Meeting:Board meeting 2009-06-04

From FedoraProject

Jump to: navigation, search

Meeting Summary

Questions & Answers

  • jjmcd--"I was wondering whether there is a feeling that the muiltiple delays are due to too ambitious a feature set"
  • jwb--"Has the board considered my request for use of the existing ppc builders for a secondary arch effort?"
  • abadger1999
    • "What does the Board feel their role is in deciding what packages/pieces of packages can be in Fedora Repositories?"
    • "So I'm wondering what constitutes high level policy -- does the Board feel like it should work through goals or through decrees?"
  • nirik--"Can the board talk a bit about the 'who is fedora for?' discussion they have been having? is that close to a endpoint? or is there much more to discuss? will there be an opening for outside the board feedback on that topic at some point? Also, how will newly elected people figure into this topic?"

#fedora-board-meeting log

stickster <meeting> 04 Jun 13:00
stickster Roll call? 04 Jun 13:00
mdomsch present and accounted for 04 Jun 13:00
notting 04 Jun 13:01
* notting is here 04 Jun 13:01
f13 04 Jun 13:01
* f13 none 04 Jun 13:01
ctyler 04 Jun 13:03
* ctyler here 04 Jun 13:03
skvidal 04 Jun 13:03
* skvidal is here 04 Jun 13:03
stickster I've pinged a couple people who should be here in a moment. 04 Jun 13:03
--- ChanServ (ChanServ@services.) changed mode: +v spot 04 Jun 13:04
stickster There's spot 04 Jun 13:04
stickster caillon should be here in a moment 04 Jun 13:04
stickster Harald doesn't seem to be online 04 Jun 13:04
stickster Nor glezos 04 Jun 13:04
stickster OK, let's proceed. 04 Jun 13:05
stickster The first item on our agenda is set for 20 minutes 04 Jun 13:05
stickster Followup on the mailing list moderation proposal. 04 Jun 13:05
stickster I wanted to ensure that we had some sort of consensus on implementation 04 Jun 13:06
stickster I show 4 items left to address: 04 Jun 13:06
stickster 1. Public vs. private warnings 04 Jun 13:06
stickster 2. Whether and how moderators are identified per action 04 Jun 13:07
--- ChanServ (ChanServ@services.) changed mode: +v caillon 04 Jun 13:07
stickster 3. Whether there's a requirement to record complaints or action taken 04 Jun 13:07
stickster I showed a fourth, "use of a moderation FAS account," but honestly I think that's really part of #2. 04 Jun 13:07
stickster Can we take each of these in turn and barrel through, stopping at ~1725 UTC? 04 Jun 13:08
mdomsch good plan 04 Jun 13:08
stickster OK, starting with #1, let's have at it. 04 Jun 13:08
mdomsch [1] private +1 04 Jun 13:08
ctyler (1) Private warnings (3) Yes, if someone gets multiple warnings, there should be a record of it that's private to moderators so that a new moderator can see history 04 Jun 13:08
skvidal 1. private warnings 04 Jun 13:08
skvidal 2. if the moderators are comfortable being known, then so be it. 04 Jun 13:08
notting i'd agree - private warnings - no need to start public flamewars 04 Jun 13:09
f13 1 private warnings. 04 Jun 13:09
stickster My take on this was that public warnings are good, but after seeing other people's reflections I realize the bad outweighs the good. 04 Jun 13:09
skvidal 3. having all the moderators cc a private list on what they've said sounds fair for later use 04 Jun 13:09
notting 3. there should be a referable record 04 Jun 13:09
f13 2. I have no real input here, I guess I'd leave it up to the moderator. 04 Jun 13:09
stickster The list members should be trusted to provide feedback viz. #1. 04 Jun 13:09
mdomsch [2] moderator should use their name, not come from "a group" 04 Jun 13:09
mdomsch skvidal: agreed 04 Jun 13:10
f13 3. referable record. 04 Jun 13:10
ctyler question on (1) -- if a private person whines publicly, are the moderators free to publicly state why they were warned? i.e., if you make it public, it's fully public? 04 Jun 13:10
stickster ctyler: I'd agree with that. 04 Jun 13:10
mdomsch ctyler, yes 04 Jun 13:10
