Extras/SteeringCommittee/Meeting-20070115

From FedoraProject

< Extras | SteeringCommittee
Revision as of 16:31, 24 May 2008 by Admin (Talk | contribs)

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

Contents

2007 January 15 FESCo Meeting

Note: This was a special meeting to discuss the FESCo/Core Cabal Merge, so a proposal could be sent to FAB.

Members

Present

  • Thorsten Leemhuis (thl)
  • Brian Pepple (bpepple)
  • Rex Dieter (rdieter)
  • Jason Tibbitts (tibbs)
  • Toshio Kuratomi (abadger1999)
  • Christian Iseli (ch4chris)
  • Warren Togami (warren)
  • Josh Boyer (jwb)
  • Tom Callaway (spot)
  • Kevin Fenzi (nirik)
  • Dennis Gilmore (dgilmore)

Absent

  • Andreas Bierfert (awjb)
  • Jeremy Katz (jeremy)

FAB Members Present

  • Bill Nottingham (notting)


Summary

FESCo/Core Cabal Merge

Merge Proposal

  • FESCo approved thl's proposal to handle the migration to FESCo's successor. This proposal will be sent now to FAB to get an ACK. Some of the items in the proposal:
  • FESCo adds notting & Jesse Keating (f13) to the current FESCo group to comprise the successor committee to FESCo.
  • Tentatively the plans are to have elections for this new committee six weeks after the release of Fedora 7.
  • Link to thl's full proposal: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2007-January/msg00129.html

Misc Merge Items

  • thl is going to send an e-mail to the fedora-extras-list and fedora-devel-list to find a good name for the successor to FESCo. The goal here is to have a name picked out by next weeks FESCo meeting.
  • notting brought up the idea of importing revision-control-with-history instead of srpms when the Core packages are merged with the Extras packages.
  • thl brought up that the Conflicts use in spec files issue should be resolved before the Core packages are mass-reviewed. Spot stated that they are working to complete that soon in the Packaging Committe.

Misc

  • With the merger of Core and Extras happening soon, it makes sense to have the FESCo meeting in a different IRC channel, since eventually the #fedora-extras channel will be fazed out. The plan is beginning with the 2007-01-25 meeting, to have meeting in the #fedora-devel channel.


