=================================== #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
