Engineering Update

[Josh Boyer]

Hi All,

Prompted by the wonderful update we got from the Marketing Team
yesterday, I was thinking of how best to do an overall engineering
update for the Council.  We could bring each WG or SIG in one at a
time to give an overview/update, but that would take a considerable
amount of time.  Instead, I would like to propose something a bit
different.

I'd like to contact a number of the engineering groups and ask them to
find someone to present on things they are working towards for Fedora
23 and 24.  Each presenter would be allotted around 5-10 minutes and
then we would have time for questions after.  The idea here is to
focus on the most important task/item the group is working towards,
and to get a broad overview of how the efforts are working to advance
Fedora as a whole.

What does the rest of the Council (and others) think of this idea?  We
might need to go a bit longer than an hour, but hopefully it would
give us a better picture to work from.

(Note: I am not including the Rings/Modularization and Editions
objectives in this.  Those are their own thing individually.)

josh

[White, Langdon]

On May 12, 2015 4:59 PM, "Josh Boyer" <jwboyer(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; wrote:
>  Hi All,
>
>  Prompted by the wonderful update we got from the Marketing Team
>  yesterday, I was thinking of how best to do an overall engineering
>  update for the Council.  We could bring each WG or SIG in one at a
>  time to give an overview/update, but that would take a considerable
>  amount of time.  Instead, I would like to propose something a bit
>  different.
>
>  I'd like to contact a number of the engineering groups and ask them to
>  find someone to present on things they are working towards for Fedora
>  23 and 24.  Each presenter would be allotted around 5-10 minutes and
>  then we would have time for questions after.  The idea here is to
>  focus on the most important task/item the group is working towards,
>  and to get a broad overview of how the efforts are working to advance
>  Fedora as a whole.
>
>  What does the rest of the Council (and others) think of this idea?  We
>  might need to go a bit longer than an hour, but hopefully it would
>  give us a better picture to work from.
>
>  (Note: I am not including the Rings/Modularization and Editions
>  objectives in this.  Those are their own thing individually.)
>
>  josh
>  
Heartily agree!
Langdon
_______________________________________________
>  council-discuss mailing list
>  council-discuss(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/council-discuss

[Matthew Miller]

On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 04:59:46PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
>  What does the rest of the Council (and others) think of this idea? 
> We
>  might need to go a bit longer than an hour, but hopefully it would
>  give us a better picture to work from. 
Sounds good to me. With the schedule I posted the other week, we have
these "update" meetings monthly, and I asked QA if they'd do next
month's. So, on that nominally-now-regular calendar, that'd put the
next such slot on July 7th. Would that be a good time for this? It
seems a little far off.

We're not _limited_ to that, though; we also have "Open Floor"
alternating weeks, and I'm completely fine with making that "Open Floor
unless we have something else scheduled". (In fact, next week will be
Stephen reporting on Editions.) So, that would make June 1st or 15th
open, if earlier is preferred.


-- 
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
Fedora Project Leader

[Josh Boyer]

On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 5:40 PM, Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; wrote:
>  On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 04:59:46PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > What does the rest of the Council (and others) think of this idea?  We
> > might need to go a bit longer than an hour, but hopefully it would
> > give us a better picture to work from.
>
>  Sounds good to me. With the schedule I posted the other week, we have
>  these "update" meetings monthly, and I asked QA if they'd do next
>  month's. So, on that nominally-now-regular calendar, that'd put the
>  next such slot on July 7th. Would that be a good time for this? It
>  seems a little far off. 
Let's tentatively plan for July 7th.

>  We're not _limited_ to that, though; we also have "Open
> Floor"
>  alternating weeks, and I'm completely fine with making that "Open Floor
>  unless we have something else scheduled". (In fact, next week will be
>  Stephen reporting on Editions.) So, that would make June 1st or 15th
>  open, if earlier is preferred. 
June 1 is too early.  I'd like to include rel-eng as one of the groups
and they have a FAD planned for June 5-7.  It would be good for them
to have the FAD and then report on the highlights of that.

Speaking of groups, here are the groups I was planning on including:

Workstation, Server, Cloud, Base, Env & Stacks WGs
rel-eng
infrastructure
FPC (if relevant)

I was going to include QA as well, but as you pointed out they have
their own session coming up and I think they're large enough to do
that on their own.  Do the rest seem like good fits, and have I left
any out that would naturally fall under Engineering?

josh

[Matthew Miller]

On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 01:50:58PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
>  Let's tentatively plan for July 7th. 
Ok cool. I'll update fedocal with all of this.

>  Workstation, Server, Cloud, Base, Env & Stacks WGs
>  rel-eng
>  infrastructure
>  FPC (if relevant)
>  I was going to include QA as well, but as you pointed out they have
>  their own session coming up and I think they're large enough to do
>  that on their own.  Do the rest seem like good fits, and have I left
>  any out that would naturally fall under Engineering? 
That seems to hit the key bases. There are a number of other SIGs which
I would classify as "under Engineering", but all with an * of some sort
— Spins (if not the various desktop tech SIGs), EPEL (kinda), Secondary
Arches....

