Extras/SteeringCommittee/Meeting-20060504

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


 * kernel modules
 * was removed from the schedule -- still needs some fine tuning, but works in general
 * I think this item is pretty much done, we just need some kmods reviewed and into the repo (or new maintainers for the thinkpad/lirc ones)
 * warren will poke around internally at redhat so GFS and Co are changed to the new standard
 * EOL / Security Team
 * we agreed to go forward with the plan proposed in https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-April/msg01650.html ; tibbs, bress and f13 will sure the information makes in into the wiki
 * FESCo future
 * there was some confusion if all FESCo seat in the planed election will be voted on; yes, a voting on a complete new FESCo this time (quoting spot:"it means something that the FESCO members are chosen by FE even if it ends up being the same people"). Maybe in the future we'll switch to a scheme where each election after each release of core will be on 50% of the seats.
 * only a small number of self-nominations where there until Thursday; as a result skvidal nominated some people from the old FESCo. They don't have a mission statement in the wiki page, but this is considered to be okay for existing FESCo members (it's probably also okay for non-existing FESCo members, but it probably nowers chances to be elected).
 * deadline is Sunday night (CET); but we have no system how to actualy do the election so the deadline is extended until we have a proper system. When it will be ready there is a 24 hour gap for last-minute nominations and another 24 hour gap until the actual voting begins (both things will be announced on fedora-extras-list)
 * the election will happen with a scheme "We have X FESCo seats and Y nominees for it. vote for X people"
 * would be nice if we could use the accounts system to manage the voting; jwb and spot are looking into that (help from python hackers appreciated)
 * Weekly sponsorship nomination
 * tibbs, Jason L Tibbitts III accepted
 * changes to the packaging/review guidelines
 * discussed and agreed on:
 * "Game music or audio content is permissible, as long as the content is freely distributable without restriction, and the format is not patent encumbered."
 * "If the packager needs a sponser, the reviewer must be capable of sponsoring to take ownership of the review. Other parties are welcome to make suggestions and add themselves to the CC of hte bug, but should not take ownership of the bug or the review."
 * free discussion
 * seems we need a better way to track and resolve legal issues

Full Log
19:00           --- | thl has changed the topic to: FESCO Meeting in progress 19:00 <        thl> | k, who's around? 19:00             * | f13 calls 'here' 19:00           --> |  has joined #fedora-extras 19:00             * | f13 points at, he's here too. 19:00 <        f13> | (she?) 19:01             * | skvidal is here 19:01             * | jeremy is sort of here 19:01             * | spot is also here 19:01             * | scop is here 19:01             * | jima hides from the fesco meeting 19:01             * | _wart_ is watching from the sidelines 19:01             * |  is here 19:01 <        thl> | k, lets start 19:01             * | Anvil <- _o/ 19:01           --- | thl has changed the topic to: FESCO Meeting in progress -- kernel modules 19:01 <        thl> | nothing new here 19:02 <        thl> | the fix for kmodtool that scop commited seems to work 19:02 <        thl> | yum installs kmod's now normally and does not update them 19:02 <       scop> | I think this item is pretty much done, we just need some kmods reviewed and into the repo 19:02 <        thl> | jeremy, warren, we should convert GFS and Co soon (at least before test1) 19:02 <       scop> | (or new maintainers for the thinkpad/lirc ones) 19:03 <        thl> | scop, mostly agreed 19:03 <        thl> | scop, some fine-tuning can still be done later 19:03 <        thl> | I'll move it to my own todo list 19:03 <     warren> | thl, agreed, I'll push the necessary people. 19:04 <        thl> | warren, thx; if they need help I can try to find time to help 19:04 <        thl> | k, moving on 19:04            --- | thl has changed the topic to: FESCO Meeting in progress -- EOL / Security Team 19:04 <        thl> | k, what are the opinions? 19:04 <        f13> | who's going to drive the GFS issue? 19:04 <        thl> | do we want to change anything after the last discussion on fedora-extras-list? 19:04 <        thl> | or proceed with the proposed plan? 19:04 <        f13> | thl: I'm still waiting for warren's email w/ issues.... 19:05 <        f13> | warren: ? 19:05 <        thl> | warren, still issues with the plan? 19:05 <     warren> | I was satisfied by the plan 19:05 <     warren> | wasn't it posted to the public for comment as we discussed last week? 19:05 <        thl> | warren, it was last friday 19:05 <      tibbs> | I recall a lot of argument, but no resolution. 19:06 <      tibbs> | Or at least, no agreement on changes. 19:06 <        thl> | tibbs, that's normal ;-) 19:06 <      warren> | Given the lack of agreement, someone just needs to make the decision to go forward. 19:06 <      warren> | thl, where there any revisions after the Friday post? 19:06 <       tibbs> | I agree.  If something is unworkable we can always revisit, but we have to get started. 19:06 <         thl> | warren, nope 19:06 <         f13> | I didn't see anything needing changes. 19:07 <         f13> | the 'luminary' interested parties all seemed resonably satisfied with it. 19:07 <         f13> | I'm of the opinion to go forward, any changes or issues can be brought up as needed. 19:07 <         thl> | so, can I get some "+1" for the plan proposed in https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-April/msg01650.html 19:07 <      warren> | Can we vote on this last in the meeting? 19:08 <      warren> | talk about other things first 19:08 <     warren> | wait, do we have a quorum? 19:08 <     warren> | Who is actually here today? 