From Fedora Project Wiki


(10:00:13 AM) thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- Meeting rules at [WWW] -- Init process
(10:00:16 AM) thl: Hi everybody; Who's around?
(10:00:28 AM) ***awjb is (a)round
(10:00:30 AM) tibbs: My plans changed, so I'm able to be here today.
(10:00:51 AM) ***dgilmore is here
(10:00:55 AM) marjfex [n=marjfex]  entered the room.
(10:01:05 AM) xris [n=xris]  entered the room.
(10:01:11 AM) thl: ping warren, jeremy, rdieter, bpepple
(10:01:16 AM) bpepple: pong.
(10:01:22 AM) rdieter: thl: yo
(10:01:36 AM) thl: ping spot
(10:01:55 AM) abadger1999: hello
(10:02:10 AM) thl: c4chris is probably busy
(10:02:16 AM) thl: ping jwb_gone
(10:02:29 AM) thl: ohh, and mmcgrath, are you around?
(10:02:33 AM) mmcgrath: pong
(10:02:38 AM) jwb_gone: thl, not really
(10:02:43 AM) warren: i'm here
(10:02:50 AM) thl: jwb_gone, no problem, was just a reminder ;)
(10:02:57 AM) _wart_ [n=wart]  entered the room.
(10:03:03 AM) thl: well, so let's start with the FESCo meering :)
(10:03:04 AM) jwb_gone: thl, sure :)
(10:03:06 AM) thl: meeting
(10:03:12 AM) BobJensen-Away is now known as BobJensen
(10:03:14 AM) thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- EPEL - where to upload stuff (dgilmore, mmcgrath)
(10:03:22 AM) thl: dgilmore, mmcgrath ?
(10:03:38 AM) thl: was there any progress or were you both to busy with CVS?
(10:03:53 AM) mmcgrath: We were just discussing it.  dgilmore and I would like to build a few more things for testing but as long as nothing breaks, we'll be ready.
(10:04:00 AM) dgilmore: thl: mmcgrath was busy with cvs
(10:04:16 AM) thl: okay, we really should try to get this running
(10:04:28 AM) thl: are there any other things we need to sort out now?
(10:04:30 AM) mmcgrath: dgilmore: should we say that next week we'll be avaiable to request branches?
(10:04:47 AM) thl: when can pacakgers start to build their packages?
(10:04:57 AM) dgilmore: mmcgrath: i would say that as of next week branches can be requested
(10:05:05 AM) ***rdieter can't wait to get started. (:
(10:05:07 AM) dgilmore: thl: next thursday
(10:05:24 AM) thl: e.g. those packagers taht get allowed in the beginning (sponsorts, trusted contributors with a lot of packages,)
(10:05:34 AM) mmcgrath: the question is, autobranch of all packages similar to what we do with devel->FC6?  or force users to request it.
(10:05:35 AM) thl: dgilmore, k, sounds great :)
(10:05:44 AM) thl: fore users to request it
(10:05:48 AM) mmcgrath: autobranch != autobuild which just won't work
(10:06:06 AM) warren: force users to request it
(10:06:23 AM) warren: EPEL should be a smaller subset than Extras if it is to be realistic to support.
(10:06:26 AM) dgilmore: thl: users have to request branches
(10:06:38 AM) thl: mmcgrath, what do you mean by autobuild?
(10:06:50 AM) thl: nobody really wanted that iirc
(10:06:57 AM) mmcgrath: I just meant that by auto branching everything I didn't want to imply that we'd auto build.
(10:07:05 AM) mmcgrath: I'm in the users should request boat.
(10:07:07 AM) thl: mmcgrath, ahh, okay :)
(10:07:27 AM) thl: well, it seems the consesus is "force users to request branches" afaics
(10:07:33 AM) abadger1999: +1
(10:07:43 AM) thl: anything else regarding epel we should discuss now?
(10:08:06 AM) thl: seems not
(10:08:08 AM) thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- Opening Core - (warren, jeremy, rdieter)
(10:08:14 AM) thl: warren, jeremy, rdieter ?
(10:08:23 AM) warren: mmcgrath, yes, we should provide boats to users if they request one.
(10:08:53 AM) warren: thl, everything new that I'm aware of is what was discussed in the board meeting, minutes are on the wiki.
(10:08:55 AM) warren: Nothing new decided.