-- 
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
Fedora Project Leader

[Haïkel]

Though, we're not a formal group within Fedora, RDO/Openstack packagers would
like to provide feedback.
I have been collecting our feedback with Alan Pevec in order to keep it focused.

H.

[Josh Boyer]

On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 2:10 PM, Haïkel <hguemar(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; wrote:
>  Though, we're not a formal group within Fedora, RDO/Openstack
> packagers would
>  like to provide feedback.
>  I have been collecting our feedback with Alan Pevec in order to keep it focused. 
Feedback in the form of "here are cool things we're doing for F23/F24"
or "here are things we need from Fedora to make things work better for
us"?

We're obviously interested in both kinds, but if it's the latter then
there's no reason to wait.  Start a thread on devel and we can pull it
in from there.

josh

[Haïkel]

2015-05-14 20:13 GMT+02:00 Josh Boyer <jwboyer(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;:
>  On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 2:10 PM, Haïkel
> <hguemar(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; wrote:
> > Though, we're not a formal group within Fedora, RDO/Openstack packagers would
> > like to provide feedback.
> > I have been collecting our feedback with Alan Pevec in order to keep it focused.
>
>  Feedback in the form of "here are cool things we're doing for F23/F24"
>  or "here are things we need from Fedora to make things work better for
>  us"?
>
>  We're obviously interested in both kinds, but if it's the latter then
>  there's no reason to wait.  Start a thread on devel and we can pull it
>  in from there.
>  
Both, we want to tighten the bonds between Fedora & RDO and that means.
1. explaining what we're doing, and what are our goals.
2. our current pain points and how we could *collaborate* to fix them (and
most of them are quite common to other groups)

Then, I'll see with Alan to start that thread.

Regards,
H.

>  josh
>  _______________________________________________
>  council-discuss mailing list
>  council-discuss(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/council-discuss

[Remy DeCausemaker]

+1 to July 7th
+1 to RDO
+1 to waiting until after rel-eng FAD for their report. (I will be there too)

Looking Forward,
--RemyD.


--
Remy DeCausemaker 
<decause(a)redhat.com&gt;
Fedora Community Lead & Council Member
http://whatcanidoforfedora.org


----- Original Message -----
>  From: "Haïkel" <hguemar(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
>  To: "Discussions with the Fedora Council and community"
> <council-discuss(a)lists.fedoraproject.org&gt;
>  Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 2:18:57 PM
>  Subject: Re: Engineering Update
>  
>  2015-05-14 20:13 GMT+02:00 Josh Boyer <jwboyer(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;:
>  > On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 2:10 PM, Haïkel <hguemar(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; wrote:
>  >> Though, we're not a formal group within Fedora, RDO/Openstack packagers
>  >> would
>  >> like to provide feedback.
>  >> I have been collecting our feedback with Alan Pevec in order to keep it
>  >> focused.
>  >
>  > Feedback in the form of "here are cool things we're doing for
> F23/F24"
>  > or "here are things we need from Fedora to make things work better for
>  > us"?
>  >
>  > We're obviously interested in both kinds, but if it's the latter then
>  > there's no reason to wait.  Start a thread on devel and we can pull it
>  > in from there.
>  >
>  
>  Both, we want to tighten the bonds between Fedora & RDO and that means.
>  1. explaining what we're doing, and what are our goals.
>  2. our current pain points and how we could *collaborate* to fix them (and
>  most of them are quite common to other groups)
>  
>  Then, I'll see with Alan to start that thread.
>  
>  Regards,
>  H.
>  
>  > josh
>  > _______________________________________________
>  > council-discuss mailing list
>  > council-discuss(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/council-discuss
>  _______________________________________________
>  council-discuss mailing list
>  council-discuss(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/council-discuss

[Josh Boyer]

On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 2:06 PM, Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; wrote:
>  On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 01:50:58PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > Let's tentatively plan for July 7th.
>
>  Ok cool. I'll update fedocal with all of this.
>
> > Workstation, Server, Cloud, Base, Env & Stacks WGs
> > rel-eng
> > infrastructure
> > FPC (if relevant)
> > I was going to include QA as well, but as you pointed out they have
> > their own session coming up and I think they're large enough to do
> > that on their own.  Do the rest seem like good fits, and have I left
> > any out that would naturally fall under Engineering?
>
>  That seems to hit the key bases. There are a number of other SIGs which
>  I would classify as "under Engineering", but all with an * of some sort
>  -- Spins (if not the various desktop tech SIGs), EPEL (kinda), Secondary
>  Arches.... 
I thought about Spins some.  Maybe I'll add them in.

Secondary arches already kind of roll up through rel-eng in their
meeting, but I can ask if there are major plans coming.

EPEL doesn't make sense for a report on what they're targeting for
F23/F24...  Personally, I don't think of EPEL as a _Fedora_ thing at
all, to the point where I kind of wonder if it would be better under
the CentOS umbrella.  That is an entirely separate discussion though.

josh