stickster It's not a secret police action. 04 Jun 13:10
spot sure 04 Jun 13:10
notting ctyler: don't see why not 04 Jun 13:10
skvidal ctyler: you call someone outin public , you should expect to be slapped in public :) 04 Jun 13:10
stickster We are trying to be tactful and discreet, not hide what we're doing. 04 Jun 13:10
mdomsch stickster, exactly 04 Jun 13:11
skvidal stickster: wait, this isn't a secret police action? B/c I liked that aspect of it 04 Jun 13:11
f13 ctyler: seems natural, but as I stated on list, I don't want to see the lists become a venue for arguments over moderations 04 Jun 13:11
* stickster notes that by "we" he means "the group of people charged with moderating," of which he may not be one. 04 Jun 13:11
skvidal 04 Jun 13:11
* skvidal was looking forward to the long leather jacket 04 Jun 13:11
ctyler f13: agreed 04 Jun 13:11
* stickster hands skvidal a black armband and motions him out to his squad car 04 Jun 13:11
skvidal so a recommendation 04 Jun 13:11
notting as for #2... i'd agree that it should be left up to the moderators, but they should probably pick a consistent policy among themselves 04 Jun 13:11
skvidal someone is an ass on f-d-l 04 Jun 13:11
ctyler notting: +1 04 Jun 13:12
skvidal a moderator says - you were an ass you're messages are moderated and held for approval by the moderators for the next week - non-ass messages will be approved 04 Jun 13:12
skvidal the person sends a non-ass-being but off-topic msg to the same list ranting about the moderation 04 Jun 13:12
mdomsch in a similar vein: whenever a new mirror asks to sign up, they mail mirror-admin@fp.o; a person (me or Adrian generally) responds directly, leaving mirror-admin@fp.o on cc:. 04 Jun 13:13
mdomsch so there is a record 04 Jun 13:13
skvidal if I were a moderator, I would not let the message through and suggest that the person rant elsewhere 04 Jun 13:13
stickster mdomsch: +1. 04 Jun 13:13
f13 skvidal: I would agree with that 04 Jun 13:13
ctyler skvidal: week? I thought we were talking 1-2 days 04 Jun 13:13
skvidal ctyler: s/week/whatever-time-you-like/ 04 Jun 13:13
skvidal ctyler: it's an example - the time is not important 04 Jun 13:13
caillon lets do it in the gregorian calendar! 04 Jun 13:14
mdomsch UTC-15 04 Jun 13:14
ctyler I think the duration is important in two ways: it affects the perceived weight of the warning, and it affects the moderator workload 04 Jun 13:14
stickster As for #2, I feel that if the list of moderators is not known, we'd need a check. Moderators doing their work individually and openly is well and good. 04 Jun 13:14
stickster Excuse me, I meant to say: 04 Jun 13:15
skvidal ctyler: my example was only to talk about keeping messages about the moderation off of the list b/c they are offtopic 04 Jun 13:15
stickster If the identity of an individual moderator from the *known list of moderators* is not known.... 04 Jun 13:15
ctyler skvidal: yes, I get that, and agree 04 Jun 13:15
stickster Is there anyone who disagrees with skvidal's suggestion, timelines aside? 04 Jun 13:15
spot i'm fine with it. 04 Jun 13:16
stickster OK, I take the lack of disagreement as consensus :-) 04 Jun 13:16
stickster So far I have captured that: 04 Jun 13:17
f13 no no means yes 04 Jun 13:17
stickster heh 04 Jun 13:17
skvidal f13: yes, silence is consent - classy 04 Jun 13:17
f13 in a vacuum, nobody can hear you scream 04 Jun 13:17
notting f13: no one can hear when you're screaming in digital? 04 Jun 13:17
skvidal is that b/c the vacuum is very noisy when it is running? 04 Jun 13:17
spot the aliens always hear you. 04 Jun 13:18
skvidal oh - not THAT kind of vacuum 04 Jun 13:18
ctyler question that hopefully will never matter: should we generalize this policy to include the planet? i.e., being decidedly non-excellent on the planet leads to suspension of feed? 04 Jun 13:18
f13 04 Jun 13:18
* f13 moderates everybody due to off-topic. 04 Jun 13:18
skvidal ctyler: no 04 Jun 13:18
spot ctyler: i don't think we can moderate the planet. 04 Jun 13:18