(10:09:21 AM) warren: I'm personally hoping to post a strawman of the ranking system and alternative promotion paths this weekend.
(10:09:22 AM) thl: did anyone read my mail to FESCo-list with my thought about the fesco future?
(10:09:32 AM) thl: there were no comments :-/
(10:09:37 AM) awjb: yes I did
(10:09:41 AM) awjb: sounds ok
(10:09:47 AM) ***bpepple read it, just hasn't had time to respond.
(10:09:50 AM) awjb: I will write up an answer tonigh
(10:10:00 AM) thl: should we discuss it on fab directly?
(10:10:03 AM) thl: warren ?
(10:10:03 AM) warren: I'm not sure I agree with the sub-group idea.
(10:10:17 AM) abadger1999: thl: Sorry.  I missed it but I'll read it today.
(10:10:38 AM) warren: sub-group works assuming that people are accountable for each sub-group.  But this is primarily a volunteer organization, so you cannot maintain that kind of expectation in the long-term.
(10:10:40 AM) thl: warren, rdieter, shall we discuss this on fab-list?
(10:10:53 AM) thl: warren, the idea came from f13 iirc
(10:11:00 AM) tibbs: I think we constantly  create subcommittees anyway.
(10:11:03 AM) dgilmore: thl: thats probably the best place to do it
(10:11:12 AM) thl: I think similar groups exist in redhat-land ?
(10:11:22 AM) warren: Compartmentalizing that kind of decision making in a volunteer organization might risk us falling into a Debian-like trap.  Decisions MUST be made in a timely manner in Fedora or we stagnate.
(10:11:28 AM) warren: I think decisions should be made by whoever is around.
(10:11:55 AM) thl: I really want to avoid "us falling into a Debian-like trap"
(10:12:02 AM) f13: warren: and if the sub-group is accountable by a RH paid engineer?
(10:12:10 AM) warren: sub-committees work best in an organization like us ONLY if there is sufficient self-sustaining momentum, or someone paid is accountable
(10:12:15 AM) f13: warren: like the "release" subgroup is my paid responsibliity?
(10:12:25 AM) warren: *OR* if the sub-committee has a limited time with a deadline
(10:12:34 AM) warren: f13, yes, in that case it can work.
(10:13:05 AM) warren: I think we need to identify if a sub-group falls into any of those three categories, and use sub-groups only then.
(10:13:25 AM) warren: In other cases decisions should be made in a prompt manner by whoever is around as long as we have quorum.
(10:13:26 AM) f13: warren: basically I want to avoid being in FESCo again, avoid not having time to follow all the FESCo issues and not having a clue on how/what to vote on, and being a bump in the process for all but a very narrow scope of things.
(10:13:41 AM) bpepple: f13: The only problem with that might be a perception problem about Fedora being a community project, if all the sub-commitees are headed by Rh employees.
(10:13:46 AM) warren: Prompt decisions that are 90% right are better than late decisions (or none at all) that are 100% right.
(10:14:01 AM) f13: bpepple: the subcommitees would need FESCo approval for anything.
(10:14:10 AM) warren: f13, I don't think attending all fesco meetings is necessary to be useful to fesco.
(10:14:12 AM) f13: Board -> FESCo -> Sub-Commitee
(10:14:26 AM) f13: warren: when you're trying to reach quorum....
(10:14:37 AM) warren: f13, but given that release engineering falls into one of those three categories, a sub-committee for it would work.
(10:14:44 AM) tibbs: So redefine quorum.  We can do that.
(10:14:59 AM) warren: release engineering has someone accountable, that's fine.
(10:15:00 AM) abadger1999: I think it makes sense if the subcommittee reports to FESCo and FESCo by and large listens and says "You did the research, go ahead"
(10:15:05 AM) Sonar_Guy left the room (quit: "Sonar_Guy has Left the Building!!").
(10:15:24 AM) abadger1999: So the subcommittee does the legwork but is still responsible to the community.
(10:15:29 AM) warren: how about sub-committee of release engineering gives recommendations to FESCo.  If nobody objects it just happens.  FESCo debates and votes on it if it is controversial.
(10:15:31 AM) bpepple: abadger1999: agreed.
(10:15:52 AM) tibbs: warren: That's how the packaging committee works.
(10:15:58 AM) abadger1999: warren: That sounds good.
