Extras/SteeringCommittee/Meeting-20060202

From FedoraProject

< Extras | SteeringCommittee
Revision as of 16:37, 24 May 2008 by Admin (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Fedora Extras Steering Committee Meeting

26 January 2006

Attending from FESCo

  • ThorstenLeemhuis (thl)
  • JeremyKatz (jeremy)
  • EnricoScholz (ensc)
  • ThomasVanderStichele (thomasvs)
  • JosePedroOliviera (jpo)
  • MichaelSchwendt (mschwendt)
  • Elliot Lee (Sopwith)
  • JesseKeating (ender/f13)
  • Adrian Reber (adrianr)

Summary

  • Cleanup the Schedule from non-extras tasks

Discussed some items and removed them. FC5 naming is still there:

Sopwith> | And the naming thing just needs someone to adopt it.
thl>     | Sopwith, who is someone?
f13>     | thl: could be someone interested, however somebody at red hat will still have to get it pushed through legal.
Sopwith> | thl: I'm writing an e-mail to jkeating right now - he's the one that'll have to make it happen...
f13>     | Sopwith: thanks.
f13>     | Sopwith: I'll make it happen
  • Mass Rebuild of FE5

We still can't start yet, need to wait for another rebuild in core

  • EOL Policy for FE

The current plan found at http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Schedule/EolPolicy is this:

This is a rough draft of what to do about Extras when a Fedora release
goes EOL.

When a Fedora Core release reaches End of Life (such as Fedora Core 3
will once Fedora Core 5 Test 2 is released), the corresponding release
of Fedora Extras well enter a Maintenance state.  In this state
maintainers will be allowed to issue updates to existing packages, but
no new packages can be introduced.  Maintainers are strongly urged to
only issue severe bugfix or security fixes.  New software versions
should be avoided except when necessary for resolving issues with the
the current version.  At this point there is no plan to close a release
of Fedora Extras, preventing any further package releases.

While the Fedora Core release will be transferred to the Fedora Legacy
project, Fedora Legacy will not be responsible for maintaining Fedora
Extras.  We feel it is better for the current package maintainer to
continue handling package releases for the Fedora Extras release that is
in maintenance state.

Speak up now or this will be policy soon.

  • Encourage Extras reviews

Current state: 134 Bugs in the new state, 54 under review -- some for a very long time already!

Action: Create SIGs (Special Interest Groups). Which ones? Good question. Ignacio already started a bit of work at http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs Current groups: GNOME, KDE, Multimedia, Perl, Python, Ruby, Scientific and Technical, Server Tools, ppc, x86-64. Do we need more? Input needed!

Action: Review days (general or specific to the SIGs) may help getting stuff reviewed -- somebody needs to work out the details.

Help-Needed -- interested to work in one of the SIGs? Add yourself to the wiki-pages!

Undecided: Maybe separate mailing-lists for the SIGs

Undecided: How to track the bugs for the SIGs? Tracker-BUGs? Wiki?

  • Broken deps report

mschwendt has a handy script that does most things automatic. Should run in the future with every extras push. mschwendt will send the current proposal to fedora-extras-list for futher discussion and put the script in a public place.

  • JesseKeating wants to remove himself from FESCo

"I was on FESCO mostly because of Legacy, which is its own project now. I rarely have anything to do w/ FESCO and it doesn't make sense for me to be trying ot make decisions for hte project."

We didn't let him go for now :-)

Okay, now seriously: We need to work out the details who is in FESCo, why, how to get in, how to get out, when people are thrown out to make space for more active people, how many people should be in FESCo in general, how the chair gets elected and similar stuff. Opinions?

  • We should discuss more topics on mailing-lists

Some discussion from FESCo were done on the private FESCo-Mailinglist. We should avoid this in the future as much as possible and discuss everything on fedora-extras-list directly.

We also should discuss less in the FESCo meetings on IRC and more on the lists where everyone can participate.

