Meeting:Board meeting 2010-01-21

Roll Call

 * Present: Matt Domsch, Paul Frields, John Poelstra, Colin Walters, Dennis Gilmore, Mike McGrath, Chris Tyler (late)
 * Regrets: Josh Boyer, Tom "Spot" Callaway, Chris Aillon
 * Assigned meeting secretary: Colin Walters

virtio-win drivers
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/advisory-board/2010-January/007853.html
 * We have implicitly allowed pre-built binaries in Fedora Hosted that promote the spread and use of Fedora (liveusb-creator)
 * Should provide explicit guidance for the future, and possibly note in our packaging guidelines
 * QUESTION: Does the Board approve the following approach?
 * If a code project is available under a Free Software license, you can make pre-built binaries available on fedorahosted.org as long as the source code used to build those binaries is also made available and that the source code and the prebuilt binaries are not distributed in the same tarball (or, at a minimum, that a "source only" tarball is available).
 * mdomsch: Want to encourage this kind of thing (good experience in Fedora); particularly use of Fedora as virt platform, and FOSS on other platforms
 * pfrields: Without drivers, virt has much less value. The board has made it a point not to restrict choice.
 * walters: Provide the best value to people we can through the constraints we have (FOSS)
 * dgilmore: We should focus on Fedora as the distribution (rpms); things not actually runnable in Fedora should be hosted from a provider; in this case linux-kvm.org would be a better host.
 * mdomsch: this particular virtio-win driver is currently a 1-person team; it's problematic to host just on Red Hat internal ET server (for technical/contribution reasons). Using fedorahosted.org lets additional people on the Fedora virtualization team participate in the development and publish builds.
 * poelstra: would there be any merit to including in main repos if we can establish that they were built by a trusted source?
 * pfrields and others: gets too messy in terms of defining "trust," as Adam Jackson pointed out on f-a-b
 * mmcgrath: Concerns about fedorahosted not being a distribution site (like alt, or /pub/fedora) (mdomsch: virt-manager will know how to download.)
 * pfrields: Proposed modification of spot's proposal; suggest hosting on alt
 * mdomsch: Board is not in role of defining infrastructure, Infra team will decide hosting based on details like expected traffic
 * dgilmore: Uneasy about fedorahosted.org, not right (long term?) answer, but it's acceptable. Concerns about Fedora branding.
 * pfrields: Cross platform tools are likely to increase on fedorahosted.org, growing Fedora brand through hosting is a good thing
 * Rough consenus reached
 * AGREED:
 * Spot's statement above is correct
 * Fedora Hosted is acceptable for this type of material
 * Infrastructure will find the correct, preferred place for hosting in specific cases.

Status update from SWG (Strategic Working Group)

 * Met at first meeting on Monday
 * Created wiki page of issues and posted to advisory-board
 * No community response so far
 * Would appreciate full board review of the outstanding issues and adjustments to wiki as applicable
 * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Unfinished_Board_issues


 * poelstra: Surprised at no community response.
 * pfrields: Look over issues list, separate into pieces.  The community response is likely quiet until there are details to discuss.
 * walters: Thought it might be a question of impact; how will this affect people.
 * ctyler: Will expect feedback later, might be too soon.

Other items

 * Brief discussion of issue/ticket queue, basically up2date

Next meeting

 * PROPOSED: Thursday, January 28, 2010 UTC 1700 (12:00pm US Eastern)