(10:16:04 AM) tibbs: It seems to work well, when the packaging committee itself is working.
(10:16:04 AM) warren: I think that subcommittee should be on FESCo list, but they don't necessarily have to attend the meetings.
(10:16:20 AM) thl: well, we need to make sure that the subcommittees talk enought with fesco
(10:16:32 AM) warren: Note, the packaging committee is not consistently working.  sometimes hard decisions do not happen in a prompt manner.
(10:16:45 AM) thl: that's why I it might be a good idea if people from the most importatn committees are in fesco
(10:16:47 AM) tibbs: Yes, that's what I alluded to.
(10:17:13 AM) rdieter: thl++
(10:17:14 AM) thl: warren, +1, that really annoys me, too
(10:17:18 AM) warren: There is not sufficient self-sustaining momentum, spot's volunteer time is what drives packaging committee (he isn't paid to be accountable), and it isn't a temporary committee with a deadline.
(10:18:06 AM) thl: well, I think we should stop here
(10:18:07 AM) abadger1999: thl: Why not weekly reports instead of having a member on FESCo.
(10:18:07 AM) tibbs: Some of us would welcome a reconstitution of that committee, but at this point that's more an issue for the board since it constituted the committee in the first place.
(10:18:12 AM) warren: So maybe the solution is for Red Hat to prioritize paid employees to be accountable to progress on key areas where community momentum isn't self-sustaining yet.
(10:18:22 AM) warren: I can work on that with max... but it will take time.
(10:18:34 AM) f13: sounds like we're stuffing FESCo full of people that may not care about all of FESCo's responsiblities, and with people who can't be voted off the island.
(10:18:38 AM) ***thl will wait for further discussions again now that people started talking again
(10:18:52 AM) abadger1999: f13: +1 to avoiding that.
(10:18:53 AM) f13: why do they _have_ to be in FESCo and why can't they just instead report to FESCo ?
(10:18:59 AM) daMaestro [n=jon]  entered the room.
(10:19:01 AM) warren: f13, I'm not uncomfortable with a few permanent, un-elected seats on FESCo.
(10:19:11 AM) daMaestro: dgilmore, sorry.. gnome-power-manager is still b0rked for me
(10:19:16 AM) dgilmore: f13: i would rather that they report to fesco
(10:19:19 AM) warren: It makes PERFECT sense for accountable RH employees to have voting seats on FESCo.
(10:19:32 AM) thl: warren, that what I wrote in my proposal
(10:19:35 AM) thl: warren, did you read it?
(10:19:51 AM) f13: warren: I'm afraid of voting seats that aren't votable.
(10:19:51 AM) warren: They don't have to vote on all issues, but they should have the option.
(10:19:58 AM) pygi left the room (quit: Nick collision from services.).
(10:20:11 AM) warren: f13, community seats would outnumber those seats, maybe like 75% to 25%
(10:20:12 AM) f13: not very 'democratic'
(10:20:23 AM) f13: warren: how many seats do you want in FESCo?
(10:20:25 AM) warren: Fedora isn't entirely about democracy.  Fedora is about meritocracy.
(10:20:29 AM) warren: You EARN citizenship here. =)
(10:20:49 AM) thl: f13, I had "at leat 50% of FESCo seats need to be filed by the community" in my proposal
(10:20:54 AM) schlobinux left the room (quit: "Leaving.").
(10:21:02 AM) dgilmore: warren: sure you do
(10:21:15 AM) dgilmore: thl: we cant mandate that
(10:21:21 AM) warren: f13, we agreed in last week's FESCo meeting that a larger number of seats makes sense, because realistically not everyone attends meetings every week.  When you are comprised mainly of volunteers you can't expect everyone to be there all the time.
(10:21:36 AM) dgilmore: 100% should be  voted on by the community
(10:21:41 AM) schlobinux [n=xavierb]  entered the room.
(10:21:52 AM) dgilmore: but if only RH people step up then thats what it will be
(10:21:58 AM) rdieter: dgilmore: FESCo may not be able to mandate it itself, but if it asked (say the FPB), I'm sure such a mandate would be blessed.
(10:22:17 AM) warren: As long as we have QUALIFIED ranking members of sponsor level or higher, I don't care if we have 15 of them and 5 employees.  Or 12 and 4 employees.
(10:22:19 AM) f13: warren: meritocracy doesn't work when seats are non-votable.
