Meeting:Board meeting 2008-08-12

From FedoraProject

Jump to: navigation, search


Fedora Project Board Meeting :: Tuesday 2008-08-12

Roll Call

Attendees: Everyone on #fedora-board-meeting

Discussion Summary

  • GStreamer deps in RPM will supplant codeina; see also bug #438225
    • Might enable other plugin support later, depending on implementation
  • Paul is still actively pursuing trademark guideline changes, in collaboration with Red Hat Legal
    • Will do away with many Board approvals or gatekeeping in favor of guardian role
    • Not sure what secondary mark will say yet
  • OT discussion on fedora-list ML
    • Need more affirmative description of what the topic for fedora-list actually is
    • Chris will take up this issue for follow-up; Paul will assist as needed
  • Updates to Anaconda
    • Some Board members do not want to consider update policy on a per-project basis
    • Upstream for Anaconda has patchsets to consider; Board cannot dictate to upstream whether they will take patches
    • Secondary mark can cover spins that use this method
  • Is Fedora an enterprise OS playing catchup?
    • No, it's a leading-edge OS that is the point of the spear for integrating a lot of new upstream development
    • And does it in a way that promotes good FOSS ecological practices

IRC Transcript

  • Raw discussion is here
* gregdek cracks his knuckles. 12 Aug 13:59
skvidal stickster: maybe you are 12 Aug 13:59
f13 here is mercy 12 Aug 13:59
f13 and there will be blood 12 Aug 13:59
stickster skvidal is at the community's throat. 12 Aug 14:00
f13 great, now I just got an image of gregdek in nothing but a loin cloth and a shield. 12 Aug 14:00
f13 *shudder* 12 Aug 14:00
gregdek Are we officially underway? 12 Aug 14:01
f13 shoot 12 Aug 14:01
skvidal f13: it's going to be bloody, keep your head up billy buddy, now is the time for no mercy.... 12 Aug 14:01
gregdek BEGIN. 12 Aug 14:01
stickster It's ON! 12 Aug 14:01
gregdek nirik asks the board: what is the current thoughts/status of Codina? 12 Aug 14:01
f13 we punted that to FESCo 12 Aug 14:01
f13 (short answer) 12 Aug 14:01
f13 the long answer... 12 Aug 14:01
stickster Well, in fairness, you can check bug 438225 for some very relevant status 12 Aug 14:02
poelcat 12 Aug 14:02
f13 What codina was trying to deliver is being approached in a slightly different way, one that integrates more with the native packaging system. 12 Aug 14:02
f13 this is requiring some changes to rpm, and to what some packages provide. 12 Aug 14:02
stickster Yeah, what f13 said (re: bug # above) 12 Aug 14:02
gregdek Done? 12 Aug 14:03
f13 I got nothing more. 12 Aug 14:03
* stickster neither. 12 Aug 14:03
gregdek bryan_kearney asks: What is the current status of the new trademark/usage policy? 12 Aug 14:03
spoleeba f13, is my understanding correct that the new deeper rpm integration will allow us to think about using this to package other sorts of 'plugins' and install them on demand outside of gstreamer? 12 Aug 14:03
f13 spoleeba: one could explore that possibility 12 Aug 14:03
stickster spoleeba: it's repo-neutral 12 Aug 14:03
f13 that's a spot question. 12 Aug 14:04
stickster And will be visible to PackageKit 12 Aug 14:04
f13 where is spot? 12 Aug 14:04
spoleeba stickster, but its not tied to gstreamer...specifically is my point 12 Aug 14:04
ctyler right, it may be useful for fonts and more 12 Aug 14:04
spoleeba stickster, where the codeina implementation was a gst specific plugin approach 12 Aug 14:04
spoleeba ctyler, so we are potentially killing about 10 birds 12 Aug 14:04
spoleeba ctyler, or making them undead birds at least 12 Aug 14:05
f13 F10, brought to you on the feathers of zombie birds. 12 Aug 14:05
gregdek Heh. 12 Aug 14:05
f13 ok, back to the question at hand. 12 Aug 14:05
gregdek bryan_kearney asks: What is the current status of the new trademark/usage policy? 12 Aug 14:05
stickster OK, bryan's question. 12 Aug 14:05
f13 spot and stickster have been working on the trademark/use policy I do believe. 12 Aug 14:05
f13 although I may have made up spot's involvement. 12 Aug 14:06
stickster Bryan: I had a long discussion with Red Hat legal eagles last week, and this is currently moving forward. It has to be drafted into lawyerspeak, but there were a couple of open questions at this point. 12 Aug 14:06
* stickster fishes through last email, hang on... 12 Aug 14:06
spoleeba stickster, the draft as i understand it..impacts the Spin SIG process 12 Aug 14:06
stickster Yes, among other things. 12 Aug 14:06
spoleeba stickster, it effectively takes away the Board's role in the process entirely 12 Aug 14:07
stickster spoleeba: Correct again. 12 Aug 14:07
spoleeba stickster, which im fine with personally 12 Aug 14:07
stickster We would drop back to a role of guardian instead of gatekeeper. 12 Aug 14:07
spoleeba stickster, but i want to make sure everyone involved with spins..since its a reboot of a process..knows 12 Aug 14:07
stickster spoleeba: I know that kanarip among others is aware. 12 Aug 14:08
stickster But send all the email you like, bits are cheap! :-) 12 Aug 14:08