Log

--- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- Meeting rules at http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Schedule/MeetingGuidelines -- Init process
<bpepple> FESCo meeting ping -- abadger1999, awjb, bpepple, c4chris, dgilmore, jeremy, jwb, rdieter, spot, nirik, thl, tibbs, warren
<josef> yeah, suprisingly it wasnt taken
<jwb> bpepple, here
<warren> bpepple, here
<bpepple> Hi everybody; who's around?
* spot is here
<nirik> bpepple: here.
<warren> why was this special meeting called?
* c4chris|w is here
* dgilmore is here
thl here, but with some alcohol in his blood
abadger1999 here
<thl> warren, the iea came up do solve the FESCo successor idea a bit more before the board meeting
warren, and to discuss the task that we were not able to discuss in the last meeting
* mmcgrath chillin
<tibbs> I'm here.
<warren> successor, you mean FTC and details?
<bpepple> Ok, it looks like most of FESCo people are here, so we can probably get started.
* f13 is keeping an eye on this chan.
<bpepple> warren: yes.
<bpepple> Do people want to start off with the FTC items?
<thl> bpepple, +1
<abadger1999> +1
--- bpepple has changed the topic to: FTC merge details.
* c4chris|w is only here for about 30-40 minutes...
<bpepple> Has everyone read thl suggestion on the mailing list? https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2007-January/msg00129.html
thoughts?
<rdieter> here (sorry, flaky net connection today)
looks sane to me.
* c4chris|w thinks they look sane
spot thinks its fine
<tibbs> Yes, this seems reasonable.
* nirik likes it.
<abadger1999> I like it.
<c4chris|w> I'd like we see F7 out the door before we take drastic measures like lowering seat numbers and the like
<thl> then we probably should say "Board, we like that proposal, please ACK it or comment what we should change"
<f13> Suppose its fine.  I thought notting had some feedback.
<thl> we just need to chose a good name
* dgilmore is ok with that
<thl> but we can ask on the lists during the next week
<f13> I've been reading up a bit on the FreeBSD stuff, and how they do governance
<thl> maybe someone has a better ideafor a name
<f13> but mostly from a rel-eng point of view
<thl> f13, I was wondering if we need a general "Release SIG"
f13, what do you think?
<jwb> i'd like one
<rdieter> How about TheFUDStopsHereCo
* warren dealing with quasi-emergency...
rdieter doesn't care really +1 (almost any name).
<thl> jwb, agreed, but the relese sig migh mave Sub-SIGs that take care of a spin
<nirik> I'll throw out "FELT - Fedora Engineering Liaison Team" for a name, but I don't care too much.
<XulChris> is quasi less worse than semi?
<thl> that might complicate things a bit, but might be worth the trouble
<f13> thl: a SIG is fine.
thl: something somewhat informal.
<bpepple> Is everyone is in favor of adding f13 and notting to FTC? And having elections, 6 weeks after F7?
<thl> bpepple, +1
<warren> +1
<rdieter> +1
<nirik> +1
<jwb> +1
<c4chris|w> bpepple: +1
<spot> +1
<f13> is it possible to vote me out of the FTC?
<abadger1999> +1
* bpepple doesn't think so. ;(
<jwb> f13, we still have to work that out
<f13> k
<tibbs> +1
<abadger1999> f13: Probably yes.
<notting> bpepple: not that i have a say yet, but do we really want to announce a specific election date?
<f13> I suppose that if I were to be voted out, I'd probably have some explaining to do to my manager.
<thl> bpepple, we should work out the details in time
<bpepple> thl: agreed.
<jwb> i think we need to settle seat number and community elected/RH appointed mix first
<thl> s/bpepple/notting/
<warren> f13, if somebody else does a better job as being release engineer of Fedora, in harnessing the community and other aspects of your job, it might be seen as a vote of no confidence, and subsequent serious discussion with manager.
<abadger1999> f13: I'd like to see the parts that you do for your job be as part of the "Release SIG"
<thl> notting, that why there is the "six weeks after F7" limit
<warren> f13, so yes, I think it would be a good thing.
<dgilmore> +1
f13: we can vote you out
<f13> hurray!
<warren> Unlikely though =)
<thl> we should probably be a bit more dynamic with seats in FESCO/FTC/XYZ
* f13 begins a campaign of terror
<bpepple> warren: agreed.
<warren> hmm....
* rdieter has a feeling that f13 doesn't *want* to be on FTC and to be voted off the island... (:
c4chris|w readies the blasters to "medium well"