ctyler 04 Jun 13:18
* ctyler screams digitally 0100100100111011010011001010100111101010010010101 04 Jun 13:18
f13 ctyler: no, the planet is less .... structured. 04 Jun 13:18
f13 it's a read at your own risk kind of deal 04 Jun 13:18
stickster The planet somewhat relies on people's self publishing 04 Jun 13:18
mdomsch and impossible to drop single items from a feed 04 Jun 13:18
skvidal mdomsch: indeed 04 Jun 13:18
skvidal mdomsch: though I have thought about that a bit :-/ 04 Jun 13:19
f13 that said, if you see somebody being an ass on planet, feel free to let them know 04 Jun 13:19
stickster And it edges a little too close to the "speak your mind" rule. Posts that contain something illegal are one thing. There are talkbacks for everything else. 04 Jun 13:19
caillon by being an ass right back 04 Jun 13:19
skvidal mdomsch: having the feed generation be more database-y so you could tag a message as 'non post' 04 Jun 13:19
caillon oh wait 04 Jun 13:19
mdomsch skvidal, that's because at your heart you're really a censor in disguise 04 Jun 13:19
skvidal mdomsch: oh my gosh yes. I like the quiet 04 Jun 13:19
ctyler agreed that we don't want to censor planet, but a long non-excellent series of posts is quite possible 04 Jun 13:19
stickster I would really like it if people could continue the practice of being excellent to each other on the Planet. 04 Jun 13:20
skvidal mdomsch: I'm especially trying to keep the MAN from using his gnome-bias against me 04 Jun 13:20
stickster And I feel that the community ought to encourage it. 04 Jun 13:20
mdomsch stickster, I think that's generally true; in the few cases where that hasn't been, they've been handled privately 04 Jun 13:20
notting but you can't be off-topic on the planet, so i don't think you should moderate it 04 Jun 13:20
mdomsch and that's workd 04 Jun 13:20
skvidal notting: true 04 Jun 13:21
stickster OK guys, let me summarize at this point 04 Jun 13:21
stickster 1. Warnings are private. If a moderated person takes feedback to another venue publicly, moderators can respond publicly, preferably in a noninflammatory fashion. 04 Jun 13:21
stickster 2. Moderators can do their work individually, but should cc: <somewhere> to make a record. 04 Jun 13:21
stickster Actually, that nails 2 and 3 if I'm reading this right. 04 Jun 13:22
--- ChanServ (ChanServ@services.) changed mode: +v caillon_ 04 Jun 13:22
stickster At what point does moderation become something more serious? 04 Jun 13:22
stickster Should that matter be elevated to the Board? 04 Jun 13:23
stickster And is it purely up to the moderator when to do that? 04 Jun 13:23
f13 well, constant failure to come back in line should be brought to the board's attention 04 Jun 13:23
skvidal but it doesn't HAVE to be right away 04 Jun 13:23
f13 if moderation isn't working, escalate 04 Jun 13:23
notting given i hope we'd never need to enact it, i think referring to the board is simpler than attempting to define something now to handle every contingency 04 Jun 13:24
stickster Right, we really want moderation to be a sort of cool-down and lifted as soon as practicable. 04 Jun 13:24
skvidal notting: nod 04 Jun 13:24
f13 stickster: sounds right 04 Jun 13:24
ctyler Repeated moderations or high volume of non-excellence during moderation both point toward escalation 04 Jun 13:24
stickster I would hope (and, optimistically, expect) that we would rather not get to that "what if" situation. 04 Jun 13:24
stickster But I feel like making a bunch of policy about what to do at that point is almost like shirking a responsibility. 04 Jun 13:25
stickster I feel that we as a Board would want to take that (hopefully very rare) situation on a case by case basis. 04 Jun 13:26
f13 yeah 04 Jun 13:26
mdomsch agreed 04 Jun 13:26
skvidal how about this 04 Jun 13:26
ctyler yes 04 Jun 13:26
skvidal no policy - unless there are chronic problems 04 Jun 13:26
stickster I think Seth is right. 04 Jun 13:26
skvidal we don't have to make it perfect right away 04 Jun 13:26