Complete Log

18:56 <     jeremy> | thl: I'm going to have to miss today.  so quick summary: we can't start with a real rebuild yet.
18:57 <         thl> | jeremy, thx
18:57 <         thl> | I suspected something like that already...
18:57 <         thl> | jeremy, have fun ;-)
18:58 <      jeremy> | hmm... I'm not sure I'm going to be having _fun_ :-)
18:59            --> | Sopwith (Undisclosed)  has joined #fedora-extras
18:59 <         thl> | :-)
18:59            --> | jpo (Unknown)  has joined #fedora-extras
19:00              * | thl looks around
19:00 <         thl> | any FESCo members around?
19:01 <     Sopwith> | yessir
19:01 <         jpo> | yes
19:02 <         thl> | wow, we are three out of 17 :-|
19:02            --> | mschwendt (Michael Schwendt)  has joined #fedora-extras
19:02 <         thl> | well, let's start
19:02 <         thl> | hi mschwendt
19:02 <     jeremy> | thl: skvidal is still in nz
19:02 <         thl> | jeremy, warren still in <somewhere i can't remember>
19:02 <        f13> | thl: make that 4
19:03 <        f13> | thl: he's in Japan
19:03 <         thl> | k
19:03 <         thl> | one general thing first:
19:03 <         thl> | look at http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Schedule
19:03 <         thl> | I created a trash section there
19:03 <         thl> | Sopwith, "FC5 naming" and "New home for fedora.redhat.com"
19:03 <         thl> | can tehy be removed?
19:04 <         thl> | Do you have written dows those somewhere else?
19:04 <    Sopwith> | thl: Yea, the 'new home' one is mainly a websites team thing
19:04 <         thl> | f13, "CVS commit access for Fedora Legacy" ?
19:04 <     Sopwith> | And the naming thing just needs someone to adopt it.
19:05 <        f13> | thl: thats been approved, so it's in progress.  I just have to get it going, but at this time it looks like after test3 time period.
19:05 <         thl> | f13, okay
19:05 <         thl> | Sopwith, how is someone?
19:05 <   thomasvs> | thl: here too
19:05 <         thl> | someone from redhat? Or someone interested?
19:06 <         thl> | s/how/who/
19:06 <        f13> | thl: could be someone interested, however somebody at red hat will still have to get it pushed through legal.
19:06 <         thl> | well, we probably should start with that soon
19:07 <         f13> | yep
19:07 <         thl> | Sopwith, f13, why don't you write a mail to fedora-devel?
19:07              * | thl hides
19:07 <    Sopwith> | thl: I'm writing an e-mail to jkeating right now - he's the one that'll have to make it happen...
19:07 <         thl> | :-))
19:07 <         f13> | Sopwith: thanks.
19:07 <         f13> | Sopwith: I'll make it happen.
19:08 <         thl> | "Design help for website" from gregdek -- I suspect the websites team work on that now
19:08 <     Sopwith> | f13: oh you're jkeating, haha
19:08 <    Sopwith> | thl: Yup
19:08 <      quaid> | thl: gregdek is a default owner for some infrastructure and website bugs
19:08 <       quaid> | out with the ender, in with the f13
19:08 <         thl> | "Press link, fedora.redhat.com" from gregdek
19:09 <         thl> | also not really FESCo...
19:09            --> | c4chris__ (Christian Iseli)  has joined #fedora-extras
19:09 <         thl> | well, it will happen or not
19:09            <-- | c4chris_ has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
19:09 <         thl> | so, back to the real agenda
19:09 <         thl> | "Mass rebuild of Extras for FC5"
19:09 <         f13> | Sopwith: yeah, I changed my nick a while ago on this nwetwork, sorry I forgot to inform yah (;
19:10 <        f13> | thl: as jeremy stated, can't happen yet.
19:10            <-- | ensc has quit (Nick collision from services.)
19:10 <         thl> |  <     jeremy> | thl: I'm going to have to miss today.  so quick summary: we can't start with a real rebuild yet.
19:10 <         thl> | for those that were not here before
19:10            --> | ensc (Enrico Scholz)  has joined #fedora-extras
19:10            <-- | bpepple  has left #fedora-extras ( "Ex-Chat")
19:10 <         thl> | next one
19:10 <         thl> | "EOL Policy for FE"
19:10 <     roozbeh> | btw, what about making thl default bug owner for extras bug requests?
