council September 2016

council-discuss@lists.fedoraproject.org

31 participants
28 discussions

[council] #16: Periodic contributor survey
by fedora-badges 07 Nov '16

07 Nov '16

#16: Periodic contributor survey ---------------------+------------------- Reporter: mattdm | Owner: Status: new | Priority: normal Component: General | Keywords: ---------------------+------------------- This is a tracking ticket for establishing a process by which we get regular feedback from the Fedora contributor base. This is a companion to https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/1. The desired goals, methodology, and basically everything else are really different between users and contributors it will be better to track them separately. -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/16> council <https://fedorahosted.org/council> Fedora Project Board Public Tickets

1 3

[council] #65: Create standard operating procedure for how treasurers interact with budget
by fedora-badges 07 Nov '16

07 Nov '16

#65: Create standard operating procedure for how treasurers interact with budget ---------------------+------------------- Reporter: jflory7 | Owner: Status: new | Priority: major Component: General | Keywords: budget ---------------------+------------------- '''Prenote''': Another form of this ticket is also filed in the [https://pagure.io/fedora-budget fedora-budget] repository as [https://pagure.io/fedora-budget/issue/18 fedora-budget#18]. = Problem = It is unclear how Ambassador regional treasurers are expected to interact and participate in reporting expenses with regards to the Fedora Budget. = Analysis = A lot of work was done in setting up this repository as a method for publicly tracking expenses. I think using Pagure is an effective solution and if properly taken care of, it will be an effective tool for us. But right now, there is no clear information for how a treasurer is expected to contribute to this repository or what the expectations even are. A high priority item for this should be to create a standard operating procedure (SOP) either as a separate DOC or in the README about '''what''' treasurers will do with this repository, '''how''' they are expected to contribute information, and maybe any details / information about '''when''' this information is expected each fiscal year. I think it's important that the Council helps take charge and action on this to help maintain a healthy, active, and maintained version of the Fedora budget. I see a lot of work that was put into this and I'm fearful that it will be forgotten / left behind until it reaches a point where it might be easier to start all over again with a different solution. = Implementation = 1. Understand how treasurers reported this information in the past for background context 2. Discuss with treasurers / regional representatives about how to help make it easier to contribute this information and what their needs are 3. Begin drafting a first set of guidelines for how to contribute to the fedora-budget repository 4. Share and put to vote with the Fedora Council 5. Begin following this SOP for all future engagements in this repository -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/65> council <https://fedorahosted.org/council> Fedora Council Public Tickets

1 6

[council] #62: Fedora Security: possible trademark violation
by fedora-badges 07 Nov '16

07 Nov '16

#62: Fedora Security: possible trademark violation -------------------+----------------------------- Reporter: potty | Owner: potty Status: new | Priority: normal Component: Legal | Keywords: legal, trademark -------------------+----------------------------- Hello Council! Abdel, from Panama is writing. There is a website called Fedora Security [1] which is not related to the Fedora Security Lab [2]. As I understand from the Trademark Guidelines [3], it is a violation. Quote: "Fedora®, the Fedora word design, the Infinity design logo, Fedora Remix, and the Fedora Remix word design, '''either separately or in combination''', are hereinafter referred to as "Fedora Trademarks" and are trademarks of Red Hat, Inc." Correct me if I am wrong. Thanks in advance. Regards! Reference: [1] http://fedorasecurity.com [2] https://labs.fedoraproject.org/en/security/ [3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Trademark_guidelines?rd=Legal/Trademar… -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/62> council <https://fedorahosted.org/council> Fedora Council Public Tickets

1 2

Re: [council] #71: IRC SIG reform
by Josh Berkus 29 Sep '16

29 Sep '16

On 09/29/2016 08:54 AM, council wrote: > #71: IRC SIG reform > ---------------------+--------------------- > Reporter: be0 | Owner: > Status: new | Priority: normal > Component: General | Resolution: > Keywords: | > ---------------------+--------------------- > > Comment (by mattdm): > > I'll try to make some time to hang out in the channel next week. I do > appreciate the effort that this takes. I've been hanging out on the channel off and on for the last couple weeks. I have yet to see a problem personally. I think that the issues around the channel are being exaggerated; I suspect that we're really talking about one bad op, and that's it. IMHO, Fedora *should* have a formal process for adding and removing OPs with regular rotation, and for complaints about the channel, especially CoC violations. But I don't personally see a reason to throw out all of the existing Ops. -- -- Josh Berkus Red Hat OSAS (any opinions are my own)

1 0

Question about the new 3rd party software policy and standardization across the distro
by Ben Rosser 29 Sep '16

29 Sep '16

Hello, I was re-reading the third party software policy (and also the FESCo ticket: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1617#comment:10) and happened to notice that it looks like WGs are currently intended to be the final arbiters of what repositories are and are not allowed to be included in particular Fedora editions, particularly this comment: "The submission process is edition-based. Acceptance into Fedora Workstation, for instance, does not guarantee your software will be as easily available in another Fedora Edition or in a Fedora Spin. It is up to each working group or special interest groups how to make available any software in their system." I realize I'm a little late to bring this up, but this seems potentially concerning if, say, the Workstation and Server WGs both want to include a third party repository that packages the same software but differently. This would then potentially make the editions incompatible, which doesn't seem ideal. Perhaps this is an implementation detail to be worked out, but as it's not otherwise mentioned in the policy... it seems like in the interests of standardization it would be better if a single group (FESCo? perhaps another WG dedicated to this purpose?) were the final arbiter of whether or not a third party repository could be included in the distribution at all, and then it would be up to the WGs to decide if and how to ship it. Or, at the very least, if a single group had some oversight over the entire process even if they did not have to approve each and every third party repository themselves. Skimming through the discussion on the subject it didn't seem like this point seemed controversial to anyone else. So maybe other people have already thought about this and decided it's not a big deal. But I figured it couldn't hurt to ask. Ben Rosser

