Also in the wiki at
Present from FESCo: thl, scop, jpo, jeremy, skvidal, warren, f13, Anvil
- Weekly sponsorship nomination
- Nominated and accepted: "Hans de Goede" and bpepple
- FESCo future
- See full log if you are interested in all the details. thl will prepare a mail with a summary and a proposal how to proceed over the weekend
- Security SIG
- a lot of discussion; some parts:
- f13 > | there is a proposal there, linked in the schedule, and I"d like to know whats blocking this?
- warren> | I want small tweaks to it before it is approved.
- thl > | we really should get to an agreement next week
- EOL for Fedora Extras
- thl and warren mention again that they don't like the "Fedora Extras Legacy" approach
- thl> will try try to work something out together with f13 and post it to the list
- Some discussion about "Core packages reviews"
- a "Fedora Packaging Committee" seems likely
- jeremy> | bpepple: and if you notice ones [pacakges] that don't meet the guidelines yet still get approved, let me know
18:57 --> | scop (Ville SkyttÃ€) has joined #fedora-extras 18:59 < thl> | hello everyone 18:59 < jpo> | hi 19:00 --- | thl has changed the topic to: FESCo Meeting in progress 19:00 < thl> | who's around? 19:00 * | jeremy is, at least somewhat 19:00 < thl> | well, let's start slowly 19:01 --> | jnettlet_ (Jon Nettleton) has joined #fedora-extras 19:01 < thl> | First: Sorry, I didn't write the summary for the last meeting yet 19:01 < thl> | I'll hope to do that tomorrow 19:01 --- | thl has changed the topic to: FESCo Meeting in progress -- Kernel module standardization 19:02 < thl> | nothing new there, skipping 19:02 --- | thl has changed the topic to: FESCo Meeting in progress -- EOL Policy for FE 19:02 < thl> | does anyone want to say anything on that topic? 19:02 < thl> | or do we simply discuss this further on the list? 19:02 * | bpepple doesn't have anything to say. 19:03 < |Jef|> | thl: i take you you'd like to have competent constructive comments 19:03 < thl> | well, maybe I should say something: 19:03 < thl> | I don't like the idea of a "Fedora Extras Legacy" 19:03 < thl> | I'd like to avoid the term 19:04 < thl> | and a special group that handles older distros 19:04 < thl> | |Jef|, if you have constructive comments shoot 19:05 --- | thl has changed the topic to: FESCo Meeting in progress -- Broken deps report 19:05 < thl> | skipping 19:05 --- | thl has changed the topic to: FESCo Meeting in progress -- Security Proposal 19:05 < thl> | skipping, too -- no news this week on that iirc 19:06 < thl> | I hope to find time on the weekend to write a mail to the list with details how to prceed 19:06 < thl> | proceed 19:06 < skvidal> | thl: I can't make it to the meeting today 19:06 < skvidal> | right now the buildsys is down for an upgrade 19:06 < skvidal> | it took a while 19:06 < |Jef|> | thl: no i have no constructive comments... just general doomsaying 19:07 < thl> | skvidal, k, thx; have fun with the buildsys ;-) 19:07 < skvidal> | thanks 19:07 --- | thl has changed the topic to: FESCo Meeting in progress -- Weekly sponsorship nomination 19:07 < thl> | I'd like to nominate "Hans de Goede" 19:08 < warren> | I second that nomination. 19:08 < bpepple> | +1 19:08 < thl> | scop, ? 19:08 < scop> | +1 19:09 < thl> | k, thx 19:09 < thl> | I'll upgrade him 19:09 < thl> | okay 19:09 < thl> | that were all "Priority 1" items 19:09 < jeremy> | I have a nomination too 19:10 < thl> | does anyone want to discuss any other items 19:10 * | thl waits for jeremy 19:10 < jeremy> | bpepple 19:10 < jwb> | +1 19:10 < jwb> | (from the rif-raf) 19:10 * | warren takes a quick look at activity... 19:10 < scop> | no objections here 19:11 < warren> | bpepple, what is your e-mail address that you use on lists? 19:11 < bpepple> | firstname.lastname@example.org 19:11 < warren> | is that also your bugzilla? 