19:10 <         thl> | I suspect we're still waiting for warren?
19:10              * | roozbeh hides
19:11 <         thl> | roozbeh, he is since two hours
19:11 <    roozbeh> | thl: are you? congratulations for all the spam!
19:11            --> | Bleeter (Bleeter Yaluser)  has joined #fedora-extras
19:11            --> | ptiggerdine  has joined #fedora-extras
19:11            --> | ptiggerdine is Peter Tiggerdine
19:11 <        f13> | thl: honestly, do we really want to keep delaying?
19:11 <         thl> | roozbeh, least for the new review requests
19:11 <     roozbeh> | i have something to say for EOL policy. may i?
19:11 <        f13> | thl: does anybody else have any input on the proposal I put on the wiki?
19:11 <  mschwendt> | thl: why don't we just announce end-of-life for FE3 unless somebody comes up with a better plan?
19:11 <         f13> | roozbeh: please!
19:12 <         thl> | mschwendt, I mostly agree
19:12 <         thl> | what was the plan for security updates?
19:12 <     roozbeh> | i wish to ask for a few obvious things: 1) no FC-3 branch creating from now.
19:12 <         f13> | roozbeh: have you read the wiki page I created about this?
19:13 <     roozbeh> | f13: let me read that then. linked from schedule?
19:13 <         f13> | roozbeh: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Schedule/EolPolicy
19:13 <     roozbeh> | f13: found it
19:13            --> | bpepple (Brian Pepple)  has joined #fedora-extras
19:13 <         thl> | mschwendt, I would prefer the term "Maintenance state"
19:14 <         thl> | the packagers still should fix security problems
19:14 <     roozbeh> | f13: ah, i've read that
19:14 <   mschwendt> | it doesn't work. either security updates are released for all packages or a Fedora Extras tree becomes unsupported
19:14 <     roozbeh> | i am mostly talking about implementation details.
19:14 <   mschwendt> | we cannot offer a repository and say "some packages are secure to use, others probably not"
19:14 <         f13> | mschwendt: we can't force maintainers to keep up their older packages can we?
19:14 <   mschwendt> | f13: we can't
19:14 <         f13> | mschwendt: it's Extras.  It's unsupported by nature.
19:14              * | nirik agrees with mschwendt. Unless we have a security team in place.
19:15 <   mschwendt> | f13: ugh
19:15 <         f13> | mschwendt: I should say it's Fedora.  i'ts unsupported by nature.
19:15 <       nirik> | so if you use it, you won't know if it's vulnerable, old, unmaintained, new, maintained, or have any idea... ?
19:15 <   mschwendt> | f13: we talk about different kind of "support" here
19:15 <         f13> | We can say that the security status is not safe, but should we prevent maintainers from spinning security stuff?
19:16 <         f13> | nirik: how is that different from FE4 or FE5 today?
19:16            --> | adrianr (Adrian Reber)  has joined #fedora-extras
19:16 <   mschwendt> | f13: good question. doesn't it give a false impression if some updates are released and most of the stuff is out-of-date?
19:16 <         f13> | mschwendt: how is that any different than open FE trees?
19:16 <     roozbeh> | f13: i am worried about implementation mostly. the policy itself looks sane.
19:16 <       nirik> | f13: yeah, not much I guess. Since we have no security team or anything...
19:16 <         f13> | mschwendt: there is no current expectation.
19:17 <         f13> | roozbeh: ok, sounds good.  If we can approve the policy we can then move to discussing implimenting said policy.
19:17 <   mschwendt> | f13: we can assume that packagers "support" the current release
19:17 <     roozbeh> | f13: ok
19:17 <   mschwendt> | f13: the release they use themselves
19:17 <         f13> | mschwendt: we could assume that, but we don't know for sure.  How many fire and forget packages are sitting in Extras?
19:18 <   mschwendt> | f13: well, if you believe that current FE4 is not in better shape than FE3, we should stop
19:18 <         f13> | mschwendt: especially with Security stuff.  FE has to be reactive to security vulns right now due to no security team and no vendorsec.
19:18 <     roozbeh> | so we're deciding a policy until we have a security team?
