Meeting:Board meeting 2009-05-05

From FedoraProject

Revision as of 16:52, 23 May 2009 by Pfrields (Talk | contribs)

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

Summary

  • Export restrictions and FreeMedia project
    • Board members explained that Fedora cannot violate US export restrictions
    • No wiggle room but the Board is not happy with the state of export regulations as they pertain to FLOSS
    • Board may investigate options for pursuing reform
  • PPC as a primary or secondary architecture
    • PPC has heretofore remained primary because the Board made a decree that it would stay that way until there was some other successful, actively maintained secondary architecture
      • That has not happened and PPC continues to have significant problems on a recurring basis
      • Some Board members feel that Red Hat might devote additional release engineering resources if PPC became a secondary architecture
      • Others feel that because there was no deadline set, moving PPC to a secondary architecture is somewhat bait and switch
    • Board voted on mdomsch's motion to remove its block on PPC remaining a primary architecture -- not making it a secondary architecture, a decision that is under FESCo's purview
      • Eight +1, one -1 (spot)
    • Board voted against spot's motion creating a new block requiring PPC to remain a primary architecture for six months
      • Six -1, three +1 (spot, notting, glezos)
  • No questions were left in the queue for the Board

#fedora-board-meeting

stickster OK, welcome everyone to a public Fedora Board IRC meeting. 05 May 14:01
stickster Your moderator today is quaid 05 May 14:02
stickster quaid will collect input on the #fedora-board-questions channel, and... 05 May 14:02
stickster ...queue people to ask in here, after the Board finishes any discussion of pending agenda items. 05 May 14:02
stickster quaid will /VOICE people one at a time to ask questions during the Q&A portion, and we'll discuss. 05 May 14:03
quaid oh!, thanks for the updated how-to :) 05 May 14:03
--- ChanServ (ChanServ@services.) changed mode: +v mdomsch 05 May 14:03
* stickster notes that poelcat is not available today to dole out agenda items, so stickster will do the honors 05 May 14:03
stickster quaid: no problem :-) 05 May 14:03
stickster We just recently updated. 05 May 14:04
stickster OK, let's do a roll call. 05 May 14:04
* stickster here 05 May 14:04
spot 05 May 14:04
* spot burps 05 May 14:04
notting 05 May 14:04
* notting is here 05 May 14:04
mdomsch 05 May 14:04
* mdomsch here 05 May 14:04
f13 05 May 14:04
* f13 none 05 May 14:04
skvidal 05 May 14:04
* skvidal is here 05 May 14:04
caillon 05 May 14:04
* caillon none 05 May 14:04
h\h 05 May 14:05
* h\h . 05 May 14:05
glezos 05 May 14:05
* glezos here 05 May 14:05
stickster I think ctyler is here as well 05 May 14:05
ctyler 05 May 14:05
* ctyler here 05 May 14:05
stickster See? :-) 05 May 14:05
stickster OK, we have two current items to discuss today. The first is embargoed nations and Fedora. 05 May 14:06
stickster https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2009-May/msg00001.html 05 May 14:06
stickster The freemedia discussion in question is on a private list because the freemedia-list has a need to protect the email addresses of people requesting media who aren't Fedora Project members 05 May 14:07
stickster But the gist of the list discussion is that a request for free media was made from a citizen of a country that is on the list of US export-controlled nations. 05 May 14:07
stickster spot: help me out here if I stumble. 05 May 14:07
spot stickster: mmmkay. 05 May 14:07
stickster The gist of export controls is several-fold, but one of the important considerations here is that Fedora contains strong cryptographic code, which is regulated by US law as a munitions item. 05 May 14:08
stickster Any time we release Fedora, Red Hat Legal files an application for export to uncontrolled nations because of that code. 05 May 14:09
spot (although, it is worth noting that a crypto-free Fedora, if it were created, would probably still not be exportable to these T6 nations) 05 May 14:09
stickster spot: Thanks 05 May 14:09
