Extras/SteeringCommittee/Meeting-20060427

Summary
Present from FESCo: thl, warren, f13, scop, mschwendt, jeremy, skvidal, spot,


 * Kernel module standardization
 * scop> | one kmodtool/yum interop issue was found, I just committed some fixes for it
 * thl still wants to improve some minor things but has no time for it atm -- needs to wait
 * Security SIG/EOL
 * Updated proposal in the works; some discussions around details (see full log for details)
 * proposal will be posted to the list (it was actually posted to the list on friday after the meeting)
 * Broken deps report
 * skvidal and mschwendt will work on getting it to run on extras64
 * the script will be imported to cvs
 * Weekly sponsorship nomination
 * tibbs (Jason L Tibbitts III) nominated himself; FESCo will discuss the nomination in the next meeting
 * FESCO future
 * we'll roughly proceed as suggested in the proposal for a elected FESCO that was posted to the list
 * some interesting quotes:
 * <     warren> | The point about democracy, I'm not entirely sure we want democracy to be the top factor in governance.  I mean, look at what happened to Debian.  We should instead promote meritocracy.  In practice, democracy tends to follow merit in a volunteer organization, so it would just happen anyway.
 * <  mschwendt> | warren: meritocracy _and_ acceptance/approval by the community
 * <     warren> | I think this is a little more complicated than we're thinking now, and we shouldn't lock ourselves into any long-term plan just yet.
 * <        thl> | any plans we do can be reverted later
 * Members of cvsextras are eligible to vote
 * self-nominations to fedora-extras-list and the wiki during the first week of May and voting in the second week (if we have a solution how to actually do the vote until then; help appreciated); people that want to be in FESCo should (that's no must) lay down informations like "1) Mission Statement 2) Past work summary 3) Future plans"
 * Still discussions about the number of FESCo members in the future. Remains undecided, we'll look at it again when we saw the nomination results.
 * some minor packaging guidlines changes
 * modules for "erlang" and "R" shall follow the same naming scheme as python in the future
 * Free discussion
 * yum problems "Provides: and Obsoletes: to satisfy pre-extras package dependencies?" -> mschwendt will file a bug

Full Log
19:00           --- | thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting in progress 19:00             * | thl looks around 19:00             * | warren here 19:00 <        thl> | any FESCo members around? 19:01             * | scop here in a jiffy 19:01 <        f13> | I'm here. 19:01 <        thl> | okay, let's start slowly 19:01           --- | thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- Kernel module standardization 19:02 <        thl> | didn't have time for it 19:02 <         thl> | it still needs some minor fixes afaics 19:02 <       scop> | one kmodtool/yum interop issue was found, I just committed some fixes for it 19:02 <         thl> | and I plan to reply to Axel's mail, too 19:02 <        thl> | scop, k, thx 19:03             * | scop is trying hard to avoid feeding that discussion 19:03 <        thl> | well, let's ignore it for now and proceed 19:03           --- | thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- Security SIG 19:03 <        thl> | I have a updated proposal 19:03 <        thl> | and recevied some comments on the privatly 19:04 <        thl> | but didn't found time yet to post it to the public list 19:04 <  mschwendt> | have you posted it to fesco-list? 19:04 <        thl> | do we want to wait another week to discuss this 19:04 <       f13> | thl: I'm finally on fedora-extras-list so I'll see future discussion. 19:04 <        thl> | mschwendt, nope, sorry 19:04 <     warren> | I'd like to talk privately about the proposal 19:04 <  mschwendt> | how "privately"? 19:04 <        f13> | warren: planning on doing that any time soon, you know, like the last week (or 3) you were given ? 