Meeting:Board meeting 2012-02-01

From FedoraProject

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Fedora Board Meeting 2012-02-01

  • Meeting secretary: Jaroslav Reznik

Roll Call

Present

Jared Smith Jaroslav Reznik Toshio Kuratomi Rudi Landmann Rex Dieter Christoph Wickert Jon Stanley Peter Robinson Guillermo Gómez

Not Present

Regards

David Nalley

Agenda

Updates Board business

Updates

  • Fedora 17 schedule update
    • Feature submission deadline last week (2012-01-24)
    • Feature Freeze in one week (2012-02-07)

Board Business

  • Championing projects
    • Due today!
    • FAB mailing list/blog about...
    • Toshio: Work on the Feature Process
    • Peter Robinson: ARM as a Primary Arch
    • Jon Stanley: QA how-to-debug and how-to-test pages
    • Rudi: Streamline docs publication process
  • Ticket 131: retire torrent seed?
  • Proposal -- We want torrents to be available but we don't care if that's done via our own infrastructure or on a different service that we point to from our website.
    • Torrents provided: For F17 should cover all the things that are currently provided by torrent
      • For future Fedora releases, Infra may reduce to what's on get.fp.o

Voting: toshio +1 pbrobinson +1 rdieter +1 jreznik: +1 cwickert: +1 jsmith: +1 jstanley: +1 rudi +1 gomix: +1

=> agreed (9 votes +1)

    • Possible Addition: recommend that any third party used is using an open source torrent solution.

cwickert: +1 rdieter: +1 jsmith: +1 jstanley -1 pbrobinson 0 toshio: 0 rudi +1 jreznik: +1 gomix: 0

=> agreed (5 votes +1, 3 votes 0, 1 votes -1)

    • Possible Addition: still build the .torrent files, even if no longer seeding the downloads

cwickert: +1 jsmith: +1 jstanley +1 toshio: 0 rdieter: 0 pbrobinson +1 rudi +1 gomix: +1 jreznik: +1

=> agreed (7 votes +1, 2 votes 0, 0 votes -1)

jsmith to update ticket and communicate it to the infrastructure team

Proposals from last meeting (IRC):

  • Proposal 1 was: The Board is comfortable with letting the Infra team make the call
  • Proposal 2 was: The Board asks the Infra team to try to use the current solution for F17 release (even if it's IPv4 only, etc.), and get feedback after release
  • Proposal 3 was: Table a decision pending further discussion on the mailing list
  • Proposal 4 was: ask infra to make sure they have a wide audience, and discuss this broadly before making their decision.

cwickert: the decision should not be up to the infrastructure team peter: there are limited people resource (=>security implications etc.) Lack of people joining team?

How to join infrastructure team: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/GettingStarted

  • Ticket 132: Endorsement of https://github.com/fedoraproject
    • https://fedorahosted.org/board/ticket/132
    • Spot says they would need a trademark license agreement to use the Fedora trademark
    • jsmith is uncomfortable granting a blanket trademark license -- would like to see the limit to the scope
    • cwickert: What would it be used for? What makes it different from all the other upstream projects we are working with?
    • toshio: Would like the limitation to be more about "just getting JBoss into Fedora" as opposed to what they posted to the advisory-board list
    • toshio: The patch vs git pull request starts to border on rel-eng/infra issues (expanded trees on pkgs.fp.o, etc)
    • toshio: doesn't answer the question "Why can't an individual contributor do this on their own -- why do they need a Fedora github account"
    • pbrobinson/cwickert: Will the github account be a dumping ground in limbo between upstream and downstream? Is there a more specific (and valid) use case?
    • rdieter: A lot of misgivings would be allayed if the scope were limited (to JBoss as example) -- is that a short-term thing?
    • pbrobinson/cwickert: If it is limited to JBoss, are we discriminating other projects?
    • -ENEEDINFO
    • pbrobinson: fedoracommunity.o domains granted a trademark license still need a disclaimer. Wouldn't we still need one here?
    • jsmith to update ticket
  • Any other Board business?
    • UsrMove feature
      • General concern that coming in so late, this will cause us to slip
      • Proposal: The Board puts forward a statement of concern regarding the feature and the process
        • In trying to draft a proposal, came to the conclusion that anything we would say would be micromanaging.
        • Instead of making a Board statement, we'll reach out to individuals to share our concerns privately

Other Notes

  • Next Board meeting will be a public IRC meeting on Wednesday, February 8th at 18:30 UTC