mdomsch if it's chronic, we have bigger problems 04 Jun 13:26
stickster Exactly. 04 Jun 13:26
stickster And the Board is also responsible for watching the moderators, of course. 04 Jun 13:27
stickster It's not a set-and-forget process. 04 Jun 13:27
skvidal nod 04 Jun 13:27
stickster OK, I feel like we arrived at the answers we needed. Followup to fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com is fine and encouraged. 04 Jun 13:27
ctyler Hopefully moderation will be used only a couple times per year if at all, and the warnings will be effective. I hope it's rare enough that people forget the procedure and have to look back at the wiki to remember. 04 Jun 13:27
stickster Can we hit the next item? 04 Jun 13:27
skvidal nod 04 Jun 13:28
stickster ctyler: +1 04 Jun 13:28
mdomsch roll 04 Jun 13:28
skvidal tide 04 Jun 13:28
stickster OK, the second item for 10 minutes 04 Jun 13:28
stickster Board approval of changes to the succession wiki page 04 Jun 13:28
stickster https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2009-June/msg00004.html 04 Jun 13:28
skvidal sure 04 Jun 13:28
spot +1 04 Jun 13:28
stickster and http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board/SuccessionPlanning 04 Jun 13:28
f13 +1 04 Jun 13:29
stickster 1s are fine, or any feedback as well 04 Jun 13:29
ctyler +1 04 Jun 13:29
notting +1 04 Jun 13:29
* stickster should have sent a link out with the history diff 04 Jun 13:30
mdomsch =1 04 Jun 13:30
mdomsch +1 that is 04 Jun 13:30
caillon +√1 04 Jun 13:30
notting stickster: http://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Board%2FSuccessionPlanning&diff=105274&oldid=17685 04 Jun 13:30
stickster caillon: Nice :-) 04 Jun 13:30
stickster OK, I think that's unanimous vote by all present. 04 Jun 13:31
stickster That's >2/3, which means the changes are approved. 04 Jun 13:31
stickster I want to particularly thank inode0 for helping eagle-eye the text where needed. 04 Jun 13:31
mdomsch hear hear 04 Jun 13:31
stickster The point of the changes was to emphasize that the Board is not some artificial split of Red Hat vs. volunteers. 04 Jun 13:31
stickster And also to add a handler for the (again hopefully rare) case where we don't get enough nominations to fill the open elected seats. 04 Jun 13:32
stickster So, that wraps up that one. 04 Jun 13:32
stickster Wow, we're efficient today! Thanks for bearing with my whip-cracking, guys. :-) 04 Jun 13:32
mdomsch hasn't happened yet, though nominations tend to come in at the last minute :-) 04 Jun 13:32
stickster Exactly. 04 Jun 13:32
stickster And unless someone has something else dire, I think that brings us to Q&A! 04 Jun 13:33
f13 quack 04 Jun 13:33
stickster I'll have you know I have a license to practice 04 Jun 13:34
mdomsch while waiting on questions; let me note: I'm quite pleased we had such a large turnout for the FESCo and Board nominations 04 Jun 13:34
stickster Not only that, but the town halls as well 04 Jun 13:35
mdomsch 5 for board (3 slots); 11 for FESCo (5 slots) 04 Jun 13:35
mdomsch yeah, >40 people for those each 04 Jun 13:35
f13 do we have any q's? 04 Jun 13:35
notting stickster: who's our question-gathering moderator today? 04 Jun 13:35
stickster While we may have had a couple "oldie moldie" questions in the town hall meetings, there were many new ones too. 04 Jun 13:35
stickster notting: I am 04 Jun 13:35
--- ChanServ (ChanServ@services.) changed mode: +o stickster 04 Jun 13:35
--- stickster (n=paul@fedora/stickster) changed mode: +v jjmcd 04 Jun 13:35
jjmcd I was wondering whether there is a feeling that the muiltiple delays are due to too ambitious a feature set 04 Jun 13:36
stickster jjmcd: I'm not sure your question is 100% Board-relevant, but you're clear to ask anyway :-) 04 Jun 13:36
notting in the case of Fedora 11... probably, yes. 04 Jun 13:36
jjmcd But it would be good to hear the perceptions 04 Jun 13:36
caillon jjmcd, some of it was actually due to mirrors requesting a delay 04 Jun 13:37
