Spins SIG Meeting(s) / Agenda!

[Jeroen van Meeuwen]

The Spins SIG is going to have regular, bi-weekly meetings. I've chosen 
Mondays at 18:00 UTC, on even weeks, and it will not take more then one 
hour.

Obviously, we can pre-discuss most of the items on the agenda on our 
mailing list fedora-spins -at- lists.fedoraproject.org.

With help of several key people in the current Spins process, including 
Process-Guru and current Feature Wrangler John Poelstra, we've come up 
with a real Spins Process during this last FUDCon.

If you are a member of Release Engineering, Quality Assurance, FESCo or 
Infrastructure, I would like you to attend.

Our first meeting (in the series of regular meetings) would be January 
19th, 18:00 UTC, for which I'm going to set the Agenda now:

== Agenda ==

# Finalizing Spins Process[1], vote
#* Writing up details on the Wiki, where necessary
#* Writing our Spins_SIG_Review_Checklist, and what to do if something 
isn't covered
#* Maintainer responsiveness and responsibilities for current releases
#* Checklist of DOs and DONTs, SHOULDs and SHOULD NOTs[2]
#* Defining permanent vs. non-permanent spins, the procedure to change 
status, and the consequences for the Spins Process.
# Set our final meeting time and schedule, vote
# Determine our workflow (using the spin-kickstarts Trac instance?)
#* Branching and tagging (based on milestones to be determined)
#* Creating daily spins for compose tests and reporting results
#* Having maintainers (re-)create spins regularly for tests and 
collecting results
# Determine our process for recurring releases and reviewing current 
spins for the upcoming release
# Current Spins Requests:
#* Games Spin
#** Has been previously approved
#** Failed during Fedora 10
#** Revamped for Fedora 11 by Bruno Wolff III
#* A dozen or so localized spins
#** http://sundaram.fedorapeople.org/spins/
# Review of all current spins
#* Who's the maintainer of each spin, and where can we reach them?
#* Fedora AOS
#* Fedora BrOffice.org
#* Fedora Developer
#* Fedora Education Math
#* Fedora Electronic Lab
#* Fedora Games
#* Fedora Sugar
#* Fedora XFCE

This agenda is also available (in a more readable format) on:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Spins_SIG_Meeting_2009-01-19

Additional Agenda items you may have can go to that Wiki page as well.

Again, if you are a member of Release Engineering, Quality Assurance, 
FESCo or Infrastructure, I would like you to attend also. In the new 
process, the Spins SIG meetings are where you can say "no" or "yes" to
a 
spin, or raise concerns. I would like to know if you agree with that. 
Also, I'd like to know if you (or a delegate of your team) wants to 
attend our meetings, or settles with being notified by the Spins SIG 
every step of the way.

Now, in my Agenda, the time for our first meeting would already conflict 
with a very important appointment I have with Max next week -which I'm 
not going to reschedule, it includes dinner :P I'll make it work one way 
or the other, though, so there'll definitely be a meeting at January 
19th, 18:00 UTC. Be there or forever hold your peace ;-)

Thank you,

Kind regards,

Jeroen van Meeuwen
-kanarip

[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Spins_Process
[2] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Spins_Guidelines

[Bill Nottingham]

Jeroen van Meeuwen (kanarip(a)kanarip.com) said: 
>  The Spins SIG is going to have regular, bi-weekly meetings. I've
> chosen  
>  Mondays at 18:00 UTC, on even weeks, and it will not take more then one  
>  hour. 
...

>  If you are a member of Release Engineering, Quality Assurance, FESCo
> or  
>  Infrastructure, I would like you to attend. 
releng meetings are Mondays, 18:00 UTC already. See
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ReleaseEngineering

Bill

[Jeroen van Meeuwen]

Bill Nottingham wrote:
>  Jeroen van Meeuwen (kanarip(a)kanarip.com) said: 
> > The Spins SIG is going to have regular, bi-weekly meetings. I've chosen  
> > Mondays at 18:00 UTC, on even weeks, and it will not take more then one  
> > hour.
>  
>  ...
>  
> > If you are a member of Release Engineering, Quality Assurance, FESCo or  
> > Infrastructure, I would like you to attend.
>  
>  releng meetings are Mondays, 18:00 UTC already. See
>    http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ReleaseEngineering
>   
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Meeting_channel#Time_table has the 
Release Engineering meetings listed at 17:00 UTC.

Kind regards,

Jeroen van Meeuwen
-kanarip

[Fedora-spins] Spins SIG Meeting(s) / Agenda!

[Jesse Keating]

On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 23:29 +0100, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
>  Bill Nottingham wrote:
>  > Jeroen van Meeuwen (kanarip(a)kanarip.com) said: 
>  >> The Spins SIG is going to have regular, bi-weekly meetings. I've chosen  
>  >> Mondays at 18:00 UTC, on even weeks, and it will not take more then one  
>  >> hour.
>  > 
>  > ...
>  > 
>  >> If you are a member of Release Engineering, Quality Assurance, FESCo or  
>  >> Infrastructure, I would like you to attend.
>  > 
>  > releng meetings are Mondays, 18:00 UTC already. See
>  >   http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ReleaseEngineering
>  > 
>  
>  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Meeting_channel#Time_table has the 
>  Release Engineering meetings listed at 17:00 UTC.
>   

Probably because one of us forgot to edit the table for the DST change
recently.  Can the spins trade us, or move an hour after us?  We float
back and forth between 1800 and 1700 depending on DST, keeping with 1pm
Eastern US time.