19:19 <         f13> | mschwendt: I didn't say it wasn't in better shape.  I just don't see the point of turning it off completely for stated reasons that apply to current FE trees.
19:19 <         f13> | roozbeh: are we going to GET a security team?  thats an even bigger question.
19:19 <         thl> | f13, look like some people are interested in building one
19:19 <     roozbeh> | f13: we have a proposal, don't we?
19:19 <   mschwendt> | the point is that quite many packagers admit that they no longer run old FC versions and hence don't care about them anymore
19:19 <     roozbeh> | http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Schedule/SecurityPolicy
19:20 <         f13> | mschwendt: yep.  And interested parties should be allowed to spin the older FC versions if they wish, with the guidance or approval of the current maintainer.
19:20 <    thomasvs> | for those maintainers that do care about those other distros, it would be a shame to turn them away and tell them to use their own stuff if there is all this infrastructure for it
19:21 <         thl> | thomasvs, agreed -- but new packages shouldn't be allowed anymore IMHO
19:21 <         f13> | roozbeh: that needs some discussion.  THere are some infrastructure things to worry about, embargo issues.
19:21 <     roozbeh> | thomasvs: but look at what is getting released as FE3 these days. it's just random builds, and even includes new packages.
19:22 <   mschwendt> | roozbeh: untested mass-builds with broken dependencies even
19:22 <        f13> | thl: I agree w/ that.  No new trees, but spinning of old trees is OK.  Hopefully for security related purposes, but I don't think we can completely force that.
19:22 <         thl> | I think we should discuss this stuff on fedora-extras-list and/or fedora-maintainers list once
19:22 <         thl> | f13, agreed
19:22 <     roozbeh> | f13: we can ask for a second approval
19:23 <         thl> | f13, could you update the proposal regarding to this discussion and post it to the list?
19:23 <     roozbeh> | f13: so random builds don't get pushed
19:23 <   thomasvs> | thl: does "new packages" include "new versions of older pacakges" ?
19:23 <         thl> | thomasvs, no
19:23 <         f13> | thomasvs: no, new versions of older packages can happen.
19:23 <    thomasvs> | ok
19:23 <   mschwendt> | thomasvs: those would be called "updates"
19:23 <       nirik> | they would almost have to... most people can't backport security fixes. ;)
19:23 <        f13> | thl: What have we discussed that would need changing in the content?
19:24 <         thl> | note sure -- update if it should be needed
19:24 <         f13> | ok.
19:24 <        f13> | thl: I'm on maintainers list, I don't think I'mon fedora-extras-list.
19:24 <         f13> | *sigh* more email.
19:24 <     roozbeh> | f13: is there a definition of when should one push updates for legacy?
19:25 <         f13> | roozbeh: can you rephrase the question?
19:25 <         thl> | I think we should move on, time is ticking
19:25 <     roozbeh> | f13: fedora legacy only provides updates in certain cases, doesn't it? what is the criteria?
19:26 <         f13> | roozbeh: Security and severe bugfix.
19:26 <         thl> | "Encourage Extras reviews"
19:26 <     roozbeh> | f13: we may be able to adopt something among the same lines.
19:26 <     roozbeh> | f13: that's the whole definition? does it have details?
19:26 <         f13> | roozbeh: sure.  Thats what I encourage.
19:26 <         thl> | mschwendt, I more and more like the idea of special interest groups
19:26 <         thl> | what do others think about it?
19:26 <      nirik> | thl: how about a bug review day/evening? gather on irc and everyone review a bunch of packages? like a bug day...
19:27 <         f13> | roozbeh: no, we're fairly flexible, but mostly it is security related fixes.  CVEs.  Most severe bugfixes are in place by the time the distro gets to Legacy.
19:27 <     roozbeh> | well, i know a way to encourage reviews. bribing (i have yet to deliver those babysitting promises...)
19:27              * | ignacio likes the idea of Fedora SIGs
19:27 <         f13> | SIGs sounds good.  maybe a combo of SIG and review days.
19:27 <         thl> | f13, yeah, sounds good