<warren> maybe "Vote of No confidence" is better than "voting to allow other people in the committee and giving f13 emeritis status"
<f13> rdieter: nah, I don't really mind.
<jwb> let's try to stay on topic today.
<rdieter> f13: ok, we all know you're busy. (:
<thl> well, shall I inform FAB that the proposal I posted is fine for currently FESCo?
* jwb is fighting 3 other meetings
<rdieter> thl: +1
<jwb> thl, +1
<bpepple> thl: +1
<c4chris|w> thl: +1
<spot> yes, yes. +1
<thl> rdieter, jeremy, notting, mspevack_hm , can you make sure that the topic is brough up in tomorrows meeting?
<dgilmore> +1
<nirik> thl: +1
<abadger1999> +1
<thl> I'll post to the list, too
<rdieter> thl: can do
<thl> rdieter, thx
<bpepple> How do we want to go about deciding on the name? Or is FTC fine with everyone?
<rdieter> fine with me.
<bpepple> mailing list, so we don't debate it forever on IRC?
<c4chris|w> fine with me (but no strong opinion here, couldn't find a great name yet...)
<jwb> you think that will have higher success?
<thl> bpepple, I'd suggest we ask the lists and find a final name unti next weeks fesco meeting
* bpepple thinks FTC is fine, also.
<dgilmore> FTC is fine with me
* thl dislikes FTC
<f13> how about fiasco.
<thl> :-)
<f13> fesco -> fiasco
<spot> Its better than Fedora Reactionary Organized Group Steering
<bpepple> thl: That sounds fine with me.  Which list f-e-l or maintainers?
<c4chris|w> tsk tsk :-)
<thl> bpepple, f-e-l and fedora-devel
<jwb> f13, what's it stand for?
<bpepple> thl: Ok, do you want to send the e-mail or do you want me to?
* nirik thinks that might result in another long useless thread, but it can always be culled for usefull uggestions.
<thl> bpepple, I can do that
<bpepple> nirik: agreed.
thl: thanks.
<thl> but I'll do that tomorrow and not today
<bpepple> thl: that's fine.
<bpepple> Ok, are there other issues we should discuss now in regard to the FTC merge?
<bpepple> reviews, etc.?
<thl> one thing:
could the PC please bring up the conflicts thing in its next meeting
<nirik> bpepple: meeting times? thursday as fesco did? or something else?
<thl> I'd really like to have something in place before the mass review of core packages starts
<spot> thl: yes, we would have done it last week except i had a family crisis
<thl> spot, np, but I'd really like to see it solved ;-)
thx spot
<bpepple> nirik: I'm thinking it would just take FESCo's meeting time, since it's its successor.
<thl> bpepple, +1
<nirik> bpepple: fine with me.
<bpepple> Anything else in regards to the merge?
<abadger1999> spot: The conflicts draft on the wiki has issues -- at last meeting we thought there were some changes pending.  Are their changes that you have pending?
<nirik> as core packages get reviewed and approved, should they be removed from the core repo and moved over to extras? or will they be done in mass sometime?
<notting> bpepple: i'd like to raise the idea of importing revision-control-with-history instead of srpms. opinions?
<abadger1999> notting: +1
<c4chris|w> notting: I think that would be best, yes
<rdieter> notting: if that's feasible, sure, +1
<f13> thl: I brought it up internally too, and got some feedback, but not in the form of "we don't like this" or "change this" more of "I use conflicts for this"
<spot> abadger1999: i'll take this to the list
<bpepple> nirik: I believe the thought is in mass sometime.
<nirik> notting: +1 , good idea... would hate to loose all the history.
<f13> notting: +1
<bpepple> notting: +1
<thl> f13, I just want some rules for now; we probably will need to adjust them, but that a start
* spot is all for it, as long as it can be managed that files are imported _after_ review
<notting> of course, that means a higher admin load, and the maintainer can't do it
<f13> nod.
<nirik> bpepple: ok, so should we keep track of approved core packages somehow for that? blocker bug? list on wiki? I guess it can be figured later.
<f13> spot: er, I don't think we're going to be able to hold up all the imports on reviews
spot: the plan was to do the imports, but tag them all as unreviewed, then tackle all packages without a known review
those not reviewed by spin time, don't get on the spin.
<bpepple> nirik: Yeah, that's something we need to work out
<spot> f13: eh, ok.
<f13> but we need a clean break time, where both SCMs are not used to do the mass move, and shut down the internal one.
<jwb> f13, what about review started but hung up?
<tibbs> Aren't we waiting for more infrastructure before we can do that?
<f13> jwb: not good enough IMHO.