19:11 * | thl thought bpepple had sponsor status already 19:12 < bpepple> | warren: yup. 19:12 < jwb> | thl, which is all the more reason :) 19:12 < jeremy> | thl: not according to the account system (I was wondering after seeing a number of good reviews, so went to check :) 19:12 < warren> | OK, I like what I see. 19:12 < warren> | +1 19:13 < jwb> | side note... 19:13 < jwb> | should all the FESCO members have sponsor auth? 19:13 < warren> | jwb, no 19:13 * | jwb is puzzled by this 19:13 < warren> | at least historically no 19:13 < bpepple> | jwb: Not all FESCO members have contributed packages, and done reviews. 19:13 < warren> | we had some FESCO members who didn't do anything in extras, strangely 19:13 < thl> | okay, I'll upgrade bpepple to sponsor status 19:13 < warren> | but I think they melted away 19:14 < jwb> | bpepple, not contributing packages shouldn't be a hurdle 19:14 < jwb> | reviews... ok maybe 19:14 < bpepple> | jwb: Yeah, the reviewing is the bigger issue. 19:14 < warren> | If you're doing good reviews consistently, then you deserve sponsor status. 19:14 < jwb> | i just find it strange that members of FESCO are trustworthy enough to steer extras in general, but not sponsor others 19:15 < warren> | jwb, some of the original members of FESCO I didn't think belonged there, but that is a different story. 19:15 < jwb> | warren, sure. that's a different issue though 19:15 < warren> | I don't even know who is in FESCO anymore. 19:15 < warren> | FESCO is so transparent. 19:16 < jwb> | is the list on the wiki up to date? 19:16 < warren> | I don't know 19:16 * | warren looks 19:16 < thl> | it is update afaik 19:16 < warren> | URL? 19:16 < thl> | but this brings me to a important item in any case 19:16 < thl> | warren, http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SteeringCommittee 19:16 --- | thl has changed the topic to: FESCo Meeting in progress -- FESCo future 19:17 < jwb> | my question is prompted by f13's recent situation 19:17 < thl> | we need to discuss how to proceed with FESCo 19:17 < warren> | jwb, which situation is that? 19:17 < jwb> | warren, he was doing reviews and went to sponsor someone but couldn't 19:17 < thl> | there are some FESCO members that wanted to leave 19:17 < warren> | Yeah, then just remove them? 19:18 < thl> | we discussed about that on the FESCo list already 19:18 < warren> | jwb, in f13's case, I think he deserves sponsor status for several reasons 19:18 < jwb> | warren, so do i. and he has it now. but i just generalized the question 19:18 < thl> | and get a rotation for FESCo 19:18 < warren> | thl, ++ 19:18 < jwb> | thl, yes 19:19 < thl> | the question is: how to do it exactly 19:19 < warren> | Did Anvil want to remain in? 19:19 < jwb> | perhaps by starting with a limit on the number of poeple? 19:19 < warren> | I think we should have people that 1) show up for meetings 2) are active leaders in Extras. 19:19 < Anvil> | remain in what ? 19:19 < thl> | a election after a self nomination for FESCo membership 19:19 < jwb> | Anvil, FESCO 19:19 < warren> | Anvil, do you want to remain in fesco? 19:19 < Anvil> | FESCO. Nah. 19:19 < Anvil> | warren : i'm of no use. 19:19 < Anvil> | honest. 19:19 < warren> | Anvil, you're plenty useful. 19:19 < Anvil> | warren : no way. 19:19 < warren> | (Just not for FESCO.) 19:20 < jwb> | thl, election by whom? 19:20 < Anvil> | even outside of fesco i have doubts 19:20 < warren> | Anvil, wink wink, nudge nudge 19:20 < Anvil> | jwb : from current fesco members maybe. 19:20 < jwb> | yeah, that's what i was thinking 19:20 < Anvil> | warren : I'm lost. What's that ? 19:20 < bpepple> | Anvil: sounds like a good idea. 19:20 < thl> | jwb, by all Extras packagers 19:21 < jwb> | thl, omg 19:21 < thl> | jwb, just a idea 19:21 < thl> | jwb, any better ideas? 19:21 < warren> | How about appointment by the benevolent dictator thl? 19:21 < |Jef|> | thl: running large scale voting elections takes effort 19:21 < Anvil> | hmm actually do we have enough volunteers that we have to organize elections ? 19:21 < thl> | |Jef|, agreed 19:22 < warren> | I move that thl just chooses people to join. 19:22 < jwb> | thl, let those in FESCO that currently want to leave, leave. set a number for FESCO. if there are open spots, let people self nominate. then let FESCO elect 19:22 < Anvil> | thl |Jef| : extras packagers can *at least* make suggestions. 