Extras/SteeringCommittee/Meeting-20070111

From FedoraProject

< Extras | SteeringCommittee
Revision as of 16:25, 24 May 2008 by Admin (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

2007 January 11 FESCo Meeting

Members

Present

  • Thorsten Leemhuis (thl)
  • Brian Pepple (bpepple)
  • Rex Dieter (rdieter)
  • Jason Tibbitts (tibbs)
  • Toshio Kuratomi (abadger1999)
  • Christian Iseli (ch4chris)
  • Warren Togami (warren)
  • Jeremy Katz (jeremy)
  • Josh Boyer (jwb)

Absent

  • Dennis Gilmore (dgilmore)
  • Ville Skyttä (scop)
  • Tom Callaway (spot)
  • Andreas Bierfert (awjb)

FAB Members Present

  • Max Spevack (mspevack)
  • Rahul Sundaram (mether)
  • Bill Nottingham (notting)
  • Seth Vidal (skvidal)

Summary

FESCo/Core cabal merge

  • Long discussion about the FESCo/Core cabal merge. The initial thought is to merge the members from the Core Cabal and FESCo into FTC (Fedora Technical Committee).
  • The exact number of members in the FTC, and other issues will be discussed on the FAB-mailing list this week.
  • FESCo members are also encouraged to be present for the IRC FAB meeting on Tuesday (2007-1-16).

FESCo changes

  • thl has decided to step down as chair of FESCo, and bpepple has been chosen as the interim chair until FTC is up and running. Everyone thanked thl for all the hard work he has put into running FESCo.
  • Kevin Fenzi (nirik) has joined FESCo, to fill the vacated seat of scop. Welcome Kevin!

Opening Core

Kernel-Naming

  • The kernel doesn't currently follow the Naming Guidelines, and Jeremy is going to investigate if we need to make an exception for this in the Guidelines.