spot (T6 Nations: Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Sudan, Syria) 05 May 14:10
stickster It is *strictly forbidden* under US law for any US entity to transfer or aid in the transference of these materials to a T6 nation. 05 May 14:10
ctyler 05 May 14:11
* ctyler believes that the munition classification no longer applies, but the embargo conditions still apply under the new classification 05 May 14:11
notting stickster: so, the question: does 'hosting the ticket tracker' count as 'aid in the transference'? 05 May 14:11
spot notting: even if it didn't, anything officially linked with the use of the Fedora trademark does. 05 May 14:11
notting spot: so, there really doesn't appear to be any discussion - as irritating as it may be, we just have to simply say 'no' in the freemedia ticketing/e-mail system? 05 May 14:12
spot notting: yep. 05 May 14:12
spot it is worth noting that we are really unhappy with that fact, but it is still a fact we have to live with. 05 May 14:12
* stickster thinks there is a need for a greater movement on the part of FOSS projects in the US to put export control reform on the table in Congress. 05 May 14:14
* stickster wondering if any other Board members have an opinion to offer. 05 May 14:14
skvidal all of my opinions are unprintable 05 May 14:15
caillon all of my opinions don't matter if our hand is forced 05 May 14:15
h\h no point of having an opinion, if we can't make a change 05 May 14:16
stickster OK, the consensus of the Board seems to be that we hate the export laws, but we are unfortunately bound by them. 05 May 14:16
glezos same here more or less.. 05 May 14:16
stickster OK, moving on then? 05 May 14:17
ctyler 05 May 14:17
* ctyler wonders if there are any efforts underway to change this, which Fedora can join/support? 05 May 14:17
stickster ctyler: We should certainly look for them. 05 May 14:17
quaid stickster: there may be questions from the other channel on this topic 05 May 14:17
glezos and if there isn't, whether we need to investigating in finding them. 05 May 14:17
quaid save them for the general discussion section? or have them now? 05 May 14:17
caillon write to your congresspersons 05 May 14:18
stickster quaid: Let's take those after we handle the Board-specific discussions 05 May 14:18
notting theoretically, RH can try and address this with the same groups they use speaking for patent reform. i'm not sure if it's on their radar now 05 May 14:18
skvidal quaid: are they heisenberg-questions? Do we have to collapse the wave-form to determine if they exist? 05 May 14:18
f13 I'd say lets save them, so that we can get through teh agenda. 05 May 14:18
quaid roger 05 May 14:18
stickster The second item on our agenda, on a less legal but equally controversial note, concerns PPC in Fedora. skvidal, take it away 05 May 14:18
skvidal woo hoo 05 May 14:18
skvidal can someone give voice to jeremy? 05 May 14:19
caillon 05 May 14:19
* caillon covers his ears 05 May 14:19
skvidal who has voice-y powers? 05 May 14:19
--- ChanServ (ChanServ@services.) changed mode: +o stickster 05 May 14:19
--- stickster (n=thereaso@fedora/stickster) changed mode: +v jeremy 05 May 14:19
--- ChanServ (ChanServ@services.) changed mode: +o quaid 05 May 14:19
quaid thx 05 May 14:19
--- ChanServ (ChanServ@services.) changed mode: +v jeremy 05 May 14:19
skvidal jeremy has suggested that we demote ppc to a secondary arch 05 May 14:19
skvidal and he is theoretically here - but the gist of it is simple 05 May 14:20
jeremy so as everyone probably saw in my blog post the end of last week -- when do we finally make the cut for ppc to be a secondary arch 05 May 14:20
skvidal there he is 05 May 14:20
jeremy 1) the board had decided 2 years ago to wait until another secondary arch was up and running. but it's been two years; I don't think we expected an indefinite stay ;) 05 May 14:20
jeremy 2) ppc is regularly not ready for interim milestones and not pushed out 05 May 14:20
skvidal mdomsch: would you care to explain your recommendation from the mailing list? 05 May 14:20
mdomsch sure 05 May 14:20
mdomsch first, let me say, I believe the secondary arch process has come a long long way in the past 2 years 05 May 14:21