spoleeba stickster, i have a word quota now 12 Aug 14:08
stickster Right, say it succinctly then. ;-) 12 Aug 14:08
stickster In the meantime, we are still working on what the secondary mark will actually *say*, and what the surrounding requirements might be in terms of a legalese sentence or two (if any) 12 Aug 14:08
mdomsch guardian over gatekeeper is the right idea 12 Aug 14:08
gregdek All done? 12 Aug 14:09
mdomsch stickster - that's the "derived from Fedora / Fedora Upstream / based on Fedora, ...' talk? 12 Aug 14:09
stickster mdomsch: Correct. 12 Aug 14:09
stickster We really need a lawyer to tell us what that *should* say because all we have right now are suggestions that are either (1) flat-out unusable, or (2) too jargon-y. 12 Aug 14:09
gregdek Next question? 12 Aug 14:10
f13 shoot 12 Aug 14:10
* stickster is done with this unless there's any followup 12 Aug 14:10
gregdek 12 Aug 14:10
* gregdek waits a bit... 12 Aug 14:10
gregdek ivancat asks: A question about customization: in f9 new gdm was introduced, that was meant to be a rewritten one. The common opinion that it is good but nevertheless lacks flexibility and is really hard to customize. So, it it going to be the same about gdm in f10? 12 Aug 14:10
stickster Hm, this seems like a question for GNOME upstream. 12 Aug 14:11
stickster (maybe-OT) Does anyone know if they're frozen for 2.24? 12 Aug 14:11
f13 yeah, that's a question for whatever gnome upstream provides us 12 Aug 14:11
* stickster shuts up because he's monopolizing the answer space :-) 12 Aug 14:11
ctyler part of the issue with gdm is that we were the first to ship the 'new' gdm, which does have less functionality than the previous version 12 Aug 14:12
gregdek Anyone with more than "ask gnome"?  :) 12 Aug 14:12
ctyler ask ConsoleKit people too 12 Aug 14:13
f13 I asked in one of the desktop channels, getting no answer thus far 12 Aug 14:13
spoleeba f13, im not even sure this is a good question for the board to answer... 12 Aug 14:13
f13 12 Aug 14:13
* f13 too 12 Aug 14:13
skvidal ask mccann? 12 Aug 14:13
f13 yep 12 Aug 14:13
stickster Next question then? 12 Aug 14:14
--- ChanServ (ChanServ@services.) changed mode: +v quaid 12 Aug 14:14
f13 please 12 Aug 14:14
gregdek Before we close this: 12 Aug 14:14
gregdek mether notes last upstream status: 12 Aug 14:15
gregdek warren asks: does that talk about the trademarks have any bearing on my desire to brand the LDM login screen? 12 Aug 14:16
stickster re: mether's URL link -- interesting, I don't see a response there. *cue ominous music* 12 Aug 14:16
stickster warren: I don't think artwork changes normally cause heartburn, but we can discuss the particular details later if you like 12 Aug 14:17
spoleeba stickster, follow the other thread... mccann asked for more infor...crickets 12 Aug 14:17
gregdek warren continues: specifically, I want a "powered by Fedora" and a small fedora logo on the login screen of LTSP thin clients. Normal Fedora users wont see this. We asked on fedora-marketing-list how people feel about this and most were enthusiastically positive about it. 12 Aug 14:17
stickster Ah 12 Aug 14:17
stickster warren: This would be a good use case that you should add to my draft, as I requested others do: 12 Aug 14:18
stickster 12 Aug 14:18
stickster But I don't see this is as a big problem unless the content of the clients is going to differ significantly from Fedora. 12 Aug 14:19
f13 jk_meeting:I think it would be hard to answer that as a general question; GDM has many contributors, and I'm sure the F10 GDM will be improved from the F9 GDM in meeting the needs of users,, but will it help the specific concerns? Hard for us to say in general. 12 Aug 14:19
f13 there is a number of things we should fix in gdm for f10, though 12 Aug 14:19
f13 jk_meeting: If the questoin is, "are we planning to revert to the old GDM version from F8", then the answer is "No. We think that the new GDM is better for the vast majority of users. It also has many design improvements allowing us to continue enhancing it in the future" 12 Aug 14:19
spoleeba it would have to be a way that still allowed for a generic logo to be used....via packaging voodoo 12 Aug 14:19
f13 like the initial focus thing 12 Aug 14:19
f13 or multihead 12 Aug 14:19
f13 right 12 Aug 14:20
f13 all things referencing the brand or trademark have to be in fedora-logos so that they can easily be replaced 12 Aug 14:20
spoleeba f13, "easily" being a relative term 12 Aug 14:21
f13 such that if you're making something decidedly NOT Fedora we make it easy for you to do so and not leave a trademark landmine in the distro 12 Aug 14:21
gregdek OK, so I'm a bit confused. 12 Aug 14:21
gregdek We're interleaving discussion here, and I'm not sure which is which at the end here. 12 Aug 14:21
gregdek f13: Are you talking about gdm, or trademark question, or both? 12 Aug 14:21
stickster Yes, let's make sure we're closing one topic before we move on to the next, please. 12 Aug 14:21
f13 gregdek: the pastes I made where from another channel regarding gdm. 12 Aug 14:22
