Extras/SteeringCommittee/Meeting-20060706

From FedoraProject

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

2006 July, 06 FESCo Meeting

Note: This is the first meeting of the new FESCo. The new membership is listed on the wiki:

http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SteeringCommittee

Meeting Summaries are posted on the wiki at:

http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SteeringCommittee/Meetings

Attending

Summary

Full Log 

(10:01:01) scop [n=scop]  entered the room.
(10:01:14) ***c4chris__ is around...
(10:02:22) jima: oh, right, fesco meeting. and i'll miss it, doh.
(10:02:31) jima: (and the new fesco breathes a sigh of relief)
(10:02:32) ***abadger1999 is extricating from the packaging meeting
(10:02:39) ***scop ditto
(10:02:41) ***jeremy is around-ish
(10:02:42) c4chris__: well, not sure if there'll be a meeting...
(10:03:04) ***dgilmore is here
(10:03:16) scop: c4chris, ?
(10:03:53)  c4chris__:  scop,  thl  won't be around, and wondered what
would happen...
(10:03:55) abadger1999: scop: thl is going to be late.
(10:03:59) rdieter: ho hum.
(10:04:00) ixs: mhhhm. I should go home.
(10:04:08) ixs: I'm always reading "fiasco meeting"
(10:04:12) jwb: i'm here
(10:04:54)  abadger1999:  I  think we should start by voting thl extra
responsibilities ;-)
(10:05:03) c4chris__: right :)
(10:05:19)  jwb:  abadger1999,  thl  said he wouldn't mind being chair
still
(10:05:23) scop: wasn't one item of this meeting choosing a new chair?
(10:05:27) jwb: scop, yes
(10:05:32) dgilmore: yep
(10:05:37) jwb: scop, that is what thl wanted to primarily do today
(10:05:42) c4chris__: any other candidate ?
(10:05:51)  jwb  has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting in progress -
New Chair
(10:05:53) dgilmore: is anyone intrested in it?
(10:06:02) jwb: jeremy, you around?
(10:06:07) tibbs: The silence is deafening.
(10:06:08) c4chris__: nope, just got here...
(10:06:23)  Seg: Aww I get to miss the possible non meeting. Math test
today!
(10:06:41) jwb: ok, who's here?
(10:06:50) scop: I think there would be some value in shuffling people
around, but if there are no other nominees and thl doesn't mind...
(10:07:08) jwb: scop, tibbs, c4chris__, dgilmore, abadger1999, rdieter
(10:07:09) jeremy: jwb: vaguely
(10:07:14) Seg: Back in about 3 hours. ;P
(10:07:16)  tibbs: thl should choose a second for those times he can't
be here.
(10:07:24) jwb: jeremy, enough to pay attention?
(10:07:27) jwb: warren, you around?
(10:07:32) jeremy: jwb: we'll see :)
(10:07:34) c4chris__: tibbs, good idea
(10:07:58)  tibbs:  I  have tried to run a meeting before and it's not
terribly difficult; maintaining the schedule is not so easy.
(10:08:00) warren: jwb, nope
(10:08:04) dgilmore: anyone intrested in the backup job?
(10:08:04) ***scop says tibbs do it today until thl arrives
(10:08:20) jeremy: scop: seconded
(10:08:21) ***dgilmore agrees with scop
(10:08:23) tibbs: OK, let me un-run the other meeting.
(10:08:23) warren: jwb, what's up?
(10:08:30) jwb: warren, FESCo meeting
(10:08:50) c4chris__: scop, +1
(10:09:05) jwb: ok, so tibbs is running it today
(10:09:23)  jwb:  but  was  there  anyone  that wanted to nominate for
Chair?
(10:10:08) jwb: ok, i take that as a no
(10:10:14) rdieter: thl? (:
(10:10:25)  jwb:  rdieter, he said he would do it again if nobody else
wanted it
(10:10:25)  tibbs:  I  guess  that's a no. Let's put the chair bit off
until thl is back.
(10:10:29) dgilmore: rdieter: he said he would do it until FC7
(10:10:34) jwb: right
(10:10:52) jwb: tibbs, you want to create a "Vice President" position?
(10:11:08)  jwb:  was  that the suggestion? or just someone to run the
meeting in the Chair's absence?
