[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:04:17] ok, we're gonna get started [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:05:17] Join couf has joined this channel (n=bart@fedora/couf). [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:06:41] mspevack: calling [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:06:58] topic 1 -- art. Leadership needs to be defined [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:07:06] clearly the two largest leaders have been Maureen Duffy and Diana Fong [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:07:37] there was a conversation last week with Diana in which she offered to put together some policy and structure around the use of people who are doing mockups, ideas, etc. of the Fedora Mark. [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:08:09] mspevack, I recall Maureen did quite a bit of work related to that in the past. was she in the discussion? [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:08:42] What the Board wants to do is identify one person who can be the clear leader of the art project. Max will talk with Maureen and Diana both, make sure they are on the same page, see who wants to do what, etc. [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:08:56] also [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:09:11] make sure that the Fedora art project meets the requirements that we have outlined on the wiki to "BE A PROJECT" [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:09:22] Note: Mairin is very active and concerned about the proper way of doing things. FYI, he's also a lot into the GNOME website redesign. [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:09:32] glezos: she [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:09:37] sorry. [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:10:23] We're going to make sure that Maureen and Diana are both on board -- but it's time to make one person the "leader" but that doesn't mean that only one person is capable of leading. [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:10:46] So this action item is on Max, with a goal to follow up with Diana and Maureen [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:12:07] glezos, (Maureen and Mairin are different spellings of the same name, in case it isn't clear.) [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:13:48] moving on [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:13:53] Fedora Summit [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:14:10] FESCO meeting was last week [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:14:15] Rex -- it was surprisingly smooth [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:14:26] Rex -- biggest concern was "oh man, now we have a bigger job to do." [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:14:35] more policy, more decisions, etc. [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:15:24] Max -- what does FESCO need to become? Do we need to add folks? 2 or 3 red hat folks? [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:15:33] FESCo is excited about it, and wants to know target dates for things to happen and more of what board wants FESCo's role to be. I told FESCo that we are waiting on RH internal decisions, but meanwhile there are many things FESCo can work on to prepare. [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:15:42] JesseKeating would probably be a good person to add, or someone blessed by Jesse [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:16:05] * f13 looks [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:16:15] During the FESCo, we proposed a hybrid Red Hat assigned and community voted membership model for future of FESCo. I can elaborate on this if the board wishes it. [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:16:29] Quit chabotc has left this server ("Leaving"). [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:16:35] warren: go ahead... elaborate away... [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:16:53] greg -- the success of the FESCO model is what has gotten us to where we are today [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:17:20] greg -- at a high level it seems like f13 for sure needs to be on there [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:17:29] jesse is going to be building the tools that we are using in the new world of fedora [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:17:39] rahul -- eventually we'll need a new name [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:17:52] we'll talk about that near the end [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:17:56] FESCo remains a majority of community voted slots (details of that can be figured out later). However there are a small number of Red Hat assigned seats from major RH engineering departments. This is because 1) RH seats cannot be voted out of their own job. 2) It is important for each major RH engineering department to have someone accountable for community outreach and communication. [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:18:11] Yes, definitely Jesse needs to be on FESCo. [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:18:32] warren: I question whether or not we need to be on FESCo itself, or a subcommitee that ansers to FESCo [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:18:44] f13, that is a possibility yes. [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:18:56] because, frankly, I don't care about the governance of getting new users into the community and some of those deals. I care about making product releases [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:19:02] greg -- fesco is the first place where we institutionalized real power for the community, and that is what has been successful [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:19:07] f13: nod [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:19:08] Anyhow this hybrid membership proposal is only a strawman, we can debate this in detail later. [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:19:21] so personally I envision a subcomittee that would be like the release cabal, they just answer to FESCo or whatever. [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:20:09] I like the hybrid model, because it makes it very clear that RH engineering has contacts who are accountable to maintaining communication. If we can find a better way to achieve that goal, then I would be willing to discuss that. [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:20:34] Each RH engineering department *MUST* not be insulated away from community. [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:20:59] warren: I agree. I just think that trying to shove it all in FESCo might make FESCo itself unweildy and unable to accomplish anything. [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:21:07] JEREMY -- will take the action of pulling Jesse into the FESCO'ish fold, shielding Jesse from what he doesn't need to deal with, and making sure communication is flowing. [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:21:11] compartmentalizing responsibility is a good thing. [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:21:30] f13, I disagree that it would be a bad thing, but anyway we can figure out our options later. [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:21:34] Max -- what else from last week do we need to discuss? [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:21:48] Rahul -- when do these proposals from last week become policy? [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:21:54] Jeremy -- it depends on the different pieces [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:22:05] Matt -- combination of core/extras is the biggest thing for Fedora 7 