f13 gregdek: the comments I made were regarding the logo in LDM 12 Aug 14:22
gregdek Got it, thanks. 12 Aug 14:22
stickster  :-) 12 Aug 14:22
gregdek Any more comments on trademark? 12 Aug 14:22
spoleeba gregdek, sadly... the topics close so fast.. f13 didnt have time to reach over and ping the people who could answer the gdm question in the timeframe of the topic 12 Aug 14:22
* stickster gives f13 thumbs-up, we can wait longer for each if needed. 12 Aug 14:23
gregdek I don't mind going back and forth, so long as context is clear enough. 12 Aug 14:23
gregdek Going twice: any more comments on trademark? 12 Aug 14:24
gregdek nirik asks: There was some discussion on the devel list recently from folks who are on the main 'fedora' support list about it becoming useless. Is the board making any efforts to help that list? if so, what? 12 Aug 14:24
quaid perhaps it's time to formalize the Fedora helpers as a group 12 Aug 14:25
mdomsch Paul has put out several requests for people to get involved and "be nice" in f-l and #fedora 12 Aug 14:25
f13 I'm not aware of any current effort. I think our immediate desire would be to get a definition of what people percieve the problem to be. 12 Aug 14:25
spoleeba nirik, you know what... i very much like the post on -devel-list which showed that the thread at issue was at most 5% of the posts over a time period 12 Aug 14:25
mdomsch I thought nirik was part of a group trying to do exactly that 12 Aug 14:25
skvidal so OT is the issue? 12 Aug 14:26
skvidal and that is based on what definition of Off-Topic? 12 Aug 14:26
spoleeba skvidal, thats what bubbled up into -devel 12 Aug 14:26
skvidal istr that was based on a very tenuous definition of Off-Topic 12 Aug 14:26
spoleeba nirik, are you specifically asking for more manpower..or are you asking for moderators 12 Aug 14:27
stickster nirik has been helping a lot with #fedora, and I want to take a second to applaud and recognize those efforts. 12 Aug 14:27
* stickster applauds and then sits down. 12 Aug 14:28
spoleeba nirik, do you want more fedora-list adding more posts..or do you want people limiting discussion.. there's only so many ways to control the flow of discussion in a list 12 Aug 14:28
f13 or do you want yet more lists ? 12 Aug 14:29
ctyler there's a difference between a few o/t postings and threads that are hundreds of messages long between just a handful of people, and I think the latter case is the concern; but short of having moderators (which seems an unpopular idea) there's not a lot that can be done besides gently poking people 12 Aug 14:30
stickster There is some number of people who took issue with OT discussions on fedora-list. Does anyone know whether they tried to staunch the OT-ness and failed? Were shouted down? etc.? 12 Aug 14:30
spoleeba stickster, oh there was a lot of be sure 12 Aug 14:30
spoleeba stickster, the posts...demanding the discussion stop..were probably more problematic than the discussion itself in some ways 12 Aug 14:31
spoleeba stickster, that's what bubbled over into -devel-list..and none of that was pretty 12 Aug 14:31
stickster I'm going to /VOICE nirik here. 12 Aug 14:32
f13 ok 12 Aug 14:32
stickster Uh 12 Aug 14:32
--- ChanServ (ChanServ@services.) changed mode: +o spoleeba 12 Aug 14:33
--- spoleeba (n=one@fedora/Jef) changed mode: +v nirik 12 Aug 14:33
--- spoleeba (n=one@fedora/Jef) changed mode: -o spoleeba 12 Aug 14:33
stickster Aw boogers. 12 Aug 14:33
stickster Thanks spoleeba. 12 Aug 14:33
gregdek Heh. 12 Aug 14:33
gregdek nirik? 12 Aug 14:33
nirik 12 Aug 14:33
* nirik thanks stickster 12 Aug 14:33
nirik and spoleeba. ;) 12 Aug 14:33
spoleeba stickster, i have xchat's neural link plugin 12 Aug 14:33
nirik 1. I am unsure of the scope of the issue... but it was enough to cause some people to post over in fedora-devel to try and get action, so I think it's worth looking at their concerns. 12 Aug 14:34
spoleeba nirik, i loath the discussion and the people holding it 12 Aug 14:34
nirik 2. I think having guidelines about what is ontopic or not would be good... otherwise it's anything goes. 12 Aug 14:34
spoleeba nirik, the discussion at issue...makes me want to punch things...i totally understand why peeople dont like seeing it even in fedora-list 12 Aug 14:35
nirik 3. while making lists like that moderated is no good, you can have a active group of moderators that talk to peopel who are off topic or outside the scope of the list, and if need be stop their posts. 12 Aug 14:35
--- ChanServ (ChanServ@services.) changed mode: +o stickster 12 Aug 14:35
nirik so, in short, I think it should be looked at by someone, perhaps there is nothing to do, but perhaps we can improve it. 12 Aug 14:36
f13 would doing a call for volunteers to play this role be worth while? 12 Aug 14:36
* stickster is generally for a better topic listing on too. 12 Aug 14:36
nirik possibly so. Although you would have to make sure that the people who are doing off topic posts are not in there. 12 Aug 14:37
stickster I think warren is here, and can help with that since he's the moderator on that list. 12 Aug 14:37