mdomsch 04 Jun 13:37
* mdomsch gets nervous whenever he hears "complete rewrite of..." in regard to a release-critical feature 04 Jun 13:37
f13 caillon: I don't think that actually played into our decision to slip 04 Jun 13:37
stickster mdomsch: agreed. 04 Jun 13:37
skvidal jjmcd: I don't think it is too ambitious of a feature set - it was a difficulty in punting when the drop-dead date showed up 04 Jun 13:37
skvidal back pre-beta 04 Jun 13:37
skvidal it was hard to punt the feature 04 Jun 13:37
f13 jjmcd: over ambitions, maybe. Although at least at some level we knew some things were going to risk the end game. 04 Jun 13:37
mdomsch regardless of how good the engineers are to accomplish said feature 04 Jun 13:37
skvidal but it wasn't cooked yet 04 Jun 13:37
f13 anaconda and KMS were really risky things, but very high value as well 04 Jun 13:37
f13 so we accepted the risk, knowing full well that it may lead to slips 04 Jun 13:38
jjmcd Coming from big corp IT it is still pretty amazing 04 Jun 13:38
mdomsch f13 good point 04 Jun 13:38
stickster Overall the storage rewrite is going to make future Fedora that much more flexible. 04 Jun 13:38
f13 (and fixable) 04 Jun 13:38
stickster 1. 04 Jun 13:38
--- stickster (n=paul@fedora/stickster) changed mode: -v jjmcd 04 Jun 13:39
spot 04 Jun 13:39
* spot nods in agreement 04 Jun 13:39
--- stickster (n=paul@fedora/stickster) changed mode: +v jwb 04 Jun 13:39
jwb has the board considered my request for use of the existing ppc builders for a secondary arch effort? 04 Jun 13:39
f13 jjmcd: this cycle has exposed some weak points in our development process, which I hope to address in next week's FAD 04 Jun 13:39
notting f13: and then we can try and quantify the value lost in the slip vs the value gained in having the feature in earlier 04 Jun 13:39
notting jwb: Oops. 04 Jun 13:39
skvidal jwb: were waiting until you're on the board for you to solve it 04 Jun 13:39
notting jwb: (i.e., not yet) 04 Jun 13:39
f13 jwb: not yet 04 Jun 13:39
stickster Election rigging! POLICE! 04 Jun 13:40
caillon skvidal, hey, don't give away that we're stacking the election 04 Jun 13:40
skvidal jwb: or better yet for when you're on the board so the board can say "conflict of interest" and punt ppc further 04 Jun 13:40
f13 I think we were waiting for FESCo's decision on PPC, and then forgot to bring it back to the table. 04 Jun 13:40
mdomsch where's our item-tracking wunderbar secretary? 04 Jun 13:40
jwb humbly requesting again. i realize they will likely need to be split to cope with f11 and f12 04 Jun 13:40
jwb stickster, move on :) 04 Jun 13:40
--- stickster (n=paul@fedora/stickster) changed mode: -v jwb 04 Jun 13:41
mdomsch I don't see a reason _not_ to grant such 04 Jun 13:41
stickster As you wish! 04 Jun 13:41
stickster I'll make sure this gets added to our schedule for next week. 04 Jun 13:41
--- stickster (n=paul@fedora/stickster) changed mode: +v abadger1999 04 Jun 13:41
ctyler 04 Jun 13:42
* ctyler thinks secondary arch may be more important as non-x86 netbooks gain momentum, which may eventually expose the server space to more alternate CPU designs as well 04 Jun 13:42
f13 mdomsch: the big thing is if we say yes to PPC, why wouldn't we host ia64 builders? 04 Jun 13:42
notting f13: one time "well, we already have the hardware" exception, i would expect 04 Jun 13:42
caillon abadger1999, in case you didn't notice, it's your turn ;) 04 Jun 13:42
f13 notting: that's my thought on it too. 04 Jun 13:42
ctyler f13: for PPC, it's existing equipment 04 Jun 13:42
mdomsch f13, it shouldn't be a requirement for Infra to host secondary items; but if they can, great. 04 Jun 13:42
abadger1999 What does the Board feel their role is in deciding what packages/pieces of packages can be in Fedora Repositories? 04 Jun 13:43
* stickster thinks abadger1999 is making sure we're done with this topic :-) 04 Jun 13:43
stickster or not :-D 04 Jun 13:43
mdomsch that would also be subject to Infra _continuing_ to have the ability to host those builders 04 Jun 13:43