development [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:22:21] Jeremy -- I have already started having discussions with folks in RH engineering management. continuing that after this meeting [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:22:32] Jeremy -- the build system conversations are going to be difficult, but we knew that up front [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:25:42] *conversation now about different scenarios -- different possible courses of action, depending on how much buy-in we can get* [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:28:59] greg -- the open sourcing of better build tools is INEVITABLE whether we choose to open our own tools or not. So the work is *going* to happen eventually. Red Hat needs to help make it happen, rather than force re-implementation of the wheel [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:29:06] jeremy -- +1 [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:30:17] Board (therefore Max) is ultimately responsible for driving all this crap [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:30:25] Jeremy/DaveZ talked about liveCD stuff on Friday [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:30:42] mail forthcoming -- not much more of a summary than that, other than "positive developments" [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:30:59] and all of it will happen on the liveCD list [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:32:21] greg is now officially a member of the fedora board [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:32:27] unanimously [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:32:37] * BobJensen claps [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:32:41] yay! [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:32:46] hooray! [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:32:51] Matt -- I really like the release process idea of extending the lifecycle of core to 13 months [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:34:48] greg -- 13 months is a reasonable commitment -- but not sure we can commit to more than that. If we get to a point where maybe we can, it can always be revisited. [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:35:28] greg -- Legacy saw its best days in the RHL timeframe. For folks who need significantly more timeframe than Fedora is prepared to do, CentOS continues to be compelling [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:36:37] matt at BU was really the only one who needs something between CentOS and Fedora, but understands we can't just accomodate him [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:36:43] he's largely happy with the plan [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:36:51] rahul -- so there's lots of details still to be figured out. what's the timeframe? [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:36:52] EPEL (Enterprise Extras) adds a great deal of usability for folks who choose to use CentOS or RHEL. [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:37:00] max/jeremy -- trying to get as much done by the end of the year as possible [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:38:32] Fedora 7 will be a success if we have two things [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:38:43] 1) the "core/extras" merge complete, and all the work around that [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:38:58] 2) out of those tools, the ability to have custom liveCDs [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:39:21] BRANDING [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:40:08] greg and max talked with chris grams about some ideas of what we can call "Fedora Universe" [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:40:56] Fedora * was one brainstorming idea, but it's getting a bit pooh-poohed. Ultimately, this is a branding opportunity that needs to continue. We've been saying Fedora Universe a lot as a "code name" but we really can't call it that. [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:41:13] max -- so, who will own all this? [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:41:15] greg is the owner [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:42:08] Feodra Pangaea [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:42:54] Join ahalsey has joined this channel (i=ahalsey@dhcp113094.qlc.hawaii.edu). [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:44:35] still need an RPM announcement [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:44:46] max will ping bill [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:44:56] since we want to put that action item to bed [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:45:02] rahul -- are there any issues with MONO? [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:45:28] greg -- we've had no word from legal on any problems with Mono. Unless we hear that, then there's no reason to pull it out of the distribution. [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:45:57] Mono seems to be a big question from community, even if it turns out that due to OIN nothing changes from our stance, we must make an official statement. [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:46:36] warren: that's right. Nothing changes. But what we've not seen is a statement from OIN itself!!! [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:46:40] matt -- that is what we need to see [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:47:06] mspevack: I think Paul nasrat is the holdup on the RPM announcement. [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:47:07] mspevack, good point. [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:47:48] mspevack: We also should get something from upstream Gnome and if they have made any decisions about mono being part of core Gnome apps [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:49:42] f13, +1 [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:50:00] *various Mono discussion* [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:50:24] seth -- we can get a list of everything that depends on mono [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:50:55] we already somewhat have that for Core [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:51:13] seth -- muses on the depth of mono dependencies within the distro [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:51:19] jeremy -- it's more complicated than you think! [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:52:19] greg -- use the GPL of java to work toward community-driven replacements of mono applications? [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:53:03] mspevack: will take too much time [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:53:09] GPL java and community replacement is still highly theoretical at this point. [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:53:13] seth -- the deper mono integrates with gnome, the more complicated it will get to extract it *if* there was ever a desire to [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:53:17] As well as beyond March 2007. [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:53:32] warren, f13: nod. just recording what greg stated [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:54:13] bottom line -- mspevack needs to push to get some *real* statements made about mono and communicate them out [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:54:15] Sorry, I'm trying to limit my chiming in only when I feel there is some key point missing from IRC. [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:57:08] we're going to move to weekly Board meetings for the forseeable future [Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:57:13] going to hash all that out on list