Log

--- thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- Meeting rules at [WWW]  http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Schedule/MeetingGuidelines -- Init process
<thl> FESCo meeting ping -- abadger1999, awjb, bpepple, c4chris, dgilmore, jeremy, jwb, rdieter, spot, scop, thl, tibbs, warren
<thl> Hi everybody; who's around?
* bpepple is here.
rdieter is here.
abadger1999 waves
<thl> hi mspevack
* nirik is in the rabble stands.
<mspevack> hi thl and all
<tibbs> I'm here.
* silug is lurking
c4chris is here
thl counts warren rdieter abadger1999 BobJensen c4chris|w from fesco
<jwb_gone> thl, i'm half here
* warren here
<thl> s/BobJensen/bpepple/
<BobJensen> Gee thanks
<ixs> dgilmore is probably still at lunch but should be back soon.
<BobJensen> LOL
* cweyl_ takes his seat in the rabble gallery
mdomsch lurks
<ixs> ohh. strike that.
wasn't dgilmore.
<BobJensen> Here I thought I was railroaded in to something again
<thl> that's not much from fesco, so maybe we start discussing the   FESCo/Core cabal merge first?
that okay for everybody?
* jeremy is here
<jwb_gone> sure
<bpepple> fine by me.
<abadger1999> fine here
<thl> ohh, people show up :)
--- thl has changed the topic to: FESCO Meeting -- FESCo/Core cabal merge first
<thl> I just replied to notting's mail to the list (sorry, better late than never)
well, I shared my thoughts on the fab  list; what do the other people around think?
<notting> thl: back at you (on list) ;)
<thl> skvidal, rdieter, mether, mspevack, and what does the board think about the whole thing?
<jwb_gone> grrr
<thl> notting, ;)
* jwb_gone doesn't have the list in front of him
mspevack types
<nirik> for those at home: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2007-January/thread.html
* jeremy goes to read thl's mail :)
<jwb_gone> thl, give us a sec :)
* rdieter just replied too (on the FESCo vs. FPC thing)
<thl> jeremy, I tried to keep the mail shorter this time ;)
<mspevack> for me the most important part is getting the "core cabal" stuff out in the open.  I think bill's idea of two groups -- one more focused on release engineering and the actual putting together of the different spins and one focused on the packaging/technical is decent.  To me f13 seems like the obvious lead of the first group, the second seems like it could be more directly what fesco/packaging comm morph into
i guess i don't have too strong of a feeling right now, because i think it's progressing in the right direction...
<-- silug has quit ("brb")
<mspevack> others?
<mether> thl: I think we should add notting and jeremy to FESCo, call it the Fedora Engineering Team or something like that and have regularly meetings, get the F7 release out without analyzing too much about the process
<notting> isn't jeremy on fesco?
<thl> mether, jeremy is in FESCo
<jwb_gone> notting, yes
<mether> thl: figure outt he rest as we move along
thl: well then just notting
<thl> mether, and where would you put the release people like f13 ?
<c4chris> mether, sounds reasonable to me
<jeremy> thl: my only direct response to your mail would be why have another committee (FTC)?  in those cases, the board can be leverage appliers
<mether> thl: i thought he already is in FESCo
<ixs> thl: just to make sure, we're talkin about Subject: how to govern and manage the new combined repository, Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2007 12:07:05 +0100 right?
<thl> mether, no, f13 is not in fesco (anymore)
<jwb_gone> ixs, yes
<thl> ixs, yes
<ixs> thx
<thl> jeremy, I want to keep technical details away from the board
mostly
<mether> thl: ah ok, jeremy, notting and f13 needs to be on the new team
<thl> and have one group that coordinates all the stuff below it
<jeremy> thl: fundamentally, fedora _is_ technical stuff, though.  why try to hide that with more levels of indirection
<rdieter> mether: I don't think f13 *wants* to be on it. (:
<bpepple> rdieter: that's what I remember also.
<mspevack> i wonder if we could just have one group of "fedora's technical leaders" -- and different parts of the group (like packaging, or release engineering) have leaders, but just one group of the main technical leadership of Fedora.
<mether> rdieter: he needs to be though. he is the release guy
mspevack_ mspevack
mspevack +1
<thl> jeremy, well, I got the impression the board does not want to deal with thoswe stuff
<notting> thl: in that situation, i'd see it leading to where the 'tech commitee' does nothing but mediate existing committees, with no actual charter/responsibilities of its own. i'm not sure that's good.
<abadger1999> mspevack: +1
<mether> thl: I certainly dont mostly because I wont have anything interesting to say but the majority of the board is also core developers so...
<bpepple> mspevack: +1
<jwb_gone> mspevack, +1
<mspevack> when confronted with technical decisions, the Board asks the "smartest technical people in Fedora" for their opinions.  It just so happens that guys like jeremy and bill happen to be on the Board and also two of the smartest technical people, from from a "role" perspective, the Board wants to delegate technical decisions.
<jwb_gone> we're going to hit another problem eventually though
how are the members of "the one committee" decided upon?
<mspevack> So to expand on what i said above...
<thl> notting, you have a point, but I nevertheless thing it would be the best solution
<mether> I want the board to be more involved with long term thinking, community and legal issues. Not get involved with day to day routine technical stuff like how are we managing rebuilds
<thl> notting, but, btw,  the 'tech commitee' had some stuff dto do according to my proposal
mether, +1
<mspevack> if we have one group of people who are the technical leaders, then you can have some of those folks who are handling "technical issues for the current upcoming release" like schedule, rel-eng, freezes, etc.  and then other folks who are handling the more general technical issues of fedora.   but no need for two groups of bureaucracy, imho
<jeremy> mether: that doesn't mean that the board doesn't mediate technical questions/decisions.  plenty of really important long term stuff is technical