19:28 <     roozbeh> | f13: review days would be lovely
19:28 <       nirik> | SIGs are good... perl, python, gnome/kde?
19:28 <     roozbeh> | perhaps also server things
19:28 <         thl> | "Multimedia"
19:28 <         thl> | "Educational Programming Languages"
19:28 <         f13> | nirik: gnome/kde, maybe if defined as gnome/kde enhnacements ?  not just "apps that run on gnome" or "apps that run on kde".
19:28 <         thl> | "System Tools"
19:28 <    roozbeh> | thl: looks like comps.xml to me
19:29 <         thl> | we need somebody to work out the details -- anyone interested?
19:29 <       nirik> | f13: yeah, agreed.
19:29 <     ignacio> | I'd love to, but I'm too busy.
19:29 <   mschwendt> | maybe go through bugzilla FE-NEW and look what package classes are waiting in the queue?
19:30 <         thl> | mschwendt, sounds like a plan
19:30 <      nirik> | thl: I can see about setting up a "review day" ?
19:30              * | thl wonders if we should build the SIGs first
19:31 <   mschwendt> | we already have some, e.g. for Perl
19:31 <   mschwendt> | even a separate mailing-list
19:31 <   mschwendt> | ;)
19:31 <         thl> | we should not forget x86-64 and ppc SIGs
19:32 <   mschwendt> | yes
19:32 <     ignacio> | And even other archs if anyone's interested.
19:33            <-- | kbsingh has quit ("HomeTime")
19:33 <         thl> | well, nobody interested in working out the details?
19:33 <     roozbeh> | i guess we should start with creating a list of interested people on a wiki page.
19:33 <     ignacio> | Indeed.
19:33 <         f13> | perhaps we should mail the list to see if anybody is interested in running this.
19:33 <         thl> | f13, agreed
19:34 <         thl> | I'll ask with the meeting report that I'll send out
19:34 <         thl> | guys, what about nirik and the "review day"
19:34 <         thl> | start now or wait for the SIGs
19:34 <         thl> | ?
19:34 <     bpepple> | Start now.
19:34 <     roozbeh> | review days need preparation
19:34 <       nirik> | either way is fine with me...
19:34 <   mschwendt> | would it be an idea if review request submitters add the "RPM Group" value into the bugzilla ticket summary?
19:34            --> | fitheach (Oliver Andrich)  has joined #fedora-extras
19:34 <     ignacio> | Both in parallel.
19:35 <       nirik> | yeah, will take a while to setup times, announce, etc...
19:35 <   mschwendt> | so we get something like:  package name | group name | summary?
19:35 <     roozbeh> | mschwendt: RPM Group is so deprecated it won't really help
19:35 <         thl> | mschwendt, maybe -- but why not more tracker bugs for the SIGs?
19:35 <     roozbeh> | mschwendt: we need something like a comps.xml group
19:36 <  mschwendt> | thl: more tracking increases bugzilla spam, doesn't it?
19:36 <    roozbeh> | thl: in the meeting report, list some of the mentioned SIG names, so poeple get ideas.
19:37 <         thl> | well, let's stop here and work out the deatils later
19:37 <         thl> | mschwendt, "Broken deps report"
19:37 <   mschwendt> | We could run it on a fedoraproject.org machine.
19:38 <     ignacio> | Is the script on the wiki?
19:38 <   mschwendt> | no, but I can upload it to some place
19:38 <         thl> | mschwendt, sound like a good idea
19:38 <        f13> | thl: I've made some changes to the proposal, but overall its just the saem.  Can you reference it in your meetings minutes, I'd rathernot sub to another list.
19:38 <         thl> | f13, okay
19:38 <         thl> | mschwendt, and send a link to fedora-extras-list for discussion
19:39 <     ignacio> | Maybe in UsefulScripts?
19:39 <         thl> | ignacio, no, it really should run on a fedoraproject.org machine
19:39 <     ignacio> | I realize that, but why not allow the public have access to it?
19:40 <   mschwendt> | ignacio: because currently it still needs some work
19:40 <   mschwendt> | ignacio: it downlodas quite a lot of metadata
19:40 <   mschwendt> | ignacio: and contains hardcoded repository URLs
19:40 <     ignacio> | Fair enough.
19:40 <     ignacio> | What about using one of the yum-utils to do the heavy lifting?
19:41 <   mschwendt> | it it based on a modified "repoclosure" script already
19:42 <         thl> | okay, how to proceed?