19:08 <        f13> | warren: scroll up 19:09 <         thl> | f13, skvidal, jeremy, scop, /me, spot, warren afaics 19:09 <     warren> | ok 19:09 <         jpo> | and me 19:09 <         f13> | skvidal, jeremy, spot, scop, f13, thl, warren, jpo 19:09 <     warren> | sounds good 19:10 <        thl> | so vote now or at the end? 19:10 <       spot> | the plan seems reasonable enough to me. +1 19:10 <       scop> | +1 19:10 <      tibbs> | Just to clarify, "When the Fedora Project drops support for a Fedora Core release" 19:10 <      tibbs> | means that even legacy isn't interested in maintenance, right? 19:11 <     jeremy> | thl: looks good to me. +1 19:11 <     warren> | +1 19:11 <        thl> | tibbs, yes 19:11 <        jpo> | +1 19:11 <    skvidal> | +1 19:11 <        f13> | tibbs: no, what it means is that Legacy is hidden in the lenghty of when Fedora Project drops something. 19:11 <        f13> | +1 19:11 <        f13> | tibbs: Fedora Project includes both Red Hat efforts and Legacy efforts. 19:12 <     warren> | tibbs, we eventually want to merge Legacy into the rest of Fedora and eliminate the different names, but that is a different issue. The focus of this new security plan is the security team which handles tracking, and if necessary fixing. 19:12 <      tibbs> | I understand; I think some were confused by that. 19:12 <        f13> | warren: and the EOL thing (: 19:12 <         thl> | k, so we agreed on this one -- the proposed EOL/Security Team plan is it for now 19:12 <       tibbs> | Nonvoting +1 from me (as a member of the security team) 19:12 <         f13> | incidentally, the security team has already moved forward with doing work.  We now have cvs modules for tracking issues relating to Extras, a mailing list w/ activity, etc... 19:13 <         f13> | so I'll be happy to report to them that we're a go ( 19:13 <      tibbs> | Yes, we're working on stuff. 19:13 <        thl> | :) 19:13 <        spot> | well, its a good thing we rubber stamped it then. ;) 19:13 <        thl> | k, I'll move on 19:13 <         jwb> | bress is leading that right? 19:13 <      tibbs> | Yes. 19:13 <        jwb> | he's here then. no need to report ;) 19:13 <        f13> | jwb: wasn't sure if he was paying attention. 19:13 <         f13> | jwb: and there are others on the team that may not be here. 19:14 <         jwb> | yeah, i was being a smart arse 19:14 <         jwb> | sorry, proceed 19:14            --- | thl has changed the topic to: FESCO Meeting in progress -- FESCo future 19:14 <         f13> | Ok, so since this passed, what do we have to do to put it into effect?  Where do we list the EOL policy and such? 19:14 <       bress> | I'm here, but wasn't paying attention until I got pinged just now, what's up? 19:14 <         jwb> | f13, wiki? 19:14 <         f13> | bress: we approved the EOL and security policy. 19:14 <         thl> | f13, good question -- someone needs to put it in the right place in the wiki 19:14 <         f13> | jwb: yeah, just brainstorming ideas of where in the wiki. 19:14 <         thl> | f13, can you handle that for EOL? 19:15 <        f13> | thl: sure. 19:15             * | f13 action items. 19:15 <     warren> | f13, we can always reorganize later if the chosen location is not ideal, so don't worry about where. 19:15 <        thl> | who handles Security Team -- tibbs ? 19:15           <-- | giallu has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) 19:15 <      tibbs> | I'm helping, not running. 19:15 <        thl> | jwb ? 19:15 <        jwb> | tibbs, he means putting it in the wiki 19:15 <        f13> | tibbs: helping could include updating the wiki (19:16 <         thl> | exactly ;-) 19:16 <        f13> | bress: did you start a wiki section for the security team? 19:16             * | jwb would like to see tibbs or bress do it 19:16 <         f13> | thl: honestly, we can take this to the security list. 19:16 <      bress> | f13: not yet. 19:16 <      tibbs> | Ah, yes, I thought you meant leadin the team. Yes, I'll put the linked policy in the wiki. 19:16 <        jwb> | excellent :) 19:16 <         thl> | tibbs, thx 19:16 <         f13> | thl: we'll create a wiki section for the security team, include our policy somewhere there, and link to it from the Extras page somewhere. 19:16 <         thl> | f13, sounds like a good plan 19:17            --- | thl has changed the topic to: FESCO Meeting in progress -- FESCo future (now for real) 19:17 <         thl> | until now there is only one self-nomination 19:17 <         thl> | deadline is sunday night (CET) 19:17 <     skvidal> | looks like we know who is in charge from now on, then! :) 19:17             * | spot is about to send in his nomination 19:18 <        thl> | what do we do if we less then X nominations? 19:18 <        ixs> | thl: suggestion from the sidelines: do not wait for self-nominations, ask people you trust if they'd be willing to be nominated and if yes, nominate them. 19:18 <        jwb> | was wondering that myself 19:18 <      tibbs> | I may be interested, but feel that I may not be qualified. 19:18 <        thl> | X some number between 10 and 20 19:18 <    skvidal> | thl: realize no one wants to do it and go home? :) 19:18 <       jima> | i theoretically could be interested, but i know i'm not qualified. 19:18 <        spot> | perhaps everyone on FESCO should be automagically nominated unless they bow out? 19:19 <         f13> | hrm, 19:19 <     skvidal> | spot: party pooper 19:19 <        jima> | spot: apathy enabler! 19:19 <         f13> | what are we expressing as necessary qualifications? 19:19 <         f13> | jima: tibbs: why do you feel not qualified? 19:19 <        jima> | f13: i'm quite new to FE, for starters. 19:19 <       tibbs> | Lack of work in the community. 19:19 <        spot> | i can vouch for the lack of jima's qualifications. ;) 19:19 <    bpepple> | f13: Largely undefined as far as I can tell. 19:19 <       jima> | spot: thank you ;) 19:19 <         thl> | f13, I'd say fedora packager and at least two hours a week for Extras related work 19:20 <       tibbs> | I only maintain 2 packages (2 more up for review forever) 19:20 <     skvidal> | can we make contigent self-nominations? 