f13 05 May 14:21
* f13 wonders if dgilmore is available 05 May 14:21
mdomsch with 3 others 05 May 14:21
jeremy mdomsch: indeed... never been closer :) 05 May 14:21
skvidal f13: he's in oz 05 May 14:21
mdomsch (arm, ia64, sparc) proving that it works 05 May 14:21
spot The biggest hurdle for secondary arches has been the lack of the koji notification infrastructure (how the primary builders can tell the secondary builders to kick off a build once it is successful there) 05 May 14:21
mdomsch spot, is there a plan to address this? 05 May 14:22
spot Last week, I asked Red Hat Rel Eng whether they would be able to commit any resources to resolving that issue 05 May 14:22
skvidal the question to my mind is not whether or not the 2ndary arch infrastructure is good or bad 05 May 14:22
spot and I got a guarded maybe, so I'm working on drafting a more complete plan 05 May 14:22
f13 05 May 14:22
* f13 thought dgilmore was tasked with that. 05 May 14:22
skvidal it is whether or not we should be keeping ppc up as a primary arch 05 May 14:22
skvidal and whether the board should continue "protecting" ppc as we have been 05 May 14:23
mdomsch I also think, that having a pretty-darn-close-to-primary arch in the secondary arch list would continue to further the development of secondary arch infrastructure 05 May 14:23
f13 lets let mdomsch finish his thoughts. 05 May 14:23
spot the original arrangement was that once there were self-sustaining successful secondary arches, we would reconsider ppc. 05 May 14:23
stickster f13: +1 05 May 14:23
mdomsch so, let me propose we take this in 2 steps 05 May 14:23
mdomsch 05 May 14:24
* mdomsch digs out the wording, one sec 05 May 14:24
mdomsch Resolved that the Board removes the restriction preventing PPC from 05 May 14:25
mdomsch being made a secondary architecture. 05 May 14:25
mdomsch would be the first step. The Board has decreed that PPC can't be made into a secondary arch. 05 May 14:25
mdomsch This first vote would remove this restriction 05 May 14:25
mdomsch 05 May 14:25
mdomsch assuming an affermative vote 05 May 14:25
mdomsch then step 2 05 May 14:25
mdomsch Resolved that the Board asks FESCo to revisit the status of PPC for 05 May 14:26
mdomsch Fedora 12 and future. 05 May 14:26
mdomsch as fundamentally, it's not the Board's role to determine, but FESCo's 05 May 14:26
mdomsch Honestly, if FESCo, understanding the feature process and the resource 05 May 14:26
mdomsch requirements necessary to keep PPC as a primary arch, still decides to 05 May 14:26
mdomsch do so, I think that's within their purvue. 05 May 14:26
stickster mdomsch: I think that's the right way to make sure we are preserving FESCo and the community's say in this, thank you. 05 May 14:27
jeremy mdomsch: fwiw, that matches exactly with what I'd expect 05 May 14:27
jeremy ( / was rabble-rousing for ;) 05 May 14:27
stickster Essentially, we're clearing a roadblock we set up ~2 years ago and saying, "Whether you want to take this road is up to you." 05 May 14:27
stickster (addressed to FESCo as community-elected body) 05 May 14:27
f13 this works for me, I'm ready to make the vote. 05 May 14:28
glezos ..it also matches my own limits of detailed understanding. 05 May 14:28
mdomsch I see PPC as being a "best in class" secondary arch 05 May 14:28
mdomsch (not that I'm on FESCo to vote...) 05 May 14:28
mdomsch with many benefits it brings to Fedora as a whole 05 May 14:28
mdomsch and can bring even more benefit to the "status" of secondary arches - raising their status, visibility, and role 05 May 14:29
caillon +1 to both of mdoschs proposals, and I encourage jeremy to suade FESCo 05 May 14:29
mdomsch and encouraging those communities 05 May 14:29
stickster And as spot said, we can reiterate that various Fedora people are trying to bring resources to the table that will make this a less agonizing choice. 05 May 14:29
mdomsch s/communities/aspects of our community/ 05 May 14:29
stickster Let's take a vote on the first part then -- that the Board removes the restriction preventing PPC from being made a secondar arcy 05 May 14:30
stickster *arch 05 May 14:30
f13 +1 to removing the roadblock. 05 May 14:30
skvidal +1 05 May 14:30