-- 
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating

Spins SIG Meeting(s) / Agenda! (Meeting Reschedule)

[Jeroen van Meeuwen]

Due to a conflict with the Release Engineering Meeting, we'll move the 
meetings to 17:00 UTC, instead of 18:00 UTC.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Kind regards,

Jeroen van Meeuwen

Jesse Keating wrote:
>  On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 23:29 +0100, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
> > Bill Nottingham wrote:
> >> Jeroen van Meeuwen (kanarip(a)kanarip.com) said: 
> >>> The Spins SIG is going to have regular, bi-weekly meetings. I've chosen 
>
> >>> Mondays at 18:00 UTC, on even weeks, and it will not take more then one  
> >>> hour.
> >> ...
> >>
> >>> If you are a member of Release Engineering, Quality Assurance, FESCo or  
> >>> Infrastructure, I would like you to attend.
> >> releng meetings are Mondays, 18:00 UTC already. See
> >>   http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ReleaseEngineering
> >>
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Meeting_channel#Time_table has the 
> > Release Engineering meetings listed at 17:00 UTC.
> >
>  Probably because one of us forgot to edit the table for the DST change
>  recently.  Can the spins trade us, or move an hour after us?  We float
>  back and forth between 1800 and 1700 depending on DST, keeping with 1pm
>  Eastern US time.
>

[Fedora-spins] Spins SIG Meeting(s) / Agenda! (Meeting Reschedule)

[Jesse Keating]

On Thu, 2009-01-15 at 08:21 +0100, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
>  Due to a conflict with the Release Engineering Meeting, we'll
> move the 
>  meetings to 17:00 UTC, instead of 18:00 UTC. 
Thanks for being flexible Jeroen.

>  
>  Sorry for the inconvenience. 
I'm sorry we forgot to edit the schedule page in the first place causing
this mess.

-- 
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating

[Fedora-spins] Spins SIG Meeting(s) / Agenda!

[Bryan Kearney]

Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
>  The Spins SIG is going to have regular, bi-weekly meetings. I've
> chosen 
>  Mondays at 18:00 UTC, on even weeks, and it will not take more then one 
>  hour.
>  
>  Obviously, we can pre-discuss most of the items on the agenda on our 
>  mailing list fedora-spins -at- lists.fedoraproject.org.
>  
>  With help of several key people in the current Spins process, including 
>  Process-Guru and current Feature Wrangler John Poelstra, we've come up 
>  with a real Spins Process during this last FUDCon.
>  
>  If you are a member of Release Engineering, Quality Assurance, FESCo or 
>  Infrastructure, I would like you to attend.
>  
>  Our first meeting (in the series of regular meetings) would be January 
>  19th, 18:00 UTC, for which I'm going to set the Agenda now:
>  
>  == Agenda ==
>  
>  # Finalizing Spins Process[1], vote 
May I suggest part of this discussion is spin versus feature. I ask 
becuase the process (for me) got hairy when combined with the feature 
process.

-- bk

[Fedora-spins] Spins SIG Meeting(s) / Agenda!

[Jeroen van Meeuwen]

Bryan Kearney wrote:
>  Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
> > The Spins SIG is going to have regular, bi-weekly meetings. I've 
> > chosen Mondays at 18:00 UTC, on even weeks, and it will not take more 
> > then one hour.
> >
> > Obviously, we can pre-discuss most of the items on the agenda on our 
> > mailing list fedora-spins -at- lists.fedoraproject.org.
> >
> > With help of several key people in the current Spins process, 
> > including Process-Guru and current Feature Wrangler John Poelstra, 
> > we've come up with a real Spins Process during this last FUDCon.
> >
> > If you are a member of Release Engineering, Quality Assurance, FESCo 
> > or Infrastructure, I would like you to attend.
> >
> > Our first meeting (in the series of regular meetings) would be January 
> > 19th, 18:00 UTC, for which I'm going to set the Agenda now:
> >
> > == Agenda ==
> >
> > # Finalizing Spins Process[1], vote
>  
>  May I suggest part of this discussion is spin versus feature. I ask 
>  becuase the process (for me) got hairy when combined with the feature 
>  process.
>   
We've beaten that horse during FUDCon and the Spins Process is now 
separate from the Feature Process, although with the primary features of 
the Feature Process such as Freezes and Wrangling.

Kind regards,

Jeroen van Meeuwen
-kanarip

[Fedora-spins] Spins SIG Meeting(s) / Agenda!

[Rahul Sundaram]

Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:

>  
>  We've beaten that horse during FUDCon and the Spins Process is now 
>  separate from the Feature Process, although with the primary features of 
>  the Feature Process such as Freezes and Wrangling. 
Such decisions shouldn't be taken at FUDCon because it automatically 
excludes people who cannot be present at the event. You should use the 
events only to discuss the issues and make the decisions over mailing 
lists or irc where others can participate as well.

The problem with this whole process is not FESCo didn't want the spins 
to be considered features but how it has been not been delegated 
properly and who is responsible for the final decisions is still 
unclear. Ideally, FESCo would have still considered spins as features so 
that spin maintainers have a procedure to follow up until the time, 
alternative procedure and a owner/team responsible for the final 
decision is outlined somewhere.

I am not sure what to do for the Xfce spin or the local language spins 
now.  Anyone want to clarify this?

Rahul

IRC in Fedora (was: Re: [Fedora-spins] Spins SIG Meeting(s) / Agenda!)

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

(removing the spins list)

On 15.01.2009 11:04, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>  Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
>  
> > We've beaten that horse during FUDCon and the Spins Process is now 
> > separate from the Feature Process, although with the primary features of 
> > the Feature Process such as Freezes and Wrangling.
>  
>  Such decisions shouldn't be taken at FUDCon because it automatically 
>  excludes people who cannot be present at the event.  You should use the
>  events only to discuss the issues and make the decisions over mailing 
>  lists or irc where others can participate as well. 
Your first sentence IMHO holds true for IRC as well -- there are a lot 
of people that don't want to go on IRC or simply can't, as meetings 
might happen in the middle of the night in their timezone or while they 
are on work without access to IRC.