<mether> jeremy: sure. a sub set of people would be playing different roles within these groups
<jwb_gone> i say for the purpose of getting crap done, add f13 and notting to fesco and see where that goes
<mdomsch> mspevack, exactly right - rel-eng leader in the cabal, but cabal should be focused on the technical stuff of this release and future releases
<mspevack> jwb_gone: as for membership -- i guess we just need to decide how many people make sense, and then just choose a subset of fesco + releng, etc.  not hard.  the folks who are the leaders and most obvious choices are pretty well known
<thl> mspevack, +1
<jwb_gone> mspevack, i mean longer term
mspevack, FESCo is currently elected
<tibbs> I think it's important to realize that we're going to have to iterate, to try things and see how it works and change if it doesn't.
<jwb_gone> tibbs, yep that too
<abadger1999> f13 didn't want to be on fesco.  He wants to be in charge of releng issues.
<tibbs> We could spend a year trying to design committees up front.
<thl> tibbs, sure, that's how we do it always afaics :)
<jwb_gone> abadger1999, so s/FESCo/FTC and be done with it
<mspevack> jwb_gone: nod -- and we won't invalidate that election.  we take already elected people, add to them obvious folks like f13 who need decision making authority, and run with it.
<mmcgrath> Whatever we decide we should meet 3 and 6 months out to discuss if it feels natural and feels like its working...
<mspevack> mmcgrath: +1
<notting> mmcgrath: if it's f2f, 6 for me ;)
<mdomsch> FTC may have some "ringers" and some "elected"
<bpepple> mmcgrath: +1
<abadger1999> His point was (and it's a good one) we (as individual fedora contrbutors) are knowledgable in certain areas and do not have informed opinions i others.
<mmcgrath> It makes it easier to decide now if we say "we'll be discussing again in a few months and can make changes as needed"
<jwb_gone> mspevack, sure but is the new FTC elected?
<thl> mdomsch, +1
<warren> FESCO => FTC?
* nirik stupidly throws out the idea of calling it FELT (fedora engr laison team) and then it fits in with 'fedora' and hats. ;)
<mdomsch> warren, yes
<thl> the question also is: where to we leave the packaging committee
<jwb_gone> FESCo + notting + f13 -> FTC
<rdieter> jwb_gone: to be decided, but offhand, it looks like only part of FTC will remain elected.
<mspevack> jwb_gone: sure, under the assumption that the electoral body isn't going to be so silly as to not elect, for example, Jesse, to run Fedora release engineering :-)
* mmcgrath still likes "The Fed"
<notting> i'm not much for the acronym collision, maybe fedora distro commitee?
<mdomsch> thl, leader is on FTC, all members need not be
<tibbs> PC should probably be underneath FTC.
<bpepple> thl: Is spot about?
<jwb_gone> rdieter, i'd be ok with that
<mspevack> like mdomsch said, elected with Board also being able to add any folks deemed "essential"
<thl> tibbs, +1
<cweyl_> I'm sure there's room for a few ex-officio members of the new committee.
<ixs> uhm. That FTC you're proposing looks a lot different then the one I read about in the proposal.
<jwb_gone> mspevack, that's fine.  a subset of <insert name> being elected is ok
<thl> having spot in FTC and the PC underneath FTC is my prefered solution
<jwb_gone> thl, +1
<bpepple> thl: +1
<thl> mspevack, yeah. that'S FINE
<mdomsch> thl +1
<tibbs> ixs: We are working out a proposal; it's going to be changing.
<notting> *ideally*, the packaging committee runs out of things to do eventually ;)
<thl> s/FINE/fine/
sorry
notting, +1
<jwb_gone> notting, indeed
<tibbs> thl: Not to denigrate spot, but part of the problem is that his schedule doesn't allow him to make all of the PC meetings.
<rdieter> notting: at the pace we're going, that'll be the year 2638.
<tibbs> I don't think requiring him to be on another board is going to be good for productivity.
<ixs> tibbs: of course, but the way you're going you can just fold the packaging committee, the techC and fesco into one group and save on bureaucratic work.
<thl> tibbs, you have a point :-/
<EvilBob> Things are quite fluid right now, some in the community would like to see some solidification soon
<c4chris> tibbs, but he's fesco already
<jwb_gone> right
<mdomsch> leader of PC need not be in FTC, FTC just needs a representative in PC who can liase
<mspevack> let's use this as a chance to reduce the number of different groups/bureaucracies as much as possible, while still making sure "stuff gets done"
mdehaan mdomsch
mdomsch: +1
<bpepple> mdomsch: agreed.
<thl> so let's merge the important members from the Core Cabal, FESCo and FTC into FTC
<abadger1999> mdomsch: I'd say the same for releng.
<mdomsch> abadger1999, +!
1
<tibbs> c4chris: I tnink you get my point.
<bpepple> thl: +1
<jwb_gone> thl, +1
<c4chris> tibbs, yea, I think I do
<rdieter> thl, +1, we have a winnder.
<mspevack> thl: yes -- get the key people from Fesco, Core cabal, packaging and make one smaller group.
<jeremy> EvilBob: we're trying to change the world... that's going to involve some flux for a while.  not really sure how to avoid it
<ixs> thl: then add PC to FTC and just make it one workgroup. One more committee saved, one weekly meeting less.
<thl> mspevack, +1
<mspevack> so... decision made?
<thl> they can then work out the other stuff
<abadger1999> ixs: Won't work.
<thl> but the other stuff should be below FTC IMHO ;-)
<tibbs> ixs: Key people, not the entire committee.
<abadger1999> the meeting would just get twice as long.
<jwb_gone> mspevack, we need votes from abadger1999 and tibbs
<tibbs> Otherwise FTC would be too massive to work.
<ixs> abadger1999: crap. :D
<thl> I think we work out some details over the next days/week
and then make that official next week?
<jwb_gone> thl, on f-a-b?
<tibbs> jwb_gone: I'd vote, but I'm not sure what the exact proposal is.
<thl> jwb_gone, yeah, why not
<abadger1999> I think I agree but details will be good.
<jwb_gone> tibbs, merge current FESCo + "primary core people" into FTC
tibbs, likely meaning notting and f13
<thl> jwb_gone, don't forget about the PC ;-)
<jwb_gone> oh yes
though i'm not sure on that
