to
    maintainers join doc about it.  (nirik, 17:54:54)
  * ACTION: kylem to send email and amend wiki docs.  (nirik, 17:55:05)
  * AGREED: the proposal to allow maintainer's to +1 their own updates
    is rejected.  (nirik, 18:03:14)

* #515 Investigate a "features" repo for stable releases  (nirik,
  18:04:11)

* #517 Updates Metrics  (nirik, 18:05:25)

* #539 Meeting with the Board regarding strategic goals  (nirik,
  18:06:23)
  * item voting:  1 - 7 votes, 3 - 7 votes, 4 - 3 votes, 5 - 2 votes, 7
    - 1 vote, 9 - 1 vote, 12 - 3 votes, 13 - 1 vote, 14 - 3 votes, 15 -
    4 votes.  (nirik, 18:13:54)
  * GOAL #1: Improve and simplify collaboration in the Fedora Community
    (nirik, 18:14:17)
  * GOAL #3: Improve and encourage high-quality communication in the
    fedora community.  (nirik, 18:31:31)
  * GOAL #15: Improve developer experience  (nirik, 18:37:21)
  * LINK: http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEEDSPONSOR.html
    (nirik, 18:50:39)

* Open Floor  (nirik, 19:05:05)

Meeting ended at 19:24:47 UTC.




Action Items
------------
* kylem to send email and amend wiki docs.




Action Items, by person
-----------------------
* kylem
  * kylem to send email and amend wiki docs.
* **UNASSIGNED**
  * (none)




People Present (lines said)
---------------------------
* nirik (161)
* kylem (57)
* mmaslano (26)
* notting (26)
* abadger1999 (23)
* gholms (20)
* mjg59 (18)
* SMParrish (15)
* zodbot (8)
* mclasen (8)
* jlaska (5)
* mclasen_ (1)
* lmacken (1)
* drago01 (1)
* pjones (1)
* ajax (0)
* cwickert (0)
--
17:35:34 <nirik> #startmeeting FESCO (2011-01-19)
17:35:34 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Jan 19 17:35:34 2011 UTC.  The chair is nirik. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:35:34 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
17:35:34 <nirik> #meetingname fesco
17:35:34 <nirik> #chair mclasen notting nirik SMParrish kylem ajax cwickert mjg59 mmaslano
17:35:34 <nirik> #topic init process
17:35:34 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fesco'
17:35:34 <zodbot> Current chairs: SMParrish ajax cwickert kylem mclasen mjg59 mmaslano nirik notting
17:35:41 <kylem> yo.
17:35:47 * mclasen here
17:35:57 * SMParrish here
17:36:00 <kylem> made it this week, sorry about my absence last week.
17:36:01 * notting is here
17:36:04 <mjg59> Hi
17:36:05 <nirik> #info cwickert unable to attend today, left feedback in tickets.
17:36:06 * mmaslano here
17:36:15 <mjg59> ajax is many timezones away
17:36:48 <nirik> ok.
17:37:05 <nirik> I guess lets go ahead and dive in...
17:37:08 <nirik> #topic #516 Updates policy adjustments/changes
17:37:08 <nirik> .fesco 516
17:37:09 <zodbot> nirik: #516 (Updates policy adjustments/changes) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/516
17:37:18 <nirik> I had two ideas from the ideas container this week:
17:37:37 <nirik> 1) have being sponsored into packager add you to proventester as well.
17:38:06 <nirik> we would want to have some means of notifiying people/gettting them to read the proventester docs...
17:38:39 <nirik> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Proven_tester
17:38:52 <notting> i can see that being good for increasing the pool. but they are disparate skillsets
17:38:58 <nirik> true.
17:39:17 <mmaslano> maybe if maintainers asked for proventesters group?
17:39:48 <nirik> it's pretty easy to join, but currently it requires seeking it...
17:40:14 <mjg59> I'd really hope that any packager be capable of performing the proventester responsibilities
17:40:16 <nirik> so, many maintainers may be unaware it exists off hand.
17:40:38 <mjg59> I guess I'm +1 to this, if we can advertise it appropriately
17:40:53 <mmaslano> many packagers don't even test
17:41:12 <gholms> Do they test their own stuff, at least?