19:22 < |Jef|> | thl: and im more than running such an election..using closed software that i write to tally the voting results 19:23 < thl> | has anyone experiences with such votings? 19:23 < f13> | ooh fesco meeting,a nd I'm around! 19:23 < warren> | thl, first, who wanted to leave FESCO? 19:23 < thl> | debian does them now and then afaik 19:23 < f13> | warren: I expressed interest in leaving. 19:23 < |Jef|> | thl: anyone who has done gnome board elections... 19:23 < jwb> | thl, having a broader election isn't _bad_. it's just much harder to do, and sometimes people aren't really invovled enough to know 19:23 < Anvil> | arent we supposed to be based upon meritocraty and not democraty ? 19:24 < thl> | warren, at least Anvil, adriar, maybe Sopwith and f13 19:24 < warren> | Anvil, ++ 19:24 < Anvil> | who are the more meriteful ? 19:24 < |Jef|> | Anvil: lets vote to figure that out! 19:24 < Anvil> | |Jef| :) 19:24 < warren> | So we're losing Anvil, adrian, Sopwith, bytee, gregdek, f13 ? 19:24 < |Jef|> | hahahaha 19:24 < Anvil> | warren : the end of an epoch ? 19:25 < warren> | I think merit is a good measure of who belongs in FESCO. 19:25 * | Anvil propose Axel for his own replacement. 19:25 < f13> | um. 19:25 < |Jef|> | warren: is that like 2/3s of the fesco? 19:25 < jwb> | |Jef|, it's a lot. yeah 19:25 < f13> | I"d rather see Axel do a few more packages before we start asking him how to run Extras. 19:25 < |Jef|> | jwb: thats not good 19:25 < warren> | f13, ++ 19:25 < jwb> | no, it isn't 19:25 < Anvil> | f13 : hasnt he the merit to be considered as a fork ? Isnt that enough ? </troll> 19:26 < f13> | here's the thing, FESCO as it is has existed for a while. 19:26 < |Jef|> | jwb: you want a continuation of culture not upheavals 19:26 < warren> | 6 of 17 current members are leaving 19:26 < f13> | it's about time for fresh members/minds. 19:26 < |Jef|> | f13: sure fresh members.. not 2/3 fresh members though 19:26 < thl> | f13, agreed 19:26 < jwb> | who thinks 17 members is too many? 19:26 < warren> | I think 15 is reasonable 19:26 < Anvil> | jwb : _o/ 19:26 < warren> | 6 leaving, 4 new 19:26 < scop> | I'd go for something like 9 19:26 < |Jef|> | warren: i like to think of committees as a group of people who have to decide on a place to eat dinner together 19:26 < thl> | I'd go for 13 19:26 < bpepple> | warren: That doesn't seem bad. 19:27 < |Jef|> | warren: 15 people deciding where to eat... never works 19:27 < jwb> | i was thinking 10, but i don't count 19:27 < ignacio> | 9 or 11 seems good to me. 19:27 < warren> | |Jef|, yeah, you need to wait much longer for a table to open. 19:27 < thl> | jwb, every opinions counts 19:27 < jwb> | :) 19:27 < ignacio> | Even numbers are bad. 19:27 < f13> | indeed 19:27 < |Jef|> | warren: or just decidingwhere to go.. is a huge pain in the ass...with 15 19:27 < jwb> | ah good point about even numbers 19:27 < warren> | Well think about it this way 19:27 < Anvil> | do we agree it has to be a prime number ? \-) 19:27 < jwb> | then i say 11 19:27 < warren> | how many members actually show up to meetings? 19:27 < warren> | Having some redundancy in there might make sense for us. 19:28 < thl> | warren, not enough currently 19:28 < warren> | thus a higher number makes sense for FESCO 19:28 < thl> | there are some members that I've never seen here 19:28 < thl> | warren, agreed 19:28 < warren> | 17 currently, I think 15 is reasonable 19:28 < |Jef|> | thl: or its an indication that the wrong people are on the committee 19:28 < warren> | but if we have 6 clear leaders to replace the 6 leaving, then we shouldn't deny them. 19:28 * | thl is fine with 15 19:28 < warren> | because maybe they will show up at meetings =) 19:28 < jwb> | warren, a higher number, or people that actually want to be there? 19:28 < ignacio> | The number can be cut down further as time goes on. 19:29 < warren> | jwb, people that actually want to be there. 