IMHO IRC has become a really big problem for Fedora -- we should use it 
a whole lot less for working out decisions, not more(¹).

CU
knurd

(¹) I'm well aware that meeting on IRC often help a lot to bring things 
forward and make a decisions; I don't want to stop that -- that's 
actually why I wrote "working our decisions" and not "making
decisions" 
above; but things should be discussed in public on a different, a bit 
more time-independent medium as well, to make sure that those people 
that can't or don't want to join IRC meetings can share their view and 
know what and why something happens

[Fedora-spins] Spins SIG Meeting(s) / Agenda!

[Jeroen van Meeuwen]

Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>  Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
>  
> > We've beaten that horse during FUDCon and the Spins Process is now 
> > separate from the Feature Process, although with the primary features of 
> > the Feature Process such as Freezes and Wrangling.
>  
>  Such decisions shouldn't be taken at FUDCon because it automatically 
>  excludes people who cannot be present at the event. You should use the 
>  events only to discuss the issues and make the decisions over mailing 
>  lists or irc where others can participate as well.
>   
I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings by abusing FUDCon like this (in your 
opinion), but let me tell you I'll do it again whenever I feel like it.

Everyone involved was there, everyone agreed. This process is set. 
Arguments go to the list. Voting happens next week during the SIG meeting.

If you have a problem with that, please state it. Please be precise in 
what you think we've done so tremendously wrong, that our ability to 
make a decision, gather input and then have a vote on the result 
deserves to be questioned, by you no less.

because although I do understand your argument against deciding stuff at 
FUDCon, I do not understand what is your problem with how things are 
moving forward right now.

>  The problem with this whole process is not FESCo didn't want the
> spins 
>  to be considered features but how it has been not been delegated 
>  properly and who is responsible for the final decisions is still 
>  unclear. Ideally, FESCo would have still considered spins as features so 
>  that spin maintainers have a procedure to follow up until the time, 
>  alternative procedure and a owner/team responsible for the final 
>  decision is outlined somewhere.
>   
- Define "this" in "The problem with this whole process", because I 
don't understand which process you are referring to.

- Explain to me how "The Spin SIG for technical approval and the Board 
for a rubber trademark stamp" leaves you inconclusive about who has the 
final verdict on whether a Spin can be a Spin or not.

- Explain to me what you mean by "Ideally, FESCo would have still 
considered spins as features" because Spins being Features yet not being 
Features was one of the hurdles we needed to overcome by setting up a 
new process.

>  I am not sure what to do for the Xfce spin or the local language
> spins 
>  now.  Anyone want to clarify this?
>   
In case you haven't noticed, they are on the agenda. I can already say 
that a Spin Page will need to be created (but not for the Localized 
Spins), or a current page needs to be relocated or possibly 
re-categorized. In any way, this is why these items are on the agenda; 
to establish what needs to happen (to what spin), and to determine who's 
going to take care of that (spin maintainers? SIG?).

Kind regards,

Jeroen van Meeuwen
-kanarip

[Fedora-spins] Spins SIG Meeting(s) / Agenda!

[Rahul Sundaram]

Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
>  Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
> >
> >> We've beaten that horse during FUDCon and the Spins Process is now 
> >> separate from the Feature Process, although with the primary features of 
> >> the Feature Process such as Freezes and Wrangling.
> > Such decisions shouldn't be taken at FUDCon because it automatically 
> > excludes people who cannot be present at the event. You should use the 
> > events only to discuss the issues and make the decisions over mailing 
> > lists or irc where others can participate as well.
> >
>  
>  I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings by abusing FUDCon like this (in your 
>  opinion), but let me tell you I'll do it again whenever I feel like it. 
Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said you were abusing 
FUDCon.  It is a general principle to be inclusive of everyone in the 
community as much as possible. That means, not making decisions in a 
place where many people just cannot attend to state their arguments or 
present alternative view points.

>  Everyone involved was there, everyone agreed. This process is set. 
Sorry. no. Not everyone involved was there and unlikely to ever be. 
There are many spin maintainers and spin SIG members not present at FUDCon.

>  Arguments go to the list. Voting happens next week during the SIG
> meeting.
>  
>  If you have a problem with that, please state it. Please be precise in 
>  what you think we've done so tremendously wrong, that our ability to 
>  make a decision, gather input and then have a vote on the result 
>  deserves to be questioned, by you no less.
>
>  because although I do understand your argument against deciding stuff at 
>  FUDCon, I do not understand what is your problem with how things are 
>  moving forward right now. 
A bunch of people went ahead and made some decisions in FUDCon and when 
others raises their concern over that decision and decision making 
process, you are being unnecessarily abrasive and dismissive about it.

I don't want decisions being made without being communicated at all in 
some random location in the world. If you make a decision, do it over 
mailing lists or on  less preferably on irc ( after announcing ahead of 
time) where people involved or concerned can present their opinions. 
FUDCon should be just for discussions.

> > The problem with this whole process is not FESCo didn't want
> the spins 
> > to be considered features but how it has been not been delegated 
> > properly and who is responsible for the final decisions is still 
> > unclear. Ideally, FESCo would have still considered spins as features so 
> > that spin maintainers have a procedure to follow up until the time, 
> > alternative procedure and a owner/team responsible for the final 
> > decision is outlined somewhere.
> >
>  
>  - Define "this" in "The problem with this whole process", because I 
>  don't understand which process you are referring to. 
The spins process or lack of clarity in one.

>  - Explain to me how "The Spin SIG for technical approval and the
> Board 
>  for a rubber trademark stamp" leaves you inconclusive about who has the 
>  final verdict on whether a Spin can be a Spin or not. 
I am sure, you are aware of the prior discussions on this topic. How 
many spin SIG meetings have there been and which spins have been 
approved there? In the last release, Xfce and Games spin was approved in 
a rel-eng meeting, fyi. I have explained another problem I ran into at

https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2008-December/msg00...