17:41:15 <mmaslano> so I don't think they'll be good proventesters
17:41:16 <kylem> doubtful
17:41:28 <kylem> possibly i am excessively pessimistic. :)
17:41:48 <nirik> as far as implementing, we should be able to have fas autoadd them to proventesters and have that send out a 'hey, read the proventesters info' email...
17:42:27 <mclasen> if we can do that (add some information), then I'm for it
17:42:36 * SMParrish agrees
17:42:48 <kylem> nirik, heh, that's not a bad idea... could make it automatic but have the link at the bottom of the info email. :)
17:43:00 * nirik looks to make sure thats possible.
17:44:00 <kylem> i would assume that in the general case people will be responsible, and we can, uh, educate, repeat offenders.
17:44:10 <nirik> I think it is, but it would send the message to anyone who was added, so we would have to make sure qa doesn't mind that.
17:44:36 <nirik> jlaska / adamw: happen to be around? Any objection to adding a join message to proventesters?
17:45:04 * mclasen thinks a join message is a good idea anyway
17:45:15 <kylem> mclasen, indeed
17:45:19 <nirik> so then do we mass add all current packagers?
17:46:35 <nirik> 1117 packagers. 62 current proventesters.
17:47:20 <jlaska> what about sending out invites to the packagers so they can sign-up?  Something feels weird with mass adding all packages with no idea whether they all want it
17:47:26 <notting> the trick is, of course, not increasing the pool of proventesters, but increasing the *active* pool
17:47:27 <mclasen> does the qa team think that is a good idea ?
17:47:30 <mjg59> I think we should plausibly bring this up on devel-list first
17:47:32 <jlaska> notting: yeah
17:47:46 <mjg59> But I think jlaska's idea is good
17:48:08 <mmaslano> yes, only the interested will sign up
17:48:13 <nirik> is there enough infrastructure in the process currently to add interested folks?
17:48:41 <nirik> (the process currently has a trac ticket filed and someone asking the person that they read the guidelines, then adding them)
17:49:06 <jlaska> nirik: yeah, that's potentially time consuming if we get flooded with hundreds of requests
17:49:38 <nirik> yeah, although we could ask people to say that they already read it in their ticket?
17:49:45 <jlaska> I suspect we can adjust that process based on demand ... it was more just to avoid silent group joiners and to encourage folks to say hello on the list
17:49:52 <jlaska> nirik: definitely
17:49:55 <nirik> (if we are sending a solicitation to maintainers)
17:50:25 <nirik> so, with this proposal, we would not auto add, but instead try and get interested maintainers joining?
17:50:39 <mjg59> Ok
17:51:04 <nirik> how about new packagers? add something to the join docs?
17:52:03 <nirik> so, proposal: Send email to packagers noting proventesters group and how to join and ask interested folks to join. Additionally, add note to maintainers join doc about it.
17:52:15 <mjg59> +1
17:52:16 * notting is +1 to that
17:52:20 <mmaslano> +1
17:52:22 <kylem> +1.
17:52:24 <SMParrish> +1
17:52:38 <mclasen> +1
17:52:43 <nirik> yeah, seems ok to me too... +1
17:52:55 <nirik> would anyone like to step up to send the email? to amend the doc? ;)
17:53:52 * nirik listens to crickets.
17:54:29 <kylem> i can do it.
17:54:38 <nirik> Hurray. ;)
17:54:42 <nirik> Both items?
17:54:47 <kylem> sure.
17:54:54 <nirik> #agreed Send email to packagers noting proventesters group and how to join and ask interested folks to join. Additionally, add note to maintainers join doc about it.
17:55:05 <nirik> #action kylem to send email and amend wiki docs.
17:55:16 <nirik> ok, second item. A fun one:
17:55:25 <nirik> 2. allow maintainer's to +1 their own updates
17:55:36 <nirik> This was discussed in the past and rejected.
17:56:00 <nirik> There are some folks who think it's a good idea however, so I thought it would be good to revisit.
17:56:34 <kylem> heh
17:56:43 <SMParrish> Why would a maintainer not +1 his own update.  So if we assume every maintainer +1's then really we are saying karma is +2
17:56:48 <kylem> if the packager is also a proventester that could be funny.
17:57:16 <mclasen> the +1 should really represent 'I have tested this', not just 'It built ok'
17:57:26 <nirik> my thought in the past was that we assume the maintainer has tested their update before submitting it.