(10:22:39 AM) f13: warren: doesn't more seats just make it harder to reach quorum?
(10:22:49 AM) dgilmore: rdieter: i would object to mandating a set community percentage   that is defined by RH non-RH eployee status.
(10:22:51 AM) warren: f13, redefine the definition of quroum
(10:22:55 AM) dgilmore: we are all the community
(10:22:58 AM) abadger1999: dgilmore: +1
(10:23:01 AM) cweyl: f13: FESCo has a very loose quorum, always has :)
(10:23:02 AM) warren: dgilmore, good point
(10:23:18 AM) warren: I have another thought about "100% voted"...
(10:23:21 AM) dgilmore: and who ever steps up to be counted sould be allowed to
(10:23:38 AM) warren: What if a RH employee is doing a bad job of being accountable?  Bad job of meeting community half way?
(10:23:49 AM) warren: Maybe it SHOULD be possible to vote them out.
(10:24:11 AM) dgilmore: warren: then they should be censured  by the board  or if need be their manager
(10:24:23 AM) f13: warren: and if you get voted out, probably going to be a tough conversation with your manager.
(10:24:28 AM) warren: If the RH employee whose job is to be accountable to Fedora community loses confidence of the community, then their manager should look at that with suspicion.
(10:24:30 AM) ***rdieter breaks out his clue-stick.
(10:24:36 AM) warren: f13, exactly.
(10:24:39 AM) warren: So this should be a good thing.
(10:25:07 AM) warren: OK, I'm convinced, 100% voted in is fine.
(10:25:20 AM) ***rdieter agrees too
(10:25:30 AM) f13: I'm still not convinced that _I_ need to be in FESCo
(10:25:39 AM) ***thl is not that sure yet
(10:25:48 AM) daMaestro: dgilmore, ok.. so now how do i do the mock build?
(10:25:49 AM) warren: I disagree, you are fundamentally important to what FESCo does.
(10:25:54 AM) BobJensen: f13: I am sure you can refuse such a seat
(10:25:56 AM) warren: You don't have to vote on all issues.
(10:26:02 AM) dgilmore: f13: i dont think you need to be  but you do need to be in communication with FESCo ( or replacement)
(10:26:10 AM) f13: I am important to one very small part of what FESCo does, the part that manages freezes/releases.
(10:26:23 AM) daMaestro: dgilmore, should i just test with 'make i386'?
(10:26:26 AM) f13: dgilmore: thats perfectly fine.  When I have something to communicate I can be here for the meeting.
(10:26:30 AM) warren: Given that FESCo must work much closely with RH engineering departments when Core + Extras merges, it is CRUCIAL that RH engineers are on FESCo no?
(10:26:34 AM) daMaestro: dgilmore, does that do the mock build local?
(10:26:42 AM) thl: dgilmore, meeting, please wait until after the meeting with other topics
(10:26:44 AM) f13: warren: I don't want to vote on _any_ issues unless its something my subcomitee brings to the meeting.
(10:26:56 AM) thl: daMaestro, meeting now, please wait until after the meeting with other topics
(10:27:02 AM) thl: (Sorry dgilmore )
(10:27:11 AM) dgilmore: thl: :D
(10:27:21 AM) rdieter: maybe we could create some sort of representative, but non-voting FESCo seats?
(10:27:31 AM) daMaestro: dgilmore, thl sorry.
(10:27:31 AM) cweyl: rdieter: ex officio :)
(10:27:33 AM) thl: rdieter, yeah, maybe
(10:27:38 AM) f13: rdieter: "space in teh channel" ?
(10:27:39 AM) Belegdol [n=jsikorsk]  entered the room.
(10:27:45 AM) warren: f13, so... we want all RH engineers to have up or down votes of confidence.  Yet you want to avoid the seat?
(10:27:58 AM) dgilmore: we should probably have an election to get some of them on
(10:28:03 AM) f13: maybe instead of trying to figure out who will be where, why don't we figure out _what_ FESCo will be responsible for and sort it out from there?
(10:28:21 AM) warren: That's probably a good idea.
(10:28:24 AM) bpepple: f13: +1
(10:28:31 AM) rdieter: f13: ?? (may have something to do with my trying use chatzilla today)
(10:29:14 AM) thl: f13, well, should "_what_ FESCo will be responsible for" be decided by the board?