19:05 <        thl> | warren, we should have at least one final round of discussion on fedora-extras-list 19:05 <     warren> | I'm mostly satisfied by the current proposal. 19:05 < mschwendt> | thl: I don't find the fedora-extras-list discussion too fruitful 19:05 <     warren> | mschwendt, yes. 19:05 <        thl> | warren, mschwendt, that's often true 19:05 < mschwendt> | thl: it loops back to the "2nd class citizen" problem 19:06 <        thl> | but I still want to show it to the public once 19:06 <        thl> | before we ratify it 19:06 <      warren> | how does Hans feel about the current proposal? 19:06 <     warren> | the thl proposal was different from Hans 19:06             * | jeremy is here 19:06 <     warren> | and I really think that everyone should really listen closely to what Bressers has to say. I feel strongly that copying Bressers' model is a good idea. 19:06 <        thl> | warren, I got the impression that hans has a lot of other things to do atm 19:07 <     warren> | One particular issue I'd like to discuss now. 19:07 <        thl> | warren, shoot 19:08 <     warren> | I don't think it is a good idea to be completely inflexible in not letting new things in. We should have a process of approval that is a HUGE hassle, but at least it is *possible*. 19:08             * | Rathann|work is away: Home. 19:08 <        thl> | warren, that's in the latest proposal I wrote 19:08 <     warren> | Discourage people from adding things, and generally we say no, unless there is a good reason to allow something in. 19:08 <    warren> | thl, sorry, I missed that, is that the private mail version? 19:08 <        thl> | warren, a "FESCO can allow exceptions" 19:08 <        thl> | warren, yes, the private mail version 19:08 <     warren> | OK, sounds good. 19:09 <  mschwendt> | hmm, what do we discuss a secret private mail version? Who knows it? 19:09 <  mschwendt> | s/what/why/ 19:09 <     warren> | Let's discuss this in private and aim to post the proposal on fedora-extras-list on Monday? 19:09             * | Rathann|work is away: Home. 19:10 <        thl> | mschwendt, sorry, I took this approach because it seemed the best way to driver things forward 19:10 <        thl> | mschwendt, Josh, warren, and the people that showed interest in the Security SIG were in the "To:" 19:10 <        f13> | warren: bressers' model is more about implimentation. The proposal was about framework. 19:10 <     warren> | Do we have agreement on this basic idea? "Security team's role is mainly tracking and testing security. Maintainers are primarily resposible for fixing tracked issues.  If they fail, then security team steps in." 19:11 <        thl> | warren, "Monday" seems like a good idea 19:11 <    warren> | thl, let's go for that. 19:11 <        thl> | k 19:11 <         thl> | anything else regarding EOL / Security SIG? 19:12             * | thl will move on in 15 19:12 <     warren> | let's move =) 19:12            --- | thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting --  Broken deps report 19:12 <         thl> | skvidal, are you around? 19:13 <     skvidal> | yes, I am now 19:13 <     skvidal> | hiya! 19:13 <         thl> | mschwendt, skvidal can you get this running on extras64? 19:13 <     skvidal> | yep, we can do it now 19:13 <     skvidal> | mschwendt: once more, I'm sorry, send me the script or check it into extras-buildsys/utils in fedora cvs 19:14 <   mschwendt> | where can I learn more about "fedora cvs"? is it the same or different from Extras cvs? 19:14 <     skvidal> | http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/?root=fedora 19:14 <     skvidal> | right there 19:14 <     skvidal> | it's the same cvs system 19:14 <     skvidal> | just a different tree 19:15 <         jwb> | it requires different auth too 19:15 <   mschwendt> | is joining a special group in the account system needed? 