glezos +1 05 May 14:30
mdomsch +1 05 May 14:30
notting +1 05 May 14:30
spot I have to vote -1. i do not feel that the original conditions for unblocking ppc have been met. we have no successful secondary arch. arm is a half cocked dir of packages built outside of koji, ia64 is non-existent, and sparc has not managed a release. 05 May 14:30
h\h +1 05 May 14:30
glezos 05 May 14:31
* glezos notes to remember asking 'any other opinions before starting to vote?'.. 05 May 14:31
mdomsch spot, would that improve if ppc were in there? 05 May 14:31
caillon +1 to reconfirm 05 May 14:31
mdomsch or would that make matters any worse? 05 May 14:31
spot mdomsch: no. i strongly think that ppc will collapse entirely without the missing infrastructure work. 05 May 14:31
stickster spot: Isn't that the issue that FESCo will decide according to how mdomsch just laid out the issues? 05 May 14:32
spot stickster: yes, but we set the original terms for ppc as a secondary 05 May 14:32
spot and now we're saying that we don't have to live up to them 05 May 14:32
glezos spot: what is the missing infrastructure work needing more? Maybe we could send a message to the community in case someone in this last minute would like to take up the leadership and coordinate the delivery of the bits needed. 05 May 14:33
f13 We did, with a reasonable expectation of within a year having a working secondary arch system 05 May 14:33
f13 we're now 4 releases later, and still waiting. 05 May 14:33
jeremy spot: when we set those terms, we thought it was 6-12 months out 05 May 14:33
spot f13: that wasn't part of the original terms though. we didn't set a date. 05 May 14:33
skvidal spot: so we keep it FOREVER? 05 May 14:33
spot i would feel much more comfortable setting a date for that now instead 05 May 14:33
caillon but it was part of the decision making process 05 May 14:33
spot saying "if it doesn't show up in 6-12 months, we lift the hold" 05 May 14:33
caillon the goal is for it to become a secondary arch at some point. 05 May 14:33
f13 spot: you're right, we didn't, we didn't think it was necessary based on input at the time. 05 May 14:33
f13 things changed (or rather haven't changed) and now we're looking at the issue once more. 05 May 14:34
spot f13: so, lets set a reasonable time limit now. 05 May 14:34
f13 and all the board is doing is removing the roadblock, we're not setting the PPC fate. 05 May 14:34
spot rather than just saying "surprise! no more primary for you!" 05 May 14:34
f13 I strongly feel that we should leave this decision up to FESCo 05 May 14:34
spot oh, you know we are. 05 May 14:34
skvidal spot: and I'm happy with that, actually 05 May 14:35
f13 no, there are very strong ppc supporters on FESCo 05 May 14:35
skvidal I'm completely fine with a giant bullet going through the head of ppc 05 May 14:35
skvidal but we're not pulling the trigger 05 May 14:35
skvidal we're letting fesco decide to pull the trigger 05 May 14:35
skvidal we just took the safety off 05 May 14:35
glezos heh 05 May 14:35
spot I think we are not acting in a responsible manner, nor are we creating any incentive to complete this work 05 May 14:35
skvidal could that be b/c no one actually wants to do the work at all? 05 May 14:35
f13 what incentive is there now? 05 May 14:35
spot we're setting ppc up to fail. 05 May 14:35
stickster spot: What incentive do we create with a further delay? 05 May 14:35
stickster spot: Do you have an incentive in mind? 05 May 14:36
spot stickster: well, for one, it puts pressure on Red Hat Rel Eng 05 May 14:36
f13 are we dragging all our contributors along just so that there is enough frustration with ppc that secondary arch work gets done? 05 May 14:36
glezos a deadline is an incentive. 05 May 14:36
spot who says they want to do this work anyways 05 May 14:36
jeremy spot: if they don't want to do the work, then who's going to do the work to keep it going *even if the infrastructure existed today* ? 05 May 14:36
f13 05 May 14:36
* f13 thinks taking away the safety net would give /more/ incentive to get things done sooner 05 May 14:36
spot if they don't want to do the work in the time period, they have no excuse. 05 May 14:37