>  - Explain to me what you mean by "Ideally, FESCo would have
> still 
>  considered spins as features" because Spins being Features yet not being 
>  Features was one of the hurdles we needed to overcome by setting up a 
>  new process. 
You are forgetting a bit of history here. Spins were considered as 
features before FESCo voted against it.

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/8/FeatureList

See the electronics lab as a feature in there?

Rahul

[Fedora-spins] Spins SIG Meeting(s) / Agenda!

[Jeroen van Meeuwen]

Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>   
I'm done arguing with you. Either comment on the process before the vote 
on Monday or forever hold your peace.

Kind regards,

Jeroen van Meeuwen
-kanarip

[Fedora-spins] Spins SIG Meeting(s) / Agenda!

[Rahul Sundaram]

Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
>  Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> >
>  
>  I'm done arguing with you. Either comment on the process before the vote 
>  on Monday or forever hold your peace. 
Which process are you referring to now? I have commented on the spins 
process extensively in here (I originally outlined a proposal on board's 
request as the person having creating the first official spins) and 
elsewhere as well before but it appears you have already made up your 
mind in FUDCon and don't want any input.

As far as I am concerned, spin = feature worked just fine before FESCo 
decided to vote against that, leaving it in limbo.  For Fedora 9 and 
Fedora 10, there has been a lot of confusion over what should be done.

For Fedora 10, I went to rel-eng just so that some decisions can be 
made. For Fedora 11, the process outlined doesn't have enough details 
(just as an example: what should a report contain? how often would there 
be a spin sig meeting. Can I vote for my own spins as a spin sig member? 
Is everyone who signs up as a spin sig member by merely editing the wiki 
get to vote?). The process has now been made more cumbersome by 
mandating by weekly composes and reports (who decided on that?). Instead 
of helping spin maintainers, this process seems to be making it more 
difficult. It is too soon to be voting on this and time isn't suitable 
for me to attend. Let's discuss it first on mailing list.

Rahul

[Fedora-spins] Spins SIG Meeting(s) / Agenda!

[Josh Boyer]

On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 06:53:48PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>  Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
> > Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> >>
> >
> > I'm done arguing with you. Either comment on the process before the 
> > vote on Monday or forever hold your peace.
>
>  Which process are you referring to now? I have commented on the spins  
>  process extensively in here (I originally outlined a proposal on board's  
>  request as the person having creating the first official spins) and  
>  elsewhere as well before but it appears you have already made up your  
>  mind in FUDCon and don't want any input.
>
>  As far as I am concerned, spin = feature worked just fine before FESCo  
>  decided to vote against that, leaving it in limbo.  For Fedora 9 and  
>  Fedora 10, there has been a lot of confusion over what should be done. 
Here's the deal.  Spins have a process that are treated exactly like
Features.  Just because it's not under the purview of FESCo doesn't
mean that it's not still viable.

>  For Fedora 10, I went to rel-eng just so that some decisions can be 
>
>  made. 
So you are allowed to make arbitrary decisions in a closed group, but
those that did the exact same thing at FUDCon are somehow evil?  Wtf.

>  For Fedora 11, the process outlined doesn't have enough details  
OK, now this is the part where you are actually being helpful.

>  (just as an example: what should a report contain? 
I'm not entirely clear myself here.

>  how often would there  be a spin sig meeting.  
Every other week, in the same time-slot as the EPEL meeting.

>  Can I vote for my own spins as a spin sig member?   
Yes.

>  Is everyone who signs up as a spin sig member by merely editing the
> wiki  
>  get to vote?). 
Dunno.  And sort of inconsiquential, given that "gaming the system" isn't
exactly wrong or right either way.

>  The process has now been made more cumbersome by  
>  mandating by weekly composes and reports (who decided on that?).  
That one came from me.  Having spins fail to compose during the week
that rel-eng is trying to get a milestone (Alpha, Beta, Preview) out the
door is simply an easy way to drop the Spin entirely.

It's not more cumbersome.  It's putting the responsibility for the spin
into the hands of the person that cares about it the most, which is the
spin owner.  So the week before a milestone release is going to be busy
for the SIG and the owners, but that is part of being a Spin owner.

>  of helping spin maintainers, this process seems to be making it more 
>
>  difficult. It is too soon to be voting on this and time isn't suitable  
>  for me to attend. Let's discuss it first on mailing list. 
More difficult in areas, yes.  It does help the owners with the process
itself though, since they don't have to play "who do I ask next for
approval" on getting the spin itself actually accepted.

Look, creating an official Spin is not as simple as "here is my kickstart
file, go build this please."  If the owners really want the Spin to
succeed and be released with the rest of the releases that are done, it
needs to at least have some of the same criteria as those.  If that is too
cumbersome or time consuming for someone to do, then they can use a Remix
and do it on their own schedule.

The bar has been raised, and this is not a bad thing.

josh

[Fedora-spins] Spins SIG Meeting(s) / Agenda!

[Rahul Sundaram]

Josh Boyer wrote:
>  
>  Here's the deal.  Spins have a process that are treated exactly like
>  Features.  Just because it's not under the purview of FESCo doesn't
>  mean that it's not still viable. 
It would be still viable if the process is outlined. The process has to 
be in discussed and in place before FESCo delegates it to somebody else. 
After Fedora 8, FESCo essentially said, we don't want to deal with this 
and it has been a mass confusion ever since.