5 14

I will miss the meeting on 26 September
by Brian Exelbierd 29 Sep '16

29 Sep '16

I realize I am not officially on the council yet, but I wanted to let you know. TSSIA regards, bex

3 4

IRC SIG needs external oversight
by Be 28 Sep '16

28 Sep '16

The culture on the Fedora IRC channels is hostile and unwelcoming. I recently asked for technical help in #fedora and most of the responses were insults. I went to #fedora-ops to report the offending user and was horrified to see that the user is one of the IRC operators. So, I found the link to the IRC issue tracker <https://fedorahosted.org/irc-support-sig/> in the #fedora channel topic and reported my experience at <https://fedorahosted.org/irc-support-sig/ticket/192> I looked back through past issues on this tracker and found that my experience was not an isolated incident. The operator who was rude to me has had many complaints against them over years. Looking at other issues on the tracker, there are a few other users (I think they're also operators) who also have years of complaints about their abrasive behavior. Occasionally, the reports on the tracker mention racist behavior. Time and time again, the IRC SIG had a meeting about a reported incident and decided to take no meaningful action against its own operators/regular users. I think it's clear that the IRC SIG is incapable of governing itself and needs outside oversight, or the IRC channel will continue to be a hostile place that reflects poorly on Fedora. I'm not sure if this is the best place to address this. I found the Community Working Group wiki page but it seems that group hasn't had a meeting in 5 years.

21 58

[council] #67: Community domain request for fedora-tw.org
by fedora-badges 23 Sep '16

23 Sep '16

#67: Community domain request for fedora-tw.org ------------------------+------------------- Reporter: zerng07 | Owner: Status: new | Priority: normal Component: Trademarks | Keywords: ------------------------+------------------- Hi everyone, My friend, ID as freedomknight (mail: freedomknight(a)fedoraproject.org , real name as 陳貴鑫 Gui-Xin Chen), who is also a Fedora ambassador has had hosted a local community noncommercial forum titled "Fedora 中文論壇" which means "Fedora Chinese Forum" for Chinese (Taiwan) (zh-tw) users to promote, share and to discuss issues on Fedora. He bought the domain name "fedora-tw.org" about one year more ago, and run a Discourse forum site. However, I recently found that if we want to run a site with fedora trademark for a self-purchased domain, we have to contact Council before we did it.[1] Threfore, we would like to ask for the permission for this trademark usage hereby. We used "Fedora Taiwan" logo of Fedora Taiwan community which was made by design team on the forum to indicate this is a local community site. "This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Fedora Project" declaration was added to the bottom footer of every page to inform the readers. We will be responsible for all the costs for the domain registration. Names of the team: Fedora Taiwan community Name of the person who owns the domain: freedomknight (mail: freedomknight(a)fedoraproject.org , real name as 陳貴鑫 Gui-Xin Chen) Services that will be offered through the domain: local community forum URL: https://fedora-tw.org We would like to solve this legal issue sincerely, please help and guide us what the next step we should do. 1. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Local_community_domains#Self- purchased_domain -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/67> council <https://fedorahosted.org/council> Fedora Council Public Tickets

1 14

back to the "incubator brand" discussion: reviving Playground
by Matthew Miller 23 Sep '16

23 Sep '16

Okay, so, after talking with a number of people and thinking for a while, I think we should go ahead with creating a label that people can use for things which are done in Fedora, in line with Fedora's basic mission and values — but not necessarily perfect, and not necessarily up to our generally high standards all around. See http://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/council-discuss@lists.fedorapr… t.org/message/UMUXRADSRXI3WPKSKQGLYGHJFCBG53QO/ I remembered the idea I pitched at DevConf several years ago: Fedora Playground.* This was initially to be a repository for "ugly" RPMs, but in thinking about it now, I figure: why not make it wider than that (as a lot of innovation is going to be happening in areas outside of RPM, anyway)? Let's promote the term as a label for anything new, crazy, pr exciting that we want to let under our umbrella without diluting our reputation for high standards. Unless anyone has objections, I'll create some short descriptive documentation (which may also contain references to how to get started easily — like, how to get a Fedora infra cloud instance, etc.), and ask Fedora Design to make a logo. * I don't remember if I invented this or if I picked it up from someone. Let me know if it was you. :) -- Matthew Miller <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org> Fedora Project Leader

4 4

meeting today?
by Matthew Miller 19 Sep '16

19 Sep '16

Shall we flip around the schedule from last week, and put IRC (and overall Fedora Friendliness) as the main agenda item, and budget updates and etc., as followups as time allows? There's one matter of administration (the fedora-tw domain name request) that we should handle quickly, too. PS: I see looking at the action items from last week that I didn't write the PRD-followup message I said I would. I still will do that. :) -- Matthew Miller <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org> Fedora Project Leader

5 5

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

MOVED to https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/tag/council September 2016