19:29 < jwb> | yeah 19:29 < warren> | Requirements: 1) Leadership 2) Want to do it 3) Merit 19:29 < ignacio> | But for now it's best to rotate in some new members. 19:29 < |Jef|> | thl: think about a meeting quorum 19:29 < jwb> | yes 19:29 < thl> | Requirements: 4) take a open task and improve extras 19:30 < thl> | e.g. a self nominations to the list 19:30 < jwb> | thl, doesn't that fall into 3? 19:30 < thl> | jwb, maybe, but I wanted to make it explicit 19:30 < warren> | jwb, yeah 19:30 < warren> | oh 19:30 < jwb> | thl, so someone has to take a todo from the FESCO list and make it happen _before_ they are on FESCO? 19:30 < warren> | OK, while we're here. I nominate jwb and ignacio. 19:30 < thl> | I'd like to hear from each new member what his plans are for the next year 19:31 < thl> | jwb, no 19:31 < thl> | jwb, just laying down the plans and ideas for the future 19:31 < jwb> | hm, ok 19:31 < thl> | and at least plan to work on them after beeing in FESCo 19:31 * | warren wonders why FESCO membership is required for working on TODO items. 19:32 * | scop seconds 19:32 < thl> | warren, everyone can work on the todo items 19:32 < Anvil> | one good point for warren. 19:32 < |Jef|> | warren: other way around 19:32 < jwb> | warren, i'm not saying it is. just that some of those items might be harder to acheive 19:32 < |Jef|> | warren: if you get suckered into fesco membership you have to work on something :- 19:32 < thl> | but IMHO every FESCo member should work on at least one of the todo items 19:32 < jwb> | thl, ++ 19:32 < warren> | There may be other obvious people here right now, but names escape my mind at the moment. I will read through review traffic in the last few weeks to see other obvious candidates. 19:33 < thl> | I really would like a self nomination periode 19:33 < thl> | where people can lay down their ideas for the future of Extras 19:34 * | thl waits for other ideas 19:35 < warren> | thl's approach is fine. 19:35 < warren> | Just do it. 19:35 < jwb> | i like that. it should (hopefully) show that they really want to be there and are motivated to improve things 19:35 < bpepple> | sounds good. 19:35 < thl> | k 19:35 < warren> | When people ask me "create this mailing list" I ask them to write a mission statement, goals, objectives, etc. 19:35 < thl> | I'll write a main on that topic to fedora-extras-list this weekend 19:35 < warren> | Sometimes they never respond, meaning they weren't serious about it. 19:35 < thl> | we should discuss this there a bit more 19:36 < warren> | If people want to join FESCO, they should write their own mission statement, goals, objectives, etc. 19:36 < thl> | and then we can proceed with a actual plan next week 19:36 < warren> | thl, ok 19:36 < thl> | that okay for everybody? 19:36 < jwb> | i think it's important to allow others to make suggestions, but the potential candidates still have to do the explaining thing 19:36 < f13> | worksforme 19:36 < warren> | One more aspect of FESCO membership that I would like to clarify. 19:36 < thl> | jwb, k 19:36 < warren> | What if members haven't had "merit" but they don't want to leave FESCO? 19:37 < warren> | (They don't actually do anything.) 19:37 < thl> | warren, good question 19:37 < warren> | I personally think the merit requirement is important. 19:38 < thl> | if they not even do the "lay down the plans for the near extras future" and the "self nominations" 19:38 < thl> | that it might be the right time to give that position to somebody else 19:38 < jwb> | ask them to leave, or explain why they should stay 19:39 < warren> | We're not comfortable booting people? =) 19:39 < jwb> | warren, that depends on their explanation :) 19:39 < bpepple> | How about FESCO membership for a specific timeframe with elections every year or so? 19:39 <-- | uwog has quit ("I like core dumps") 19:39 < thl> | jwb, yeah, "ask them to leave, or explain why they should stay" sounds like a good idea, too 19:39 < jwb> | FESCO isn't life membership. it's up for review 19:40 < warren> | It really isn't hard to get into FESCo if we have these requirements. There are only so many leaders. 