f13 rather than having the "eh, if we don't get it done, ppc isn't going anywhere" fallback. 05 May 14:37
spot Red Hat has RHEL interests in PPC 05 May 14:37
spot i think the time limit will give them the kick in the butt to get us what we need 05 May 14:37
f13 then have FESCo give them a time limit 05 May 14:37
spot they do not have RHEL interests in the other arch 05 May 14:37
ctyler spot: if we say the F12 timeframe, as mdomsch has proposed, that's not really different from saying now+6 months 05 May 14:37
f13 excuse me? 05 May 14:37
caillon spot, they also have RHEL interests in arches that don't really have anything resembling a secondary arch process right now 05 May 14:37
f13 spot: we still ship RHEL for s390 05 May 14:38
caillon for example, s390 05 May 14:38
f13 and ia64 05 May 14:38
spot none of the others listed as a success. 05 May 14:38
spot ia64 is a massive failure as a secondary 05 May 14:38
skvidal jwb would like voice 05 May 14:38
quaid stickster: would you like me to add jwb to the discussion at this point? as last agenda item, he is also queued up to discuss PPC. 05 May 14:38
glezos quaid: I'd like to hear jwb's opinion. 05 May 14:39
skvidal 05 May 14:39
* skvidal would too 05 May 14:39
* stickster too. 05 May 14:39
caillon 05 May 14:39
* caillon too 05 May 14:39
ctyler 05 May 14:39
* ctyler too. 05 May 14:39
--- quaid (n=quaid@fedora/quaid) changed mode: +v jwb 05 May 14:39
jwb hello 05 May 14:40
glezos jwb: we're all ears. :P 05 May 14:40
jwb before offering my personal opinion, i'd like to ask a question of the board 05 May 14:40
jwb the fedora project currently has a number of ppc builders in place, and accounts for storage for the builds, etc 05 May 14:41
jwb since the Board is the interface to RH funds and resources, i am wondering if that existing infrastructure would still be available for use _should_ FESCo decide to demote PPC 05 May 14:41
spot technically, the answer would be no, without some sort of exception. 05 May 14:42
f13 Important note here, Fedora Infrastructure at one time promised that this would be allowed. 05 May 14:42
spot we have turned down s390 equipment from RH. 05 May 14:42
f13 I think a slight tweaking would be in order here. 05 May 14:42
jwb promised would be a strong word, but i have had emails with Infrastructure on it 05 May 14:42
skvidal spot: s390 equipment was 40u wasn't it? 05 May 14:42
f13 We have PPC resources that would no longer be of primary use to Fedora, we should find some way to get those into the hands of a willing host, such as Red Hat IS 05 May 14:42
spot skvidal: no, it was a 1U x86 server to act as a koji hub 05 May 14:43
f13 this gets a bit... icky because the resources are blades in a blade center 05 May 14:43
skvidal spot: ah, sorry, I am evidently thinking of something else 05 May 14:43
jwb f13, correct 05 May 14:43
f13 but my opinion is that we should make ever effort to get those resources usable by the ppc secondary arch effort, without compromising our position on assisting secondary arches 05 May 14:43
jwb i ask this for two reasons 05 May 14:44
notting f13: 'we are not taking new hardware, but you can use what we already have'? 05 May 14:44
f13 I'll also note that the Board can only speak for Fedora Infrastructure, and not Red Hat infrastructure as a whole. Red Hat can and will do whatever it feels necessary, outside of what Fedora supports. 05 May 14:44
glezos f13: we better, otherwise the secondary arch effort will be in clear need of donated hardware to work as it should, right? 05 May 14:44
f13 glezos: that's already the situation it is in. 05 May 14:44
f13 notting: perhaps, but that really depends on how the Fedora infra team feels about it 05 May 14:45
skvidal notting: well, that's not ridiculous 05 May 14:45
f13 PPC is unique in this situation as it was a primary arch 05 May 14:45
caillon 05 May 14:45
* caillon thinks we should let jwb finish 05 May 14:45
jwb i can wait 05 May 14:45
jwb the discussion so far is fruitful 05 May 14:45
* stickster notes the time is :46 past the hour. 05 May 14:46
jwb ok, so reason #1) 05 May 14:46
stickster I have a hard stop at the hour, and we would like to leave time for Q&A. 05 May 14:46
stickster jwb: Go ahead, thanks. 05 May 14:46