stickster I feel like the Board has an overall role in making sure that Fedora maintains Fedora's ability to be redistributed 04 Jun 13:43
mdomsch if for some reason they couldn't, they wouldn't be required to 04 Jun 13:43
skvidal abadger1999: the roll feels to me like an appeal court for relatively insoluble issues at fesco and the fpc 04 Jun 13:44
stickster oops, I overused the word "Fedora." 04 Jun 13:44
ctyler abadger1999: I think the board sets high-level policy (e.g., guidelines for legal reasons, overall direction), FESCo sets technical policy and enforces the high level policy. 04 Jun 13:44
notting the board is responsible for the long term success/health of the project; as such, they're certainly responsible for setting legal practices, and probably the best body for setting any non-legal practices as well. (defining the audience, if it is so decided, etc.) 04 Jun 13:45
notting for example, the firmware exception came from the board, not from fesco 04 Jun 13:46
f13 also the board should be that "make the hard choice" place when FPL/FESCo can't agree on something. 04 Jun 13:46
stickster I can't agree on it with myself? 04 Jun 13:46
mdomsch we shouldn't be trying to mandate "taste", though some of the software noted recently has poor taste code-wise as well. 04 Jun 13:47
abadger1999 So I'm wondering what constitutes high level policy -- does the Board feel like it should work through goals or through decrees? 04 Jun 13:47
abadger1999 firmware exception is a decree. 04 Jun 13:47
skvidal I like either of them 04 Jun 13:47
skvidal decree == stick 04 Jun 13:47
skvidal goal == carrot 04 Jun 13:47
notting abadger1999: well, it was a decree that came about due to a goal 04 Jun 13:47
notting abadger1999: just to muddy the waters further 04 Jun 13:47
f13 stickster: FPC sorry 04 Jun 13:47
stickster f13: heh, np 04 Jun 13:47
abadger1999 notting: Right. But it could have been stated as a goal and left to others to formulate how to actually implement it. 04 Jun 13:47
ctyler abadger1999: feels like there's a question lurking under your question :-) 04 Jun 13:48
abadger1999 That's kinda what I'm asking. 04 Jun 13:48
f13 it probably would have been better if the board stuck to the goal 04 Jun 13:48
f13 and left the decree up to the technical bodies 04 Jun 13:48
f13 the board isn't supposed to be a technical body 04 Jun 13:48
skvidal and yet it sometimes needs to be 04 Jun 13:48
notting abadger1999: hm... my memory may be failing me, but i believe the original policies prohibited firmware, the board looked at goal (make fedora more useable by everyone), decreed that firmware was now OK, and then did leave the implementation up to others 04 Jun 13:48
ctyler "non-technical body" within a technical community is a bit hard to do 04 Jun 13:48
notting (who may have been board members at the time) 04 Jun 13:49
f13 ctyler: i guess it depends on your definition of "technical" 04 Jun 13:49
caillon HALP I CANT FIND THE ANY KEY 04 Jun 13:49
f13 I thought the board should be figuring out what we want to do, and the technical body like FESCo would figure out /how/ to do it 04 Jun 13:49
f13 or the FPC, releng, etc... 04 Jun 13:49
notting abadger1999: though it is interesting to note the guidelines say the final yay/nay vote on content inclusion (vis-a-vis code inclusion) is FESCo 04 Jun 13:50
abadger1999 notting: I don't remember either.... But if the Board decrees firmware == ok, it's implementation. If the Board says, firmware is not software for the definition of "free software" 04 Jun 13:50
* stickster finds it's interesting this very question came up in a recent interview he did. 04 Jun 13:50
abadger1999 Err... sorry... I was erasing that, but hit return 04 Jun 13:50
mdomsch in the case of firmware, the board had to make an exception to the "only free software" rule it had in place and FESCo had been enforcing, in order to accomplish the goal of it being usable anywhere. 04 Jun 13:50