<jwb> f13, and if that is the kernel?
<tibbs> I recall that there's a requirement that some ACL system is in place before core stuff can merge.
<f13> jwb: then there is going to be some pissed off release engineer people hounding the kernel folken.
<jwb> tibbs, yes notting said so
<abadger1999> jwb: I'd say should still apply.
<tibbs> I also don't think it's going to be possible to keep unreviewed packages off of the spins.
<f13> tibbs: yes, and that is still being worked on.
<abadger1999> If it's the kernel, F7 would have to be delayed.
<f13> tibbs: push scripts can do some checking.
<nirik> whats the progress on the all singing all dancing package database? before f7?
<f13> tibbs: since new build system has to have a package Added to its DB before it is allowed to be built, we can gate on that.
must pass review before I do a pkg-add command.
push scripts pull from what buildsystem has built.
<tibbs> I just don't think it's going to be possible to actually review everything.
<abadger1999> nirik: Probably on track :-)
<f13> nirik: part of it will come with the new buildsystem, which we're hoping to make good strides on at fudcon.
<tibbs> Especially when we get pushback on simple things like kernel versioning.
<abadger1999> The unknown is what brew will bring to the table.
<f13> tibbs: don't judge the rest of the packages on the kernel.
tibbs: I suspect there will only be a handful of packages like the kernel that will take some conversation and real hard thinking.
and we've come to some agreement on the jpackage packages too, which cuts out many of those.
<abadger1999> nirik: Although I only promise dancing, I'm savingsinging for the next version.
<notting> bpepple: re: importing source control + metadata, can we take that as an approval for anything that moves from Core -> Extras before the mass move?
<nirik> abadger1999: ha. :)
<dgilmore> tibbs: we do need to set some acls on glibc, gcc and kernel
<tibbs> f13: I don't recall a public agreement; if any exceptions are required, they need to be voted on by this body as I understand things.
<bpepple> notting: I didn't hear anyone disagree with it, so I consider is approved.
<dgilmore> only people authorized to work on those components can
<spot> FPC needs to vote on the jpp stuff
<abadger1999> Err.. Packaging Committee?
<f13> tibbs: yes, the PC has reached some level of agreements, preparing something to present to the FESCO
<tibbs> f13: I'm on the PC and I don't recall voting on anything.
I assume we'll do this tomorrow.
<bpepple> Ok, before we get too off-topic, is there anything else?
* f13 drops the bomb that once we do the merger, the default will most likely be restricted.  Package owner + super admins + maybe some other group can access by default.  More access can be granted via an acl file.
<f13> tibbs: most likely yes, which is why I said "some level of agreements"
<nirik> f13: thats what I was reading into the package database setup... which I think is all good. The question is can we set that up soon before the core packages flood in? :)
<f13> nirik: yes, that would be managed by the ACL system within the SCM
which would need to be in place and active before the mass merger
Jeremy is working on the ACL stuff
<abadger1999> f13: I would like to have a list of what needs to be done to get rid of the naming exception in the proposal.
<f13> abadger1999: me too.
<nirik> f13: ok, if it can be done with cvs now, that would be great. If maintainers can change their acls on the fly, that would be excellent (add co-maintainers, etc)
<f13> nod
nirik: it'll be "on the fly" as in a regularly scheduled cron job
<jwb> f13, that isn't so much a bomb as in a "great... where is it?"
<f13> but yes, anybody who has write access to a module would be able to add more people ot the ACL file for that module.
<c4chris|w> bpepple: can we adjourn the FESCo meeting 'til Thursday ?
<abadger1999> f13: I'd rather not do it that way...
<bpepple> Do other FESCo members want to adjourn?
* nirik wonders if there is any more business we need to address today before the FAB meeting tomorrow?
<abadger1999> bpepple: Fine with me.
<dgilmore> bpepple: im ok with that
<abadger1999> f13: I'd rather keep management of ACLs in the packageDB.
<thl> well, we did not do much in the last meeting, so why not continue a bit
<dgilmore> abadger1999: me too
<thl> but well, yes, lets adjourn
<f13> abadger1999: I think we're welcoming better suggestions / implimentations.