19:40 < skvidal> | if anyone wants to get rid of me, I'm fine with that 19:40 --> | uwog (Marc Maurer) has joined #fedora-extras 19:40 < jwb> | bpepple, if we have some kind of staging in there, sure. we want to avoid doing a total refresh every year though 19:40 < warren> | If we get to a point where there are 100 people who are leaders and only 15 spots, then having the overhead of elections might be worth it. 19:40 < warren> | But I don't think that is necessary now. 19:41 < jwb> | right 19:41 < scop> | skvidal, not that I would want that per se, but being both in fesco and the board sounds somewhat unnecessary to me... 19:41 < thl> | btw, there should also be a discussion how the chair of fesco is choosen 19:41 < warren> | hot potato? =) 19:41 < warren> | "I don't want it, you take it." 19:41 < jwb> | thl, choosen by peers. as you were 19:41 < skvidal> | scop: I'm fine with leaving it 19:41 < jwb> | thl, with that person obviously wanting the job :) 19:42 < warren> | 7 leaving, 5 new? 19:42 < skvidal> | scop: especially if other people want to do more 19:42 < warren> | I think we have a few good people to choose from for 5 new. 19:42 < thl> | warren, please don't count 19:42 < skvidal> | scop: I don't want to be in the way 19:42 < thl> | let's wait who nominates himself for the job 19:42 < warren> | This is fine. Let's move on. 19:43 < thl> | k 19:43 < jwb> | thl, in your email could you outline what it entails to be on FESCO? time requirements, etc? 19:43 < thl> | jwb, I'll try 19:43 < jwb> | all i can ask :) 19:43 < warren> | Not necessarily time, but the dedication and merit. 19:43 < jwb> | warren, sure that too 19:43 < skvidal> | time is the big factor 19:43 < skvidal> | most people want to help 19:44 < skvidal> | sometimes they just don't have enough time to make it useful 19:44 < jwb> | right 19:44 * | warren brb 19:44 < thl> | the problem we have afaics is 19:44 < thl> | that a lot of people often expect help from fesco 19:44 < thl> | but they don't get any hints or help on fedora 19:45 < thl> | that why the EOL and the Security SIG are stuckked a bit ATM 19:45 < thl> | (afaics) 19:45 < thl> | we need to improve that in the future 19:45 < thl> | anyway, let's proceed with other things 19:45 --- | thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- free discussion related to fedora extras 19:46 < thl> | any other important things that need to be discussed? 19:46 < f13> | thl: I wasn't aroudn to talk about the Security thing last week 19:46 < f13> | can we bring it up now? 19:46 < bpepple> | Could we talk about Core packages reviews for a bit? 19:46 < f13> | also the EOL stuff I thought an email was going to go out for more discussion, but I neer saw anything. So yet another week we've let this languish. 19:46 --- | thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- f13 -- Security 19:46 < thl> | f13, the floor is yours 19:47 < thl> | f13, just FYI, I don#t like the Fedora Extras Legacy idea 19:47 < thl> | we should avoid the term 19:47 < f13> | Honestly, there is a proposal there, linked in the schedule, and I"d like to know whats blocking this? 19:47 <-- | has quit (Remote closed the connection) 19:47 < f13> | thl: 'Extras Legacy'? where do you see that anywhere? 19:47 < thl> | f13, you mean EOL or Security SIG? 19:47 < warren> | "Extras Legacy" is the wrong approach to this 19:47 < f13> | I could have sworn all the references were Maintenance. 19:47 < thl> | f13, mschendt proposed that on extras-list 19:48 < f13> | thl: currently lets talk baout the Security SIG 19:48 --- | thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- f13 -- Security SIG 19:48 < warren> | We must have a Security team at the Fedora distribution level that tracks issues. Then security team + other people can work on the tracked issues. 19:49 < thl> | I'm fine with the proposal the Security SIG wrote 19:49 < warren> | URL? 19:49 < f13> | warren: it's linked in the schedule. 19:50 < thl> | warren, http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Schedule/SecurityPolicy 19:50 < thl> | I still wondering if we should split the Security SIG 19:50 < f13> | split? 