(10:29:14 AM) f13: rdieter: Well I'm just not seeing anything clear about what the new FESCo will be responsible for, and without knowing that, how can we possible determine who should be in it or out of it or reporting to it or....
(10:29:39 AM) f13: thl: Well, FESCo and the board.
(10:29:53 AM) f13: thl: when all packages are external, what would you _like_ to be responsible for?
(10:30:12 AM) f13: thl: obvious things are continued issues surrounding new packagers, packager promotions, etc...
(10:30:14 AM) tibbs: We want it ALL.
(10:30:18 AM) tibbs: Muahahaha.
(10:30:22 AM) dgilmore: i see FESCo (probably renamed)  as being an oversight to the universe.
(10:30:27 AM) thl: dgilmore, +1
(10:30:34 AM) bpepple: dgilmore: agreed.
(10:30:36 AM) thl: that how I uderstood the things I read from the summit
(10:30:47 AM) warren: We really want to avoid the name "universe"
(10:30:53 AM) thl: warren, +1
(10:30:58 AM) warren: Some people suggested "Fedora Freedom"
(10:31:01 AM) thl: do we hae a better name already?
(10:31:05 AM) warren: so Fedora 7 would be "FF7"
(10:31:05 AM) dgilmore: warren: yes  but i cant think of something better right now
(10:31:23 AM) warren: FF7, FF8, FF9, etc. would totally not be confusing at all. =)
(10:31:25 AM) ***thl still otes for Fedora Linux
(10:31:25 AM) rdieter: thl: I think gdk was going to take to marketing, to see if they can come up with something good. *crosses fingers*
(10:31:32 AM) tibbs: Surely there's a marketing department with a big computer in the basement churning out codewords.
(10:31:49 AM) ***thl still has problems with the V on his keyboard... :-/
(10:31:54 AM) f13: Fedora Freebase
(10:31:59 AM) rdieter: thl: I dare not mention their first suggestion.. *shudders*
(10:32:03 AM) warren: Freebase sounds weird to me.
(10:32:11 AM) thl: Fedora Linux Base?
(10:32:13 AM) BobJensen: LOL
(10:32:13 AM) f13: its the free base to work with.
(10:32:23 AM) f13: the first hit is free...
(10:32:29 AM) daMaestro: lol
(10:32:33 AM) warren: free as in crack?
(10:32:39 AM) daMaestro: sure sounds like it
(10:32:39 AM) f13: dgilmore: 'oversight' is a wonderfully vague term.
(10:32:40 AM) thl: Fedora Crack?
(10:32:43 AM) BobJensen: Free basing is not really what we want
(10:32:49 AM) daMaestro: BobJensen++
(10:32:54 AM) warren: I'm totally serious about "Fedora Freedom"
(10:32:59 AM) BobJensen: trust me on this one
(10:33:04 AM) dgilmore: f13: yeah it is   its includes everything
(10:33:24 AM) warren: Freedom describes what Fedora is about, and what belongs in that repository... everything that is liberty itself.
(10:33:27 AM) f13: dgilmore: so what is 'everything' ?
(10:34:20 AM) warren: anyway, we should move on
(10:34:28 AM) thl: warren, agreed
(10:34:42 AM) ***warren waves the Fedora Freedom flag.
(10:34:42 AM) thl: I'll post some thoughts and ideas for discussion to fab
(10:34:46 AM) dgilmore: f13: i see it as being the day to day runnings.  enforcing policy, making sure people do the right thing.  guiding what things infrastructure should do
(10:35:09 AM) thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- MISC
(10:35:19 AM) dgilmore: f13: ill post a list of my thought of it later
(10:35:24 AM) f13: dgilmore: now we're getting a bit more specific, which is good, but still not very clear.  Ok, thanks.
(10:35:33 AM) thl: I tried to start a front page for
(10:35:43 AM) thl: with short statements from the actual policies
(10:35:52 AM) thl: do you folks like the idea?
(10:36:07 AM) bpepple: thl: +1
(10:36:13 AM) baldwinsung left the room (quit: Connection reset by peer).
(10:36:14 AM) thl: or is anybody even interested in working further on it?
(10:36:24 AM) rdieter: me like, it should help folks find stuff more easily.
(10:36:40 AM) bpepple: rdieter: agreed.