19:15 <    skvidal> | which I thought mschwendt had 19:15 <    skvidal> | I'll check 19:15 <    skvidal> | mschwendt: one sec 19:15 <        jwb> | mschwendt, yes. cvsfedora 19:15 <  mschwendt> | k 19:16 <     skvidal> | ah, you are not in that group. sorry 19:16 <     warren> | mschwendt, if you don't have access to that group, you definitely should have it. 19:16 <    skvidal> | do you want to be? 19:16 <    skvidal> | I can add you now, if you'd like 19:16           <-- | BobJensen has quit (Remote closed the connection) 19:16 <  mschwendt> | well, if I shall keep the scripts there, yes 19:16 <    skvidal> | okay doke 19:17 <    skvidal> | mschwendt: done 19:17 <        thl> | k, anything else regarding the scripts? 19:17 <    skvidal> | you're in the group 19:17 <   skvidal> | thl: we'll work out the rest in email, I suspect 19:17 <        thl> | skvidal, mschwendt, tia 19:17           --- | thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- Weekly sponsorship nomination 19:17 <        thl> | anyone? 19:18             * | thl will move on in 15 19:18 <  mschwendt> | no self-nominees? ;) 19:18 <        ixs> | .oO( to be shot down in flames... ;) 19:18           --- | thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- FESCO future 19:18 <       tibbs> | Crap. 19:19 <         thl> | opinions on the ml-thread on fedora-extras-list? 19:19            --> | BobJensen (Robert 'Bob' Jensen)  has joined #Fedora-Extras 19:19 <         thl> | tibbs, any idea for a better solution? 19:19 <    skvidal> | thl: I think we should progress with more-or-less your suggestion about elections. 19:19 <       tibbs> | Sorry, I seem to have missed the start of this meeting. 19:20 <       tibbs> | date -u is telling me it;s 17:20. 19:20 <      warren> | Elections for the new members this time? 19:20 <      warren> | Or are we talking about built-in timeout in FESCO membership with re-elections necessary? 19:21 <         thl> | warren, I can't follow you completely 19:21 <      warren> | I think nominations and election for the new FESCO members this round are a good idea. 19:21 <        thl> | "built-in timeout in FESCO membership with re-elections necessary" seems like the way to go IMHO 19:21 <       scop> | yes 19:21 <     warren> | I don't think automatically timing people out necessitating re-election is a good idea. 19:22 <   bpepple> | thl: +1 19:22 <     warren> | I do support kicking people out if they haven't done anything. =) 19:22 <        thl> | I would prefer if we could avoid kicking 19:22 <        scop> | auto-timeout is much easier and less hassle 19:22 <      warren> | The point about democracy, I'm not entirely sure we want democracy to be the top factor in governance.  I mean, look at what happened to Debian.  We should instead promote meritocracy.  In practice, democracy tends to follow merit in a volunteer organization, so it would just happen anyway. 19:23 <         thl> | warren, I'm fine with "meritocracy" 19:23 <         ixs> | warren: the debian problem is not the democracy, it's the love for endless discussions. 19:23 <         ixs> | and politics. 19:23 <   mschwendt> | warren: meritocracy _and_ acceptance/approval by the community 19:24 <         thl> | mschwendt, +1 19:24 <      warren> | mschwendt, that sounds nice, but how do you codify that? 19:24 <   mschwendt> | yeah, that's the hard part 19:24 <  mschwendt> | we need to make FESCO work and see how the community reacts to FESCO's decisions 19:25 <        thl> | warren, decisions have to be made in a meritocracy, too -- that's also a hard part 19:25 <  mschwendt> | part of that will be a learning-by-doing process 19:25             * | spot agrees with mschwendt 19:25 <     warren> | I think this is a little more complicated than we're thinking now, and we shouldn't lock ourselves into any long-term plan just yet. 19:25 <     warren> | It would be simpler if we do a one-time election for these new members now and figure out what to do with the new leadership group. 19:25 <      tibbs> | You have to be willing to try and fail and try again. 