nirik yeah, currently nothing is off topic. 12 Aug 14:37
stickster And warren should probably consider getting some co-moderators to avoid SPoF-ism. 12 Aug 14:37
spoleeba nirik, if the support group wants to make a more affirmative and concrete definition as to what fedora-list is meant to be... that's probably worth an effort. But where do we put the topics that use to be tolerated on fedora-list? 12 Aug 14:37
nirik spoleeba: make a fedora-social (to match irc) or a fedora-defocus or a fedora-offtopic or something... point them there. 12 Aug 14:38
stickster Do we really need to do that? 12 Aug 14:38
stickster Aren't there a million other lists out there to support ^fedora-list? 12 Aug 14:38
spoleeba nirik, and again... if people are chosing fedora-list to hold certain discussion..based on the fact that its a big audience...its going to be a bad enforcement issue..regardless 12 Aug 14:38
nirik 12 Aug 14:38
* nirik isn't sure, and isn't even subscribed to fedora list currently. 12 Aug 14:38
spoleeba nirik, -devel-list thread analysis... 5% at most was off topic during a given period where people got upset 12 Aug 14:39
spoleeba nirik, including the posts telling people to stop talking about it 12 Aug 14:39
stickster In other words, 5% rises above the level of background noise. 12 Aug 14:39
spoleeba stickster, for a short period of time..... 12 Aug 14:40
nirik spoleeba: what topic? I see the topic as: "fedora-list -- For users of Fedora" 12 Aug 14:40
spoleeba stickster, are we going to go through this everytime an off topic pops up for a week? 12 Aug 14:40
stickster I would hope not. 12 Aug 14:40
nirik so, pretty much the only thing thats off topic is people who are not using fedora posting something. ;) 12 Aug 14:40
mdomsch look, other "large" lists get plenty of OT traffic too 12 Aug 14:40
stickster My personal position is that sometimes no action is in itself a solution. 12 Aug 14:40
spoleeba nirik, which is back to skvidal's point..... about the defition of off-topic 12 Aug 14:41
mdomsch eventually it peters out, or people killfile subjects or participatns 12 Aug 14:41
stickster Most MUAs have delete thread keystrokes and other such helpers. 12 Aug 14:41
stickster mdomsch: +1 12 Aug 14:41
nirik 12 Aug 14:41
* nirik doesn't think this will be solved here... perhaps you should move on, but think if there is any solution moving forward? ;) 12 Aug 14:41
skvidal 12 Aug 14:41
* skvidal thinks this problem is not specific to fedora 12 Aug 14:41
stickster Yup, not at all. 12 Aug 14:41
skvidal and it is mostly never fixed anywhere 12 Aug 14:41
gregdek s/fedora/memo-list/ 12 Aug 14:41
gregdek  :) 12 Aug 14:41
stickster lol 12 Aug 14:41
gregdek (internal rh mailing list legendary for this, sorry) 12 Aug 14:42
spoleeba nirik, creating a more precise defition of what fedora-list..encourages discussion about..would be something to look at 12 Aug 14:42
stickster But we want to make sure that the fedora-list does stay useful to the vast majority of subscribers, who are there for real interaction and mutual help and support. 12 Aug 14:42
nirik 12 Aug 14:42
* nirik nods... a more focused topic would be nice... 12 Aug 14:42
stickster A better topic statement for the mailing list page would be a great start. 12 Aug 14:42
nirik or a 'fedora-support' list for that. 12 Aug 14:42
stickster It can be concise, and simple, and easy to point to. 12 Aug 14:42
spoleeba nirik, a dedicated support list..probably has a somewhat high bar to we have the manpower to staff that and meet not sure 12 Aug 14:43
h\h fedora-rant, fedora-bored ... well 12 Aug 14:43
stickster "fedora-users: Help and support for using the Fedora distribution" 12 Aug 14:44
gregdek That's a better job for forums anyway, as Ubuntu have perhaps demonstrated. 12 Aug 14:44
stickster sorry, 12 Aug 14:44
stickster s/fedora-users/fedora-list/ 12 Aug 14:44
* stickster wants to be clear, he is *not* suggesting another list. 12 Aug 14:44
nirik 12 Aug 14:44
* nirik thinks that sounds fine, but again we should see whats really going on on the list and what people who post there a lot think. 12 Aug 14:44
stickster gregdek: I believe the does fine for us, and has since 2003 or so 12 Aug 14:44
stickster nirik: Are you suggesting a poll? 12 Aug 14:45
* stickster wants to get to one or more defined actionable items on this topic, and then close it. 12 Aug 14:45
stickster Let me suggest this: 12 Aug 14:46
stickster Someone volunteers to bring the clarification statement to fedora-list and see if that makes the point well enough. 12 Aug 14:46
gregdek Is everyone sufficiently worn out?  :) 12 Aug 14:47
f13 heh 12 Aug 14:47
quaid 12 Aug 14:48
* quaid has to bail to drive to Zimbra world HQ 12 Aug 14:48
* stickster waits to see if someone wants to take the action item. 12 Aug 14:48
stickster Ah no need, we'll just assign it to quaid after he leavees. 12 Aug 14:48
stickster jk ;-) 12 Aug 14:48
stickster We also need to round up some additional owners for fedora-list. 12 Aug 14:48
spoleeba stickster, im already failing on delivering the current action item i have 12 Aug 14:49