19:20 <         f13> | hah, that takes me out ( 19:20 <        thl> | or better: at least two hours for FESCo/week 19:20 <    skvidal> | ie: I'll self-nominate if there are less than 15 folks nominated so far? 19:20 <        f13> | skvidal: I don't see why not. 19:20 <    skvidal> | b/c I don't want to be in someone's way. 19:20 <       scop> | ditto here 19:20 <      tibbs> | I can do a few hours per week total for Fedora, but I want to keep pushing reviews through. 19:20 <    skvidal> | scop: you don't want me to be in someone's way? :) 19:21 <       scop> | :) 19:21 <        f13> | I'm sure there are folks that don't want to be on FESCO anymore, but if we don't get enough nominations, perhaps we'll draw straws as to who gets replaced. 19:21 <       jima> | skvidal: outta my way! *shoves* 19:21 <       scop> | (no, I don't want to be in someone's way either) 19:21 <       jima> | f13: musical chairs. (might be tricky in the digital world.) 19:21 <    bpepple> | I've thought about it, but haven't got around to writing any kind mission statement. 19:22 <        jwb> | if the number of nominations < seats, that makes voting easier ;) 19:22 <         f13> | hrm. 19:22 <         jwb> | thl, i think you'll see some self-nominations show up at the last minute 19:22 <         thl> | jwb, agreed 19:22 <         f13> | (not that I need it) but do we have a method of saying 'I"d rather not see ${person} in fesco' ? 19:22              * | jima prepares his self-nomination sniping software. 19:22 <         ixs> | jima: nom-o-matic? 19:23 <     skvidal> | f13: the anti-nomination 19:23 <         jwb> | f13, i thought the current FESCo had to narrow down the list for people to vote on 19:23 <        jima> | ixs: yeah, it'll be in extras by next week ;) 19:23 <     skvidal> | I'd like to anti-nominate eric raymond 19:23 <         jwb> | "primaries" in a sense 19:23 <      warren> | skvidal, I'd second that. 19:23 <        jima> | skvidal: *dies* 19:23 <        f13> | jwb: yeah, but if there are less people than chairs open, voting becomes unnecessary 19:23 <    bpepple> | jwb: I think that's a pretty good idea. 19:23 <        jwb> | f13, true 19:24 <        f13> | but I'd rather provide a method for people to express a non-confidence in the nominees. 19:24             * | jwb creates 17 false wiki names... 19:24 <        jwb> | ;) 19:24              * | thl considers to write self-nominations for some people 19:24 <         jwb> | f13, method for non-confidence is important 19:24 <         thl> | k, let's agree on a number 19:25 <         thl> | if less nominations than "number" we extent the nomination period 19:25 <         thl> | I'd say "number=20" 19:25 <         jwb> | are we keeping half of the current FESCo or is every seat up for election? 19:26 <      warren> | keeping whoever wants to stay and has actually done something? 19:26              * | jwb sighs 19:26 <         jwb> | yes 19:26 <         jwb> | or at least whoever wants to stay and _plans_ on doing somethign 19:26 <        spot> | ok, now we're up to 2. 19:27 <         jwb> | i thought we had roughly half that wanted out last week 19:27              * | thl also needs to write a self nomination 19:27 <      warren> | are people turned off by the requirement of writing their plan? 19:27 <        jwb> | i'm not really all that concerned if all the seats are up for election. it just makes the vote that much harder 19:28             * | spot only learned to write last night... :P 19:28 <        jwb> | warren, perhaps it's simply a time issue 19:28 <     warren> | wait, ALL seats are up for election? 19:28 <      tibbs> | Not me. I just got the impression that there was a hierarchy of involvement: 19:28 <        jwb> | warren, that's what i'm asking 19:28 <    bpepple> | warren: I think that might be turning some people off. 19:28 <        f13> | all seats may be a bad thing. 19:28 <     warren> | all seats is a bad thing 19:28 <      tibbs> | reviewer -> package maintainer -> sponsor -> committee member 19:28 <        jwb> | ah, finally 19:28 <        jwb> | tibbs, not necessarily 19:29 <        jwb> | tibbs, you're doing other things. you don't need sponsor auth to be on FESCo 19:29 <     warren> | although tibbs will probably get it this meeting 19:29 <        thl> | warren, f13, well, what do suggest 19:29 <        jwb> | warren, ssh! trying to illustrate a point :) 19:29             * | f13 votes for spot's army of ninjas 19:29 <         thl> | only vote on the seats where poeple said "I'll leave?" 19:29 <         jwb> | thl, yes 19:30 <         thl> | jwb, nope 19:30 <      warren> | thl, yes 19:30 <         f13> | thl: a max of 1/2 the seats for open positions. 19:30 <         f13> | that way we have a max of 50% turnover each vote.  Retain some tribal knowledge each time. 19:30 <      warren> | don't need to set a max 19:30 <         thl> | jwb, I don#t like that because that would mean that some people remain that I haven#t seen once here in the meeting 19:30 <      warren> | if people want to leave, you can't prevent them 19:30 <       tibbs> | You can't stop people from quitting. 19:30 <         f13> | warren: what if everybody wanted to elave? 19:30 <      warren> | f13, then we have bigger problems. 19:31 <         f13> | so far we'v eonly had 2 say they want to stay (by 'say' I mean nominate themselves) 19:31 <    skvidal> | hold on 19:31 <     skvidal> | just stop for a second 19:31 <        jwb> | thl, ok let's start this way:  who is currently on FESCo that _should_ stay? 19:31 <    skvidal> | I think scop and I have a good point 19:31 <    skvidal> | we are willing to stay and help if there is no one else who wants to fill in 19:31 <     skvidal> | but we don't want to get in the way of other people gaining experience and contributing valuably 19:31 <        f13> | skvidal: that is a good point, a safety-net nomination 19:32 <    skvidal> | scop: is that accurate? 19:32 <     warren> | f13, you're confusing the issue. 