jwb there has been no planning from a community perspective for getting machine resources in place 05 May 14:47
jwb which means by F12, ppc would almost assuredly be dead due to a simple lack of machines without some kind of large donation 05 May 14:47
jwb that echos spot's concerns to a degree 05 May 14:47
skvidal so if we're going to add an item to decide on 05 May 14:48
skvidal I'd be in favor of allowing the ppc build to continue to use existing hardware as long as it is available/functional 05 May 14:48
skvidal so the items would be: 1. take the ppc protection away 05 May 14:49
jwb reason #2 for asking is that i believe there is another route that can be taken at a technical level, which is to disable ppc as a primary in koji and let it transition to a full secondary on a slightly larger timescale. allowing for time to drum up more community support, etc 05 May 14:49
jwb 05 May 14:49
* jwb listens now 05 May 14:49
f13 jwb: do you feel that FESCo would be unable to take those concerns into consideration? 05 May 14:49
f13 and would you rather have the protection at the board level for these items? 05 May 14:50
jwb f13, no, i do not. but i do believe that the machine resource question would be asked anyway 05 May 14:50
spot i still think that without the board either mandating or strongly recommending a timetable for a change like this, we're setting PPC up to fail. 05 May 14:50
jwb f13, and that goes back to the board 05 May 14:50
jeremy so, how would these arguments be different if sparc or ia64 were a successful secondary arch today? 05 May 14:50
f13 spot: I have more faith in FESCo 05 May 14:50
notting jeremy: if they were a secondary arch today, ppc would already likely have been made secondary, per the prior arrangement 05 May 14:50
spot notting: indeed. 05 May 14:51
jeremy notting: and how would things like the hardware, etc be solved? it'd be the exact same discussion 05 May 14:51
mdomsch aside from "ppc could fail", what about the thought that ppc could help _raise_ the capability of secondary archs? 05 May 14:51
mdomsch it's been there 05 May 14:51
f13 mdomsch: I think it'll help raise awareness. 05 May 14:51
jeremy mdomsch: I've been saying that for years -- it was the reason I wanted to have ppc as a secondary arch two years ago ;-) 05 May 14:52
spot 05 May 14:52
* spot has said all he has to say on this topic. any more spinning and we'll be out of time. 05 May 14:52
f13 so we already passed lifting the road block. 05 May 14:52
mdomsch ppc brings benefit to x86 too, no question. 05 May 14:52
skvidal does anyone wish to change their vote? 05 May 14:52
f13 do we have to vote to ask fesco to look at this, or is it pretty much assumed that this will land on a FESCo topic? 05 May 14:52
spot nope. 05 May 14:52
notting unless someone wants to bring an amended version with a timetable up for vote? 05 May 14:52
glezos mdomsch: if it is communicated effectively, then it could work. If the topic isn't publicly talked about and pursuited, it might not work. 05 May 14:52
ctyler spot: What kind of timetable did you have in mind? I hear '6 months' but that sounds like 'F12' on the face of it -- or is that 6 months to get ready, then transition for F13? 05 May 14:53
spot ctyler: 6 months for the infrastructure to be in place and live. 05 May 14:53
stickster f13: ...which doesn't mean we couldn't restore some deadline in another vote. Yay, flip flop! 05 May 14:53
notting f13: honestly, i don't think it's our place to tell fesco to look at it. if someone wants to bring it to fesco, sure 05 May 14:53
spot if it is not, then we lift the hold on PPC. 05 May 14:53
skvidal notting: why not? we're people in the fedora community, too 05 May 14:53
skvidal notting: alternatively, then jeremy will bring it to them, I'm sure 05 May 14:54
ctyler 05 May 14:54
* ctyler adds his +1 to lifting hold 05 May 14:54
f13 05 May 14:54
* f13 thinks we should get to more public Q&A 05 May 14:54
f13 we're terribly over time, and I have a hard stop at the hour too 05 May 14:54
notting skvidal: as people, sure. as a 'board decrees you should', it seems out of place 05 May 14:54
glezos f13: FAB? 05 May 14:54