19:25 <        thl> | any plans we do can be reverted later 19:26 <     warren> | true 19:26 <  mschwendt> | sounds good 19:26 <        thl> | we just need to find a way to do it now "somehow" 19:26 <        thl> | and we'll learn from the results 19:26 <     warren> | one more thought along these lines 19:26 <     warren> | Who is eligible to vote? 19:26 <        thl> | cvsextras 19:27 <     warren> | Democracies have not always created the best outcome in history. 19:27 <        thl> | well, we can try something like the following 19:27 <        thl> | (it was suggested on the list iirc) 19:27 <     warren> | Democracy could mean someone joins without merit. 19:28 <        thl> | we let people vote 7 (or 9)FESCo members 19:28 <    skvidal> | warren: do you have a political science degree? 19:28 <        thl> | and 6 (or 4) are elected by the old FESCo 19:28 <    skvidal> | warren: history? 19:28 <    skvidal> | warren: any social science at all? 19:28 <     warren> | skvidal, no, but I studied it a lot. 19:28           --> | kimberly (kimberly)  has joined #fedora-extras 19:29 <    skvidal> | warren: trust me. given the userbase there's not much fear of a fesco dominated by people who are not qualified for the job 19:29 <     warren> | Another issue, do we have agreement that we want FESCo to be larger in order to have some redundancy in membership, because not everyone attends meetings at any given time? 19:29 <     warren> | I'm in support of 15 for this reason. 19:29             * | spot points out that meetings during the work week are very hard for him to attend 19:29 <  mschwendt> | yes, because we need to reach a well-defined quorum 19:30 <        thl> | there were a lot of people that prefered a smaller FESCo 19:30 <       scop> | I still support a smaller number, like 9, and folks who are really active 19:30 <        thl> | I don't want to go lower than 11 19:30 <        thl> | and my vote are still 13 19:30 <     warren> | I don't think there is a danger in FESCo of a larger group causing too much noise. FESCo is really about who gets things done. 19:31 <     warren> | 13 or 15 is fine to me. 19:31 <     warren> | If we have enough energized people who want to be there to number 15, I dont think we should deny two. 19:31 <     warren> | Let's just go forward with nominations? 19:31 <      tibbs> | What is the size of the voting pool? 19:31             * | warren looks... 19:32 <    bpepple> | tibbs: Aren't there around a 100 or so folks in cvsextras? 19:32 <        thl> | bpepple, no, there are more iirc 19:32 <  mschwendt> | 238 19:32 <     warren> | easy things to agree upon: We want nominations. 19:33 <    bpepple> | Boy, that a bunch more than I thought. 19:33 <      tibbs> | Tough to regularly find 15 people from that. 19:33 <     warren> | cvsextras should vote for people who are nominatd 19:33 <        thl> | warren, self-nominations imho 19:33 <     warren> | ok, that's fine 19:33 <        thl> | we can go for the proposed plan 19:34 <        thl> | self-nominations to fedora-extras-list during the first week of May 19:34 <        thl> | and voting in the second week 19:34 <    warren> | thl, +1 19:34 <        thl> | (if we have a solution how to actually do the vote until then) 19:34 <     warren> | I move that we decide the number of spots only after we see the nomination results. 19:35 <        thl> | warren, yeah, might make sense 19:35 <        thl> | any "-1" for the "self-nominations to fedora-extras-list during the first week of May" solution? 19:36 <        thl> | otherwise we'll go for it 19:36 <      warren> | Should we suggest that nominees put information about their work and plans on their Wiki page? 19:36 <        thl> | mschwendt, scop, jeremy, skvidal ? 19:36 <    bpepple> | warren: That's not a bad idea. 19:36 <        thl> | warren, +1 19:36 <     warren> | We can have a FESCOCampaign page with links to nominee pages. 