(10:11:09)  tibbs: That seems reasonable; thl deserves a day off every
couple of years or so.
(10:11:24) jwb: ok, i like the VP idea
(10:11:29) rdieter: vp++
(10:11:36) c4chris__: yup
(10:11:43) tibbs: +1
(10:11:48) abadger1999: +1
(10:11:54) jwb: abadger1999, jeremy, warren?
(10:11:58) jwb: oh, sorry abadger1999
(10:12:22) warren: +1
(10:12:23) scop: any VP nominees?
(10:12:33) jwb: yeah, that's the next question
(10:12:43) ***scop nominates abadger1999
(10:12:53) ***dgilmore nominates scop
(10:13:07) dgilmore: abadger1999 would be good also
(10:13:08) ***abadger1999 nominates tibbs
(10:13:27)  jwb:  i  say we discuss the nominees on the fesco list and
vote next meeting
(10:13:28) jeremy: grr.. network sucking :-/
(10:13:31) abadger1999: Real question, does anyone accept?
(10:13:47)  dgilmore:  speaking  of  the  fesco list i guess i need to
subscibe to it
(10:13:48)  jeremy:  on the subject of fesco list, new members -- send
me a mail with the email address you want subscribed and I'll do that
(10:13:52) tibbs: I have a meeting immediately before this one, so I'm
probably not the best person.
(10:13:55)  jeremy:  I didn't want to figure out people's address that
they wanted :)
(10:14:10) abadger1999: tibbs: scop and I are there as well :-)
(10:14:19) c4chris__: jeremy, k, will do
(10:14:20) abadger1999: I guess that excuses all of us :-)
(10:14:20) tibbs: Crap.
(10:14:26) scop: what about purging old members' subscriptions?
(10:14:35) jeremy: scop: I'll take care of that too
(10:14:41) scop: jeremy, ok
(10:14:46) jeremy: that's easier :)
(10:15:05)  jwb  has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting in progress -
VP candidates
(10:15:22) ***jwb notes that tibbs is supposed to be doing this ;)
(10:15:32) tibbs: I have now un-run the other meeting.
(10:15:57) ***abadger1999 notes that jwb is doing a fine job ;-)
(10:16:11)  tibbs:  Candidates:  I agree that we should discuss on the
list.
(10:16:24)  c4chris__:  and he didn't give excuses of other preceeding
meetings...
(10:17:03) tibbs: I have to learn everyone's nicks. Crap.
(10:17:09) scop: list++, next ;)
(10:17:14) jwb: ok, so i'll start a thread on the list
(10:17:24) jwb: once jeremy says everyone is subscribed
(10:17:32) tibbs: Great. Next.
(10:17:42) jwb: tibbs, i put the nicks on
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SteeringCommittee
(10:17:50) tibbs: The CTRL-C problem?
(10:18:05) jeremy: tibbs: an attempted fix went in
(10:18:09) dgilmore: warren: any update on ctrl-c
(10:18:10) tibbs has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting in progress -
CTRL-C problem
(10:18:21) tibbs: jeremy: Has anyone tried to hack it?
(10:18:29)  warren: dgilmore, I haven't been able to work on it at all
while I didn't have sysadmin access during the election.
(10:18:30) tibbs: I recall that Hans could do it at will.
(10:18:45) jeremy: tibbs: dunno
(10:18:53) jeremy: tibbs: it's definitely going ot be _harder_ now
(10:19:01) jwb: can somebody ask Hans to try again?
(10:19:05)  warren:  dgilmore,  and frankly, I cannot prioritize doing
that myself right now.
(10:19:06) rdieter: what is the "cntl-c" problem exactly?
(10:19:09) dgilmore: should we get hans to try since he brought it up
(10:19:11)  jeremy: tibbs: sopwith made it so the script should ignore
ctrl-c
(10:19:23) tibbs: I don't think he does IRC; I'll shoot him an email.
(10:19:25) ***rdieter remembers now, never mind.
(10:19:27)  jwb: rdieter, if you hit CTRL-C at the right time then you
would cancel the commit email
(10:19:30)  dgilmore: rdieter: if you press ctrlc at the right time in
a cvs commit syncmail doesnt run
(10:19:59) ***tibbs will move on soon
(10:20:04) dgilmore: tibbs: he does sometimes but mostly not
(10:20:06)  warren:  What if you break the SSH connection at the right
moment?