19:50 < thl> | into a group that watches bugtrack and other mailinglist 19:50 < thl> | and a group that fixes things that need fixing 19:50 < warren> | Not necessarily 19:51 < f13> | thl: for the public lists not necessary 19:51 < thl> | warren, agreed 19:51 < warren> | I personally think the tracking part is the most important part of the security team. 19:51 < f13> | when we start talking embargo, then we do need a more limited view. 19:51 < thl> | warren, and we can do it later in any case if it becomes necessary 19:51 < jwb> | i hate embargo 19:51 < f13> | but thats for later. I'm trying to get the first part of the Policy in place, which we can grow from. 19:51 < warren> | Tracking is the main responsibility of security SIG. Then those members have the option of working on the issues, as does the package maintainers. 19:52 < f13> | Do we have quorem(sp?) of FESCO members to make this Policy approved, so that interested parties can start implimenting it? 19:52 * | f13 will leave time for more reading. 19:52 < warren> | I want small tweaks to it before it is approved. 19:52 < skvidal> | f13: quorum 19:52 < f13> | warren: what tweaks? 19:53 < warren> | f13, not exactly sure yet, I want to read this current version. 19:54 < thl> | I'm fine with waiting another week with a final discussion 19:54 < f13> | warren: it hasn't changed in over a week, did you not read it last week? 19:54 < thl> | but we really should get to an agreement next week 19:55 < warren> | agreed, by next week 19:55 < f13> | ok, moving on to EOL policy? 19:55 <-- | cweyl has left #fedora-extras ( ) 19:55 --- | thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- f13 -- EOL 19:55 < f13> | Extras should track Core. Go into Maint mode when Core does, and really EOL when Core does. 19:55 <-- | giallu has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) 19:55 < bpepple> | f13: +1 19:55 < jwb> | +1 19:55 < warren> | No sense maintaing Extras if Core is retired. 19:56 --> | cweyl (Chris Weyl) has joined #fedora-extras 19:56 < f13> | Can we agree that Maint mode gets security fixes only? 19:56 < f13> | or other things approved by board, such as severe bugfixes? 19:56 < jwb> | f13, i think the latter is better 19:57 < warren> | I agree in principal about no new additions, but I am not 100% comfortable about making this completely inflexible. I hope we can have some exception process that is a huge pain in the ass, enough so that people are discouraged from doing it. 19:57 < thl> | f13, just to make sure: did you read the thread mschendt started last week on fedora-extras-list? 19:57 < thl> | f13, https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-April/msg00880.html 19:57 < f13> | hrm, he did it on Extras list. bummer, I wasn't on that list. 19:57 < warren> | I don't agree to security fix only. Often times it requires far less effort to upgrade versions. It should be treated on a case by case basis based on impact. 19:58 < f13> | warren: but the reason to update the package would be fore Security 19:58 < f13> | warren: I'm ok w/ upgrading the package to fix a security issue, but not with upgrading a package because a new wizbang package version came out. 19:59 < f13> | thl: that thread seems more like implimentation of the policy rather than Policy in general. 19:59 < warren> | I still think we shouldn't make policy completely inflexible. 19:59 < f13> | warren: how is this not inflexible? 19:59 < f13> | warren: updates/upgrades for security, or things approved by the board can happen until a true EOL 19:59 < warren> | There are cases that are not "security" in a traditional sense, but it just makes sense to upgrade it. 19:59 < f13> | after true EOL, nothing more. 19:59 --> | abadger1999 (Toshio Kuratomi) has joined #fedora-extras 20:00 < f13> | warren: the board can approve that. 20:00 < warren> | after a true EOL it just naturally makes sense to stop working on it. 20:00 < warren> | I have to go to my next meeting. 