17:57:40 <mjg59> Yes
17:57:43 <nirik> but yeah, perhaps they just built it and expect others to test, then go back and test it themselves.
17:57:50 <mjg59> There shouldn't be a "I really have tested this" option
17:58:03 <mjg59> Because they should already have tested it
17:58:09 <SMParrish> IMO if we allow this karma should be set at +4 so we still get 3 more sets of eyes on it
17:58:09 <nirik> or perhaps they took upstreams word for a bug fix, then went back and confirmed it was fixed.
17:58:36 <notting> SMParrish: i'd rather just keep the restriction there and not worry about changing the threshold
17:58:49 <SMParrish> notting: I agree
17:59:12 <kylem> heh.
17:59:30 * nirik isn't sure what the state of bodhi is with this. I know we requested it deny people from adding +1 to their own updates.
17:59:36 <kylem> i have no objection to not counting maintainer +1 towards karma...
17:59:51 <gholms> nirik: Last I heard that was in vcs, but not released.
17:59:52 <lmacken> nirik: it doesn't enforce that at the moment
18:00:02 <nirik> ok
18:00:12 <SMParrish> I dont see any advantage to letting the maintainer +1 their own updates
18:00:25 * mclasen agrees with SMParrish
18:00:31 <nirik> ok, so shall we vote then?
18:01:34 <SMParrish> -1
18:01:45 <mclasen> -1
18:01:53 <kylem> what's the specific proposal we are voting on?
18:02:10 <nirik> allow maintainer's to +1 their own updates
18:02:17 <kylem> ok. -1.
18:02:18 <kylem> :)
18:02:19 <mmaslano> so -1 :)
18:03:14 <nirik> #agreed the proposal to allow maintainer's to +1 their own updates is rejected.
18:03:20 <nirik> sorry, I was -1 as well.
18:03:22 * gholms counts â4
18:03:24 <gholms> Oh
18:03:55 <notting> -1
18:04:04 <nirik> ok. I don't think we have anything on the next two items, but we can quickly touch on them...
18:04:11 <nirik> #topic #515 Investigate a "features" repo for stable releases
18:04:11 <nirik> .fesco 515
18:04:12 <zodbot> nirik: #515 (Investigate a "features" repo for stable releases) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/515
18:04:27 <nirik> I think cwickert was going to try and work on this. as well as some folks from the devel list...
18:04:31 <nirik> but no news yet.
18:05:06 <nirik> so, will move on unless anyone has thoughts on this...
18:05:25 <nirik> #topic #517 Updates Metrics
18:05:25 <nirik> .fesco 517
18:05:27 <zodbot> nirik: #517 (Updates Metrics) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/517
18:05:33 <nirik> also, not sure where we are here...
18:05:35 <kylem> ah, crud, i was supposed to talk to lmacken about that.
18:05:39 <kylem> but it totally slippedm y mind.
18:05:46 <nirik> no worries.
18:05:53 <kylem> i'll get on that for next week, promise.
18:06:16 <nirik> ok, sounds good.
18:06:23 <nirik> #topic #539 Meeting with the Board regarding strategic goals
18:06:23 <nirik> .fesco 539
18:06:26 <zodbot> nirik: #539 (Meeting with the Board regarding strategic goals) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/539
18:06:35 <gholms> Do fesco meetings not use #action items?
18:06:38 <nirik> so, on this one... perhaps everyone could list their 5 fav items?
18:06:53 * mmaslano 1,4,13,14 :)
18:06:53 <kylem> gholms, we do
18:07:10 <mmaslano> could all post their goals?
18:07:11 <nirik> 1 3 4 12 15
18:07:37 <nirik> gholms: we do, I forgot. I blame the cold meds. ;)
18:07:44 <gholms> ;)
18:08:05 <mjg59> 1 3 5 12 15
18:08:08 <kylem> *1*, 3, 7, 9, 15
18:08:19 <nirik> cwickerts: 1, 3
18:08:24 <SMParrish> 1 3 12 14 15
18:09:14 <notting> 1, 3, 4, 5, 14
18:09:40 * mclasen_ has to jump to a different meeting, will answer in the ticket
18:10:27 <nirik> so, 1 - 7 votes, 3 - 7 votes, 4 - 3 votes, 5 - 1 vote, 7 - 1 vote, 9 - 1 vote, 12 - 3 votes, 13 - 1 vote, 14 - 3 votes, 15 - 4 votes.