<mspevack> thl: could wrap this into the mailing list reorg too, use this as a chance to start the new canonical list for FTC stuff
<nirik> when then decides everything about the new structure?
<mdomsch> not PC necessarily
<nirik> s/when/which/
<thl> nirik, I think the final decision needs ack from both FESCo and the Board
<jeremy> seems sane
<mdomsch> PC is a working group, some members of FTC and possibly some not
yes?
<thl> mspevack, the mailing list repor just get's more complicated if we really want to set up a new mailman for it on a new domain
<abadger1999> mdomsch: +1
<tibbs> mdomsch: I don't think any other way would work.
<notting> thl: for mailing list, let me track down the internal mailman folks for opinions
<nirik> yeah, sorry. I meant: "current FESCo + "primary core people" into FTC" then meets and decides everything else? ie, structure, if people are elected, etc?
<mspevack> thl: we can leave that on the side -- don't want to drag this conversation off track
<thl> notting, k
<mmcgrath> just one thing to think about with all this stuff, what do we gain from hosting it ourselves?
<thl> k, so get to an end now: the goal is to create a FTC as a merge from Core Cabal, FESCo and PC
number of members? 7 ?  9?
then I'll try to wrok something out
and send it to the list for discussion
then the Board can decide it as well
<mspevack> if we can do it in 9, i think that would be good.  just my gut feeling.  might be too hard to do it in 7 people and get everyone we need
<thl> and FESCo members try to take part of the Board meeting on Monday on IRC?
<bpepple> 9 would probably be the better number.
<mspevack> thl: Board meeting Tuesday :-)
<tibbs> I believe I'm commuting during the board meeting, unfortunately.
<abadger1999> I think for the transitional FTC we should list the people who will be on it.  Post-transition, worry about what number of people.
<thl> mspevack, k; other opinions? More then 9, less?
mspevack, sorry :)
<c4chris> fine with me
<tibbs> Then the question becomes who in FESCo has no position in FTC.
That's four people.
<jwb_gone> abadger1999, +1
<mspevack> thl: i would say that i don't need to be one of the 9, but i'd like to be on the list and be able to lurk/chime in as needed.  But there are people smarter than me who should lead the more technical discussions
<nirik> IIRC fesco has 13 people right now
<jwb_gone> tibbs, scop quit
<tibbs> Yes, and we had already discussed his replacement on-list.
<jwb_gone> it's not official yet
and given that we're cutting as it is...
<tibbs> I understood it to be the first order of business today, but obviously that's not the case.
<abadger1999> jwb_gone: but he quit with the current rules in mind -- replacement to come on board, etc.
<jwb_gone> abadger1999, so he comes on to just get cut?
<thl> tibbs, we changed that because there were only a few fesco members around then
<jwb_gone> come on guys... use some common sense
<thl> I think the discussion is suffering
do we want to continue on the list?
<bpepple> thl: +1.
<jwb_gone> thl, +1
<thl> on fab list please
<abadger1999> My counter proposal is that we have FESCo + additional members for the transitional period.
<jwb_gone> abadger1999, that i would be just fine with
<c4chris> abadger1999, fine with me too
<thl> abadger1999, and where do you want to leave the PC?
<abadger1999> Mostly out.
* rdieter doesn't care who populates first iteration of FTC.
<thl> rdieter, +1
<abadger1999> There's already tibbs, rdieter, spot, and I on FESCo.
And f13 would make another.
<notting> rdieter: well, i don't care about the number, i might care if we started pulling in esr and schilly
<abadger1999> notting: :-)
<thl> :-)
* nirik laughs.
<skvidal> notting: +1
:)
<jwb_gone> notting, esr is the best thing ever
</sarcasm>
<thl> jwb_gone, no, schilly is
<rdieter> notting: they're not in any existing committees though, and I doubt the FPB would appoint them either.
<jwb_gone> thl, oh right.  sorry!
:)
<ixs> mmcgrath: about your question, as nobody answered yet: I guess moving it to our own infrastructure is preferred as it's showing that this list is fedora and not redhat, as it offers us a bit more control about the lists etc. At least that's what I gathered by now. If that is really necessary, I don't know.
<EvilBob> Come on guys this is not needed
<jwb_gone> notting, what about jbj?
ok, getting way off topic
<notting> EvilBob: apologies for going offtopic
* nirik thinks things are drifting off topic
<thl> well, the discussion seems to fade off
<skvidal> ixs: and it means list creation is proxied through red hat IS
<thl> continue on the list?
<jwb_gone> thl, yes
<thl> extras meeting on monday?
<cweyl_> thl: which list?  one the rabble can post to?
<thl> extras FESCo meeting on Monday?
<mether> just created http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/Mailman
<ixs> skvidal: sure that's what I meant with control. But is it a good thing or not?
<thl> cweyl_, FAB, you can post there, too, but wil get moderated
<abadger1999> Should we discuss scop's replacement after or before this is decided?
<skvidal> ixs: I think so, yes.
<notting> thl: is there anyone on fesco not on fab that we need to add?
<ixs> skvidal: good that it's not proxied anymore?
<rdieter> abadger1999: after, imo.
<thl> notting, they should all be on fab
<skvidal> ixs: yes
<ixs> skvidal: okay. just wanted to make sure we're not missunderstanding each other.
<abadger1999> On the one hand, the person would have a say in the discussion; on the other, as jwb says, they could just get cut if we go for a hard number.
<warren> (Has anyone seen scop around lately?  He hasn't responded to a time critical mail...)
<skvidal> ixs: I think we're in fierce agreement
<thl> so consesus: continue on the list
<ixs> skvidal: anyone ever asked what RH thinks about moving mails away from rh.com?
skvidal: hehe. :>
<thl> I'll move on then if nobody yells
<bpepple> warren: he mentioned he was having hardware issues.
<notting> ixs: working on that
<warren> ixs, in what way?
<thl> ixs, skvidal, could you have that discussion after the meeting pleas?
<skvidal> ixs: see what notting said
thl: yes
<ixs> thl: sorry.
<skvidal> sorry
* thl will move to the next topic soon