19:43 <         thl> | post it for discussion?
19:43 <   mschwendt> | I've posted request for feedback to fesco list already
19:43 <         thl> | upload it to a public place?
19:43 <         thl> | mschwendt, I know
19:43 <   mschwendt> | questions remain unanswered: how often to run it? whether to post a summary to fedora-extras-list or whether to mail packagers privately?
19:44 <         thl> | okay
19:44 <         thl> | how often:
19:44 <       nirik> | mschwendt: after the rawhide push daily?
19:44 <         thl> | daily for devel?
19:44 <       nirik> | extras and packager both would be nice...
19:44 <   mschwendt> | nirik: well, FE Development is broken like hell for a long time
19:44 <         thl> | and with every push for FE3 and FE5?
19:45 <   mschwendt> | nirik: the script currently sends out a new mail every 14 days only ;)
19:45 <         thl> | s/FE5/FE4/
19:45 <     roozbeh> | mschwendt: definitely extras, so people can get some idea of the semi-orphaned packages
19:45 <       nirik> | mschwendt: yeah, I guess if devel is broken that could show up as a lot of extras breakage.
19:45 <   mschwendt> | nirik: no, FE devel is broken, because packagers don't fix their packages
19:46 <   mschwendt> | nirik: they wait for a mass-rebuild or instructions from FESCO
19:46 <       nirik> | ah. Perhaps we could do a 'if the repo is broken by your package for some amount of time we remove it?
19:47 <   mschwendt> | nirik: this can result in even more breakage
19:47 <         jpo> | and perl 5.8.8 (which appeared today in rawhide) ;)
19:47 <       nirik> | mschwendt: can you send a inital breakage to extras list? might get people to fix the inital stuff? They might not know they are causing breakage?
19:47 <     roozbeh> | mschwendt: well, we can offet the package for retaking before the removal
19:48 <   mschwendt> | nirik: I've done that since Nov 2005. only few found it really helpful.
19:48 <         thl> | roozbeh, I don't like the removal idea
19:48 <         thl> | roozbeh, If it is broken is is useless already
19:48 <         thl> | roozbeh, the gain of removing it then is doubtful
19:48 <         thl> | imho
19:48 <    roozbeh> | thl: you're right. may be we can orphan it?
19:48 <       nirik> | mschwendt: I remember seeing those a long time ago, but haven't seen any recently... perhaps I am just not paying attention. Will look again.
19:49 <         thl> | the real question was:
19:49 <         thl> | how often to run it
19:49 <         thl> | I vote for every extras push
19:49 <    bpepple> | thl: +1
19:49 <   mschwendt> | nirik: what is your bugzilla e-mail address?
19:49 <     roozbeh> | definitly every push at least for FE4.
19:50 <         thl> | does anyone disagree?
19:50 <       nirik> | mschwendt: kevin@tummy.com
19:50 <     ignacio> | Only the crazy people.
19:50 <   mschwendt> | nirik: no broken deps reported for you
19:51 <       nirik> | thats nice to hear. ;)
19:51 <         thl> | okay, the next question:
19:51 <  mschwendt> | thl: remember that means "one mail each day until a package is fixed"
19:51 <  mschwendt> | thl: or unless the script continues with not repeating mails for 14 days
19:51 <       nirik> | mschwendt: oh, kevin-redhat-bugzilla at tummy.com might have my packages.
19:51 <         thl> | I have no problem with that
19:51 <   mschwendt> | nirik: doesn't appear in the list of broken packages either
19:52 <         thl> | okay, now really the next question:
19:52 <         thl> | whether to post a summary to fedora-extras-list or whether to mail packagers privately?
19:52 <         thl> | short summary together with the push mails?
19:52 <         thl> | Is that possible?
19:53 <   dgilmore> | thl:  i would say private,  no word in a day or so  list
19:53 <        f13> | thl: at RH we send email to individual package maintainers as well as the summary to fedora-foo-list
19:53 <  mschwendt> | thl: well, a complete repoclosure takes some time
19:53 <         thl> | f13, I would prefer a similar solution
19:53 <       nirik> | I would say both if possible.
19:53 <     roozbeh> | both
19:53 <         thl> | mschwendt, okay, then a separate mail might be better