(10:20:23) dgilmore: warren: probably the same
(10:20:24) ensc [n=irc-ensc]  entered the room.
(10:20:41) ***tibbs will move in in 30
(10:20:54)  warren:  The  script sounds to be ignoring the signal now,
but  will  it  prevent  syncmail  from  failing  if  you break the SSH
connection?
(10:21:16) warren: If stdout is directed there, it might not.
(10:21:31) tibbs has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting in progress -
Encourage Extras Reviews
(10:21:34) jeremy: warren: it shouldn't afaik
(10:21:52)  tibbs:  I was doing this, but aside from better guidelines
I'm all out of ideas.
(10:22:13)  jwb:  tibbs,  would  it  help  if  some  of  the stuff was
scripted?
(10:22:23) dgilmore: I know i need to do more reviews
(10:22:33) dgilmore: jwb: you would think so
(10:22:42) tibbs: jwb: I'm not sure, honestly.
(10:22:59)  jwb:  dgilmore, i was looking at it today... there isn't a
ton that can be scripted but some can
(10:23:08)  tibbs:  Even  when  people  know  it's  a  requirement for
sponsorship, they still don't do it.
(10:23:21) scop: huh, scripted reviews?
(10:23:26) warren: tibbs, thus we should drop review requirement?
(10:23:27) jwb: tibbs, i was actually thinking of the reviewers
(10:23:27) dgilmore: I guess there isi not much glory in reviews
(10:23:36) jwb: scop, no not scripted reviews
(10:23:50) scop: :)
(10:23:59)  dgilmore:  should  we  start  sending emails with stats on
reviews? like was done a long time ago
(10:23:59)   tibbs:   warren:   I  don't  think  we  should  drop  the
requirement, no. But it needs to be more prominent.
(10:24:03)  ***edhill  suggests  that, for more reviews, we figure out
how to clone tibbs
(10:24:08)  jwb:  scop,  just  a  tool to check for some of the simple
stuff. like license, spec name vs. %{name}, etc
(10:24:26) tibbs: jwb: Sounds like rpmlint.
(10:24:28) scop: jwb, like rpmlint?
(10:24:39) jwb: scop, yeah does rpmlint do all that already though?
(10:24:45)  tibbs:  rpmlint  is good, and improving it is good, but it
doesn't get to the root of the problem.
(10:24:49) dgilmore: rpmlint on steroids?
(10:24:57) jwb: yes, rpmlint on steroids
(10:25:15) jwb: tibbs, right it doesn't solve the root of the problem.
but it helps... maybe
(10:25:16)  tibbs:  The  problem  is  that people want to maintain the
packages  they're  interested  in.  They  don't want to be involved in
other peoples' packages.
(10:25:41)  tibbs: I recall that we used to have review days; did they
help?
(10:25:52)  c4chris__:  the  trick  is  to  get  at  least  two people
interested in oen package.
(10:25:55) scop: IMO *that*'s not a problem in a volunteer project
(10:26:00) ***thl on the keyboard now
(10:26:09) scop: volunteers do what they are interested in
(10:26:25) tibbs: scop: True. You can't really change that.
(10:26:45) stickster left the room (quit: "Ack! Thppptt...").
(10:26:47) scop: reviewing for the sake of reviewing doesn't make much
sense
(10:27:08)  rdieter:  imo,  if no one is interested enough in pkg x to
review it, then it shouldn't be in extras.
(10:27:17) warren: Maybe we should work on some *other* way of getting
a package in that nobody else is interested in?
(10:27:26) tibbs: rdieter: You're probably right.
(10:27:43)  tibbs:  But I pick up packages that I'm not interested in.
Lots of them.
(10:27:56) c4chris__: rdieter, I feel the same
(10:28:02) cweyl [n=cweyl]  entered the room.
(10:28:08) dgilmore: tibbs: you have super powers though
(10:28:37) rdieter: but warren has a point, if pkg x *were* in extras,
maybe more people would get interested and use it.
(10:28:38)  cweyl:  that  he  does,  especially  when it comes to perl
packages :)
(10:28:38)  tibbs:  dgilmore:  Honestly  I  don't think so. It doesn't
really even take all that much time.