stickster Do the two action items I just suggested make sense? 12 Aug 14:49
stickster spoleeba: Your failure has been noted 12 Aug 14:49
stickster  :-D 12 Aug 14:49
ctyler stickster: yes, and I'm willing to help with that 12 Aug 14:49
nirik 12 Aug 14:49
* nirik reluctantly subscribes to fedora-lsit. 12 Aug 14:49
stickster ctyler: I'll be happy to jump on the train as well. 12 Aug 14:49
nirik fedora-list even. 12 Aug 14:50
stickster I also believe all the community architecture team members should be moderators on that list. 12 Aug 14:50
spoleeba stickster, hahahaha 12 Aug 14:50
stickster See those whom you are architecting! Now.... uh, architect them! 12 Aug 14:50
ctyler as much as it's a list that fedora vetrans avoid because of high traffic, it's also the list that a lot of new fedora community members join first 12 Aug 14:51
stickster ctyler: Exactly. 12 Aug 14:51
nirik I would also love to see Support have IRC/Mailinglists/Voice/Forums folks who talk to each other and send ideas for improving back and forth. 12 Aug 14:52
spoleeba nirik, your question about board help should have been more include #fedora as well.. you squandered an opportunity to publicly shame us into taking on ops hours 12 Aug 14:52
gregdek We are at :52 12 Aug 14:52
nirik spoleeba: rats. Can still do it... 12 Aug 14:53
stickster gregdek: Do we have any further questions? 12 Aug 14:53
gregdek It does not appear so. 12 Aug 14:53
nirik 12 Aug 14:53
* nirik would love to see the board coming in and helping out in #fedora. ;) 12 Aug 14:53
spoleeba nirik, see.. you need to be stronger than that 12 Aug 14:53
stickster nirik: Noted 12 Aug 14:53
spoleeba who on the board is ops on #fedora since voting to remove the channel registration requirements 12 Aug 14:54
h\h nirik, I run in my spare time .. so I am out :) 12 Aug 14:54
spoleeba stickster, are YOU ops in that channel? 12 Aug 14:54
stickster gregdek: I would like to ask the #f-board-public attendees whether they feel these meetings have been helpful in making the Board's role more clear 12 Aug 14:54
nirik 12 Aug 14:54
* nirik notes that ops are voted on every week in the irc support meeting in #fedora-meeting. Join us! :) 12 Aug 14:54
gregdek We have two more questions from the list... do you want to take them? 12 Aug 14:55
stickster gregdek: yes, absolutely 12 Aug 14:55
f13 yes 12 Aug 14:55
gregdek jmeeuwen asks: what does the board think we can do about the ongoing but never changing updates-to-anaconda issue? 12 Aug 14:55
spoleeba stickster, as it was pointed out to me... its somewhat hypocritcal to vote to remove the registreation bit on the channel..if we arent going to be helping with the ops manpower needs associated with that decision 12 Aug 14:55
stickster spoleeba: Up until a couple weeks ago I was hanging out there from time to time and helping. 12 Aug 14:56
spoleeba stickster, but are you ops? 12 Aug 14:56
mdomsch I think spoleeba and spot are the only board members with ops in #fedora 12 Aug 14:56
stickster spoleeba: Not that I know of. 12 Aug 14:56
spoleeba stickster, cuz push comes to ops needs to be available with as much coverage as possible 12 Aug 14:56
f13 12 Aug 14:56
* f13 thinks a bit about the question. 12 Aug 14:56
stickster spoleeba: Let's hold this until we get done with the other two questions. 12 Aug 14:57
gregdek Yes, please. 12 Aug 14:57
mdomsch presumably this is the "anaconda never changes after a release" policy 12 Aug 14:57
gregdek jmeeuwen asks: what does the board think we can do about the ongoing but never changing updates-to-anaconda issue? 12 Aug 14:57
stickster spoleeba: This topic has had more than its share of time already. 12 Aug 14:57
spoleeba f13, we know the pretext here....respins would very much like to include installer fixes... 12 Aug 14:57
spoleeba nirik, i told missed your opportunity 12 Aug 14:57
f13 I don't know that it's a "policy" per se, it's just something that hasn't been done. 12 Aug 14:57
--- ChanServ (ChanServ@services.) changed mode: +o spoleeba 12 Aug 14:58
mdomsch anyone from the anaconda team here? 12 Aug 14:58
--- spoleeba (n=one@fedora/Jef) changed mode: -v nirik 12 Aug 14:58
--- spoleeba (n=one@fedora/Jef) changed mode: -o spoleeba 12 Aug 14:58
f13 really, it's a decision for the anaconda team to make, and there are many more of them today than before. 12 Aug 14:58
* stickster doesn't see clumens or dcantrell here 12 Aug 14:58
mdomsch stickster, can you +v jeremy? 12 Aug 14:59
--- ChanServ (ChanServ@services.) changed mode: +o spoleeba 12 Aug 14:59
--- ChanServ (ChanServ@services.) changed mode: +v jeremy 12 Aug 14:59
--- spoleeba (n=one@fedora/Jef) changed mode: -o spoleeba 12 Aug 14:59
f13 I think the precise answer to the question is "the board is going to ask the anaconda team to respond" 12 Aug 14:59
stickster I guess we need to voice everyone then 12 Aug 15:00
spoleeba f13, its tough right... we give individual maintainers and teams a lot of leeway to decide for themselves what to do... how do we demand that any particular group of maintainers do something? 12 Aug 15:00