19:32             * | spot wants to stay, but is willing to let contributors vote on whether they think i should stay or not. 19:32 <        thl> | jwb, I'm not sure on this myself completely 19:32 <     warren> | I don't think it is a good use of time to re-vote in people that want to stay. 19:32 <    skvidal> | I don't want to quit fesco necessarily - I just don't want to stop someone who might be able/willing to do more than me 19:32 <        jima> | spot: is "lynch him!" an option on the voting form? 19:32 <       scop> | skvidal, yes 19:33 <       spot> | jima: yes, its right next to the picture of my ninja army. 19:33 <       jima> | sweet. 19:33 <     warren> | We're wasting time if we seriously want to revote everyone back in. 19:33 <       spot> | warren: i think the notable difference is that we (FESCO) aren't the sole voters. 19:33 <        jwb> | as it stands right now, you don't have enough nominations to fill even half the seats 19:33 <        thl> | We IMHO should revote all once 19:33 <      |Jef|> | skvidal: you left out the word damage in that sentence 19:33 <        thl> | and after FC6 50% again 19:34 <        thl> | after FC7 the other 50% 19:34 <      tibbs> | Seth, why not wait a bit and see what the level of quality of the nominees is? 19:34 <        thl> | and so forth 19:34 <     warren> | The number of nominees makes a difference here. 19:34 <    skvidal> | tibbs: quanity will matter first :) 19:34 <         jwb> | thl, that is fine with me but you run into the numbers issue there 19:34 <         thl> | jwb, yeah, I know :-/ 19:34 <       |Jef|> | tibbs: 'qaulity' and democracy are categorically anti-coorelated 19:34              * | spot still thinks anyone on FESCO who wants to stick around, should be nominated now. 19:35 <         jwb> | spot, yes 19:35 <     skvidal> | alright I'll do that. 19:35 <     skvidal> | anyone who wants to be nominated 19:35 <     skvidal> | say 'yes' now 19:35 <         jwb> | spot, wait... nominated or self-nominate? 19:35 <      warren> | yes 19:35 <     skvidal> | jwb: nominated 19:35 <      warren> | So we *are* revoting in everyone? 19:35 <         f13> | warren: thats only fair. 19:35 <     skvidal> | doesn't matter 19:35 <     skvidal> | if you want to be on fesco say 'yes' 19:35 <        spot> | warren: we're not voting in anyone, we're just nominating 19:35 <     warren> | This seems like a huge waste of time to me. 19:36 <       jima> | just because they're nominated doesn't mean they're voted back in. 19:36             * | spot thinks that it means something that the FESCO members are chosen by FE 19:36 <        spot> | even if it ends up being the same people 19:36 <        f13> | indeed 19:36             * | thl agrees with spot 19:36 <    skvidal> | spot: I agree 19:36 <    bpepple> | spot: +1 19:36 <    skvidal> | who else wants to be nominated? 19:36 <    skvidal> | I am in a nominating mood 19:37 <    skvidal> | alright - I'll do it differently 19:37             * | jima produces reality tv show: 'who wants to be a fesco member?' 19:37 <    skvidal> | anyone on fesco who does not wish to be nominated say 'no' righ now 19:37 <        f13> | no 19:37 <       tibbs> | You should probably do this on your mailing list; or is everyone who is active here now? 19:37 <     warren> | skvidal, Sopwith and Gregdek said they wished to leave. 19:37 <    skvidal> | alright - the rest of you cats get nominated :) 19:37 <        spot> | thl: can i assume that you'd like to stay on FESCO? :) or are you protected from this? 19:37 <        jwb> | imho: thl, warren, skvidal, spot, scop, jeremy should be nominated 19:37             * | spot self-nominated 19:38 <        thl> | jwb, and mschwendt 19:38 <        jwb> | thl, yes 19:38 <     warren> | I don't think silence should mean nomination. 19:38 <        thl> | spot, I'd like to stay but I'll write my nomination myself ;-) 19:38 <         f13> | take it to the email list. 19:38 <         jwb> | i would nominate other, but they don't want to be :) 19:38 <       spot> | jeremy? 19:38 <    skvidal> | this isn't a rape case - silence is consent :) 19:38 <        spot> | and skvidal knows about rape cases. ;) 19:38 <      tibbs> | Thanks to whoever just pushed the cloaks through. 19:38 <     warren> | seriously, some members of FESCO have done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING 19:38 <     jeremy> | hm? 19:38 <       spot> | tibbs: welcome 19:38 <    skvidal> | spot: I have not now, nor have I ever played lacrosse 19:38 <        thl> | skvidal, there are people in FESCo that we havent seen for months 19:38 <     jeremy> | (sorry, people bugging me :-) 19:38 <     warren> | Their continued silence shouldn't mean consent. 19:39 <       jima> | spot: oh, thanks. 19:39 <        jwb> | jeremy, do you want to be on fesco still? 19:39 <        thl> | those should at least say "Hi" to get nominated 19:39 <       spot> | jeremy: you want to stay on FESCO? 19:39 <        f13> | warren: I agree. 19:39 <    skvidal> | thl: I know - I'll keep that in mind 19:39 <        f13> | this shouldn't be done on IRC w/ only part of our memebers here. 19:39 <     jeremy> | yep 19:39 <        f13> | a call to email list should go out, ack to be considered for staying. 19:39 <       spot> | f13: well, we can at least harrass those of us still here 19:39 <     jeremy> | I just haven't gotten to writing my self-nomination yet 19:39 <        f13> | no ack, no stay. 19:39 <        jwb> | f13, which list? 19:39 <        f13> | jwb: fesco-list 19:39             * | spot gives jeremy a round tuit 19:39 <    skvidal> | jpo: you want in? 19:39             * | jwb grumbles 19:39 <        f13> | jwb: hrm? 19:39           <-- | darkoilic has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)) 19:39 <        jpo> | yes 19:40 <        jwb> | f13, fesco list is closed. i would at least like to see who said yes in a relatively timely manner 19:40 <       scop> | about numbers, is it going to be 1 vote per voter? 19:40           <-- | tibbs-cellphone has quit 19:40 <        thl> | scop, skvidal, btw, if we can a lot of nominations you can still say "no" later if you want to make space for other people 19:40 <        f13> | jwb: sure, we can post the results in the manner of "these people wish to stay" 19:40 <        thl> | s/cat/get/ 19:40 <    skvidal> | here's what I have, then 19:40 <        jwb> | scop, i think it should be something like: we have X seats and Y voters. vote for X people 19:41 <    skvidal> | removing the folks who haven't been here in a while 19:41 <    skvidal> | TomCallaway 19:41 <    skvidal> | SethVidal - contingent 19:41 <    skvidal> | ThorstenLeemhuis 19:41 <    skvidal> | JeremyKatz 19:41 <        ixs> | scop: make it one vote per candidate. Possible votes to cast are yes, no and abstain. 