From Fedora Project Wiki

Fedora Board Meeting 2012-02-01

  • Meeting secretary: Jaroslav Reznik

Roll Call


Jared Smith Jaroslav Reznik Toshio Kuratomi Rudi Landmann Rex Dieter Christoph Wickert Jon Stanley Peter Robinson Guillermo Gómez

Not Present


David Nalley


Updates Board business


  • Fedora 17 schedule update
    • Feature submission deadline last week (2012-01-24)
    • Feature Freeze in one week (2012-02-07)

Board Business

  • Championing projects
    • Due today!
    • FAB mailing list/blog about...
    • Toshio: Work on the Feature Process
    • Peter Robinson: ARM as a Primary Arch
    • Jon Stanley: QA how-to-debug and how-to-test pages
    • Rudi: Streamline docs publication process
  • Ticket 131: retire torrent seed?
  • Proposal -- We want torrents to be available but we don't care if that's done via our own infrastructure or on a different service that we point to from our website.
    • Torrents provided: For F17 should cover all the things that are currently provided by torrent
      • For future Fedora releases, Infra may reduce to what's on get.fp.o

Voting: toshio +1 pbrobinson +1 rdieter +1 jreznik: +1 cwickert: +1 jsmith: +1 jstanley: +1 rudi +1 gomix: +1

=> agreed (9 votes +1)

    • Possible Addition: recommend that any third party used is using an open source torrent solution.

cwickert: +1 rdieter: +1 jsmith: +1 jstanley -1 pbrobinson 0 toshio: 0 rudi +1 jreznik: +1 gomix: 0

=> agreed (5 votes +1, 3 votes 0, 1 votes -1)

    • Possible Addition: still build the .torrent files, even if no longer seeding the downloads

cwickert: +1 jsmith: +1 jstanley +1 toshio: 0 rdieter: 0 pbrobinson +1 rudi +1 gomix: +1 jreznik: +1

=> agreed (7 votes +1, 2 votes 0, 0 votes -1)

jsmith to update ticket and communicate it to the infrastructure team

Proposals from last meeting (IRC):

  • Proposal 1 was: The Board is comfortable with letting the Infra team make the call
  • Proposal 2 was: The Board asks the Infra team to try to use the current solution for F17 release (even if it's IPv4 only, etc.), and get feedback after release
  • Proposal 3 was: Table a decision pending further discussion on the mailing list
  • Proposal 4 was: ask infra to make sure they have a wide audience, and discuss this broadly before making their decision.

cwickert: the decision should not be up to the infrastructure team peter: there are limited people resource (=>security implications etc.) Lack of people joining team?

How to join infrastructure team:

  • Ticket 132: Endorsement of
    • Spot says they would need a trademark license agreement to use the Fedora trademark
    • jsmith is uncomfortable granting a blanket trademark license -- would like to see the limit to the scope
    • cwickert: What would it be used for? What makes it different from all the other upstream projects we are working with?
    • toshio: Would like the limitation to be more about "just getting JBoss into Fedora" as opposed to what they posted to the advisory-board list
    • toshio: The patch vs git pull request starts to border on rel-eng/infra issues (expanded trees on pkgs.fp.o, etc)
    • toshio: doesn't answer the question "Why can't an individual contributor do this on their own -- why do they need a Fedora github account"
    • pbrobinson/cwickert: Will the github account be a dumping ground in limbo between upstream and downstream? Is there a more specific (and valid) use case?
    • rdieter: A lot of misgivings would be allayed if the scope were limited (to JBoss as example) -- is that a short-term thing?
    • pbrobinson/cwickert: If it is limited to JBoss, are we discriminating other projects?
    • pbrobinson: fedoracommunity.o domains granted a trademark license still need a disclaimer. Wouldn't we still need one here?
    • jsmith to update ticket
  • Any other Board business?
    • UsrMove feature
      • General concern that coming in so late, this will cause us to slip
      • Proposal: The Board puts forward a statement of concern regarding the feature and the process
        • In trying to draft a proposal, came to the conclusion that anything we would say would be micromanaging.
        • Instead of making a Board statement, we'll reach out to individuals to share our concerns privately

Other Notes

  • Next Board meeting will be a public IRC meeting on Wednesday, February 8th at 18:30 UTC