<abadger1999> warren: Yes.  I think he mentioned he was going to have spotty internet access for a while.
<thl> Extras FESCo meeting on Monday?
s/Extras/Extra/
<bpepple> thl: I'm fine with it.
<warren> thl, one time event?
<jwb_gone> thl, fine with me (assuming i can make it)
<thl> warren, yes
<warren> same time slot?
<tibbs> I can make it as long as the time is the same.
<thl> Monday, usual time (18:00 UTC)
<rdieter> worksforme
<abadger1999> I can make it.
<c4chris> thl, ok (but 40 minutes max...)
<thl> k, settled then
<warren> thl, +1
<thl> moving on
--- thl has changed the topic to: FESCO meeting -- FESCo changes
thl has changed the topic to: FESCO meeting -- FESCo changes -- elect a new chair
<thl> I nominate bpepple as new chairmen
<jeremy> thl: are you willing to stay on a tiny bit longer?
since it might make sense to wait through finishing the above
<thl> jeremy, hmmmm
<jwb_gone> jeremy, can still elect a new one today though.
<thl> jeremy, I'll be around in any case; is it that much different?
<jwb_gone> "transfer" date can be decided later
<jeremy> jwb_gone: I want to know what we're actually deciding, though :-)
<jwb_gone> who it's going to be?
<rdieter> The only nomination so far is bpepple.
* thl is unsure how to proceed
<ixs> thl: maybe postpone this until more fesco people are available?
<jeremy> yes, but what "chair of fesco" means is heavily influenced by the above discussion
<c4chris> in the current light, we might consider the newcomers for chair?
c4chris c4chris|w
<mether> jwb_gone: no. in a merged team, what difference does it make now?
<tibbs> There were many votes for bpepple on-list.
<skvidal> c4chris: that seems like a bad idea
<tibbs> If we're not changing the terms, I'll add my vote now.
<c4chris> or what did you mean?
* thl is still unsure how to proceed
<thl> bpepple, what do you think?
<bpepple> I'm fine with waiting to figure out what the new structure is.
But really it depends on what you want to do.
<warren> thl, is the current workload too much of a burden for you?  would it be preferable to change chair now, or after new structure?
<thl> I wante to hand things over
<c4chris> jeremy, we can worry about FTC chair later, no?
<jwb_gone> thl, we could delegate running the meetings to bpepple for now
<jwb_gone> thl, that would help with some workload
<warren> bpepple, interim chair?
<bpepple> warren: that's fine with me.
<warren> we can elect a new permanent chair later.
when we have a larger quorum
<rdieter> ok, done.  next? (:
<thl> the question mainly also is: will the FESCo chair automatically become the FTC chair?
<c4chris> thl, exactly
<jwb_gone> thl, work that out on the list?
<warren> Interim chair for now => new election => FTC chair
<jwb_gone> for now anyway
<rdieter> thl: probably, but we can tackle that later.
<bpepple> rdieter: agreed.
<tibbs> Regardless, we need to honor thl's wish to step down.
* rdieter agrees.
<c4chris> yes
<warren> I move that bpepple becomes the interim chair, which is a temporary position.  Later we have a FTC chair election for the permanent job.
<tibbs> warren: +1
<thl> warren, +1
<bpepple> warren: +1
<jwb_gone> fine by me
+1
<c4chris> warren, +1
<jeremy> warren: that works
<abadger1999> +1
* mspevack is lurking and doesn't necessarily have a vote, but that sounds good :-)
nirik thanks thl for a excellent job...
<thl> k, bpepple interim chair from now on
* jwb_gone will be right back
<warren> bpepple, are you coming to fudcon?
<rdieter> and, if not already, can you? (:
<thl> bpepple, do you want to run the rest of the meeting=
<c4chris> rounds of applause: to thank thl for a great job, and to acclaim bpepple
<thl> s/=/?/
<bpepple> Right now it doesn't look like it, but I can probably get the time off.
thl: sure.
<warren> Everyone a round of applause for thl, for the tremendous job he has done leading us from the dark age of Fedora.
* warren clap clap
bpepple claps.
thl hands over the topic and meeting magic to bpepple
<ixs> :D
* rdieter cheers
<cweyl_> hear, hear :)
<bpepple> ok, moving on:
<mdomsch> bravo!
--- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCO-Meeting -- EPEL -- mmcgrath, dgilmore -- status update
<thl> thx guys, thx, It was fun (and will be) to work with you guys
* mmcgrath sacrifices a goat in thl's honor
<c4chris> mmcgrath, ugh, on your keyboard?, messy... :-)
<mmcgrath> notting: whats the scoop on our primary mirror for EPEL?
<warren> Did kwade bring the EPEL branding discussion to a public list yet?
<notting> hah. so, ticket was opened about the /pub/epel space, no response yet.
<mmcgrath> warren: I haven't seen it.
* mmcgrath ponders if our primary mirror will ever be on our own infrastructure?
<notting> meanwhile, in a completely separate area, discussion arose about epel, branding, locations for download, etc., which myself/warren are attempting to herd off into somewhere useful
<warren> A key question is, what do the people running EPEL feel about its branding?
Do you want the public facing brand to be its own name, part of Fedora, part of 108, part of Red Hat, etc.?
<mmcgrath> I still don't care what it looks like, I just want the packages.
<jwb_gone> bpepple, FYI i got epel configs into mock now thanks to dgilmore and clark
<bpepple> jwb_gone: good.
<warren> Of course the backend devel side is related to Fedora infrastructure, SCM and buildsys, only because it is SO EASY to do so that way.
<rdieter> mmcgrath: +1
<c4chris> mmcgrath, I feel the same...
* mmcgrath sees through the fluff
<thl> I want to have EPEL close to Fedora
same infrastcture and everything
<jwb_gone> thl, +1
<warren> Same people working on EPEL as Fedora, although a different subset.
<ixs> thl: understandable
<abadger1999> thl: +1
<c4chris> thl, obviously
<thl> warren, not always, but often
<mspevack> if it's mostly Fedora people and fedora infrastructure doing the work, doesn't it make sense to Fedora brand it (assuming we believe it will be good for the Fedora brand)?
<c4chris> mspevack, I think yes
<cweyl_> mspevack: +1
<warren> mspevack, that goes to the larger question...should Fedora be a larger umbrella of quality community projects?  I think so.
mspevack_ mspevack
mspevack, kind of like Apache Software Foundation is an umbrella