19:41 <    skvidal> | Jose-?PedroOliviera 19:41 <    skvidal> | MichaelSchwendt 19:41 <        jwb> | s/Y voters/Y nominees 19:41 <    skvidal> | ?VilleSkyttÃ€ - contingent 19:41 <    skvidal> | WarrenTogami 19:41 <       scop> | jwb, ixs, both sound ok to me 19:41              * | spot thinks jwb's idea is the most sane 19:42 <        jwb> | omg someone said i had a sane idea 19:42             * | jwb writes this down 19:42             * | scop seconds spot 19:43 <        jwb> | skvidal, put that list in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SteeringCommittee/Election and make them fill in the blanks ? 19:43 <        jwb> | oh you did 19:43 <        jwb> | nm 19:43 <         thl> | I'm fine with "X seats and Y voters.  vote for X people" 19:43 <       jima> | jwb: you have an insane idea. (does that cancel out?) 19:43 <        jwb> | Y nominees 19:43 <    skvidal> | jwb: I put it in: the nominations page 19:43 <        thl> | jwb, yes, sorry 19:43 <    skvidal> | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SteeringCommittee/Nominations 19:44 <        jwb> | jima, the insane to sane ratio is very skewed :) 19:44 <         jwb> | skvidal, right 19:44 <        jima> | jwb: i know the feeling. 19:44            --> | tibbs-cellphone (Jason Tibbitts)  has joined #fedora-extras 19:45 <         thl> | k, so just to be sure: we go for the "X seats and Y nominees. vote for X people" route? 19:45 <         thl> | can I get some +1 please? 19:45 <        spot> | +1 19:45 <         thl> | (or 0 or -1) 19:45 <         jwb> | +1 19:45 <        scop> | +1 19:45 <      jeremy> | +1 19:45 <         jpo> | +1 19:45              * | thl will proceed in 10 19:46 <         thl> | k, settled 19:46 <     skvidal> | +1 19:46 <         f13> | +1 19:46 <         thl> | k, how do we actually do the vote? 19:46              * | skvidal was late 19:46              * | spot thinks it would be nice if we could use the accounts system to manage the voting 19:46 <    skvidal> | thl: jwb was looking into that 19:46 <        thl> | yeah, saw the mail 19:46 <       spot> | login, vote once (multiple times if you're in Chicago) 19:46 <        jwb> | yeah, i pinged Sopwith about accounts access 19:46 <    skvidal> | spot: only if you're already deceased 19:46 <        thl> | jwb, are there any chances to get this running soon? 19:47 <       jima> | skvidal: what about if you vote as someone already deceased? 19:47 <        jwb> | thl, haven't heard back from Sopwith yet 19:47 <       spot> | skvidal: its not my fault if snowball I wants to vote Daley. 19:47 <        jwb> | thl, though i like spot's idea better than the email thing i had 19:47 <       jima> | i like the idea with the accounts system, yeah. 19:48 <        thl> | jwb, the important thing IMHO is: "We should have a voting system and do the vote in May " 19:48             * | spot might have cvs access to the accounts system 19:48 <        jwb> | right 19:48 <        thl> | I'd like to get this done this month 19:48 <       spot> | not entirely sure about that though, as i've never really tried to use it 19:48 <         jwb> | spot, probably. it's on an internal RH server 19:48 <        thl> | k, I'll try to poke Sopwith 19:49 <        thl> | jwb, spot, everyone else: help appreciated 19:49 <        jwb> | spot, how's your python? from the errors i keep getting that seems to be what much of the accounts is written in 19:49             * | jima watches spot try to figure out how to rope pjones into doing it 19:50 <        spot> | my python is rough, but i can probably muddle through it 19:50 <        spot> | i learned all my python from anaconda! 19:51 <       jima> | eww. i anti-nominate spot to modify the accounts system. 19:51 <        thl> | k, one thing related to that: 19:51 <        jwb> | if i get access i can help too 19:51 <        thl> | should we extend the self-nomination preiod until the actual voting begins? 19:51 <    skvidal> | 19:51 <        jwb> | thl, yes. i think a 24 hour gap might be nice 19:51 <        thl> | jwb, agreed 19:52 <        jwb> | give people time to read everything before the vote begins 19:52 <        thl> | k, anything else regarding the FESCo voting? 19:53             * | thl will move on soon 19:53           --- | thl has changed the topic to: FESCo Meeting in progress -- Weekly sponsorship nomination 19:53 <        thl> | k, what about tibbs? 19:53 <        jwb> | +1 19:54 <        thl> | +1 from me 19:54 <         jpo> | +1 19:54 <      tibbs> | meep 19:54 <        thl> | k, tibbs sponsor now 19:54 <        thl> | any other nominations? 19:55 <     warren> | +1 19:55 <       scop> | tibbs, welcome 19:55 <      tibbs> | Thanks. 19:56           --- | thl has changed the topic to: FESCo Meeting in progress -- Free discussion related to extras 19:56 <        thl> | k, anything else? 19:56 <       spot> | i have packaging guidelines changes to propose 19:56           --- | thl has changed the topic to: FESCo Meeting in progress -- spot> | i have packaging guidelines changes to propose 19:56 <        jwb> | yay 19:56 <      tibbs> | I have to split; will follow on my phone. 19:57 <        f13> | spot: whee. 19:57 <       spot> | * Game music or audio content is permissible, as long as the content is freely distributable without restriction. 19:57 <       spot> | I'd like to add that to the guidelines. 19:57 <     _wart_> | +1 19:57 <     warren> | spot, what if the music is an additional 400MB? 19:57 <        f13> | is .mp3 content itself freely distributable? 19:58 <        ixs> | f13: the content is no problem, it's jusst not playable. 19:58 <        f13> | k 19:58 <     bpepple> | spot: Any issues with the type of music? Ogg - Wav only? 19:58 <     jeremy> | spot: it might be worth mentioning content format 19:58 <       scop> | whatever there's a player/libs/support in FC+FE? 19:58 <     warren> | scop, +1 19:58 <        ixs> | scop: sensible. 