18:10:34 <nirik> (unless I miscounted)
18:10:42 <gholms> Crap, you beat me to it.
18:10:53 <gholms> 5 has 2 votes.
18:11:21 <nirik> 1, 3, 15, 12 14 4, 5, 7 9
18:11:58 <nirik> so, sounds like 1, 3, 15 are highly thought of, but 12 14 4 are all tied in the next rank.
18:12:41 <nirik> so, should we just go with talking to the board about 1, 3, 5... or do we want to do one or all of 12, 14, 4?
18:13:09 <mjg59> I guess concentrate on the ones we agree on most strongly, and then see what kind of resources that takes
18:13:31 <nirik> ok...
18:13:54 <nirik> #info item voting:  1 - 7 votes, 3 - 7 votes, 4 - 3 votes, 5 - 2 votes, 7 - 1 vote, 9 - 1 vote, 12 - 3 votes, 13 - 1 vote, 14 - 3 votes, 15 - 4 votes.
18:14:06 <nirik> ok, lets start with 1.
18:14:17 <nirik> #info GOAL #1: Improve and simplify collaboration in the Fedora Community
18:14:25 <nirik> how can we attain or help attain this?
18:14:27 <SMParrish> git clone git://git.sugarlabs.org/dextrose3/dextrose3.git dextrose3
18:14:31 <SMParrish> miss
18:15:20 <kylem> encouraging more group maintenance?
18:15:27 <kylem> pretty nebulous 'goal'
18:15:36 <kylem> we all agree with it, but what is 'it' :)
18:16:07 <nirik> yeah.
18:16:54 <nirik> We have a pretty full array of mailing lists, irc channels and such... perhaps we could look at a way to reduce them some to simplify the amount of things people need to join/follow?
18:17:21 <nirik> or have a better way to direct people to the communications channels they really are looking for.
18:17:51 <mmaslano> maybe improvement in our infastructure
18:17:59 <kylem> i agree with the second thing there.
18:18:12 <kylem> perhaps 'tags' for mailing lists, right now they seem to be pretty much 'foldered'
18:18:16 <nirik> encouraging co-maintainers is good too, but not sure that fits into this goal.
18:18:59 <nirik> topics? or a different interface?
18:19:10 <kylem> not that i've looked at our mailman interface in the last fewy ears
18:19:12 <notting> mo had some ideas for alternate mailing list interfaces
18:19:42 <nirik> yeah, mailman has 'topics'. You can define a list, and then people can use those to filter emails...
18:20:32 <notting> well,  the board wanted us to meet with them about the most important goals, right? (not have plans in hand)
18:20:46 <nirik> yeah.
18:21:04 <nirik> so, I guess we go on? if anyone can think of additional items for this, add to ticket?
18:21:08 <mmaslano> there are mentioned spins in goal 1
18:21:24 <notting> nirik: we can certainly discuss it - do we have any other agenda items?
18:21:33 <nirik> notting: nope. This is it. ;)
18:21:34 <mmaslano> we should have opinion on spins
18:21:40 <nirik> oh, right: see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Meeting:Board_meeting_2010-12-13
18:22:01 <notting> ugh, spins
18:22:11 <kylem> +1 to deleting all spins and forcing everyone to use xmonad. ;-)
18:22:20 * nirik chuckles.
18:22:31 <mmaslano> kylem: interesting proposal ;-)
18:22:50 <kylem> hehe.
18:22:51 <nirik> On the one hand, I really like spins, because I want to have a way to point people to Xfce and have them try it before they install, or any desktop/fedora for that matter.
18:23:03 <nirik> I dislike that they are yet another install method thats not as flexable.
18:23:03 <mjg59> In terms of shipping code, spins are clearly useful
18:23:21 <nirik> and that the people doing them aren't very involved, so I worry that they will be busted. ;)
18:23:21 <mjg59> In terms of introducing further QA for the Fedora brand, I'm not sold
18:24:19 <abadger1999> It's okay to have examples of how you'd help implement this -- the important thing is that you're giving the board a prioritised list of goals that fesco can help with in some way.
18:24:34 <mmaslano> creating easy process to add your own spin into Fedora would be perfect for goal 1 ;-)
18:25:08 <mjg59> mmaslano: Is making it easier to add different versions of Fedora an improvement in collaboration?