> > For Fedora 10, I went to rel-eng just so that some decisions can
> be  
> > made.
>  
>  So you are allowed to make arbitrary decisions in a closed group, but
>  those that did the exact same thing at FUDCon are somehow evil?  Wtf. 
A clearly outlined process and someone or a team needs to be accountable 
for decisions. In the absence of it and confusion over the process,  I 
had to deal with somehow getting the spins I owned published  (there 
weren't enough spin sig meetings and I can't be sitting on much if any 
because of different timezones) and asked for help in #fedora-devel and 
was told that rel-eng would approve spins and I participate in the 
meeting and got it approved. None of this was arbitrary or closed. I 
don't see how it compares at all to making decisions in FUDCon and 
claiming everyone was there.

>  That one came from me.  Having spins fail to compose during the week
>  that rel-eng is trying to get a milestone (Alpha, Beta, Preview) out the
>  door is simply an easy way to drop the Spin entirely.
>  
>  It's not more cumbersome.  It's putting the responsibility for the spin
>  into the hands of the person that cares about it the most, which is the
>  spin owner.  So the week before a milestone release is going to be busy
>  for the SIG and the owners, but that is part of being a Spin owner. 
I don't know what you want from a report and full fledged testing and 
reporting every two weeks is just not feasible for multiple spins for me 
as a spin owner.  If you want just to know if it composes or not or if 
it is the right size and things like that, automated composes already 
give that information. Don't ask me to vote on this incomplete proposal. 
Please hash out the details in this list first and then get to the 
voting part. Premature voting would leave us with just as much confusion 
as before.

>  Look, creating an official Spin is not as simple as "here is my
> kickstart
>  file, go build this please."  
No, it is not. I have to spend a lot of time, getting that kickstart 
file in place first. It isn't a simple matter of running some composes 
and calling it a day. There is a heck lot of finicky details to take 
care of. Rawhide breaks my compose in subtle ways. You are in rel-eng. 
You know the amount of work it takes to get alpha,beta and general 
releases out. Are you really asking me to do that work every two weeks 
for multiple spins? You can't be serious.  This feels more like a 
punishment that I have to suffer because other spins broke.

>  The bar has been raised, and this is not a bad thing. 
Yes, as long as you dont arbitrarily the raise the amount of work 
someone has to do without any justification and not helping them in the 
process. I was once getting blamed for a Xfce spin compose that failed 
because Fedora infrastructure was running a updated (slightly broken) 
version of livecd-tools than the GA version. How about giving me access, 
so that I can do composes in the same environment that you do? Help me 
with this instead of just adding more overhead.

Rahul

[Fedora-spins] Spins SIG Meeting(s) / Agenda!

[Josh Boyer]

On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 07:58:59PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > That one came from me.  Having spins fail to compose during the
> week
> > that rel-eng is trying to get a milestone (Alpha, Beta, Preview) out the
> > door is simply an easy way to drop the Spin entirely.
> >
> > It's not more cumbersome.  It's putting the responsibility for the spin
> > into the hands of the person that cares about it the most, which is the
> > spin owner.  So the week before a milestone release is going to be busy
> > for the SIG and the owners, but that is part of being a Spin owner.
>
>  I don't know what you want from a report and full fledged testing and  
>  reporting every two weeks is just not feasible for multiple spins for me  
>  as a spin owner.  If you want just to know if it composes or not or if  
>  it is the right size and things like that, automated composes already  
>  give that information. Don't ask me to vote on this incomplete proposal.  
>  Please hash out the details in this list first and then get to the  
>  voting part. Premature voting would leave us with just as much confusion  
>  as before.
>
> > Look, creating an official Spin is not as simple as "here is my kickstart
> > file, go build this please." 
>
>  No, it is not. I have to spend a lot of time, getting that kickstart  
>  file in place first. It isn't a simple matter of running some composes  
>  and calling it a day. There is a heck lot of finicky details to take  
>  care of. Rawhide breaks my compose in subtle ways. You are in rel-eng.  
>  You know the amount of work it takes to get alpha,beta and general  
>  releases out. Are you really asking me to do that work every two weeks  
>  for multiple spins? You can't be serious.  This feels more like a  
>  punishment that I have to suffer because other spins broke. 
I'm asking that the spins owners don't show up on release day with broken
spins for rel-eng to compose.  I'm asking them to make sure their spin
boots and isn't DOA when users download it.  I'm asking them to make sure
the items (or *gasp* features) that make their spin unique actually work
when you boot the spin.

Rawhide is a moving target.  Everyone knows this.  Everyone also knows that
stuff gets shoved into it at the last minute before a freeze date (which is
a separate problem that needs solving, but is the truth).  So, if you can
accomplish the above requirements without doing composes and testing every
two weeks, then we can discuss that.  The track record thus far has not been
wonderful (and no, that is not a statement about your specific spins).

> > The bar has been raised, and this is not a bad thing.
>
>  Yes, as long as you dont arbitrarily the raise the amount of work  
>  someone has to do without any justification and not helping them in the  
>  process. I was once getting blamed for a Xfce spin compose that failed  
>  because Fedora infrastructure was running a updated (slightly broken)  
>  version of livecd-tools than the GA version. How about giving me access,  
>  so that I can do composes in the same environment that you do? Help me  
>  with this instead of just adding more overhead. 
We did talk about having compose boxes available for the Spins SIG to
use.  That really has nothing to do with the process itself though, and
is really not a requirement.

There are certainly things that could be done to make this at least more
efficient from a technical standpoint for the spins owners.  But those
things are going to have to show up over time.  And if it's too much
work in the meantime, do a Remix.

josh

[Fedora-spins] Spins SIG Meeting(s) / Agenda!

[Rahul Sundaram]

Josh Boyer wrote:

>  
>  I'm asking that the spins owners don't show up on release day with broken
>  spins for rel-eng to compose.  I'm asking them to make sure their spin
>  boots and isn't DOA when users download it.  I'm asking them to make sure
>  the items (or *gasp* features) that make their spin unique actually work
>  when you boot the spin. 
I am already doing all this and I don't see the benefit in mandating 
biweekly composes and reporting when you don't even know what you want 
from the report.