19:36 <       spot> | sounds good to me. 19:36 <   skvidal> | thl: announce the call for nominations to a couple of lists, too 19:36 <    skvidal> | otherwise I'm down with that 19:36 <        thl> | skvidal, will do 19:37 <     skvidal> | oh and one more thing 19:37 <    skvidal> | you do NOT have to self-nominate 19:37 <    skvidal> | if someone else wants to they can nominate another person 19:37 <     warren> | but you do have to accept a nomination =) 19:37 <     skvidal> | but the other person has the right to decline 19:37 <     skvidal> | fuck that noise 19:37 <         thl> | and write a mission statement 19:37 <      warren> | on each person's wiki page 19:38              * | spot goes to write a mission statement on each person's wiki page... 19:38 <         thl> | skvidal, I really want to hear goals, plan from those that want to be in the next FESCO 19:38 <     skvidal> | okay, that's cool 19:38 <      warren> | how about... 19:38 <     skvidal> | but if someone is nominated 19:38 <     skvidal> | and they don't want to do it 19:38 <     skvidal> | they can decline the nomination 19:38 <     skvidal> | that's all I mean 19:39 <         thl> | sure 19:39 <      warren> | 1) Mission Statement 2) Past work summary 3) Future plans 4) links to good posts or reviews and other examples 19:39 <  mschwendt> | 4? 19:39 <     warren> | I don't know, just ideas. 19:39 <     warren> | #4 is really the same as #2 19:40 <  mschwendt> | except you don't really want anyone to look up "links" 19:40 <     warren> | eh? 19:40 <  mschwendt> | is bugzilla.fedora.us still alive? 19:40 <  mschwendt> | are you serious about "links to good posts"? 19:41 <     warren> | actually, for the moment it is still up 19:41 <      warren> | the other server died 19:41 <        thl> | I don't think we need to formalize the format of the "mission statement" to much 19:41 <   skvidal> | thl: +1 19:41 <     warren> | If you're serious about getting votes, you have the option of putting information on your wiki page. 19:42 <        thl> | k, anything else? 19:42             * | thl will move on in 20 19:43           --- | thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- Free discussion 19:43 <        thl> | anything else releated to Extras? 19:43 <  mschwendt> | The topic I started on fesco-list yesterday. 19:43 <      tibbs> | I had wanted to self-nominate for sponsorship but it seems my clocks are wrong. 19:43 <  mschwendt> | I really seek for more feedback from other FESCO members. 19:44 <    skvidal> | mschwendt: file a bug 19:44 <      tibbs> | I'll catch the next meetin for that. 19:44 <        jwb> | mschwendt, what is that topic? 19:44 <     warren> | skvidal, the last time a bug was filed it was closed NOTABUG, are you saying your mind changed? 19:45 <    skvidal> | I'm saying i'm not sure it is the same thing at all 19:45 <     warren> | skvidal, your attitude here is a bit upsetting. 19:45 <    skvidal> | more importantly the rule is the same no matter what 19:45 <  mschwendt> | jwb: The thread "Provides: and Obsoletes: to satisfy pre-extras package dependencies?" on extras-list is related. 19:45 <    skvidal> | what attitude - he claims there is a bug or a problem 19:45 <        thl> | jwb, that'S https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-April/msg01620.html 19:45 <    skvidal> | he refuses to file it to get looked at 19:45 <         jwb> | thank you 19:45 <     warren> | If you insist this is a different issue, then he should file the bug and we'll see where this goes. 19:46 <        thl> | warren, agreed 19:46 <  mschwendt> | skvidal: do you accept bug reports in bugzilla.redhat.com or only upstream where I don't have an account? 19:46 <     warren> | But everyone else has been under the impression that this was the same bug, if that is the case then your stance has been frustrating. 19:46 <      tibbs> | I started that thread; I was just checking to make sure that it was allowable 19:46 <    skvidal> | mschwendt: I have hundreds of bugs opened at rh bugzilla 19:46 <       scop> | I'm pretty sure it's the same one 19:46 <    skvidal> | mschwendt: feel free 19:46 <      tibbs> | to include those kinds of obsoletes to cover pre-extras package history. 