(10:29:01) warren: The question is how to define this
(10:29:02)  abadger1999:  warren: Do we keep enough stats to correlate
fire-and-forget packagers with # of reviews?
(10:29:11) c4chris__: encourage more swapping reviews ?
(10:29:19)  warren:  And yes, fire-and-forget packagers is a HUGE risk
here.
(10:29:44)   ChitleshGoorah   left   the   room  (quit:  "Konversation
terminated!").
(10:29:47) Sopwith: What is the risk?
(10:29:50)  dgilmore:  c4chris__: i think that can help. I know that i
dont review alot but the ones i do i hope they will return the favour
(10:30:10)  warren: We don't want to encourage people to dump packages
into Extras and they don't maintain them.
(10:30:19) c4chris__: Sopwith, orphans ?
(10:30:37) Sopwith: Maybe we auto-remove orphaned packages?
(10:31:00) dgilmore: Sopwith: we did that just before FC5 was released
(10:31:06)  cweyl: Sopwith: a package may be orphaned but very much in
use. maybe just from devel?
(10:31:25) c4chris__: cweyl, yes, for devel
(10:31:27)  ***thl  likey  to  add  a note to the CTRL-C conversation:
Sopwith  changed something and it should be harder to trigger now; but
no one tried yet if it's really better now
(10:31:31)  scop:  definitely only from devel if there are no security
issues or compleat borkage
(10:31:40)  tibbs:  I  think we're back to where we started: I have no
ideas for encouraging reviews.
(10:31:53)  jwb:  thl,  i think tibbs is going to as Hans to try again
with the ctrl-c thing
(10:32:06) thl: jwb, I asked Hans already
(10:32:08)  abadger1999: dgilmore, c4chris: Contribute to a review and
receive  a  point.  Guide  a  review start to finish and receive five?
Redeem  points  with  a set of package reviewers that will review your
package for five points?
(10:32:33) dgilmore: abadger1999: that could be incentive
(10:32:36)  thl:  he said "I only triggered it once and don't know how
to trigger it again"
(10:32:43) jwb: thl, ok
(10:32:46) tibbs: abadger1999: I guess it's worth a try.
(10:33:01)  tibbs: thl: I thought he said it was easy to do? A tempest
in a teapot, perhaps?
(10:33:03) c4chris__: abadger1999, why not.
(10:33:04) jwb: abadger1999, how to track that?
(10:33:33) c4chris__: jwb, yes, that's the next question...
(10:33:34) abadger1999: jwb: I don't think we can automate it yet :-(
(10:33:54)  jwb:  abadger1999,  then  you're  not much better off than
doing swap reviews...
(10:34:21) c4chris__: abadger1999, cough package database cough
(10:34:25)  abadger1999:  Yes.  Except  that  you  don't  have to swap
directly reviewer to reviewee.
(10:34:47) jwb: abadger1999, right. but someone has to 'assign' points
until it's automated
(10:35:27) scop: anyone have stats about how the length of the pending
review queue has developed eg. this year?
(10:35:40)  c4chris__: jwb, could be the duty of the packager once his
package is approved
(10:35:56)  tibbs:  scop:  You  should  be able to look over c4chris's
reports.
(10:36:14)  c4chris__:  scop,  I  can dig some stuff up, but not for a
whoel year yet
(10:36:22)  abadger1999:  c4chris__:  If  the  package  db tracked who
reviewed  a  package  then  we'd  be  able  to pull that. But tracking
contributors might be harder.
(10:36:24) scop: cool
(10:36:30)  tibbs:  I've  been following it pretty closely but I don't
have any hard figures. It's definitely gone up recently; we're blocked
on a whole pile of PHP stuff.
(10:36:36)  jwb:  abadger1999,  want  to  draft  up a strawman for the
points system and send it out?
(10:37:06)  dgilmore:  tibbs:  wasnt there a huge perl influx the last
couple of weeks?
(10:37:09)  jwb:  tibbs,  isn't  the  PHP  stuff  waiting on guideline
changes?
(10:37:19)  tibbs:  I  think I'm going to try something simple. When I
approve  a  package,  I'll  ask  the submitter to do a package review.
We'll see if it makes any difference at all.