--- ChanServ (ChanServ@services.) changed mode: +v clumens 12 Aug 15:00
f13 right 12 Aug 15:00
--- ChanServ (ChanServ@services.) changed mode: +v wwoods 12 Aug 15:00
mdomsch I haven't been following closely - is there a discussion thread somewhere where the anaconda team has established their policy for pushing (or not) updates into updates-released? 12 Aug 15:00
jeremy mdomsch: we have *never* pushed updates to anaconda 12 Aug 15:00
stickster Hang on 12 Aug 15:00
stickster Before we get on this topic 12 Aug 15:00
jeremy (outside of rhel) 12 Aug 15:00
stickster We are going to limit this topic to some predetermined time 12 Aug 15:01
mdomsch stickster, good idea 12 Aug 15:01
stickster Because many Board members have other obligations outside this IRC meeting 12 Aug 15:01
stickster And since it came up at the end, it's unfair to them to spin this too far out. 12 Aug 15:01
stickster I suggest we can let this go 20 minutes. 12 Aug 15:01
spoleeba f13, and whats even better is...this bumps right up against your burning issue of updating 12 Aug 15:01
--- ChanServ (ChanServ@services.) changed mode: +v jmeeuwen 12 Aug 15:02
jmeeuwen thanks 12 Aug 15:02
mdomsch spoleeba, you mean "the too many updates" problem? 12 Aug 15:02
* stickster starts timer. 12 Aug 15:02
spoleeba mdomsch, yeah 12 Aug 15:02
mdomsch jeremy, when you do updates for RHEL, how much extra time does it take you, or the anaconda team, to ensure those updates are targeted and tested? 12 Aug 15:03
spoleeba mdomsch, if we end up having a general "updates" policy to address f13's concern about too many updates..then the same policy would need to speak to "too few" as well 12 Aug 15:03
jeremy mdomsch: it's essentially a full-time job for 3 or 4 people at this point 12 Aug 15:03
clumens mdomsch: there's a LOT of back and forth with RHEL updates. 12 Aug 15:03
clumens ask jlaska 12 Aug 15:03
mdomsch I only presume, possibly incorrectly, that the reluctance to push updates for anaconda is due to people time constraints 12 Aug 15:03
f13 that's 3 or 4 people just on the anaconda side 12 Aug 15:03
f13 untold many people on the QA side 12 Aug 15:03
jmeeuwen spoleeba, isn't that mixing up one topic with another obfuscating the original discussion? 12 Aug 15:03
wwoods IIRC on the QA side it takes half a dozen people a couple of months to test the anaconda updates 12 Aug 15:04
spoleeba jmeeuwen, im not going to dictate a package specific policy 12 Aug 15:04
stickster jmeeuwen: I'm not sure this isn't mixed up already, seeing as how this is a topic about the development of the platform, and thus more for FESCo than the Board. 12 Aug 15:04
wwoods the timeline you're talking about exceeds the entire Fedora release cycle. 12 Aug 15:04
spoleeba jmeeuwen, if we have to make a wide policy discussion with regard to sure has hell better be generally applicable 12 Aug 15:04
f13 obviously that's a bit of an unfair comparison, because the goals are a bit different 12 Aug 15:05
f13 and what's acceptable to one wouldn't cut it for the other. 12 Aug 15:05
jmeeuwen stickster, well, i hope this concerns not having updates to anaconda available for current release cycles, not updates in general 12 Aug 15:05
spoleeba jmeeuwen, the problem with anaconda..specifically..isnt something the board can address 12 Aug 15:05
jmeeuwen spoleeba, fair enough, then who can? 12 Aug 15:05
spoleeba jmeeuwen, whatever we dictate to anaconda we'd have to dictate to not going to single out a package at the board level 12 Aug 15:06
mdomsch spoleeba, let's not get quite that far ahead of ourselves 12 Aug 15:06
ctyler jmeeuwen: can you clarify for us why (or what aspects) you want the board to look this in addition to or instead of the anaconda team? 12 Aug 15:06
mdomsch jmeeuwen, you want updates to be available for F9 so spins can take advantage of bug fixes, yes? 12 Aug 15:06
f13 quite honestly I believe it's the anaconda team's decision on whether or not to issue updates 12 Aug 15:07
jmeeuwen ctyler, the anaconda development team has been looking at this for the past i-dont-know-how-many-months 12 Aug 15:07
stickster f13: Can anyone join the Anaconda team? 12 Aug 15:07
stickster I would think so, right? 12 Aug 15:07
skvidal stickster: it's like any other open source project 12 Aug 15:07
jmeeuwen stickster, i tried, no result 12 Aug 15:07
mdomsch or can an "anaconda sustaining" team be stood up? 12 Aug 15:07
skvidal the people involved in the project determine who they want in 12 Aug 15:07
skvidal mdomsch: that's ultimately a fork of anaconda, though 12 Aug 15:08
jeremy "joining" the anaconda project is based on submission of good patches. 12 Aug 15:08
stickster skvidal: Are bugfixes in a stable branch always a fork? 12 Aug 15:08
skvidal stickster: depends on if they diverge too much 12 Aug 15:08
* stickster is not getting into the topic of whether patches are good are not. 12 Aug 15:08
f13 stickster: if they don't get accepted in the upstream repo, yes. 12 Aug 15:08
stickster Let's assume they are. 12 Aug 15:08
skvidal stickster: in this case I bet they would diverge WAAAAY too much 12 Aug 15:08