19:46 <    skvidal> | warren: how is it that you help in this discussion? 19:46 <    skvidal> | warren: scurry on your way 19:47 <     warren> | skvidal, I'm pointing out that your typical attitude is demeaning towards others. 19:47 <     warren> | skvidal, including this. 19:47 <    skvidal> | not really 19:47 <    skvidal> | just you 19:47 <    skvidal> | not others 19:47 <  mschwendt> | skvidal: okay, I'm going to file a bug in the next 1-2 hours 19:47 <    skvidal> | mschwendt: cool 19:47             * | spot wants to propose some minor packagingguidlines changes 19:47 <       scop> | mschwendt, put me in Cc, will you? 19:47 <  mschwendt> | scop: yes 19:48 <    skvidal> | yay, progress 19:48 <        thl> | okay, I'll move on 19:48            --- | thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- spot: some minor packagingguidlines changes 19:48 <        f13> | warren: um, I think you're misguided. skvidal needs a bug filed so that he can examine the issue to see if they are in fact the same issue or not. 19:48 <       spot> | specifically, i want to append "erlang-*" and "R-*" to the python naming scheme 19:48 <        f13> | warren: not a hard concept to understand. 19:48 <    skvidal> | spot: append or prepend? 19:48 <     warren> | f13, stay out of this, this isn't your problem. 19:48 <    skvidal> | warren: nor is it yours 19:48 <        f13> | *cough* 19:49 <       spot> | skvidal: either or. add. 19:49             * | spot is pretty dosed up on cough medicine 19:49 <     warren> | f13, quite frankly, I'm annoyed that you NOW join fedora-extras-list despite being on FESCO for how long? really... 19:49 <     jeremy> | spot: you mean "have erlang-* and R-* follow the same" ? 19:49 <       spot> | jeremy: yeah. 19:49 <       spot> | same as python 19:49 <     jeremy> | seems sane 19:49 <        f13> | warren: I was dragged into FESCO due to Legacy, and I've been trying to get OFF fesco for a while now. 19:49 <        jwb> | warren, skvidal, f13: /msg each other with bitching please 19:49 <    skvidal> | spot: it makes sense from a consistency standpoint 19:49 <    skvidal> | jwb: :) 19:49 <       tibbs> | Stricter than python would be good 19:49 <         thl> | skvidal, yeah, seems sane 19:49 <     skvidal> | tibbs: stricter? 19:50 <       tibbs> | Python has the "py" exception; no need for that. 19:50 <     skvidal> | oh 19:50 <       nirik> | spot: did you follow the elisp issue ? ( muse review )... thoughts on elisp namespace? 19:50 <         thl> | s/skvidal/spot/ 19:50 <      warren> | What about the emacs sub-package namespace? 19:50 <     skvidal> | tibbs: you don't want erfoo :) 19:50 <     jeremy> | skvidal: I want erlfoo ;) 19:50 <     skvidal> | jeremy: my name is erlfoo 19:50              * | warren fought the Java namespace battle last year and lost. 19:50 <       tibbs> | The initial problem was "efoo". 19:50 <       tibbs> | Not a lot of uniqueness in "e". 19:50 <     skvidal> | tibbs: ejabberd is an example 19:50 <     skvidal> | it's not a erlang module 19:50 <     skvidal> | but it is written in erlang 19:51 <       tibbs> | I assume we're talking about add-on modules 19:51              * | ixs pipes up, I have ejabberd in the extras queue 19:51 <        spot> | yeah, only add-on modules 19:51 <     skvidal> | tibbs: okay 19:51 <       tibbs> | not standalone packages that happen to be written in something. 19:51 <     skvidal> | ixs: yay 19:51 <     skvidal> | tibbs: okay, then I agree 19:51 <     skvidal> | anyone against erlang-* and R-*? 19:51 <      warren> | Add-on modules that are libraries and not applications should follow namespace guidelines. Typically the applications at the end of the chain don't. 19:52 <       spot> | nirik: i'll have to look at elisp seperately. 19:52 <        ixs> | skvidal: first successfull build happened yesterday. the openssl stuff was tricky. 