(10:37:20)  warren:  a  points  system  wont  work at all unless it is
automated as part of bugzilla and the account system
(10:37:21) dgilmore: jwb: yeah it is
(10:37:34)  tibbs:  dgilmore:  I  have  finished  off most of the Perl
stuff.
(10:37:37) jwb: warren, that's my thinking too
(10:37:53)  warren:  Note that GNOME Bugzilla has an excellent example
of a points system that modifies contributor behavior to do productive
things.
(10:38:02)  jwb:  warren,  but  a strawman for how it would work can't
hurt
(10:38:05)  abadger1999: jwb: I could. I'd like to figure out a little
more about tracking first. If we know it's possible after we implement
some  tools  that's  doable,  if  we don't know how to automate at all
that's quite another.
(10:38:25) warren: Points scale by a logarithm instead of just linear.
(10:38:26) ***dgilmore brb
(10:38:37) warren: abadger1999, ++
(10:38:50) warren: I think tracking the metrics of the review queue is
a good first start.
(10:39:17) jwb: k, who's going to do that? c4chris__ ?
(10:39:45) c4chris__: jwb, k, I'll dig some figures and post them.
(10:39:52) jwb: cool
(10:39:54)  tibbs:  Perhaps  we need to indicate that some tickets are
blocked  waiting  for guidelines. That would give is a clearer picture
of what's really sitting around.
(10:40:05) jwb: tibbs, +1
(10:40:24) thl: FE-BLOCKEDGUIDELINES ?
(10:40:31) c4chris__: tibbs, I guess they have php in the summary?
(10:40:34) thl: or any other blocker bug?
(10:40:40) jwb: thl, yes that would work
(10:40:41) tibbs: Or one for each guideline? PHP, mono.
(10:40:52)  cweyl:  tibbs:  on a related note, a "review/don't review"
table  at  the  top  of  ReviewGuidelines  would  be  a  nice clue for
reviewers, too
(10:40:53) tibbs: Mono stuff doesn't have mono in the summary.
(10:40:55) thl: tibbs, no, one geneeral blocker bug should be enough
(10:41:09)  thl:  tibbs, those things hopefully should not happen that
often
(10:41:10) jwb: cweyl, huh?
(10:41:13) thl: (in the longer term)
(10:41:44)  thl:  Tracking  Bug  for  PHP,  Perl, Python, ... stuff in
general were discussed once
(10:41:45) cweyl: jwb: e.g "don't review php packages ; do review perl
; don't review..." etc
(10:41:59) thl: but only a few persons liked that idea then
(10:42:21)  tibbs:  My bugzilla-fu is poor; anyone want to set up that
tracking bug and start blocking things?
(10:42:37) thl: I can set up that bug and use my bugzilla-sink account
for it
(10:42:41)  jwb: cweyl, oh. that would be a short lived table. i think
a  blocking  bug  for things waiting on guidelines and statement about
"if  the  bug is blocking FE-BLOCKEDGUIDELINES don't review" should be
ok
(10:42:50) warren: cweyl, "don't review php packages"?
(10:43:03) warren: cweyl, you're going to make bress cry. =)
(10:43:11)  cweyl:  jwb:  gotcha. either or, just so long as there's a
clue to be had :)
(10:43:12)  jwb:  warren,  because  of being blocked on guidelines for
now. not for forever
(10:43:24) jwb: warren, in other words "don't waste time on this ATM"
(10:43:28) warren: oh
(10:43:29)  thl:  btw, has anybody a better name for that tracking bug
-- FE-BLOCKEDGUIDELINES has a lot of chars ;-)
(10:43:31)  cweyl:  warren:  for  now! I've been wanting phpMyAdmin in
there forever ;)
(10:43:40) jwb: thl, FE-GUIDELINES ?
(10:43:44) thl: jwb, +1
(10:43:45)  kanarip  left  the room (quit: Read error: 104 (Connection
reset by peer)).
(10:43:52)  warren:  heh... in the past years I've untarred phpmyadmin
every time I wanted to use it.
(10:44:00) tibbs: bress should help us out with guidelines if he wants
it done quickly.
(10:44:02) warren: jwb, +1
(10:44:11) cweyl: warren: yah... same here. it gets old quickly :)
(10:44:12) tibbs: BTW, phpmyadmin should be reviewable now.
(10:44:16) jwb: btw, does this apply to Core as well?