19:58 <        f13> | but is it easy to split off one content from another? 19:58 <       spot> | "and the format is not patent encumbered" 19:58 <       spot> | ? 19:58 <        f13> | spot: that sounds good. 19:59 <     jeremy> | spot: gets a good to go from me 19:59 <         thl> | yeah, that's better 19:59 <        ixs> | spot: sure you wanna go there? even ogg can be considered patent encumbered. 19:59 <     warren> | "and the format is playable"? 19:59 <       spot> | ixs: patented != patent encumbered 19:59           <-- | mspevack has quit ("Leaving") 19:59 < tibbs-cellp> | player must be in distro 19:59 <       spot> | warren: if they're packaging it up as game music, it better be usable by the game, dontcha think? 20:00 <     warren> | spot, are we worried about game music size? 20:00 <       spot> | disk is cheap. 20:00 <     jeremy> | warren: I'm not 20:00 <        ixs> | ack 20:00 <       spot> | i'm not worried. 20:00 <        f13> | should content always be split from game? 20:00 <     _wart_> | f13:  It's recommended, but not required 20:00 <        jwb> | jeremy, spot: what about mirrors though? 20:00 <        f13> | so that updates to game doesn't require re-downloading content? 20:00 < tibbs-cellp> | if its big llike docs 20:00 <        ixs> | warren: music clocks usually in at 80M while content depends on the game, I've seen content up to 400MB by know. 20:00 <       spot> | f13: i'd rather leave that up to the packager. some games will run without their music, some will not. 20:00 <     jeremy> | jwb: the mirrors already hate me :) 20:01 <         f13> | spot: a requires coudl take care of that. 20:01 <        spot> | f13: yeah, but it also depends on the static nature of the content 20:01 <         f13> | spot: its more of a 'I need to make this tiny patch to the game, and here's 400megs of unchanged game content.  Have fun!' 20:01 <         ixs> | f13: advisable. Put the game content into another package, require it from the code package just by %{version} and one could safe on downloading the content on every rebuild. 20:01 <      warren> | Having 400MB of content that is the same between distros, but the package is rebuilt and differs only in NVR is going to annoy mirrors. 20:01 <      warren> | 3 archs * 3 dists * 400MB 20:02 <      _wart_> | game content is usually noarch 20:02 < tibbs-cellp> | should be noarch 20:02 <      warren> | oh right 20:02 <      warren> | still 20:02 <     warren> | 3 dists * 400MB 20:02             * | spot points back to the disk is cheap 20:02 <        f13> | I like the suggestion of content should be packaged seperately 20:02 < tibbs-cellp> | bandwidth 20:02 <        ixs> | warren: what's your suggestion? not putting the content into FE? 20:02 <        thl> | warren, maybe we should have a dist-undepended repo for such things 20:02 <       spot> | i can propose that content go in dedicated packages 20:03 <     _wart_> | f13:  That's already in the Games SIG guidelines 20:03 <        thl> | warren, but we can do that later if it becomes a problem 20:03 <        f13> | if the content package doesn't change, hardlink takes care of the multiple copies. 20:03 <     warren> | thl, I like that idea. 20:03 <     warren> | thl, yes, we can explore that later. 20:03 <       spot> | _wart_: do you need it to be explicit in the packaging guidelines? 20:03 <        f13> | why wouldn't a hardlink fix that? 20:03 <        f13> | if the content is exactly the same, don't use dist which would change the nevr. 20:03 <     _wart_> | spot:  Proibably not. It's not a hard requirement, just a strong suggestion. Mostly depends on upstream's tarballs. 20:04 <     warren> | f13, requirement of NVR's to be different between distros. 20:04 <        f13> | publish the same exact rpm into each dist and use hardlink. 20:04 <        f13> | eeew 20:04 <       spot> | ok, so to my original point... 20:04           --> | abadger1999 (Toshio Kuratomi)  has joined #fedora-extras 20:04 <       spot> | * Game music or audio content is permissible, as long as the content is freely distributable without restriction, and the format is not patent encumbered. 20:04 <     jeremy> | spot: I think your oriiginal point is fine. it raises further questions to consider 20:05 <        jwb> | yes 20:05 <       spot> | can i see some +1 on that? :) 20:05 <       scop> | spot, please add the "and the content is playable with packages from FC+FE" part 20:05 <      warren> | Do we want to tackle the distless part? 20:05 <         thl> | scop, good idea 20:05 <        spot> | scop: why? what if the game is the only mechanism to play back that game music? 20:05 <      jeremy> | spot: +! 20:06 <      warren> | large game content packages don't need dist tags, and we can copy it between dists for hardlink purposes? 20:06 <        scop> | spot, some games can optionally use eg. mp3 files if mp3 command line players / libraries are available 20:06 <         thl> | scop, then it's a pacakge from FC+FE 20:06 <        scop> | thl, ? 20:06 <         thl> | s/scop/spot/ 20:06 <         thl> | sorry 20:06 <        spot> | ok. i'll add the content is playable with Fedora packages from Core or Extras. 20:06 <         f13> | er... 20:07 <         f13> | there shouldn't be anything in FC+FE that can play mp3 content. 20:07 <        ixs> | hmmmm. 20:07 <        f13> | if there is, it doesn't belong in FC/FE 20:07 <       scop> | f13 there is not, that was just an example 20:07 <       spot> | f13: thus mp3 content would not be ok. 20:07 <     _wart_> | f13: mp3 shouldn't be packaged as game music. Perhaps we should call that out explicitly? 20:07 <       spot> | _wart_: i'll add that as the example 20:07 <     warren> | scop, if it contains MP3 content, then theoretical 3rd party repositories outside of U.S. jurisdiction might want to ship it instead. 20:07 <        ixs> | I think the "must be playable by something in FE or FC" is redundant. 20:08 <       spot> | ixs: i agree. 