Extras/SteeringCommittee/Meeting-20060706

= 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

 * c4chris
 * scop
 * abadger1999
 * jeremy
 * dgilmore
 * rdieter
 * jwb
 * tibbs
 * warren
 * thl (late)

Summary

 * FESCo organization
 * thl was nominated and accepted as the chair until FC7. Then someone else will need to take over.
 * It was decided to start a "Vice President" position to run meetings when the chair cannot make the meetings. Discussion of nominees will take place on the FESCo list.
 * Scribe position to summarize the meetings. abadger1999 will do it for now.  Possibly rotate.
 * Meeting time will stay 17:00 UTC for now, 18:00 UTC during the winter.
 * FESCo list. jeremy is taking care of subscriptions so the new FESCo receives mail there.  FESCo members, be sure to send a message to jeremy with the email address to subscribe to the list.
 * Ctrl+C problem. (cvs-commits-mails can be prevented by hitting CTRL+C)
 * Sopwith put in a potential fix.
 * Little testing has been done. Hans (bug reporter) was emailed to see if it is still hackable.
 * Warren asked if anyone has tested whether breaking the ssh connection to the server at the right time will prevent syncmail from running. Jeremy replied that in theory syncmail will still run.
 * Encouraging Extras Reviews
 * Better guidelines for reviews have been worked on.
 * New ideas solicited:
 * possibility of scripting pieces of the review (how does this differ from rpmlint?)
 * Creating an alternative to package reviews to getting a package into Extras. How do we avoid fire-and-forget packagers with this?  Auto remove orphans?
 * Reviving review days
 * Making reviews more beneficial to the reviewer;
 * Publishing stats on number of reviews per person
 * Making the requirement to do reviews more prominent
 * Encouraging swapping reviews
 * A points system to allow reviewers to gain points towards having their package reviewed.
 * Requires automated tools for tracking
 * tibbs is going to try simply asking the reviewed person to make a review in return.
 * c4chris will retrieve some stats on how the package review queue has changed over the course of time.
 * Creating a new tracker bug FE-GUIDELINES to block bugs which are stuck because guidelines are in flux (as in php extensions are being worked on right now)
 * Deferred
 * Plan for the next election
 * change log format (Was decided on the Packaging list)
 * IPv6 proposal: Will be discussed at the next FESCo then bumped to the packaging list.

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 (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: +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
 * don't review..." etc