Rahul

[Fedora-spins] Spins SIG Meeting(s) / Agenda!

[Josh Boyer]

On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 08:57:18PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>  Josh Boyer wrote:
>
> >
> > I'm asking that the spins owners don't show up on release day with broken
> > spins for rel-eng to compose.  I'm asking them to make sure their spin
> > boots and isn't DOA when users download it.  I'm asking them to make sure
> > the items (or *gasp* features) that make their spin unique actually work
> > when you boot the spin.
>
>  I am already doing all this and I don't see the benefit in mandating  
>  biweekly composes and reporting when you don't even know what you want  
>  from the report. 
Hey, here's a hint.  The Spins SIG, Spins process, and the world in
general is not about you.

Glad you're doing it already.  Once we figure out what to report, it
should be easy for you to fill in the template.

I'm pretty much done with this conversation now.

josh

[Fedora-spins] Spins SIG Meeting(s) / Agenda!

[Rahul Sundaram]

Josh Boyer wrote:

>  Hey, here's a hint.  The Spins SIG, Spins process, and the world
> in
>  general is not about you. 
No but I am involved and present in all of it. So please consider my 
input instead of side stepping my concerns.

>  Glad you're doing it already.  Once we figure out what to report,
> it
>  should be easy for you to fill in the template. 
I will wait for that. Please discuss that in this list instead of on IRC.

Rahul

[Fedora-spins] Spins SIG Meeting(s) / Agenda!

[Bill Nottingham]

Rahul Sundaram (sundaram(a)fedoraproject.org) said: 
>  No, it is not. I have to spend a lot of time, getting that kickstart 
>
>  file in place first. It isn't a simple matter of running some composes  
>  and calling it a day. There is a heck lot of finicky details to take  
>  care of. Rawhide breaks my compose in subtle ways. You are in rel-eng.  
>  You know the amount of work it takes to get alpha,beta and general  
>  releases out. Are you really asking me to do that work every two weeks  
>  for multiple spins? 
In many respects, yes. Because otherwise it falls to the 'base' rel-eng
and QA to constantly do that work, and that doesn't scale. If people
want their own custom spins, they do have to put some skin in the game.

It's not really adding anything to the amount of work that needs to be
done, in total. It's just shifting around who it gets done by and when.

Bill

[Fedora-spins] Spins SIG Meeting(s) / Agenda!

[Rahul Sundaram]

Bill Nottingham wrote:
>  Rahul Sundaram (sundaram(a)fedoraproject.org) said: 
> > No, it is not. I have to spend a lot of time, getting that kickstart  
> > file in place first. It isn't a simple matter of running some composes  
> > and calling it a day. There is a heck lot of finicky details to take  
> > care of. Rawhide breaks my compose in subtle ways. You are in rel-eng.  
> > You know the amount of work it takes to get alpha,beta and general  
> > releases out. Are you really asking me to do that work every two weeks  
> > for multiple spins?
>  
>  In many respects, yes. Because otherwise it falls to the 'base' rel-eng
>  and QA to constantly do that work, and that doesn't scale. If people
>  want their own custom spins, they do have to put some skin in the game.
>  
>  It's not really adding anything to the amount of work that needs to be
>  done, in total. It's just shifting around who it gets done by and when. 
QA hasn't been involved in custom spins ever to my knowledge. I haven't 
received any input from them ever. So let's leave QA out. In rel-eng, 
the only person involved on a regular interval is Jesse Keating (and 
Josh Boyer has helped as well) has sometimes run into issues and there 
hasn't been any major problem that I haven't responded to on time but 
doing composes and full fledged testing and reports every two weeks for 
all the different spins throughout rawhide development just isn't 
feasible. Automate more of this process via daily composes and automated 
tests and I can fill in the gaps that require manual supervision. I am 
already doing composes on my own and testing to the extend I can. There 
really isn't any room for me to do more.

Rahul

[Fedora-spins] Spins SIG Meeting(s) / Agenda!

[Bruno Wolff III]

On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 19:58:59 +0530,
  Rahul Sundaram <sundaram(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; wrote:
>  Yes, as long as you dont arbitrarily the raise the amount of work  
>  someone has to do without any justification and not helping them in the  
>  process. I was once getting blamed for a Xfce spin compose that failed  
>  because Fedora infrastructure was running a updated (slightly broken)  
>  version of livecd-tools than the GA version. How about giving me access,  
>  so that I can do composes in the same environment that you do? Help me  
>  with this instead of just adding more overhead. 
The code for the git archive of livecd-tools is public. I have already been
testing the git version of livecd-tools without special access.

[Fedora-spins] Spins SIG Meeting(s) / Agenda!

[Rahul Sundaram]

Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>  On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 19:58:59 +0530,
>    Rahul Sundaram <sundaram(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; wrote:
> > Yes, as long as you dont arbitrarily the raise the amount of work  
> > someone has to do without any justification and not helping them in the  
> > process. I was once getting blamed for a Xfce spin compose that failed  
> > because Fedora infrastructure was running a updated (slightly broken)  
> > version of livecd-tools than the GA version. How about giving me access,  
> > so that I can do composes in the same environment that you do? Help me  
> > with this instead of just adding more overhead.
>  
>  The code for the git archive of livecd-tools is public. I have already been
>  testing the git version of livecd-tools without special access. 
Err, I do own livecd-tools in EPEL so I am fully aware of that.
That wasn't what I was talking about however. I think Josh Boyer 
understands the issue better. Essentially, the environment that spin 
maintainers do composes on should be exactly the same as the one the 
final composes are being made. Any minor change can cause issues which 
we cant easily reproduce.