f13 I don't read it quite like that 04 Jun 13:50
abadger1999 Was going to agree with notting instead :-) 04 Jun 13:51
ctyler f13: agreed, but the lines are always a bit blurry. Frankly I think that can be pragmatic, and not a real problem. 04 Jun 13:51
f13 abadger1999: "firmware must be in a package named -firmware and ....." is an implementation 04 Jun 13:51
stickster "We disagree with lumping this blob in with code run on the CPU" is not. 04 Jun 13:51
--- stickster (n=paul@fedora/stickster) changed mode: -v abadger1999 04 Jun 13:52
mdomsch 04 Jun 13:52
* mdomsch doesn't like the firmware example; it's quite dated now... 04 Jun 13:52
stickster yes. 04 Jun 13:52
stickster But it saved us from saying gnaughty. 04 Jun 13:52
--- stickster (n=paul@fedora/stickster) changed mode: +v nirik 04 Jun 13:52
f13 *bonk* 04 Jun 13:52
ctyler d'oh! 04 Jun 13:52
nirik can the board talk a bit about the 'who is fedora for?' discussion they have been having? is that close to a endpoint? or is there much more to discuss? will there be an opening for outside the board feedback on that topic at some point? Also, how will newly elected people figure into this topic? 04 Jun 13:53
skvidal nirik: not even remotely close to an endpoint 04 Jun 13:53
skvidal 04 Jun 13:53
* skvidal tries to figure out how old he'll be when the board is finished 04 Jun 13:53
ctyler but good progress on some points 04 Jun 13:53
nirik ok, good to know. It's hard to see that from minutes. 04 Jun 13:53
mdomsch the target audience is "yes" :-) 04 Jun 13:53
notting i believe spot was writing up a proposal for next week-ish 04 Jun 13:53
f13 nirik: there are some conflicting ideas in the current board 04 Jun 13:53
f13 and some proposals being drafted 04 Jun 13:53
spot yeah, that hasn't happened yet. i need more hours in the day. 04 Jun 13:54
nirik so the new board could further shape that discussion? 04 Jun 13:54
f13 don't we all 04 Jun 13:54
spot nirik: yes 04 Jun 13:54
f13 nirik: or muddy it further 04 Jun 13:54
nirik or change it. ;) 04 Jun 13:54
stickster It feels like this topic is so vital for the community, but the Board is trying to make sure we are not alienating parts thereof. 04 Jun 13:54
f13 I'm going to leak my thoughts here 04 Jun 13:54
stickster I think there's generally agreement that "Fedora is not for your Aunt Tillie." 04 Jun 13:54
skvidal f13: eww 04 Jun 13:54
spot 04 Jun 13:54
* spot gets a mop 04 Jun 13:54
f13 Ideally we'd have one spin or one target that is THE target for Fedora 04 Jun 13:54
notting that being said, if we end up rewriting the "who is fedora for" each 6 months with each new board, we're going to do irreparable harm to the project 04 Jun 13:55
f13 anything we do gets measured against that target. If it helps, great. If it doesn't help, but doesn't hurt, great. If it hurts, we need special attention on what is being proposed to see if the hurt is outweighed by the good done elsewhere. 04 Jun 13:55
f13 that's still very hand wavy 04 Jun 13:56
f13 and since I'm on my way out of the board, who knows if that will be carried forward. 04 Jun 13:56
spot f13: fwiw, that seems in line with what i was going to draft, except less hand-wavy 04 Jun 13:56
notting f13: i'm sure someone will pick up the flag for you. 04 Jun 13:56
f13 I do think the board is getting a better understanding at how defining a target will help the project 04 Jun 13:56
notting whoops, i said flag 04 Jun 13:56
skvidal notting: taiwanese flag 04 Jun 13:56
f13 which is one of the harder parts 04 Jun 13:57
spot 04 Jun 13:57
* spot moderates notting for trolling 04 Jun 13:57
f13 knowing what problem we're solving helps us solve the problem 04 Jun 13:57
stickster One way we've talked about this recently is in the context of making sure that, if we have a definitive "more equal than others" approach to THE Fedora target, other groups should be somewhat freed up to explore other options 04 Jun 13:57
stickster In other words, I think we're obligated to make sure that we are not imposing the restrictions of that target unnecessarily on SIGs or spins. 04 Jun 13:58