<mspevack> that's always been the intent of Fedora, so yes
<mmcgrath> mspevack: the problem is that these packages will never be installed on a Fedora OS.
<notting> mspevack: i suspect that may be confusing simply from a *user* perspective, but *shrug*
<warren> How about, EPEL is its own project, just happens to be hosted at Fedora, and part of the Fedora family umbrella?
<thl> warren, we could build Extras for YDL 5.0 (PS3) ;-)
<abadger1999> warren: I think it would be okay to brand it as EPEL -- but the connection to Fedora has to be stronger than "just happens to be hosted at Fedora".
"part of the Fedora famly umbrella" might be okay though.
<cweyl_> Yah.  the "just happens to be" is a bit...  thin.
<mmcgrath> warren: sort of what jakarta is to apache?
<josef> XulChris: well i've finally caught up at work so i'm off to find packages to review
<bpepple> Ok, we should probably be moving on since we're getting close to the end of the meeting.
<warren> ASF has quality projects, and incubator projects, both are  under the Apache umbrella
<bpepple> Any objections?
<cweyl_> I mean, fundamentally it's fedora contributors on fedora infrastructure using fedora packages as a base that'll be building EPEL packages, in most cases
<abadger1999> cweyl_: +1
<mmcgrath> warren: stuff like that will be easier to make a reality if the hosting project takes off.
<ixs> cweyl_: so name it fedora EPEL and hope everyone is happy.
<c4chris> cweyl_, yes
<warren> epel.org is probably taken, but my idea is... have a public facing brand name, with lots of links to fedora for the developer side.
<XulChris> josef: cool, no hurry :)
<abadger1999> Maybe kwade could bring his ideas up on the list?
<warren> mmcgrath, indeed.
abadger1999, I asked him to do so.
<thl> epel.fedoraproject.org ?
<cweyl_> thl: now there's an idea
<bpepple> abadger1999: +1
<abadger1999> He has some reasons, I'm sure.  If he states them it'll be easier to see what the benefits are.
<f13> sorry I was at lunch.
<c4chris> thl, sounds good
<ixs> better suggestion. get a new domain: fedoraprojects.org for hosted stuff. note the plural s
<EvilBob> f13: pretty thin excuse
<thl> ixs, we have hosted.fedoraproject.org already iirc
or something like that
<rdieter> yup.
<warren> hosted.fedoraproject.org is still only an experiment, but I think a good case can be made to give the experiment more resources.
* f13 had no idea he would be talked about in this meeting (:
<ixs> thl: yeah. I know. However if you want a bit of distinction between the fedora stuff for fedora linux and everything else fedora, you could go with the s stuff.
<warren> hosted.fedoraproject.org is going very well.
<c4chris> f13, we took the opportunity to nominate you for a lot of committees :->
<warren> f13, congratulations!
<abadger1999> bpepple: I'm fine to move on.
<f13> oh gee
does that make me benevolant dictator over what goes into the spins?  *grin*
* rdieter doubts f13 will miss any more meetings for awhile ... (:
<bpepple> Ok, moving on.
<rdieter> seconded!
--- bpepple has changed the topic to: scop resignation, and nirik as replacement
<warren> scop resignation?
<jwb_gone> warren, yes scop resigned
<bpepple> warren: he sent an e-mail about this week, about his wish to leave FESCo.
<nirik> I'd be happy to help out... sorry that scop is leaving tho... will he be back?
<bpepple> He suggested having nirik be his replacement.
<thl> bpepple was the one with the most votes in the last election that did not get elected
<thl> so if scop wants to leave: nirik +1
<c4chris> nirik, +1
<bpepple> nirik, +1 here also.
<jwb_gone> nirik, is +1 from me but i dunno if it makes sense yet
<rdieter> nirik, +1
<tibbs> Our existing policy basically offers it to nirik if he wants it, but sure: nirik +1.
* nirik is happy to serve.
<jeremy> sure!
<warren> nirik, +1
<f13> hey, as long as it isn't me (:
* warren doesn't have access to his e-mail...
<bpepple> ok, I don't hear any objections, so welcome nirik!
<jwb_gone> f13, you're likely already in
<warren> f13, congratulations!
--- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCO-Meeting -- Encourage co-maintainership -- c4chris
<tibbs> Unfortunately the fedora-extras-steering list is private.
<mdomsch> f13, FPB assigned you as a ringer
<tibbs> warren: Look for <200701082337.09591.ville.skytta@iki.fi>
<nirik> thanks all. Will try and help out as best I can.
<warren> tibbs, IMAP server is currently having issues, I have to wait
<jwb_gone> nirik, welcome :)
<f13> mdomsch: does that mean I have to take a dive in the 5th?
<abadger1999> nirik: +1
* rdieter goes quickly to place a bet...
<c4chris> hmm
<mspevack> f13: you gotta stay on your feet.  float like a butterfly, sting like a bee
<jima> f13: look out for zed!
<c4chris> oh, nothing on the encourage front
thl, maybe?
<f13> mspevack: well, fat does float...
c4chris c4chris|w
* mspevack is off to the dentist :-(  bye all...
<jima> mspevack: good luck!
<bpepple> c4chris: that's fine.  I'll move on.
<mdomsch> mspevack, beemer
<jeremy> jima: zed's dead... zed's dead
<thl> c4chris, no, sorry, to much other stuff to do
--- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCO-Meeting -- Opening Core -- jeremy -- how to actually do the merge (sponsership and review issues)
<f13> reading backlog, seems mostly sane I guess.
<jima> jeremy: i was waiting for that. thanks.
<-- mspevack has quit ("Leaving")
* jima also appreciates jeremy not calling him baby
<jwb_gone> f13, you'll have a chance to comment on f-a-b
<warren> jeremy, anything written down for a mass review proposal?  If not, I plan on posting something soon.
<f13> jwb_gone: good.
<jeremy> warren: nope, knock yourself out :-)
<warren> jeremy, k
<f13> warren: feel free to take it.
warren: I'll be happy to comment on any proposal.
<thl> btw, I plan to mostly have "review core packages" as topic for the hackfest after fudcon
that okay for everybody?
<jeremy> bpepple: I think the main things right now are a) some reviews should hopefully start being done in a trickle fashion b) sponsorship, I need to get numbers and forgot last week
<bpepple> thl: that sounds good.
<jeremy> thl: wonderful topic