Rahul

[Fedora-spins] Spins SIG Meeting(s) / Agenda!

[Kevin Kofler]

Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>  That wasn't what I was talking about however. I think Josh Boyer
>  understands the issue better. Essentially, the environment that spin
>  maintainers do composes on should be exactly the same as the one the
>  final composes are being made. Any minor change can cause issues which
>  we cant easily reproduce. 
But what if fixes are needed to make one of the base spins, or even another
custom spin, work?

        Kevin Kofler

[Fedora-spins] Spins SIG Meeting(s) / Agenda!

[Rahul Sundaram]

Kevin Kofler wrote:
>  Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > That wasn't what I was talking about however. I think Josh Boyer
> > understands the issue better. Essentially, the environment that spin
> > maintainers do composes on should be exactly the same as the one the
> > final composes are being made. Any minor change can cause issues which
> > we cant easily reproduce.
>  
>  But what if fixes are needed to make one of the base spins, or even another
>  custom spin, work? 
Then, ideally both the spin owner and Fedora infrastructure folks are 
aware and can coordinate on the changes required. The same concerns 
apply. We should strive to minimize the differences in the environment 
between test composes and the final compose.

Rahul

[Fedora-spins] Spins SIG Meeting(s) / Agenda!

[Jesse Keating]

On Fri, 2009-01-16 at 06:51 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>  
>  Then, ideally both the spin owner and Fedora infrastructure folks are 
>  aware and can coordinate on the changes required. The same concerns 
>  apply. We should strive to minimize the differences in the environment 
>  between test composes and the final compose. 
I'm not all that sure why you think there is a difference.  During the
F10 development, the spins were composed in a guest that was rawhide of
the day.  The configs came from the git tag for spin-kickstarts.  I'm
really not sure how this would be any different from anybody else.

-- 
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating

[Fedora-spins] Spins SIG Meeting(s) / Agenda!

[Rahul Sundaram]

Jesse Keating wrote:
>  On Fri, 2009-01-16 at 06:51 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > Then, ideally both the spin owner and Fedora infrastructure folks are 
> > aware and can coordinate on the changes required. The same concerns 
> > apply. We should strive to minimize the differences in the environment 
> > between test composes and the final compose.
>  
>  I'm not all that sure why you think there is a difference.  During the
>  F10 development, the spins were composed in a guest that was rawhide of
>  the day.  The configs came from the git tag for spin-kickstarts.  I'm
>  really not sure how this would be any different from anybody else. 
As I said already, we did run into a problem in the compose of Xfce live 
cd because the VM had a updated livecd-tools (post GA update IIRC) which 
created a SELinux policy denial or similar issue.

Rahul

[Fedora-spins] Spins SIG Meeting(s) / Agenda!

[Jesse Keating]

On Fri, 2009-01-16 at 07:06 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>  As I said already, we did run into a problem in the compose of Xfce
> live 
>  cd because the VM had a updated livecd-tools (post GA update IIRC) which 
>  created a SELinux policy denial or similar issue. 
Right, that was just my fault, and partly the problem was doing the spin
so far after GA.

-- 
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating

[Fedora-spins] Spins SIG Meeting(s) / Agenda!

[Rahul Sundaram]

Jesse Keating wrote:
>  On Fri, 2009-01-16 at 07:06 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > As I said already, we did run into a problem in the compose of Xfce live 
> > cd because the VM had a updated livecd-tools (post GA update IIRC) which 
> > created a SELinux policy denial or similar issue.
>  
>  Right, that was just my fault, and partly the problem was doing the spin
>  so far after GA. 
The point wasn't to find out whom to blame. Just saying that is one 
instance which clearly did demonstrate that we need to avoid changes in 
the compose environment.  I have run into issues with other package 
updates in rawhide (GDM broke Xfce session once, yum failed to dep solve 
properly at another time and so on ) breaking the compose in regular 
intervals as well. So not just a livecd-tools specific thing.

Rahul

[Fedora-spins] Spins SIG Meeting(s) / Agenda!

[Jesse Keating]

On Fri, 2009-01-16 at 07:29 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>  
>  The point wasn't to find out whom to blame. Just saying that is one 
>  instance which clearly did demonstrate that we need to avoid changes in 
>  the compose environment.  I have run into issues with other package 
>  updates in rawhide (GDM broke Xfce session once, yum failed to dep solve 
>  properly at another time and so on ) breaking the compose in regular 
>  intervals as well. So not just a livecd-tools specific thing. 
Well, until we get to GA, the compose environment changes daily, just
like rawhide.  Because it /is/ rawhide.  And if we have to fix
something, we're not going to wait until the next day's rawhide to do
composes, we'll pull that fix directly from koji or from git.

-- 
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating

[Fedora-spins] Spins SIG Meeting(s) / Agenda!

[Jeroen van Meeuwen]

Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>  Josh Boyer wrote:
> > Look, creating an official Spin is not as simple as "here is my kickstart
> > file, go build this please." 
>  
>  No, it is not. I have to spend a lot of time, getting that kickstart 
>  file in place first. It isn't a simple matter of running some composes 
>  and calling it a day. There is a heck lot of finicky details to take 
>  care of. Rawhide breaks my compose in subtle ways. You are in rel-eng. 
>  You know the amount of work it takes to get alpha,beta and general 
>  releases out. Are you really asking me to do that work every two weeks 
>  for multiple spins? You can't be serious.  This feels more like a 
>  punishment that I have to suffer because other spins broke.
>   
You can't be serious if you're expecting the limited number of Spins SIG 
members or Release Engineering members to do that work for you, and 
numerous other spins as well.

FWIW though, we have not defined what a spins report should look like 
yet. Maybe, just maybe, you have some vague idea of what should be in there?