20:00 < warren> | I'll weigh in on list 20:00 < f13> | which list? 20:00 < warren> | fedora-extras-list 20:01 < f13> | can we keep it on fesco list? I'm ont on extras, and don't want to be. 20:01 < jwb> | f13, how about maintaines? 20:01 < jwb> | er, maintainers 20:01 < f13> | jwb: that works for me too 20:01 < f13> | can we set a hard mandate to resolve this by next week to? 20:01 < warren> | f13, well there is already a discussion on this very topic on extras-list, why not keep it there? 20:01 < jwb> | f13, fesco is closed and i can't read it and i'm selfish and want to know :) 20:01 < warren> | f13, we can try, but I wouldn't make guarantees. 20:01 < f13> | these are really the last two things I care about for Extras, and I"d REALLY like to get them off my plate. 20:02 < thl> | well, we're running late 20:02 < warren> | Quite frankly, I still am not fully comfortable with you trying to dictate Extras policy when you yourself were not an active contributor to Extras. 20:02 < f13> | warren: because A) that looked largely like an implementation discussion, not a policy discussion, B) a discussion on policy should have a narrower view, people doing rather than consuming. 20:02 < f13> | warren: I know, but given that there is NOBODY ELSE DOING IT means that I have to step in. 20:03 < thl> | f13, could you post a summary and a proposal to fedora-maintainers list 20:03 < thl> | so people can discuss 20:03 < thl> | and we agree on that one next week 20:03 < f13> | warren: because I CONTINUE to get questions bout why Legacy doesn't support Extras. 20:03 < jwb> | leadership vs. merit 20:03 < warren> | That is a good reason, we'll figure something out. 20:03 < jwb> | :) 20:03 < thl> | I don't like some of the ideas mschwendt proposed on extras-list 20:03 < warren> | Yes, i'm not comfortable with that either. 20:03 < f13> | I care about policy. How you guys impliment it is up to you. 20:03 < warren> | I think we're in agreement that Extras Legacy is not the direction we want to go? 20:04 < thl> | f13, I can write that mail if you don#t want to 20:04 < thl> | warren, yes 20:04 < warren> | I have to go 20:04 * | thl needs to leave soon, too 20:04 <-- | warren has quit ("Leaving") 20:04 < f13> | warren: right, the FEdora security SIG can step in and do things in absence of a maintainer or active maintainer, but I don't think it should be viewed as a dumping ground of old packages. 20:04 < f13> | an Extras maintainer should be under the understanding that if you want to maintain a package, you're in it for a full cycle. 20:05 < f13> | thats it for me. 20:05 < thl> | f13, define "full cycle" please 20:05 < thl> | full Core cycle as supported by red hat 20:05 < thl> | or by Fedora Legacy 20:05 < f13> | thl: If you introduce a package in FC4, you should be responsible for it until FC4 goes EOL 20:06 < f13> | thl: as by Legacy, as we're trying to blur the line between what "Red Hat' does and what "Fedora" does. 20:06 < thl> | f13, EOL by "Fedora Legacy"? 20:06 < f13> | thl: think of it as a cycle that "Fedora" does, which includes what RH contributes and Legacy contributes. 20:06 < f13> | thl: thats what makes sense to me. 20:06 < thl> | f13, I'll try to work something out 20:07 < thl> | and post it to you 20:07 < thl> | and afterwards to the list 20:07 < f13> | thl: especially given that Core ships w/ Legacy configs, and will soon ship w/ Legacy configs enabled. 20:07 < thl> | that okay? 20:07 < f13> | sounds fine by me. 20:07 < thl> | k 20:07 < f13> | thanks. 20:07 --> | warren (Unknown) has joined #fedora-extras 20:07 < thl> | bpepple> | Could we talk about Core packages reviews for a bit? 20:07 < f13> | I guess I should be around for that too (; 20:08 < bpepple> | Not really a Extras specific issue, but it's doesn't really seem clear to what standard these packages are being reviewed for? 20:08 < bpepple> | Are we using Extra guidelines? 20:09 < thl> | bpepple, currently yes 20:09 < f13> | bpepple: if you haven't noticed, I edited those policies so that they are FEdora standards. 20:09 < f13> | not Extras standards. 