jeremy what jmeeuwen and I discussed at fudcon (and I thought we had agreed) was that he would maintain a git tree of his changes for f9 just like he's been doing for past releases 12 Aug 15:08
jeremy so that we can look at what he's doing in the context of a stable tree 12 Aug 15:08
skvidal stickster: then you're question-begging 12 Aug 15:08
stickster jeremy: Ah, that's what I was looking for 12 Aug 15:09
jeremy since _generally_ the submission criteria is patches for the development branch and then based on that, people are given access. because that's where we do work. 12 Aug 15:09
jeremy that's why I am very confused that this is coming up again :-/ 12 Aug 15:09
spoleeba skvidal, hows or grub package patchset looking? 12 Aug 15:09
skvidal spoleeba: I don't know what that has to do with this at all 12 Aug 15:10
skvidal spoleeba: I'm pretty sure we acknowledged that is a fork at this point 12 Aug 15:10
stickster spoleeba: Do we have to send you out with the OT crowd? 12 Aug 15:10
stickster  ;-) 12 Aug 15:10
f13 spoleeba: please keep the banter on topic? 12 Aug 15:10
stickster jmeeuwen: Is that what you and jeremy agreed on? 12 Aug 15:11
jmeeuwen yes 12 Aug 15:11
stickster And have changes been made there? If so, is anyone on the Anaconda team looking at them? 12 Aug 15:11
spoleeba f13, we let significant divergance from upstream into our forked updates... how is that not relevant as a precedent 12 Aug 15:11
skvidal spoleeba: b/c it is a different project 12 Aug 15:12
f13 spoleeba: because it's our primary package maintainer doing the "forking" 12 Aug 15:12
skvidal more to the point, this isn't a decision that is the board's to make, I think 12 Aug 15:12
f13 correct 12 Aug 15:12
skvidal as an upstream pkg maintainer 12 Aug 15:12
skvidal if the board tries to tell me who to give yum commit access to 12 Aug 15:12
f13 not only is it extreme micro-managing, it's a technical issue to be handled by FESCo 12 Aug 15:12
skvidal I'm going to tell the board to shove it 12 Aug 15:12
f13 absolutely 12 Aug 15:12
spoleeba f13, and how do we chose our primary package matainers..we do not demand they are active upstream developers? 12 Aug 15:12
jmeeuwen stickster, changes have been made, i've not heard about them yet 12 Aug 15:13
f13 there is no way in hell the board should be dictating upstream commit access, nor package commit access. 12 Aug 15:13
* stickster is only concerned about this from the perspective of an inside-Red Hat guy whose job it is to make sure community members can participate appropriately. 12 Aug 15:13
skvidal s/should be/ could be/ 12 Aug 15:13
skvidal stickster: in fedora 12 Aug 15:13
skvidal stickster: not in projects that existed LONG before fedora 12 Aug 15:13
stickster skvidal: Yes, thank you, in Fedora. 12 Aug 15:13
jeremy jmeeuwen: I said we'd look once we got through the f10 cycle over the *lifecycle* of f9. 12 Aug 15:13
skvidal stickster: phrase this in the form of Xorg, then 12 Aug 15:14
f13 spoleeba: the one who brings it to Fedora is the one who for better or worse owns it. 12 Aug 15:14
skvidal would we even be having this discussion if it were about xorg? 12 Aug 15:14
f13 and didn't we already have a discussion in FESCo regarding thigns like compat-python? 12 Aug 15:14
skvidal nod 12 Aug 15:14
jmeeuwen ok well as long as the board knows that i and some other people cannot comply with any trademark guidelines whether it be old or new ones 12 Aug 15:15
spoleeba skvidal, xorg has updates..anaconda is atypical in that it doesnt have updates at all 12 Aug 15:15
jmeeuwen i feel uncomfortable doing so, but hey... 12 Aug 15:15
mdomsch jmeeuwen, how so? 12 Aug 15:15
spoleeba mdomsch, he's rolling in patches to fix anaconda bugs in the re-spins 12 Aug 15:15
jmeeuwen anaconda updates 12 Aug 15:15
spoleeba mdomsch, which are not in the fedora packages..because we dont update anaconda 12 Aug 15:16
f13 spoleeba: anaconda is also atypical in that until very recently, it wasn't used in userland 12 Aug 15:16
stickster skvidal: That's not really a good comparison except in one of several variables. 12 Aug 15:16
f13 spoleeba: it's only ever been used in rawhide, to produce rawhide and the upcoming release 12 Aug 15:16
jmeeuwen f13, we've been using it since fc5 though 12 Aug 15:16
mdomsch the new trademark guidelines allow for such, yes? and if not, that's another use case for paul's list 12 Aug 15:16
f13 jmeeuwen: in terms of anaconda, that's very recently 12 Aug 15:16
clumens well it was also very tightly bound to the release, but that's been broken pretty much entirely at this point 12 Aug 15:16
clumens 12 Aug 15:16
* clumens chop chop 12 Aug 15:16
f13 jmeeuwen: adn even still, the ideal was to use it in rawhide to produce the next release, not respins of the current release. 12 Aug 15:16
spoleeba mdomsch, err... i thought the trademarks did not allow downstream patched stuff to be called fedora 12 Aug 15:17
gregdek Smells like a "based on Fedora" mark to me... 12 Aug 15:17
jmeeuwen gregdek, september 20th 12 Aug 15:17
stickster gregdek: Yes, this would fall squarely into that category. 12 Aug 15:17