(10:37:27 AM) thl: well, then I'll try to find time to work further on it
(10:37:43 AM) thl: anyway, let's move on
(10:37:44 AM) thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- Sponsorship nominations
(10:37:44 AM) abadger1999: thl: Question: Is it meant to be an index and glossary of policy or more in depth?
(10:37:45 AM) ***rdieter wonders if that some sort of organization could be applied to the Packaging Guidelines too...
(10:37:56 AM) thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- MISC
(10:38:02 AM) craigt [n=craigt]  entered the room.
(10:38:26 AM) f13: rdieter: an Index?  We already have something along a TOC, and each TOC link leads to the statement about that policy
(10:38:30 AM) thl: abadger1999, well, it's meant as "get an overview in 10 minutes without knowing each detail"
(10:38:40 AM) tibbs: Sorry, I got called away.  Yes, the policy page is an extremely good idea.
(10:39:07 AM) thl: abadger1999, I fear that we'll hae a lot of policies over time
(10:39:14 AM) rdieter: f13: not exactly an index, maybe something like a "Cliff's notes" version.(:
(10:39:15 AM) thl: abadger1999, so much that prople won't read them all
(10:39:45 AM) abadger1999: I do to. I just fear that this page will get as unwieldy as reading the policies themselves.
(10:40:04 AM) thl: abadger1999, well, such stuff needs revisiting over time in any case
(10:40:17 AM) thl: otherwise it will always end in a unreadable mess
(10:40:38 AM) rdieter: certainly keeping policies organized and easy to find/use should be as important as making the policies themselves.
(10:40:45 AM) thl: k, anything else regarding the policy page?
(10:40:47 AM) thl: rdieter, +1
(10:40:52 AM) abadger1999: Yeah... I think it's good for where we are now.  Later we'll have to work on organizing further.
(10:41:12 AM) ***thl will move on in 10
(10:41:23 AM) thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- Sponsorship nominations
(10:41:28 AM) thl: any new nominations?
(10:41:39 AM) tibbs: I have none at this time.
(10:41:42 AM) ***dgilmore has none
(10:41:44 AM) ***bpepple doesn't have any.
(10:42:22 AM) thl: okay, that was all the important stuff; I#ll cherry pick some other things from the schedule
(10:42:34 AM) thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting --  Use comps.xml properly
(10:42:49 AM) thl: dgilmore, was there any progress regarding pushing of comps.xml?
(10:43:01 AM) dgilmore: thl: mscwendt has put in place automated comps generation
(10:43:02 AM) thl: s/pushing/automated &/
(10:43:16 AM) thl: dgilmore, is it in production already?
(10:43:25 AM) dgilmore: its been in use for a couple of weeks now
(10:43:35 AM) thl: dgilmore, next time please update the schedule
(10:43:41 AM) dgilmore: thl: sorry
(10:43:46 AM) thl: dgilmore, no problem
(10:43:57 AM) thl: but I need a bit of help with it ;)
(10:44:12 AM) thl: otherwise I won#t hae any time left to do real stuff sooner or later
(10:44:17 AM) dgilmore: i understand that :D  it slipped my mind
(10:44:47 AM) thl: dgilmore, everybody else: please once a week shortly before the meeting look at the scheule and search for your nick-name
(10:45:14 AM) thl: and where you find it please look at the topic and provide a status update
(10:45:23 AM) thl: that would be very helpfull
(10:45:36 AM) thl: anyway, let's move on
(10:45:41 AM) rdieter: and make sure you come to class with your homework done (no dog excuses)... (:
(10:45:44 AM) thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting  --  Package Database
(10:45:59 AM) thl: abadger1999, what's the status?
(10:46:06 AM) thl: anything FESCo should do?
(10:46:23 AM) abadger1999: I thought I'd have data improted on Monday but it's slipped a little.
(10:46:26 AM) thl: abadger1999, or will the infrastructure group take care of it in the future?
(10:46:32 AM) ***f13 suspects this is somewhat stalled due to the possiblity of Brew (which has a PKG DB) being opene sourced.
(10:46:44 AM) abadger1999: c4chris and I are the main people handling it in infrastructure.
(10:46:54 AM) abadger1999: f13: Ah?
(10:47:01 AM) rdieter: f13: really?  I had all but given up hope.  yay.
(10:47:04 AM) abadger1999: So brew's pkgdb would come out ith it?