(10:44:16) abadger1999: jwb: +1
(10:44:18) rdieter: jwb, +1
(10:44:19) c4chris__: jwb, +1
(10:44:36) ***scop needs to go in 5 minutes
(10:44:39)  thl:  okay, I'll create FE-GUIDELINES and post about it to
the list
(10:44:43) tibbs: phpmyadmin is not a php extension package.
(10:44:50) ***c4chris__ needs to run soon too
(10:44:53) tibbs: scop: anything you wanted to cover before you leave?
(10:45:02) tibbs: c4chris as well.
(10:45:18)   scop:   resolution   on   chair,   perhaps   quickie   on
co-maintainership
(10:45:24) c4chris__: I guess we'll do the AWOL next time?
(10:45:28) cweyl: tibbs: and that's exactly why we/I need this clue, I
had it stuck in my head "no php at all right now"
(10:45:34) thl: AWOL next time IMHO
(10:45:40) jwb: AWOL next time
(10:45:58)  jwb:  thl,  nobody stepped forward for the Chair. still ok
with doing it until FC7?
(10:46:07) thl: yeah
(10:46:08) scop: re php, note that phpmyadmin may depend on some other
php stuff which is subject to guideline changes
(10:46:13) jwb: +1 for thl as Chair
(10:46:20) tibbs: +1 thl
(10:46:22) abadger1999: +1 thl
(10:46:26) c4chris__: +1 for thl
(10:46:26) dgilmore: <code>+1 for thl
(10:46:36) thl: btw, I wanted to bring in a "Vice President", too
(10:46:36) cweyl: +1 (rabble, tho ;))
(10:46:52)  jwb:  thl,  cool.  i'm starting a thread on fesco list for
that with nominees
(10:46:52)  thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting in progress --
FESCo self organisation
(10:46:54) scop: +1 thl, and we agreed to discuss VP on list
(10:46:59) dgilmore: jwb as VP
(10:47:03) rdieter: +1 thl
(10:47:11) tibbs: That's 7.
(10:47:12) thl: scop, k
(10:47:33) thl: thx guys
(10:47:45) thl: well, there is one other thing I#d like to change
(10:47:53) thl: I'm getting tired of writing the summaries
(10:48:04) thl: I would prefer if that job rotates
(10:48:16) warren: Or we could have a FESCO scribe
(10:48:21) warren: doesn't necessarily need to be in FESCO
(10:48:26) jwb: i like the idea of a scribe
(10:48:35) scop: ditto
(10:49:03) abadger1999: I can do meeting summaries.
(10:49:10)  warren:  The  scribe should *usually* attend meetings, but
could actually do it from logs afterward.
(10:49:21) ***c4chris__ too, but I'm not sure I like scribing much...
(10:49:45) c4chris__: abadger1999, thx
(10:49:49) thl: we don't have to find a proper solution now
(10:49:53) jwb: sure
(10:50:05)  jwb:  abadger1999,  want to take this meeting for now then
until we finalize?
(10:50:06) thl: but doing it every time is frustrating
(10:50:24) abadger1999: jwb: Sounds good to me.
(10:50:25)  thl:  abadger1999,  I  can post the log to the wiki if you
don#t have one
(10:50:35) c4chris__: thl, yup. Rotation is good.
(10:50:50) scop: I need to run now, see ya
(10:50:53) thl: scop, bye
(10:51:08) scop left the room ("Leaving").
(10:51:13) thl: one other thing
(10:51:20)  abadger1999:  I have a log. We might want to make sure the
chair always keeps one, though, just in case the scribe isn't present.
(10:51:33) thl: I'd like to make plans for the next election soon
(10:51:53)  thl:  that  might  be the best now that the memorie of the
recent election is still fresh
(10:52:05) c4chris__: thl, k. Put it on the agenda?
(10:52:14) thl: yes, that's my plan
(10:52:30)  thl:  but abadger1999, you seem to have the best knowledge
of the voting systems in general
(10:52:51) thl: abadger1999, can you put togehter a rough plan how the
next election should be done?
(10:52:55) c4chris__: gotta run now (sorry)
(10:53:04) abadger1999: thl: Just what we've implemented thus far.