jmeeuwen but we cannot change the product name itself or people won't be able to use the respins for upgrades anymore 12 Aug 15:18
jmeeuwen unless that has changed as well i haven't checked lately (~a year) 12 Aug 15:18
mdomsch technical problem, not a policy problem 12 Aug 15:19
mdomsch or an intended policy problem I should say 12 Aug 15:19
spoleeba jmeeuwen, clearly you need to talk with stickster about making sure you are covered under the trademark policy..if he means for it to cover you 12 Aug 15:19
mdomsch so something that can be incorporated into the next policy update 12 Aug 15:19
gregdek The "based on" clearly needs to consider forked packages. 12 Aug 15:20
gregdek OLPC has several forked packages, for instance. 12 Aug 15:20
jmeeuwen spoleeba, we've done that and we're ok... i'd rather comply to the guidelines though, as you can understand 12 Aug 15:20
gregdek And we *clearly* want to use a "based on" mark with them. 12 Aug 15:20
spoleeba gregdek, you mean... they get to choose to use the based on mark if they want to 12 Aug 15:20
stickster gregdek: It already considers that as "Fedora packages + packages not as verbatim in Fedora" 12 Aug 15:20
gregdek Then it sounds like we're covered in this forked Anaconda case as well. 12 Aug 15:21
spoleeba jmeeuwen, im not sure the optimal outcame is achievable here 12 Aug 15:21
stickster OK, we're down to 1 min left on the clock. 12 Aug 15:21
gregdek We're at 19 MINUTES for this topic. 12 Aug 15:21
gregdek  :) 12 Aug 15:21
spoleeba jmeeuwen, the board's not going to reach into a particular working group's process and mandate they take in patches 12 Aug 15:21
gregdek TIME! 12 Aug 15:22
gregdek All right, one final question? 12 Aug 15:22
gregdek I've got one if the board cares to answer it. 12 Aug 15:22
jmeeuwen good, cause i'm done with it 12 Aug 15:22
f13 gregdek: shoot 12 Aug 15:23
gregdek ivancat asks: It seems to me Fedora is basically a feed for an enterprise class OS. Lately though I get the impression there is a lot of effort to catch Ubuntu in the eye-candy category. Does the board concern itself with that sort of balance? 12 Aug 15:23
stickster Hm, it seems to me the question makes a couple assumptions. 12 Aug 15:24
spoleeba I concern myself with sustainable project growth into whatever areas I think can be sustained from volunteer interest 12 Aug 15:24
spoleeba or by corporate backed interest..where I can find it 12 Aug 15:25
f13 I think we have contributors that care about a variety of different things, and we as a project are trying to make sure that our contributors can feed their individual needs 12 Aug 15:25
spoleeba or government funding backed interest....whatever interest will sustain a forward looking development process 12 Aug 15:25
f13 be that eye candy, or enterprise software, or games 12 Aug 15:25
h\h what is "eye-candy" ? brown desktop background? config tools? boot splash? 12 Aug 15:25
mdomsch there are a lot more "individual needs" than RHEL aims to address too 12 Aug 15:25
f13 We're not in the business of dictating what contributors work on, we're in the business of making it easy for them to contribute, and trying to provide a platform for them to develop with. 12 Aug 15:26
mdomsch Fedora gives people a platform on which to address them, independent of RHEL 12 Aug 15:26
--- ChanServ (ChanServ@services.) changed mode: -v jeremy 12 Aug 15:26
--- ChanServ (ChanServ@services.) changed mode: -v wwoods 12 Aug 15:26
spoleeba i do not think Canonical's decisusion with regard to where Ubuntu is positioned makes any pretense concerning sustainability of what they are all 12 Aug 15:26
spoleeba as such.. i do not attempt to "catch-up" with what they are doing any anyway..because i don't want to see the work being done as part of a dead-end unto itself 12 Aug 15:27
spoleeba Canonical is in search of a profit margin with Ubuntu..I wish them luck 12 Aug 15:27
stickster And I think the "catch-up" term is debatable seeing as how many of the new technologies that go into other distributions are developed on, or are seen first in, Fedora. 12 Aug 15:28
stickster But the point is not who has it first, it's whether the work is done in a way that promotes quality and a sound FOSS ecosystem. 12 Aug 15:28
f13 or picked up on in Fedora and all the "hard" problems are solved. 12 Aug 15:28
spoleeba I'm in search of lasting impact on society so that we all have access to an open computing platform without technology gatekeepers and tollbooths 12 Aug 15:28
stickster f13: +1. 12 Aug 15:28
spoleeba that future is through Fedora 12 Aug 15:29
gregdek Anything further? 12 Aug 15:29
gregdek No one? 12 Aug 15:30
gregdek Then shall I call our meeting adjourned? 12 Aug 15:30
gregdek Sounds like it. 12 Aug 15:31
gregdek Meeting is adjourned in 5... 12 Aug 15:31
gregdek 4... 12 Aug 15:31
gregdek 3... 12 Aug 15:31
gregdek 2... 12 Aug 15:31
gregdek 1... 12 Aug 15:31
gregdek 1/2... 12 Aug 15:31
spoleeba stickster, sing up for #fedora ops...and take a shift! 12 Aug 15:31
gregdek ADJOURNED. 12 Aug 15:31

Generated by 2.6 by Marius Gedminas - find it at!