20:08             * | f13 agrees w/ ixs 20:08 <       scop> | warren, yes, of course, but that doesn't make the content package ok to be included in FC/FE in my opinion 20:08 <     warren> | scop, agreed 20:08 <       spot> | * Game music or audio content is permissible, as long as the content is freely distributable without restriction, and the format is not patent encumbered. 20:08 <        f13> | scop: the 'format not patent encumbered' covers the mp3 issue. 20:08 <        ixs> | spot: +1 from me for that. 20:08 <       spot> | This rules out mp3s. 20:08 <        f13> | spot: +1 20:09 <       scop> | okay 20:09 <     warren> | Do we want to agree upon disttag-less noarch large packages so we can hardlink them on the mirrors? 20:09 <     warren> | spot, +1 20:09 <       scop> | warren, that's already being done 20:09 <       spot> | warren: there is no requirement to use dist tag 20:09 <        jwb> | just add it into the example/suggestions 20:10 <     warren> | I mean, our guidelines can suggest it so we actually do it. 20:10 <        ixs> | warren: from my understanding, that needs changes in the repo-push script and possibly in the buildsystem. 20:10 <       spot> | but i dont want to make it the policy, as there may be large noarch packages which are dist specific 20:10 <        jwb> | in the Games SIG 20:10 <     warren> | ixs, any pusher can do it, including me. 20:10 <        ixs> | warren: or we'd need a new branch (DISTLESS instead of FC-5 e.g.) 20:10 <     warren> | hmmm 20:10 <        f13> | why don't we table that for future discussion. 20:10 <     warren> | nevermind, let's explore this later 20:10 <        f13> | jynx! (20:10 <     _wart_> | jwb: That'd be a good place to try it out 20:10 <         f13> | but those interested in this should do some research 20:11              * | jwb points to the SIG 20:11 <      _wart_> | f13: Let's bring this up in the games sig list for further discussion 20:11 <         f13> | _wart_: feel free. 20:11 <         jwb> | right.  that's what SIGs are for :) 20:11 <        f13> | are we ready for a new topic, or spot do you have more changes for the guidelines? 20:12           --- | thl has changed the topic to: FESCo Meeting in progress -- Free discussion related to extras 20:12 <       spot> | thats all. 20:12 <        f13> | I'd like ot talk about some content I'd like ot package. 20:12 <     jeremy> | seth had a point 20:12 <     warren> | ? 20:12 <     jeremy> | for people who are reviewing a package, can you please be sure to assign it to yourself? 20:12 <        f13> | This package 'metasploit-framework', is a set of perl stuff to investigate, develop, and test exploits. 20:13 <     _wart_> | Should non-sponsors assign a package to themself if they are reviewing a package blocking NEEDSSPONSOR? 20:13 <        f13> | all the content is OSS and redistributable, and I"m reasonably sure that the exploits are for known and resolved issues upstream. 20:13 <         thl> | _wart_, no 20:13 <         f13> | but it is useful for security folk to use against their machines to make sure that they are safe. 20:13 <         jwb> | why not? 20:13 <      jeremy> | _wart_: in that case, no.  but otherwise, it's useful 20:14 <         f13> | however, it is something of a sensitive subject to include such a tool, as it could be used for darker purposes. 20:14 <      jeremy> | as you can then look over the list and have a better idea of what needs looking at 20:14 <         jwb> | jeremy, thl why not? 20:14 <        spot> | f13: ping can be used for sinister purposes 20:14 <         thl> | jwb, I sometime think non-sponsors shouldn't review pacakges from new pacakgers at all 20:14 <         ixs> | f13: personally, include it. fping and hping are in FE IIRC. They can be used for nefarious purposes. Same as nmap. 20:14 <     warren> | f13, have you got bress's opinion? 20:14 <        jwb> | f13, i think that package is fine 20:14 <        f13> | spot: true, but ping doesn't include perl modules to hack a 3com router. 20:14           <-- | c4chris__ has quit (Connection timed out) 20:14 <        f13> | warren: no, I haven't talked to bress about it yet. 20:14 <    bpepple> | _wart_: They can't approve give final approval for the package being reviewed. 20:14 <        thl> | jwb, so the sponsor can directly see how the pacakger interacts 20:15 <       spot> | if it can be found on google, i don't think we have any worries. 20:15 <        jwb> | thl, ok that's a different issue (one that i don't necessarily disagree with) 20:15 <     warren> | f13, I think bress should be consulted 20:15             * | bress reads his scrollback 20:15 <        f13> | _wart_: you could add yourself on CC to the bug, and offer suggestions, but a sponser should take ownership of the package and the review (IMHO) 20:15 <     _wart_> | bpepple, understood. Just not sure of the exact protocol 20:16 <        ixs> | f13: is that written somewhere in the guidelines? I haven't found it there and of course instantly did it wrong. ;) 20:16 <        jwb> | f13, thl, jeremy: ok i can agree with all that but it needs to be clearly spelled out in the wiki 20:17 <      _wart_> | f13: That's what I've been doing, but I've seen other packages not follow that protocol.  What's the correct way to un-assign a bug? 20:17 <         f13> | ixs: I don't know if that particular wrinkle is spelled out.  We should review the review guidelines to make sure. 20:17 <        spot> | f13: let me know on that 20:17 <         f13> | _wart_: it has to be reassigned to somebody else.  You could reassign it to the component owner. 20:17 <         ixs> | f13: good. because right now we have a thread on fedora-extras-list about that. (/me blushes a bit) 20:17 <         f13> | spot: sure. 20:17              * | f13 action items. 20:17 <         ixs> | f13: in this case, it's a non issue. Hans is sponsoring and has reassigned it already to himself. 20:18 <     warren> | tibbs, looks like you were upgraded. 20:18 <        f13> | while on this subject (well, multiple subjects) 20:18 <        f13> | if there isn't content, cna I quickly get a vote on this: 20:19 <        f13> | If the packager needs a sponser, the reviewer must be capable of sponsoring to take ownership of the review. Other parties are welcome to make suggestions and add themselves to the CC of hte bug, but should not take ownership of the bug or the review." 