18:25:12 <gholms> Would that be likely to fragment the community?
18:25:17 <nirik> the problem is that if it's too easy, we will ship things that are not well done, which reflects poorly on us. ;(
18:25:50 <gholms> 10 different versions of Fedora could get confusing really quickly.
18:26:10 * nirik just had an idea, but not sure how feasable it would be...
18:27:21 <nirik> have desktop, kde, lxde, xfce spins. Then, make some method of having an 'add on' iso/image/whatever for the things that are not desktops. Then you could for example download desktop + electronics-lab.
18:27:39 <nirik> and electronics-lab is not a full spin, but just a package collection and some setup info.
18:27:41 <pjones> nirik: split media installs are the devil.
18:27:43 <kylem> hmm.
18:27:56 <nirik> pjones: indeed.
18:28:04 <nirik> just a thought.
18:28:23 <notting> nirik: say, a package group?
18:28:39 <notting> i'm not sure that having fedora be more and more different things is the answer
18:28:44 <nirik> anyhow, I don't know that we will solve this here. But we could tell the board that we would work on it if people want...
18:28:54 <gholms> Anaconda supports package groups; why not just let people push checkboxes like they already can?
18:28:55 <nirik> notting: well, yes, but then you have to install first.
18:29:00 <gholms> Oh
18:29:21 <nirik> because you either need 64GB of ram, lots of persistent storage, or to have installed first
18:29:29 <mmaslano> gholms: but you have to download some iso first
18:29:38 <gholms> mmaslano: Like the install DVD?
18:29:44 <notting> also: how is having more separate fedora things increasing collaboration?
18:30:15 <mmaslano> gholms: for example downloading dvd with gnome doesn't help me much ;-)
18:30:16 <nirik> notting: it's not simplifying any for sure. ;)
18:30:32 <kylem> lol.
18:30:38 <mmaslano> sigh, next goal?
18:31:04 <nirik> ok...
18:31:31 <nirik> #info GOAL #3: Improve and encourage high-quality communication in the fedora community.
18:32:06 <nirik> I think the items listed at the board meeting on that are good...
18:32:25 <nirik> we could/should employ summarizers more.
18:32:42 <nirik> and for meetings, docs would be good...
18:32:49 <kylem> yeah
18:33:03 <kylem> took me a bit to figure out best practices when hsoting the fesco townhall with meetbot
18:33:06 <kylem> tribal knowledge and all that
18:33:37 <nirik> what else can we do to help communication?
18:33:52 <nirik> there is mention of fedora talk as well... but thats not practical for some folks.
18:34:03 <nirik> and more than a few people on a call gets confusing fast.
18:34:09 <mmaslano> we might clean up wiki
18:34:20 <kylem> does ensuring we have a positive environment fit into this?
18:34:32 <nirik> It may...
18:34:52 <nirik> The CWG is working on a code of conduct and some general enforcement guidelines...
18:34:58 <notting> i've also heard rumblings that ftalk doesn't work as well as we'd like
18:34:59 <kylem> cool
18:35:07 <gholms> CWG?
18:35:18 <nirik> Community Working Group
18:35:23 <nirik> appointed by the board.
18:35:26 <gholms> Ah
18:35:55 * drago01 hopes the "enforcement guidelines" don't end up being "hall monitors 2.0"
18:36:34 <nirik> any other ideas for improving communication?
18:36:42 <kylem> not here.
18:37:21 <nirik> #info GOAL #15: Improve developer experience
18:37:28 <nirik> This is one that should be in our domain... ;)
18:37:48 <kylem> haha.
18:37:53 <nirik> making rawhide more stable would be nice, but not sure I like too many of the ideas for that.
18:37:58 <kylem> also nebulous though
18:38:20 <kylem> #15 and #14 are kind of in conflict if that's the sense you take it at :)
18:38:34 <nirik> I'd like to see us collect more feedback from maintainers... what's causing them issues, whats unclear, what part of their workflow is slow/anoying.
18:38:41 <nirik> yeah.
18:39:10 <notting> drago01: perhaps Avatars of Excellence?
18:39:23 <kylem> a straw poll of developers to see who's actually /using/ rawhide (as opposed to just keeping a vm around) would be interesting.