19:52 <    skvidal> | ixs: cool 19:52 <     warren> | +1 Just go for erlang-* and R-* 19:52 <    skvidal> | spot: sounds like a winner 19:52 <       scop> | elisp needs to be emacs-* and xemacs-* in binaries due to incompatibilities with byte-compiled code 19:53 <       scop> | unless the Debian way that tagoh suggested makes its way in in one form or another 19:53 <      nirik> | spot: yeah, it's diffrent. I don't think it's worth doing a specific namespace for it... not enough packages, and confusing since there is emacs and xemacs to deal with. 19:53 <       spot> | Other item I'd like to do is add a section to the Guidelines covering find_lang, why and how to use it. 19:53 <       spot> | We've got a MUST in the reviewguidelines about it, but no text in the Guidelines 19:53 <        f13> | spot: please do! 19:53 <      tibbs> | Yes, I don't understand %find_lang. 19:54 <      tibbs> | At least, not completely enough to tell submitters how to handle it. 19:54 <     warren> | Regarding elipse, I move that scop writes a summary proposal for policy to fedora-extras-list, we discuss it, then aim for ratification next Thursday. 19:54 <     warren> | elisp* 19:54 <      nirik> | scop: yeah, but base packages are currently mostly %name... not emacs-%name or elisp-%name or anything. 19:55 <       scop> | warren, I'd rather not 19:55             * | jwb smiles at ratification 19:55 <     warren> | scop, what do you want to happen? 19:55 <       scop> | no time, nor much interest here, and tagoh's approach should to be discussed first 19:55 <     warren> | hmm 19:55 <      tibbs> | Yes, this is a complicated issue. 19:55 <     warren> | Or we could just continue to ignore the problem. 19:56 <      tibbs> | We need to dissect Debian's approach to elisp packages. 19:56             * | nirik doesn't see a problem with no namespace for base packages for elisp and emacs- and xemacs- subpackages for them... 19:57 <     warren> | nirik, like what happened to muse? 19:57 <       spot> | well, since elisp issues aren't going to be decided now, thats all i have. 19:57 <      nirik> | warren: yeah... and mew, and others already in extras. ;) 19:58 <        f13> | spot: did we want to talk about a new 'governing' body over the Package Guideliens and such? 19:58 <         f13> | now that more than just Extras is invovled? 19:58 <        spot> | f13: i do, but lets get FESCO sorted out first. 19:58 <      warren> | f13, thl, me and Max began a plan for that 19:58 <         f13> | warren: oh? 19:58 <        spot> | warren: yeah, thanks for CC'ing me on that btw. 19:59 <         thl> | spot, I think we covered evrerything for today 19:59 <      warren> | f13, we need to figure it out before posting it wider 19:59            --- | thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- nearly done 19:59 <      warren> | spot, this began literally last night with Max pushing, I suspect he is not aware of you, don't worry you'll be included. 19:59              * | warren nudges mspevack 20:00              * | mspevack met spot at LinuxWorld. If I left him out of a thread, I apologize 20:01 <       spot> | life goes on. are we about done? i need to go rest, still very sick. 20:02 <        thl> | warren, spot, f13, let's get back to it another time 20:02 <    warren> | thl, yes, this is in progress. 20:02 <     warren> | I move that we adjourn. 20:02 <        thl> | k, anything else? 20:02 <       spot> | second 20:03 <     warren> | pretty good, lots of ground covered in roughly an hour. 20:03             * | thl will close the meeting in 60 20:03             * | thl will close the meeting in 30 20:03 <        thl> | tibbs, btw, consider yourself nominated 20:03 <        thl> | tibbs, we'll discuss this next week 20:04 <      tibbs> | Thanks. 20:04             * | thl will close the meeting in 10 20:04 <        thl> | MARK meeting end 20:04 <      tibbs> | BTW, the Wiki page says the meeting starts about now. 20:04 <     warren> | tibbs, URL? 20:04 <      tibbs> | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SteeringCommittee 20:04 <      tibbs> | Unless it isn't 18:05 UTC right now.