* rdieter noticed notting had posted several packages for review recently.
<warren> thl, good idea, however I'm trying to get as much as possible done before the event.
<jwb_gone> when is fudcon again?
<bpepple> jeremy: thanks for the update.
<rdieter> Feb 2-4
<thl> warren, we especially need to have all the review bugs filled before fudcon!
<jwb_gone> k
<-- delero (i=denis@nat/sun/x-51827666ab394a12) has left #fedora-extras
<warren> I will encourage people to post for reviews, but approval does not mean they MUST move immediately.  Does that make sense?
--> Rathann (n=rathann@debi.pekin.waw.pl) has joined #fedora-extras
<bpepple> warren: yes, that makes sense to me.
<thl> fyi, my current hackfest plan is at http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/ThorstenLeemhuis/HackFest
<nirik> what about the kde packages that were reviewed in prep for the unleashkde?
<notting> warren: ugh. we're Not Ready for the general move
<f13> warren: also, Reviews can happen before the move.
<warren> Also, reviews URLs can be links to the CVS browser instead of a .src.rpm.  That OK?
<rdieter> nirik: I'm waiting to hear what than@rh has to say wrt kde stuff.
<warren> notting, f13: isn't that I what I said?
<f13> oh I didn't notice (:
<rdieter> So, dumb question, what *are* we waiting on for moving things?
<notting> rdieter: cvs-related infrastructure for acls and notification
<thl> rdieter, review bugs?
<warren> Any disagreement that URL to package for review can be: http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/gaim/ ?
<jwb_gone> notting, acls for what?
<nirik> warren: sounds ok to me, as long as you can click and get the spec... things can get fixed and approved and they can wait to move whenever.
<warren> instead of a .src.rpm
<notting> rdieter: this falls squarely into my, f13, and jeremy's plate
<rdieter> notting: thanks.
<notting> jwb_gone: packages
<josef> are there any guidlines for packages that build into multiple packages?
<jwb_gone> notting, yes but that do what?
<warren> josef, reviews happen at the .src.rpm level
* warren phone meeting
<ixs> warren: might be okay fo the initial review. what about incremental changes to the .spec? also in cvs?
<nirik> warren: you can also link the src.rpm as whatever is in the repo?
<ixs> nirik: nobrainer.
--- cweyl_ is now known as cweyl
<jwb_gone> notting, i'm trying to understand what more is needed on top of what exists already
<tibbs> I have no real problems with doing Core reviews out of the public Core CVS.
<f13> rdieter: also I'd like to have the new buildsystem out there too
<notting> jwb_gone: prevent access to the package except by maintainer, admins, and designated-by-maintainer others.
--> ecik_ (n=ecik@inet20909na-0.eranet.pl) has joined #fedora-extras
<rdieter> f13: pesky details... (:
<jwb_gone> notting, this is a requirement?
we don't have that today...
<notting> jwb_gone: yup.
<jwb_gone> why?
<-- ecik has quit (Nick collision from services.)
--- ecik_ is now known as ecik
<ixs> jwb_gone: reducing potential problems...ö
<josef> warren: right, i'm asking if there is anything special for src.rpm's that have %package parts in them for multiple packages?
<-- abadger1999 has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
<f13> jwb_gone: there is much feeling that just having a fedora account is too low of a barrier to expect folks do do the right thing with packages.
--> abadger1999 (n=abadger1@090.164-78-65.ftth.swbr.surewest.net) has joined #fedora-extras
<nirik> josef: shouldn't be. If they all come from the same spec/src.rpm you should be able to review the bunch at once. unless I don't understand what you mean.
<f13> jwb_gone: letting a maintainer decide who, other than a group of super admins, have access to their packages is a reasonable thing.
<ixs> josef: that should all be in the general packaging guidelines.
<josef> ok cool
<jwb_gone> f13, i didn't say it wasn't reasonable.  i'm questioning why it's a blocker
<ixs> josef: you do the review on the souce package. just to make sure.
<bpepple> We should probably be moving on, since we're already past the meeting time.
<jwb_gone> sort of a slap in the face of our current community packagers to say "we don't trust you to not fuck things up with core packages"
<f13> jwb_gone: more of "We've been lucky nobody screwed with us thus far, lets make sure that it's harder in the future"
<abadger1999> I gotta run, guys.  If someone else would post the raw meeting log, I'd be grateful.
<f13> jwb_gone: nothign stops a rogue community person from getting an account, packaging something simple, and then introducing havoc across the packages, even pushing builds through.
<bpepple> abadger1999: I'll write up a summary later today.
<abadger1999> thx.
<cweyl> f13: except the community
<-- abadger1999 (n=abadger1@090.164-78-65.ftth.swbr.surewest.net) has left #fedora-extras
<jwb_gone> f13, i know this
i still don't see it being a blocker
but it's a moot point
<f13> jwb_gone: because until now, Red Hat hasn't staked their name on having all our packages out in the public
<ixs> cweyl: I wouldn't really trust the community in that case. You wouldn't believe what one could miss...
<f13> and if it happens, and we catch it, its already too late.
<bpepple> We should probably start wrapping up the meeting.  Are the any topics on the schedule you feel we need to discuss today, otherwise we can table it until Monday.
<thl> ixs, +1 (the CTRL+C problem is still not solved BTW)
<jwb_gone> f13, you can stop now
<thl> some insigth to the kernel version?
what do people think about it?
--- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo-Meeting -- MISC -- kernel-naming [WWW]  https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2007-January/msg00581.html
<jwb_gone> thl, sort of
* nirik would like to hear davej's rebuttal. ;)
<thl> we have in fact two different thing there afaics
<jwb_gone> thl, i emailed the kernel-packagers list.  seems 1/2 the distros do it fedora's way, the other half call it 2.6.20-<something>
<thl> there is the %version in rpm
I think that should be 2.6.20 for a 2.6.20-rc
<bpepple> Is there are technical reason why davej is reluctant to follow the guidelines?