stickster spot: Do you want to make a motion for restoring a hold on PPC with a 6-month deadline? 05 May 14:54
spot stickster: yes. 05 May 14:54
spot 6 months from today, if the missing koji notification build infrastructure is not in place and live, we lift the hold on PPC. 05 May 14:55
skvidal so right before f12 comes out we drop ppc 05 May 14:55
f13 -1, I'd rather FESCo handles the timelines. 05 May 14:55
caillon 05 May 14:55
* caillon notes that lifting the hold does not mean that PPC is demoted in status automatically 05 May 14:55
stickster caillon: You're correct. 05 May 14:55
skvidal (and let's be clare I suspect that it won't be ready and we will still drop ppc) 05 May 14:55
skvidal s/clare/clear/ 05 May 14:55
skvidal 05 May 14:55
* skvidal doesn't want to be clare 05 May 14:55
quaid 05 May 14:56
* quaid notes the only person in the Q&A queue has removed himself 05 May 14:56
jwb drop is such a strong word :) 05 May 14:56
skvidal jwb: demote? 05 May 14:56
spot fwiw, I'm +1 for my motion 05 May 14:56
jwb skvidal, demote is more accurate i think 05 May 14:56
spot (shocking, I know) 05 May 14:56
stickster OK guys, please -- a motion's on the table, can we please vote? 05 May 14:57
notting 05 May 14:57
* notting is +1 to spot's motion 05 May 14:57
stickster I show one -1, two +1 so far 05 May 14:57
glezos 05 May 14:57
* glezos is +1 too. 05 May 14:57
skvidal -1 I think punting it back to fesco is the best bet 05 May 14:57
caillon -1, I agree with f13 05 May 14:57
mdomsch -1 - FESCo can handle the tradeoff, timelines, etc. 05 May 14:57
ctyler 05 May 14:57
* ctyler is -1, let fesco determine timing 05 May 14:57
h\h -1 05 May 14:57
stickster That's everyone, six -1 and three +1 by my count. 05 May 14:58
glezos My reasoning is that I'm more inclined to make a careful and step-by-step choice with a safety net. 05 May 14:58
jwb stickster, i would like the board to look into the existing builder question in the meantime if possible please 05 May 14:59
stickster OK, so to make this clear, we have passed lifting the hold on PPC as a primary arch, and we have not passed restoring a hold for a 6-month time period. 05 May 14:59
h\h I want a real discussion going on.. if it is protected nothing might happen 05 May 14:59
stickster h\h: I agree, jwb -- let's bring this to FAB and resolve there. 05 May 14:59
stickster I'm sorry this has dragged us out to the hour mark 05 May 14:59
quaid stickster: there is no more queue for Q&A; you can call the close 05 May 14:59
stickster *sigh 05 May 14:59
notting quaid: there was a queue, and they backed out? 05 May 15:00
stickster Well, the FAB still remains the place where anyone can bring up a question at *any* time for Board and community discussion. 05 May 15:00
quaid notting: yes, he has to go at the hour, as do many of you 05 May 15:00
caillon I also think that us setting the timeline isn't really that helpful if all we do is just lift the hold in 6 months. maybe 6 months from now, FESCo will vote to keep it around for longer. I think having FESCo set the timeline would provide more urgency than for the Board to set a timeline on possibly maybe having PPC be demoted 05 May 15:00
stickster http://redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board 05 May 15:00
* stickster has to leave at the top of the hour, which is... now. 05 May 15:00
stickster I'll remain logging and publish the notes, etc. 05 May 15:00
quaid ok, without a queue and without a chair 05 May 15:00
mdomsch thank you all 05 May 15:00
stickster Thank you everyone for attending, community and Board alike. 05 May 15:01
spot 05 May 15:01
* spot sighs 05 May 15:01
f13 thanks all, sorry for the long meeting. 05 May 15:01
stickster The next meeting is scheduled for 2009-06-02, UTC 1800. 05 May 15:01
ctyler thanks everyone 05 May 15:01
jwb jeremy, i look to you to send the first email 05 May 15:01
stickster s/meeting/public IRC Board meeting/ 05 May 15:01
--- quaid (n=quaid@fedora/quaid) changed topic: Next public Fedora Project Board meeting: 2009-06-02 UTC 1800 -- Questions and public discussions on #fedora-board-questions 05 May 15:10

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.6 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!