20:19 <    bpepple> | f13: +1 20:19 <      _wart_> | f13: +1 20:19 <        scop> | +1 20:19 <         jwb> | +1 20:19 <         thl> | +1 20:20            --> | c4chris__ (Christian Iseli)  has joined #fedora-extras 20:20 <        spot> | +1 20:20 <         f13> | danke. 20:20 <         jwb> | bitte 20:20 <         f13> | bress: any opinions on the metasploit-framework subject? 20:21 <      warren> | f13, if the license and copyrights are proper, I don't see any issue here by current policies.  I'd say follow bresser's recommendation. 20:22 <         f13> | warren: right, I just wanted to make sure that I wasn't pushing a package that would result in a new policy. 20:22 <         jpo> | I also have a packaging question. 20:22 <         jpo> | I would like to package "perl-byacc" but the home site has disappeared a couple of years ago. 20:22 <      bress> | f13: Why not include it. If anything it will attract some smart security research types to fedora. If we're vulnerable to anything in it, we have a secuirty problem we need to fix. 20:22 <        jpo> | Can I just use the debian files? 20:23 <     warren> | jpo, i'm guessing it hasn't changed for years? 20:23 <       scop> | jpo, I don't see a problem with that 20:23 <     warren> | jpo, yeah, just go ahead. 20:23 <        f13> | jpo: if it's reachable for all, sure. 20:23             * | spot agrees 20:23 <        jpo> | http://packages.debian.org/stable/devel/perl-byacc 20:23 <        f13> | bress: ok, makes sense to me. THere are some stuff included for hardware devices and such, but *shrug* it's all OSS. 20:23 <        f13> | jpo: maybe a commen tin the spec that upstream has vanished. 20:23 <       spot> | +1 to that 20:23 <        jpo> | sure 20:24 <      bress> | f13: Indeed. If an evildoer wants to hax0r something, they'll download and install it themselves. I'm not sure if it violates any DMCA type laws though. 20:25 <       spot> | let our corrupt government enforce their own laws 20:25 <        f13> | bress: ooh, good point. I don't think so, as metasploit-framework has been around for a while, and they're packages are in other distros. 20:25 <     warren> | bress, gdb violates the DMCA-type laws. 20:25 <       spot> | i dont see any circumvention of copyright protection. 20:25 <      bress> | warren: Heh, indeed :) 20:26 <      warren> | f13, just do it 20:26 <         thl> | k, anything else? 20:27 <         thl> | sorry, got distracted 20:27 <         thl> | quite late already 20:27              * | thl will close in 60 20:27 <        scop> | some things for future (no need to discuss now): 20:27 <        scop> | FE-Legal queue, a couple of old submissions stalled 20:27 <        scop> | packaging guidelines: undefined non-weak symbols in shared libs 20:28 <         thl> | scop, yeah, a FE-Legal group (or something like that) really is needed 20:28 <        scop> | (that's all I had in mind) 20:28 <      warren> | where is the FE-Legal queue? 20:28 <         thl> | scop, let's get back to these items next week 20:28 <      warren> | I'll forward it to FPB 20:28 <        scop> | https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=FE-Legal 20:28 <         f13> | thl: a bunch of people standing around and saying "IANAL" ? (20:28           --> | drpixel (Dr Pixel)  has joined #fedora-extras 20:28 <         thl> | warren, we have a tracker bug somewhere 20:28 <         thl> | f13, :) 20:29             * | thl will close in 30 20:29             * | thl will close in 15 20:29 <        thl> | MARK meeting end 20:30           --- | thl has changed the topic to: This is the Fedora Extras channel, home of the FESCo meetings and general Extras discussion. | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras | Next FESCo Meeting: 2006-05-11 1700 UTC 20:30 <        thl> | thx everyone 20:30 <        f13> | cheers 20:31 <     warren> | scop, those two issues, they aren't something we can forward to legal. 20:32 <       scop> | ok, so do you have ideas who can say something about them? 20:33 <        ixs> | it's 3 issues btw, I just reopened the third one. 20:33 <       scop> | #166427 is pretty clearly waiting for upstream 20:34 <       scop> | #177134 needs an "ok" from $someone 20:34 <    nirik99> | speaking of legal issues fun... anyone have thoughts on the license on xcompmgr: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=172755 20:35 <       scop> | ixs, I think a new better targeted bug should be opened for #190144 20:36 <        ixs> | scop: no prob. I'll write something up tonight. 20:37 <        thl> | there is also the alsa-firmware thing around 20:37 <       scop> | warren, I guess that makes #177134 the only one which I could see legal wanting to say something about 20:37 <        thl> | some files are okay, some not 20:38 <     warren> | scop, from reading the bug, it is unclear to me whether it has the encumbered algorithms or not 20:38 <     warren> | I *thought* muxing and demuxing required encoding and decoding 20:38           --> | rdieter (Rex Dieter)  has joined #fedora-extras 20:39 <       scop> | warren, right, *that* is what I'd like someone competent to comment on 20:39 <      warren> | scop, lawyers will not look at code 20:39           --- | nman64 is now known as nman64_away 20:41 <       scop> | warren, okay, but who will, and how to draw their attention to the bug? 20:41 <       scop> | there will undoubtedly be other cases like that 20:41 <        ixs> | warren: not necessarily. demux and mux just means that the datastream is copied without changing them into a container format. 20:41 <       scop> | I thought FE-Legal was not exclusively a lawyer queue 20:41 <     warren> | oh 20:42 <         ixs> | warren: however _often_ the demuxers need an understanding of the datastream. That is, it might be best do just push the package into livna and be done with it. 20:43 <     warren> | scop, ixs: Lawyers tend to be cautious when they don't know. Grey area usually means no. 20:43 <     warren> | This package really wouldn't be bad in a theoretical 3rd party repository.