<tibbs> Have we dealt with the issues the board needs us to deal with?
<nirik> abadger1999: perhaps a early version of the packagedb could be put in place now/soon that just does the acls, and then more added to it as it becomes available?
<thl> btw, how long to we want to keep the meeting in this channel?
<abadger1999> f13: I need to see more code ;-)
<thl> should we move them to #fedora-devel isntead?
<f13> abadger1999: bug jeremy
<thl> and close this channel over time?
<abadger1999> k.
<bpepple> thl: That might be a good idea, since extras is disappearing.
<tibbs> I guess this channel should go away on its own.
<f13> probably once FE4/5/6 no longer exist
<tibbs> Last one out, change the topic.
<bpepple> Does anyone have a problem with having Thursday meeting in #fedora-devel?
<f13> which is in less than a year
<nirik> bpepple: +1 (18:00 UTC, right?)
<thl> tibbs, to many channels are sometimes like to many mailinglists...
<f13> Extras will continue to exist for the older releases...
if by name only
<bpepple> nirik: yes.
<c4chris|w> bpepple: no problem
<dgilmore> bpepple: no  #fedora-devel is fine
<bpepple> ok then, thursday's meeting will be in #fedora-devel.
<tibbs> Maybe the people to ask are those in #fedora-devel.
Or just barge in, I guess.
<thl> btw, can all the FESCo members stay in FTC? or does somebody needs to/wants to leave if we become FTC (or whatever it is going to be called)?
<abadger1999> I'll stay 'til elections.
<bpepple> tibbs: Do you want to hold off on switching channels, until we check that no one in #fedora-devel has a problem with us having our meeting there?
* c4chris|w stays 'til elections
thl probably needs to leave
nirik would be happy to stay
bpepple will stay till elections.
<rdieter> doesn't #fedora-devel require nick registration (whereas #fedora-extras does not), would that be a problem?
<mmcgrath> rdieter: thats true
<f13> I don't see it as one.
<dgilmore> rdieter: yes #fedora-devel requires nick registration
<Foolish> #fedora-devel doesn't require registration anymore does it?
<tibbs> bpepple: I have no opinion; I have both tabs open anyway.  My only point is that the people you'd expect to object are the ones in that channel, not this one.
<dgilmore> though i would hope we all have done that
<bpepple> How about we have thursday meeting here, and we look where to have the meeting in the future?
<rdieter> Foolish: yes it does. (last I tried without it)
<abadger1999> Is it a higher barrier of entry for those who just want to lurk?
<f13> not a significant one.
* c4chris|w gotta run now...  see yall
<abadger1999> (stay informed but not participate)
<f13> and if it is too high, they can read the logs.
but really, that shouldn't be too high of a barrier.
<thl> f13, +1
<bpepple> f13: +1
* thl still votes for fedora-devel
dgilmore will be around unless i get a new job that doesnt allow me the time to participate
thl would like to get rid of #fedora-extras over time and move everything to fedora-devel
<jwb> whatever is fine with me
<bpepple> Ok, we should probably wrap up the meeting for today.   How about we plan on having the meeting here on Thursday, look at moving the following week?
<abadger1999> bpepple: +1
<nirik> bpepple: +1
<thl> bpepple, +1
<rdieter> wrap it up: +1
* bpepple will end the meeting in 60
<kwizart> May i ask for something?
* bpepple will end the meeting in 30
<bpepple> kwizart: go ahead.
<kwizart> i have done a firmware fo zd1211rw
wich is inside the kernel...
the relative firmware 1.3 seems to be GPL!
<XulChris> so to sponsor someone I just add them to the cvsextras group?
<kwizart> review is in process
in extras...
<notting> kwizart: sweet, saves me the trouble of doing it. :)
kwizart: i assume you actually have hardware so you can test it?
<kwizart> I would like to speak more about wifi!
<nirik> XulChris: yes.
<kwizart> Ive testing it since it is on my experimental repsoitory...
<nirik> kwizart: is there any issues you need to bring to the board? or you just need a reviewer?
<kwizart> I need a reviewer... But i won't develop the whole wifi subject for now... maybe it
could be talked in the next meeting...
<bpepple> kwizart: I'm not really sure this is something the board is needed for.
<kwizart> more about livecd question and the wifi...
* bpepple will end the meeting in 15
<jeremy> abadger1999: while having the information in the package database is ultimately more correct, I don't want to hold things off on the existence of the package database
<bpepple> -- MARK -- Meeting End