18:39:44 <nirik> getting more people in some areas I think might help out... more rel-eng folks doing buildroot overrides, more infrastructure people doing hosted requests, etc
18:40:09 <mmaslano> it's not only about rawhide, we could improve our tools like - fedpkg, pkgdb, ...
18:40:21 <nirik> yeah, I think having a stupid poll of the week/day would add to fun/inclusion of community, etc.
18:41:23 <kylem> hmm
18:41:25 <kylem> i like that idea
18:41:31 <notting> mmaslano: i agree, and wonder how we, as fesco, can encourage/motivate/bribe people to work on our tools
18:41:48 <kylem> mmaslano, any specifics on whats lacking?
18:41:49 <mmaslano> notting: I ment we could ask maintainers what they are missing in tools
18:41:54 <kylem> ah.
18:42:12 <kylem> something like 'release notes' for rawhide could be interesting.
18:42:29 <nirik> kylem: you mean a 'whats broken today' ?
18:42:46 <kylem> a bit?
18:43:01 <notting> mmaslano: hm, so more frequent surveys? certainly doable. did we ever deploy limesurvey?
18:43:06 <nirik> there was a rawhidewatch blog thing that warren did a while back.
18:43:06 <kylem> something like this though: http://openbsd.org/plus.html
18:43:16 <nirik> notting: it's stuck in review I think. ;(
18:43:19 <kylem> but collaborative instead
18:44:06 <notting> kylem: you could collate the rawhide reports and rpm changelogs. but omg too much data
18:44:22 <kylem> right.
18:44:32 <kylem> and people don't generally do a good job with changelogs.
18:44:57 <nirik> yeah, although improving that would be nice.
18:45:51 <nirik> oh... a few more:
18:46:05 <nirik> Try and clean out our needsponsor queue.
18:46:28 <nirik> It would be very to get people contributing before they get bored and wander off.
18:46:32 <nirik> very nice
18:46:42 <notting> corollary - fix group signup so you dont have so many drivebys
18:47:12 <nirik> and another big one: revamp our non responsive maintainer process.
18:47:18 <gholms> Is there anything that can be done to increase sponsor activity?
18:47:29 * notting is a crap sponsor. -ENOTIME
18:47:55 <gholms> Something tells me a great deal of sponsors aren't very active in that respect for one reason or another.  Would it help to find out why?
18:48:08 <nirik> gholms: yeah, I think a lot of them are just busy...
18:48:25 <nirik> I did mail sponsors a while back asking for them to try and sponsor someone, but not much came of it.
18:49:00 <nirik> we have currently 79 people waiting to be sponsored (approx)
18:49:31 <nirik> so, working on improving that would be good, IMHO.
18:49:35 <notting> some of that may also go back to target audience/motivation - if a particular person doesn't see 'more packages' as a end goal in and of itself, they're unlikely to be sponsoring random people unless they're working specifically in the area they're interested in
18:49:50 <SMParrish> maybe we could get sponsors who have free time to post somewhere and then people can approach them directly
18:50:12 <nirik> notting: yeah, some SIGs I think have sponsors that are active, but others don't...
18:50:22 <notting> nirik: what's the search method for finding packages that have packagers that need sponsors?
18:50:39 <nirik> http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEEDSPONSOR.html
18:50:57 <nirik> grouped by name and reviews.
18:51:56 <nirik> any other thoughts?
18:52:03 <nirik> who all can make the Board meeting next monday?
18:52:27 * notting can
18:52:33 <kylem> me.
18:52:34 * nirik should be able to.
18:52:36 <kylem> i think.
18:52:43 <SMParrish> I can
18:53:10 * mmaslano probably can
18:54:07 <mjg59> Afraid not
18:55:27 <nirik> ok, so anything further to add? shall we take those 3 to the board? or do people want to discuss some of the other ones?
18:57:25 * kylem checks again
18:57:32 <notting> abadger1999: does the board think 3 is a good number?
18:57:48 <abadger1999> notting: Yes definitely
18:58:18 <gholms> [Insert Holy Hand Grenade counting joke here]
18:58:21 <abadger1999> The board will be narrowing the goals to focus on to 3 if possible before announcing/drumming up people to work on them.
18:58:32 <abadger1999> *down to
18:58:32 <nirik> I was wondering in fact if one wouldn't be a good number. ;) Ie, have each release a "overriding goal" that everyone looks at and tries to help with that release...