nirik 04 Jun 13:58
* nirik nods. 04 Jun 13:58
stickster And by the same token, the things that SIG does can't inflict themselves on people using that central target as their entry point into Fedora. 04 Jun 13:58
notting stickster: no Fedora dpkg sig? 04 Jun 13:59
stickster Because if we break that experience, which presumably is what most people would get, we're cutting off our nose to spite our face. 04 Jun 13:59
--- stickster (n=paul@fedora/stickster) changed mode: -v notting 04 Jun 13:59
--- stickster (n=paul@fedora/stickster) changed mode: +v notting 04 Jun 13:59
stickster ha! 04 Jun 13:59
notting i'm sure there's probably a less drastic example to what you're suggesting 04 Jun 14:00
nirik I still think fedora can and is for many people. It's fine to concentrate on some central theme, but should try whereever possible to not quash other themes if people are willing to work on them. 04 Jun 14:00
stickster I agree. 04 Jun 14:00
--- stickster (n=paul@fedora/stickster) changed mode: -v nirik 04 Jun 14:01
stickster (with his concurrence) 04 Jun 14:01
f13 I agree with nirik, so long as what other people are willing to work on don't risk the experience for our central theme 04 Jun 14:02
mdomsch notting: you see febootstrap now in debian :-) 04 Jun 14:02
stickster Right, I think abadger1999 said it well elsewhere when he mentioned "tradeoffs." 04 Jun 14:02
stickster Which is a better expression than my nose-cutting example. 04 Jun 14:03
stickster I think that's it for questions, Board members. 04 Jun 14:03
f13 man, nothing good to lame duck... 04 Jun 14:03
spot whee! 04 Jun 14:03
spot 04 Jun 14:03
* spot runs away screaming 04 Jun 14:03
ctyler in a vacuum 04 Jun 14:04
stickster Thanks very much for attending, both Board and community alike. 04 Jun 14:04
ctyler Thank you all, good discussion. 04 Jun 14:04
* stickster notes that Board members have an important email in their box 04 Jun 14:04
skvidal oh dear 04 Jun 14:04
skvidal 04 Jun 14:04
* skvidal looks 04 Jun 14:04
skvidal no, no I don't 04 Jun 14:04
stickster I sent it out right before the meeting 04 Jun 14:04
skvidal oh 04 Jun 14:04
skvidal stickster: hey - when do I get kicked off the various lists? 04 Jun 14:05
stickster Good question skvidal. Let me note that before we close 04 Jun 14:05
skvidal ie: when is the official transition date from old board 04 Jun 14:05
stickster The final Board appointment will happen around the time I'm in Berlin. 04 Jun 14:05
skvidal umm 04 Jun 14:05
stickster I would propose that the first meeting of the new Board will be the first or second week in July. 04 Jun 14:05
skvidal can you use dates that are not relative to where you are? 04 Jun 14:06
skvidal  :) 04 Jun 14:06
stickster skvidal: No. As you well know, the universe revolves around me. 04 Jun 14:06
skvidal righto 04 Jun 14:06
stickster But more seriously... 04 Jun 14:06
stickster All I meant was that, I'll be sending that email from Berlin. 04 Jun 14:06
stickster Does "first or second week in July" work for everyone still here? 04 Jun 14:06
skvidal then I expect it to be sent w/a german accent 04 Jun 14:06
stickster Schnell! 04 Jun 14:07
* stickster hears no one screaming in pain, so first or second week in July. 04 Jun 14:07
stickster In all honesty, I suspect that the first week in July will be a recovery week for me after spending ~22 days of June away from home. 04 Jun 14:08
stickster I'll float this around to FAB for general knowledge. 04 Jun 14:08
stickster All right, here endeth the meeting. Thank you everyone, and remember that the Board nominees for this election will be in the town hall meeting tonight/tomorrow morning at 0200 UTC, 10:00pm US-Eastern. 04 Jun 14:09
stickster I believe inode0 is moderating at that session. 04 Jun 14:09
stickster Until next time, be excellent to each other! ;-) 04 Jun 14:09
stickster </meeting> 04 Jun 14:09

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