<thl> and there is the uname output
he once wrote that "we can't call it 2.6.20 before its 2.6.20"
<f13> bpepple: initially because its a question of what technical problem is being solved by changing things.
<thl> that was the last time we discussed that months ago
f13, be in line with the guidlines
<f13> Davej is busy enough as it is without making spurrious changes just for the sake of "guidelines"
thl: that is not a technical reason
and I'd _really_ like people to stop thinking that
<thl> f13, don't cofuse kmod packages or extrenal modules
<nirik> "I don't consider rc's as released versions. The package version number should state the latest released version that package is based on."
<f13> thl: which frankly I could give a shit about.  but hey, thats just me.
<jwb_gone> thl, as for the uname part... most of the responses i got suggested that fedora is correct
<jeremy> thl: the initial reason why the kernel packaging was versioned like it is was at the _explicit_ request of linus/alan
<jwb_gone> thl, it's not 2.6.20, it's more 2.6.19
<thl> jwb_gone, well, why does upstram call it different then?
<jwb_gone> thl, and there is what jeremy just said
<thl> when you build a rc kernel yourself you get 2.6.20-rc4, too
<jwb_gone> thl, because it's a very gray area and most defer on the side of caution
<ixs> nirik: without having any clue about the specific kernel issue: General Naming Guidelines say it should be called .20-0.something if it is a .20 release candidate...
<jima> ixs: correct, not -1
* nirik was quoting davej there...
<thl> jeremy, well, that was probably years ago
jeremy, is that still valid?
<jeremy> thl: I'm not going to be the one to say that our guidelines trump linus on something like this :-P
<nirik> could someone poke alan/linus and ask them if their concerns are still valid?
<jeremy> thl: we can inquire
<f13> indeed.
<ixs> nirik: I know. Just to drive that point home what the general guideline is. We can however make an exception for the kernel.
<jeremy> (LCA may make for delayed response)
<thl> arjanv once suggested to name the kenrel pacakge just kernel-2.6-foo
<jwb_gone> thl, arjan was one of the ones that said fedora was correct
<thl> and have all the other stuff in foo
<jwb_gone> thl, i can forward you his email if you'd like
<thl> well, It's late
<f13> our guidelines are not stone commandmants from up on high.  They're supposed to be a collection of best practices to be used as a guideline.  They won't always be right, and the guidelines themselves are certainly NOT technical reasons for doing things.  Some of our guidelines have technical reasons for existing, and thats fine, but "To follow the guidelines" is not a valid technical reason.
<c4chris> I'm at 0.0 on this...
<thl> bpepple, let's stop here now if you want
<nirik> I would prefer if it followed the guidelines or had some explicily stated reasons for not... that way at least people could look back and see why and not rehash this again.
<rdieter> f13: that's heresy! (:
<thl> on this topic
<bpepple> thl: agreed.  It sounds like we need to cotact Linux/Alan.
<thl> f13, but I fail to see a reasons why the kernel should be different
f13, we are confusing people with it IMHO
<bpepple> Are the any other topics people feel we need to discuss today?  If not we should probably wrap it up.
<jwb_gone> bpepple, if we go bugging Linus about this it'll make davej look odd
bpepple, i think we can ask davej to ask linus though
<thl> jwb_gone, +1
<c4chris> wrap-up +1
<bpepple> jwb_gone: that's fine with me.
<ixs> thl: mhm. something different: do users in general care if it's named 2.6.19 or 2.6.20?
<f13> thl: if the only thing confusing people about Fedora is the kernel uname for kernels in rawhide, I'm OK with that.
<jeremy> jwb_gone: that's what I was going to do.  especially since both will be in .au afaik
<EvilBob> ixs: Some do
<thl> f13, stable to
<jwb_gone> jeremy, yes please do so
<thl> f13, look around how many reviews said "fc uses a 2.6.15 kenrel"
<jwb_gone> jeremy, though davej is already on a plane.  hopefully he checks his mail while he's there :)
<thl> it was in fact 2.6.16-very-close-tofinal-rc
<ixs> EvilBob: fine. How much is some do? if it's just a handfull, I'd say we're already spending too much time discussing that issue and should drop it.
<EvilBob> ixs: some always need the latest and if they don't get it from davej they roll their own
<ixs> EvilBob: then let them roll their own.
<jwb_gone> ok, i have to head out guyes
<jeremy> jwb_gone: I have my methods ;)
<jwb_gone> er, guys
<f13> thl: and if they said "Fedora is using a 2.6.16" kernel, they'd be wrong.
<thl> f13, sure :)
<jwb_gone> jeremy, i figured your ninjas could get the job done ;)
<f13> thl: because our pre-release naming isn't exactly clear either.
<ixs> thl: the reviews are saying as well that RHEL uses 2.6.9, which is completely wrong.
<thl> f13, but clearer then what we have currently :)
<ixs> thl: maybe we should decide not to care that much about moronic reviewers.
<thl> ixs, it was just an example
<f13> next topic please.
<jwb_gone> f13, meeting is over
<thl> knowing the righ kernel version can be important if things like hardware support come up
* notting thinks we're off in the weeds, and suggests that we rename the packaging guidelines to the "packaging code", just so i can make silly yarrrrrrrrrrrr jokes
<f13> wow, I'm really paying attention here (:
<bpepple> jwb_gone: Agreed.  I think we're pretty much done.
<EvilBob> thl: exactly
<nirik> also knowing if things like a particular version of fuse are available or the ecryptfs module is available depends on the kernel version upstream....
* jwb_gone reboots
<jwb_gone> later all
<bpepple> Unless anyone has anything else we need to discuss?
* thl has not
bpepple will end the meeting in 60
bpepple will end the meeting in 30
<ixs> thl: mhm. you might have a point there, but I had feeling in the past that distro kernel != release kernel. So if both are named the same it surely does not mean that they support hte same stuff. It is very likely that certain stuff in fedoraland is disabled as it collides with xen.
* bpepple will end the meeting in 15
<bpepple> -- MARK -- Meeting End