20:09 < thl> | bpepple, I think some detials still need to be worked out 20:09 < f13> | and yes, new core package reviews must adhere to these guidelines. 20:10 < thl> | maybe we need a "Fedora Packaging Committe" that handles the guidelines for both Core and Extras 20:10 < bpepple> | Some of the packages I've looked at seem to need a more formal approach to be approved. 20:10 < f13> | bpepple: there were only 4 core packages thus far. 20:10 < f13> | bpepple: and they were used as the test case to see where the policies needed adjustment and how the process works. 20:11 < f13> | thl: yes, I think a formal Packaging committee should be created. I'm pretty sure spot is in agreement too. 20:11 < bpepple> | Ok, maybe that's what I noticed. I glanced at gcalctools review, and there looked like some reluctance to follow the packing guidelines. 20:12 < thl> | I need to leave 20:12 < thl> | Is it okay for everyone if I close the meeting? 20:12 < f13> | bpepple: part of that is being the first to get reviewed. 20:12 < f13> | thl: yes. 20:12 * | thl fill close the meeting in 60 20:12 < f13> | bpepple: trust me, those of us that are approving packages, and are behidn this at Red Hat will ensure that shit gets done right. 20:12 * | thl fill close the meeting in 30 20:13 < bpepple> | f13: Ok, just verify how these should be handled. 20:13 < bpepple> | thanks. 20:13 * | thl fill close the meeting in 15 20:13 * | thl fill close the meeting in 10 20:13 < thl> | MARK: Meeting End! 20:13 < thl> | thx everyone 20:13 < jeremy> | bpepple: and if you notice ones that don't meet the guidelines yet still get approved, let me know 20:13 < f13> | bpepple: simple. If the package doesn't meet the guideline, don't accept it. IF it isn't on FC-ACCEPT, I'm not letting it into the distro. 20:13 <-- | jnettlet_ has left #fedora-extras ( "Leaving") 20:15 < bpepple> | whoops, I meant verifying, not verify. 20:16 < abadger1999> | f13: We don't require an Extras Maintainer to "support" on all architectures. But they do have to be willing to accept patches to fix problems on other archs. So in a sense they're just coordinators. What're your thoughts on the differences WRT maintaining packages on FC-releases you're not running? 20:17 < f13> | abadger1999: probably simiilar. The Security SIG is there as a fallback point, but shouldn't be dumped upon. THe maintainer should make a resonable effort to stick around for the lifespan. 20:17 < f13> | abadger1999: I don't want to see Extras (continue to) be a fire and forget repository 20:21 --> | BobJensen (Robert 'Bob' Jensen) has joined #Fedora-Extras 20:21 <-- | JSchmitt has quit (Remote closed the connection) 20:21 < abadger1999> | f13: I missed the first part of the EOL discussion -- is the proposed solution to fire-and-forget just that the maintainer pushes updates to older releases? 20:23 < abadger1999> | f13: It seems some of the hesitation to update less current FC stems from not being able to test there. 20:23 < f13> | abadger1999: its more of putting a policy in place where there is none. 20:23 < f13> | abadger1999: currently there is no policy, and thus no expectation on how long an Extras package will be valid. 20:24 < f13> | I'm interested in seeing a policy go in place regarding when things can be updated and such, but implimentation is largely up to Extras to decide. 20:26 < abadger1999> | f13: I see.. So any time period as long as it sets a definite expectation so responsibility for the remaining time period can be planned on by other projects/end-users? 20:26 < f13> | pretty much yes. 20:26 < f13> | and I'm recommending the timeline that follows Core as presented by Fedora. 20:26 < f13> | Active for a period of time, Maint for a period of time, then flat out EOL 20:28 <-- | scop has left #fedora-extras ( "Leaving") 20:29 < abadger1999> | f13: So a two part proposal: 1) There must be a definite timeline. 2) Timeline that follows Core makes sense (insert reasons here). 20:29 < f13> | yeah 20:29 < abadger1999> | f13: Thanks. I've got a better understanding now :-)