Meeting:Board meeting 2009-10-22

From FedoraProject

Revision as of 03:48, 24 October 2009 by Pfrields (Talk | contribs)

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

Contents

Roll Call

  • Present: Christopher Aillon, Bill Nottingham, Dimitris Glezos, Mike McGrath, Dennis Gilmore, Matt Domsch, Paul Frields
  • Regrets: Josh Boyer, John Poelstra, Tom 'spot' Callaway

Last meeting

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Meeting:Board_meeting_2009-10-01

Proposed Agenda

Trademark license agreement update

  • Current status
    • Pam Chestek did collaborative editing on the wiki with input from FAB
    • Final version has been created
    • Multiple recipients in queue to receive it
    • Door is open for new signers in the future
    • We will also offer to current holders so that they have the option of switching to the new agreement

Commercial non-software goods license

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Meeting:Board_meeting_2009-09-10#t10_Sep_13:25

  • Current status report via Paul
    • No time in Comm-Arch team schedule for a Finance meeting
    • Paul re-tickled Max, we will set up a meeting to find out whether we can set up a receiving fund for Fedora

Target audience for distribution

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pfrields/FAB_roundup

  • Paul: The context is "Where do we want to be"
  • Need to have more definitive list of the things we expect the target audience to be able to do with the Fedora distribution
    • Installation/upgrade
    • Specific core tasks (reboot, connect to Internet, system update, browse, IM/IRC)
  • and what the functional tolerance is -- meaning what is acceptable performance for each of these
    • Time might be one criterion, errors/fallback might be another
    • This helps us make better release criteria, determine blockers, etc.
  • mmcgrath: Some people think Fedora is for everyone, some don't.
  • Chris - The conversation may actually not be about who Fedora is for, but rather people just being unhappy with the updates.
  • General agreement that releases are not known for quality, updates after a release get even worse.
  • Paul: Probably ad-hoc decisions about updates, blockers, prioritization
    • Example - we provide help via IRC but a default install didn't include a IRC client
    • Jesse posted his idea for an unfrozen rawhide and better-managed current release target repo
      • Board agrees: GO FORTH AND DO.
    • Paul: We should set the audience before setting the process
    • caillon: but if we don't fix the process, our target will suffer no matter who they are
      • Paul agrees, you can't do one and not the other
    • Paul: Our vision should be: "to better fit the needs of *this* audience"
      • People voluntarily switching to Linux, not really "my aunt Tessie"
      • People who are not necessarily hackers, but are familiar with computers
      • People who are likely to fix something that is not working (or at least collaborate or report when it's not working)
      • List of tasks one can do?
        • web browsing, email, office productivity, graphic arts, publishing, audio listeners, web serving, collaboration & communication, software developers
    • There may be network benefits of this approach - by targeting these, we may be more usable for other cases, even if they're not our goal.
    • dimitris: Perceived lack is around polish. We may not be missing broad targets horribly, but there's a lot of fine tuning that needs to be done better.
    • mmcgrath: A big thing we're missing is self-control with updates.
    • mdomsch: (channeling skvidal) You as a Fedora packager essentially have root access on millions of systems. Treat them with appropriate care
    • mmcgrath: have FESCo and/or QA come up with a mandated policy around stable release updates.
    • caillon: also need to make sure that people follow those policies; see also https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2009-October/msg00100.html
  • Decision item needed.
    • What is our target audience? (see above)
    • The Board will now pursue goals for process changes that make quality higher for that target
  • mdomsch: Board focus on quality instead of quantity of packages
    • mmcgrath: how can we measure quality?
      • How many update breakages?
      • How many updates overall? (This is more symptomatic than root-cause related)
    • This is an area where we can learn from others.
    • critical path packages need push approval for stable releases. Perhaps we don't have the resources in place to do all packages.
    • dimitris: If we increase visibility when a breakage happens, it's less likely people will be careless. Are we giving enough visibility to breakage, or do we just fix it quietly?
      • Sheriffs will help in this visibility.
    • mmcgrath: How do we prevent "Daddy says no, I'll ask Mommy"
      • caillon: With sherrifs, this has not been a big problem. All nos get logged, so that should be referenced before saying yes.
  • ACTION: Paul will follow note publishing with a summary to FAB of the agreed points:
    • Target audience statement from above, which represents broadest consensus, to be further specified collaboratively
    • Board will set update discipline goals and look to FESCo to help design/implement
    • Board concurs with Jesse Keating's expanded explanation of the "Unfozen Rawhide" proposal and will work to make it happen fully in the F13 cycle.

New Business

Elections

  • mdomsch looking for someone who might like to take up Fedora election coordination work
    • Which groups are up? Board 1/2, FESCo 1/2, Ambassadors (all?), F-13 name... who else?
    • What events need to be held?
    • When will they be held?
      • start elections after FUDCon, which closes Dec. 7
      • use FUDCon for an additional in-person town hall meeting
  • ACTION: MDomsch will kick this off on FAB, and look for existing and new volunteers to drive it

Next meeting

  • AGREED: 2009-10-29 UTC 1600