18:59:22 <abadger1999> <nod>  I think the Board was attempting a 2 release cycle but the same concept of "a goal to get people to look at improving in this timeframe"
19:00:42 <nirik> yeah.
19:01:45 <kylem> heh
19:01:47 <kylem> fair.
19:03:24 <nirik> ok, anything else, or shall we stick a fork in this meeting?
19:04:04 <gholms> Open floor?
19:04:20 <gholms> Not that I have anything for it, but...
19:04:55 <mmaslano> nirik: fpc were asking about something?
19:05:05 <nirik> #topic Open Floor
19:05:12 * nirik needs less or more cold meds. ;)
19:05:32 <SMParrish> or a beer
19:05:38 <nirik> yeah.
19:06:08 <nirik> so, FPC was wanting fesco to list/approve exceptions to a 'shouldn't start by default' query on services/units
19:07:48 <notting> they don't want to do it?
19:08:00 <nirik> seems not.
19:08:04 <nirik> abrt was a sticking point...
19:08:24 <nirik> I thought we pushed it off to them, but if they don't want it, I think we should go ahead and decide.
19:09:37 <SMParrish> well if they won't or don't wan't to we can do it, but they have to live with our choices :)
19:10:13 <mmaslano> they want decision about abrt or all of them?
19:10:21 * mmaslano thought what was on, will be on
19:10:45 <nirik> I thought it was all of them, but perhaps we should wait until we get their request?
19:10:54 <nirik> spot / abadger1999: what is the FPC requesting of us? ;)
19:11:04 <abadger1999> <nod>  opinion was divided about whose responsibility it was but the end vote was for fesco to make the list of exceptions.
19:14:07 <abadger1999> So what fpc voted for was[09:34:24] <spot> #action No, but FESCo provides exceptions (and has the option of tasking FPC to determine exceptions). (+1:5, 0:0, -1:1) [09:32:15] <geppetto> abadger1999: We can certainly ask them if they want us to do it (like the bundling exceptions), when they review the list
19:14:07 <nirik> so, exceptions to what? "Off by default" ?
19:14:25 <abadger1999> Sorry for the bad formatting there.
19:14:25 <abadger1999> The guideline voted was No [to any service being on], but FESCo provides [a list of] exceptions (and has the option of tasking FPC to determine exceptions).
19:14:25 <abadger1999> So I guess there is wording there that fpc would make the list but some people thought that it was not in fpc's charter while other people did.
19:14:25 <abadger1999> spot: Could you talk about that part since you're on the "It's not in fpc's charter" camp?
19:14:25 <abadger1999> nirik: Correct.
19:14:41 <abadger1999> nirik: If it is to be on, then it needs to be in an exception list.
19:15:10 <abadger1999> nirik: We had the start of a list here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Spot/DefaultServices
19:15:48 <abadger1999> nirik: But fpc had heavy disagreement with 1) the things not in the explicit list of exceptions (blanket exception for local services, for instance).
19:15:59 <abadger1999> nirik: 2) abrtd
19:16:14 <abadger1999> The other things on the explicit list are a good starting point.
19:16:30 <abadger1999> And the blanket exceptions are a good starting point for thinking about further exceptions.
19:16:42 <nirik> pesky freenode
19:17:43 <nirik> ok. I fear we will need to look at all that and discuss it next week...
19:18:03 <abadger1999> Things like: if mysqld is configured to only bind to localhost, it would be acceptable under the blanket local exception; do we want to worry about local-user exploits?  were things that stopped us from using the blanket local services exception.
19:18:05 <abadger1999> <nod>
19:18:56 <abadger1999> So I guess there's two questions: 1) FPC or fesco makes the list (b/c it could be seen as an expansion of fpc's charter) and 2) if fesco makes the list, then what's the list?
19:19:10 <abadger1999> And yeah, big topic, next week is fine.
19:20:42 <mmaslano> abadger1999: ok, could you create ticket for us?
19:21:02 <abadger1999> will do
19:21:18 <mmaslano> thanks
19:21:31 <nirik> ok.
19:21:31 <nirik> everyone back now?
19:21:38 <mjg59> Looks like
19:22:14 <nirik> cool. Anything else for open floor?
19:23:16 * nirik will close out in a minute if nothing else.
19:24:43 <nirik> thanks for coming everyone!
19:24:47 <nirik> #endmeeting

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]
  Powered by Linux