(10:47:07 AM) dgilmore: thl: its semi being reevaluated whats needed with Summit things that will need adding
(10:47:09 AM) abadger1999: s/ith/with/
(10:47:24 AM) f13: abadger1999: the schema and such yes, but not the content.
(10:47:56 AM) abadger1999: f13: Hmm... could we get the schema even if the code takes longer?
(10:47:58 AM) f13: the door is not shut on brew being opensourced.  We're running one last gamut through the managers.  First and second tier managers are onboard.
(10:48:12 AM) tibbs: How many tiers are there?
(10:48:15 AM) f13: abadger1999: that would just confuse the issue  I think.
(10:48:20 AM) f13: tibbs: 4~
(10:48:22 AM) rdieter: tibbs: do you really want to know? 9:
(10:48:23 AM) thl: tibbs, good question :)
(10:48:52 AM) abadger1999: f13: How so?  The schema can be implemented in brew or a different pkgdb...
(10:48:53 AM) rdieter: 4 qualifies as a gamut alrighty.
(10:49:05 AM) abadger1999: It allows us to start coding importers.
(10:49:34 AM) abadger1999: It allows us to start thinking of data we'd like to keep that isn't already there.
(10:49:56 AM) abadger1999: (Unless you mean confusing politically within Red Hat)
(10:50:56 AM) ***thl wonders if he should move on
(10:51:14 AM) dgilmore: thl: yep
(10:51:16 AM) thl has changed the topic to: FESCO Meeting --  Maintainer Responsibility Policy
(10:51:19 AM) f13: abadger1999: it muddies the waters around opensourcing the buildsystem.
(10:51:19 AM) thl: bpepple, ?
(10:51:27 AM) abadger1999: f13: k.
(10:51:37 AM) f13: abadger1999: I'd rather not confuse managers over the issue, nor do I want to get a 'we gave you that, should be enough' type responses.
(10:52:08 AM) abadger1999: f13: Makes sense.  I was only thinking of the technical aspect at first.
(10:52:19 AM) thl: seems bpepple is not around, moving on
(10:52:28 AM) ***dgilmore needs to run sorry guys
(10:52:28 AM) thl has changed the topic to: FESCO Meeting --   Sponsor Criteria
(10:52:29 AM) bpepple: Sorry, I'm still working on this.
(10:52:37 AM) thl has changed the topic to: FESCO Meeting --  Maintainer Responsibility Policy
(10:52:52 AM) thl: bpepple, okay, any ETA for the next steps?
(10:53:01 AM) abadger1999: bpepple: Does a merge Core+Extras change things any?
(10:53:27 AM) bpepple: The big question I have is how to decide the length of time we maintain packages.  FEsco or through a community vote?
(10:53:49 AM) ***abadger1999 ants a community vote
(10:53:49 AM) bpepple: Since it will be a pretty contentious decision I'm guessing.
(10:53:50 AM) thl: bpepple, well, I think the summit changes that
(10:53:56 AM) thl: afaics
(10:54:00 AM) rdieter: abadger1999: shouldn't (not significantly anyway).  Maintainer responsibility (like packaging guidelines) should be relative constant.
(10:54:16 AM) thl: they agreed on "13" month for the future afaics
(10:54:31 AM) thl: I think we should just start using that for Extras  now
(10:54:40 AM) bpepple: Ahh, didn't see that in the minutes.  I update the wiki then.
(10:55:21 AM) thl: well, why not make FE3 and FE4 EOL then quite soon?
(10:55:31 AM) thl: then the whole thing is motly solved for now afaics
(10:55:36 AM) abadger1999: rdieter: Current Core does not include Legacy.  So in a merged world....
(10:56:05 AM) rdieter: abadger1999: Extras doesn't really (officially anyway) include legacy either...
(10:56:13 AM) warren: I'm not fully satisfied with the "13 month and kill legacy" plan.
(10:56:20 AM) warren: But realistically this might be the best option.
(10:56:35 AM) thl: warren, well, we can change it later if we want
(10:56:36 AM) warren: I objected to the "kill legacy" part because this effectively closes the door, no discussion, no chance.
(10:56:56 AM) thl: but legacy doe currently not work that well for FC[34] 
(10:56:59 AM) warren: if fedora is supposed to be a community distro, why not give "someone" the chance to pick up the ball and do updates beyond 13 months?