(10:53:05) c4chris__: see you all later
(10:53:20) thl: thl, I didn#t mean the voting app
(10:53:23) thl: more the scheme
(10:53:36) thl: Let's discuss this afterwards
(10:53:37)  nim-nim  [n=nim-nim]   entered the
room.
(10:53:41) thl: I'll mail to the list
(10:53:44) abadger1999: thl: Sounds good.
(10:54:01)  lmacken:  are  multiple  *Requires  packages  separated by
spaces or commas ?
(10:54:10)  jwb has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting in progress --
Free Discussion
(10:54:21) jwb: i have 2 items i'd like to get on the agenda
(10:54:27) jwb: 1) change log format
(10:54:33) jwb: 2) IPv6 proposal
(10:54:49)  ***thl  likes to note: all FESCo members can put things on
the agenda
(10:55:11)  tibbs:  jwb:  changelog  format  has  been voted on by the
packaging committee and should be written up soon.
(10:55:14) thl: please just give enough infomrations so other know the
most important backgrounds
(10:55:26) thl: and maybe announce the addition on a mailinglist
(10:55:28) rdieter: jwb: changelog format was discussed already in the
Packaging comittee.
(10:55:40) jwb: tibbs, rdieter, even better then
(10:56:07)  thl:  jwb,  just  out of interest: what did you meant with
"IPv6 proposal"
(10:56:53) dgilmore: lmacken: both work
(10:57:02)  jwb: thl, dwmw2 made a proposal on fedora-maintainers that
all  Extras packages should support IPv6 if they support IPv4. if they
don't,   it's  a  MUST  to  add  it  to  a  blocker  bug  (similar  to
ExcludeArch), and explain why
(10:57:20) jwb: thl, he wants that added to the guidelines
(10:57:30)  tibbs:  I  like  the  idea  of  encouraging  IPV6-ness and
certainly  making sure it's enabled if a package supports, but I don't
think lack of it should be a blocker.
(10:57:43)  jwb:  tibbs,  rdieter: what's the relationship between the
packaging committee and FESCo?
(10:57:55) warren: lord and serf
(10:57:59)  _wart_: jwb: does the proposal include instructions on how
to test for ipv6 support?
(10:58:02)  tibbs:  jwb:  Packaging  committee  decides  on  packaging
guidelines for both core and extras.
(10:58:04) thl: jwb, well, add it to the schedule then
(10:58:14) jwb: _wart_, his example does not
(10:58:16) jwb: thl, will do
(10:58:33) thl: jwb, but my opinion is "we do packaging guidelines and
that's often not packaging"
(10:58:33)  jwb:  tibbs,  yes but shouldn't FESCo agree to them before
they become set in stone?
(10:58:35)  dgilmore:  tibbs:  I  think that if ipv6 support its there
then it should be turned on
(10:58:47) jwb: thl, my opinion as well
(10:58:53) thl: and the packaging guidelines are done by the Packaging
Commitee
(10:58:56) thl: nevertheless
(10:59:02) thl: let's talk about that once
(10:59:14) thl: but not today
(10:59:19) jwb: right
(10:59:40)  thl:  btw, does anyone know if all new FESCo member are in
the US or Europe?
(10:59:58) thl: does Thursday, 17:00 UTC fit everybody well?
(11:00:05) dgilmore: thl: im in the US
(11:00:08) jwb: .us
(11:00:18) jwb: i think most are from .us
(11:00:19) abadger1999: Works well for me (.us)
(11:00:25)  thl:  or do we need to rotate two or three different times
to make sure everyone can attent?
(11:00:38) ***thl would prefer one fixed time
(11:00:46) jwb: i prefer a fixed time as well
(11:00:49) ***warren prefers one fixed time that works for both US and
EU.
(11:01:46) thl: okay, then we stick to 17:00 UTC
(11:01:52) jima: holy crap, it's still going!
(11:01:54) thl: (and 18:00 UTC during winters)
(11:02:05) thl: anything else we should discuss today?
(11:02:15) thl: any sponsor nominations?
(11:02:45) jwb: it's late. i say we save those for next week
(11:03:04) thl: yeah, let's close the meeting for today then
(11:03:09) ***thl will close in 30
(11:03:28) ***thl will close in 10
(11:03:40) thl: -- MARK -- Meeting end
Retrieved from "https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SteeringCommittee/Meeting-20060706"