19:54 <   mschwendt> | Are they any _local_ repositories the script could access when running on a fedoraproject.org machine?
19:54 <         thl> | don't know
19:55 <         thl> | we'll let's stop with that issue here
19:56 <         thl> | or does anyone want to add something to the discussion?
19:56 <         thl> | mschwendt, I really would like it if you could post a mail on this topic to extras-list
19:56 <   mschwendt> | will do
19:56 <         thl> | with the results of this discussion incorporated
19:56 <         thl> | mschwendt, thx
19:57 <         thl> | okay, next point
19:57 <         thl> | "Weekly sponsorship nomination"
19:57 <         thl> | anyone?
19:57 <         thl> | I take that as "no"
19:58 <         thl> | does anyone want to discuss any "2" or "3" items?
19:58 <   mschwendt> | Anybody who thinks he/she should become a sponsor?
19:58 <         thl> | I take that as "no", too
19:59 <         thl> | anyone anything else to discuss?
19:59            <-- | finalzone has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
19:59 <     Sopwith> | The backlog of package reviews.
19:59 <     ignacio> | The 'Make "current"...' option needs to be updated.
19:59 <         thl> | Sopwith, what should we do about it?
20:00 <    Sopwith> | thl: Dunno. Making people aware of it is the first step.
20:00 <         thl> | okay, I'll add it to the report
20:00 <         thl> | ignacio, shoot
20:00 <         thl> | ignacio, btw, feel free to update http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/ImportMakeBranches yourself
20:01 <     ignacio> | I've submitted the patches to BZ and -buildsys, but no one's looked at them much AFAIK.
20:01 <     ignacio> | warren said something about reworking his final review but nothing's happened yet.
20:01 <        f13> | thl: I would like ot talk about removing myself from the FESCO
20:01 <         f13> | and letting somebody else take my spot.
20:02            <-- | Eitch has quit ("Leaving")
20:02 <         thl> | ignacio, this should probably be handled by jeremy and warren directly
20:02 <     ignacio> | Indeed. But the schedule should be updated.
20:02            --> | monkey|wrk (michael)  has joined #fedora-extras
20:02 <         thl> | ignacio, okay, will do
20:03 <   mschwendt> | f13: Further withdrawels of Red Hat from FESCO? Hear!Hear!
20:03 <     ignacio> | My part is done, we're just waiting on them.
20:03 <         thl> | ignacio, thx for the work
20:03 <         thl> | f13, if you want to step down that's okay
20:04 <         thl> | but we probably should work out some details how to handle such things in the future
20:04 <         thl> | and how to get into fesco
20:05 <         thl> | f13, I'll think about the whole situation
20:05 <         thl> | f13, that okay for now?
20:05 <         f13> | mschwendt: I was on FESCO mostly because of Legacy, which is its own project now.  I rarely have anything to do w/ FESCO and it doesn't make sense for me to be trying ot make decisions for hte project.
20:05 <         f13> | thl: sure.
20:05 <         thl> | f13, thx
20:05 <         thl> | okay, anything else?
20:06 <         thl> | we should discuss the "Bugs must be filed for all ExcludeArch" sooner or later
20:06 <         thl> | but we are already quite late
20:06 <         thl> | next week?
20:06            <-- | roozbeh has quit ("Leaving")
20:07 <         thl> | I take that as yes
20:07              * | thl will close the meeting in 30
20:07 <   mschwendt> | we should discuss more topics on mailing-lists
20:07              * | thl will close the meeting in 15
20:07 <         thl> | mschwendt, fully agreed
20:07 <         thl> | more on public lists
20:07 <         thl> | and nearly nothing on fesco-list
20:08              * | thl will close the meeting in 10
20:08              * | thl will close the meeting in 5
20:08              * | thl will close the meeting in 1
20:08 <         thl> | MARK: Meeting end
20:08 <         thl> | thx guys
20:09 <         thl> | FYI:
20:09 <         thl> | I probably can't finish the report of todays meeting before sunday
20:09 <         thl> | sorry for that
20:09              * | thl will be offline Friday and Saturday
20:10 <       nirik> | offline? out in that big blue room? scary. :)