(10:57:14 AM) warren: what the summit decision did was slam the door
(10:57:14 AM) thl: so I think it might be a good idea to call EOL for FE3 and FE4 soon
(10:57:24 AM) rdieter: warren: I don't think anyone said "kill legacy".  I thought the proposal simply extended lifespan to 13 mos...
(10:57:30 AM) bpepple: thl: agreed.
(10:57:34 AM) thl: warren, sure, I think that's what f13 also wrote in his blog
(10:57:36 AM) warren: thl, yes, especially when EPEL happens.
(10:58:03 AM) warren: What I *suspect* will happen, is that community members will increasingly help with Fedora updates on a normal basis.
(10:58:15 AM) ***awjb needs to run now :(
(10:58:16 AM) warren: And some will want to continue doing that for older packages.
(10:58:25 AM) warren: And Fedora just says "no, we don't want you to do this."
(10:58:38 AM) thl: bpepple, can you post something like (we consider EOL for FE3 and FE4 -- are you guys okay with it) to the f-e-l?
(10:58:45 AM) rdieter: warren: I don't think anyone is saying explictly "No, dont"
(10:58:47 AM) f13: warren: no, we didn't slam the door
(10:58:48 AM) bpepple: thl: yes.
(10:59:05 AM) f13: warren: Somebody _could_ take on Legacy, but we're trying to convince the CURRENT legacy folks to reuse their time and effort in better ways.
(10:59:10 AM) thl: bpepple, then we wait for the discusion and EOL FE[34]  after a short warning period (1 month?)
(10:59:15 AM) thl: bpepple, thx
(10:59:25 AM) f13: warren: most the current Legacy community agreed that with a 13 month life span, the usefulness of Legacy is moot.
(10:59:28 AM) abadger1999: warren: I agree, the possibility needs to be open to someone who cares to pick it back up.
(10:59:36 AM) warren: I think we should guarantee the 13 months for now, and decide on the fate of Legacy later when we see what happens with increased community participation in updates.
(10:59:43 AM) ***thl really likes the 13 months plan, too
(11:00:05 AM) f13: warren: I think what we're really doing is downgrading LEgacy as a project for now, back to the status that something like Fedora Alternatives is in right now.
(11:00:17 AM) bress left the room (quit: Remote closed the connection).
(11:00:18 AM) warren: f13, hand wavy future land? =)
(11:00:20 AM) f13: if they want to start it back up again, proov there is a community, yadda yadda.
(11:00:29 AM) bress [n=bress]  entered the room.
(11:00:40 AM) thl: quite late alreay
(11:00:46 AM) thl: already
(11:00:48 AM) warren: as long as we don't disallow them from using the build & push infrastructure  that already exists at that point, I have no problem with this.
(11:00:56 AM) thl: (by keyboard is driving me mad)
(11:01:12 AM) warren: One argument during the summit was, "how long do we keep buildroots around?"  The answer is, we don't.  buildroots are made on demand.
(11:01:14 AM) warren: anyway, i'm done.
(11:01:20 AM) warren: we'll see what happens.
(11:01:31 AM) thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- free discussion
(11:01:37 AM) f13: warren: build infrastructure exists.  Push does not.
(11:01:45 AM) thl: anything else regarding extras we need to/should discuss?
(11:01:50 AM) warren: f13, i hope that remains up for later decision
(11:02:09 AM) f13: warren: it takes somebody sufficiently interested and motivated enough to create the push infrastructure...
(11:02:10 AM) hircus [n=michel]  entered the room.
(11:02:14 AM) ***thl will end the meeting in 60
(11:02:22 AM) f13: and enough of a community to actually _do_ the updates in a reasonable manner.
(11:02:27 AM) warren: f13, create doesn't need to happen when it already exists
(11:02:41 AM) ***thl will end the meeting in 30
(11:02:42 AM) f13: what already exists?
(11:02:43 AM) warren: f13, yes, community... we don't know if that will exist or not.  I think we should wait and see.
(11:02:55 AM) f13: other than configs for plague.
(11:03:03 AM) thl: warren, f13 you of course still can discuss this further, but I think we should close the meeting now
(11:03:10 AM) ***thl will end the meeting in 15
(11:03:11 AM) warren: thl, yes end meeting
(11:03:26 AM) thl: -- MARK -- Meeting End