Kind regards,

Jeroen van Meeuwen
-kanarip

[Fedora-spins] Spins SIG Meeting(s) / Agenda!

[Rahul Sundaram]

Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
>  
>  You can't be serious if you're expecting the limited number of Spins SIG 
>  members or Release Engineering members to do that work for you, and 
>  numerous other spins as well. 
Spin SIG members are already doing it since many of them are spin owners 
as well but leaving that side, to the extend, there is a need for a 
bi-weekly compose, the first thing to be considered, is what parts can 
be automated so that we can make more efficient use of our limited time, 
collectively.

>  FWIW though, we have not defined what a spins report should look like
>
>  yet. Maybe, just maybe, you have some vague idea of what should be in 
>  there? 
I wasn't the one who came up with the report idea and I am still not 
clear, why one is needed in the first place. Tell me what was discussed 
in FUDCon by posting a meeting summary of who attended and what was 
discussed and I will tell you what the report can contain. Currently, I 
don't have enough information provided to give any further input.

Rahul

[Fedora-spins] Spins SIG Meeting(s) / Agenda!

[Jeroen van Meeuwen]

Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>  Josh Boyer wrote:
> > Look, creating an official Spin is not as simple as "here is my kickstart
> > file, go build this please." 
>  
>  No, it is not. I have to spend a lot of time, getting that kickstart 
>  file in place first. It isn't a simple matter of running some composes 
>  and calling it a day. There is a heck lot of finicky details to take 
>  care of. Rawhide breaks my compose in subtle ways. You are in rel-eng. 
>  You know the amount of work it takes to get alpha,beta and general 
>  releases out. Are you really asking me to do that work every two weeks 
>  for multiple spins? You can't be serious.  This feels more like a 
>  punishment that I have to suffer because other spins broke.
>   
You can't be serious if you're expecting the limited number of Spins SIG 
members or Release Engineering members to do that work for you, and 
numerous other spins as well.

FWIW though, we have not defined what a spins report should look like 
yet. Maybe, just maybe, you have some vague idea of what should be in there?

Kind regards,

Jeroen van Meeuwen
-kanarip

[Fedora-spins] Spins SIG Meeting(s) / Agenda!

[Bruno Wolff III]

On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 16:38:20 +0100,
  Jeroen van Meeuwen <kanarip(a)kanarip.com&gt; wrote:
>  FWIW though, we have not defined what a spins report should look like  
>  yet. Maybe, just maybe, you have some vague idea of what should be in 
>  there? 
I have found that looking at the install (done as part of the spin build)
process shows up missing requires for pre and post (un)install scripts that
are easy to miss when testing on a system where the base stuff is already
installed. Some of these errors are really just noise, others cause breakage.
It would be nice if the installs were totally clean of error or warning
messages.

I have also found that it is possible for a dependency problem to block
the build entirely.

[Fedora-spins] Spins SIG Meeting(s) / Agenda!

[Bruno Wolff III]

On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 08:56:58 -0500,
  Josh Boyer <jwboyer(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>  
>  That one came from me.  Having spins fail to compose during the week
>  that rel-eng is trying to get a milestone (Alpha, Beta, Preview) out the
>  door is simply an easy way to drop the Spin entirely. 
Note that the spin maintainer can't directly fix this in some cases.
I still have open bugzillas and several packages that don't install
cleanly because of missing requires. I can't fix them myself. I can't prevent
someone from introducing dependency issues (as happened briefly for the
poker2d update) at the wrong time. All I can do is file bugs and in extreme
cases as for help on the devel list for another maintainer to help out.

[Fedora-spins] Spins SIG Meeting(s) / Agenda!

[Jeroen van Meeuwen]

Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>  On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 08:56:58 -0500,
>    Josh Boyer <jwboyer(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
> > That one came from me.  Having spins fail to compose during the week
> > that rel-eng is trying to get a milestone (Alpha, Beta, Preview) out the
> > door is simply an easy way to drop the Spin entirely.
>  
>  Note that the spin maintainer can't directly fix this in some cases.
>  I still have open bugzillas and several packages that don't install
>  cleanly because of missing requires. I can't fix them myself. I can't prevent
>  someone from introducing dependency issues (as happened briefly for the
>  poker2d update) at the wrong time. All I can do is file bugs and in extreme
>  cases as for help on the devel list for another maintainer to help out.
>   
In the new spins process, we take those "dependencies" as we call them 
into account -somewhat;

you can list whatever dependencies you have in a separate sort-of topic 
on a Spins page similar to a Feature page, which is then used similar to 
how a Feature page is then used;

whether it be packages that still need to be reviewed, general bugs, 
features that need to be completed, you name it. Anything that stops the 
spin from being all fine can go there so that everyone knows.

Kind regards,

Jeroen van Meeuwen
-kanarip

[Fedora-spins] Spins SIG Meeting(s) / Agenda!

[Bruno Wolff III]

On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 16:46:07 +0100,
  Jeroen van Meeuwen <kanarip(a)kanarip.com&gt; wrote:
>  
>  you can list whatever dependencies you have in a separate sort-of topic 
>  on a Spins page similar to a Feature page, which is then used similar to 
>  how a Feature page is then used; 
I have been linking to bugs on my revamped games spin feature page. I don't
know that it helps get them taken care of though.

[Fedora-spins] Spins SIG Meeting(s) / Agenda!

[Jeroen van Meeuwen]

Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>  Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
> > Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > I'm done arguing with you. Either comment on the process before the vote 
> > on Monday or forever hold your peace.
>  
>  Which process are you referring to now? 
I think this is a good time for you to start reading the agenda.

[Fedora-spins] Spins SIG Meeting(s) / Agenda!

[Rahul Sundaram]

Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
>  Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
> >> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> >> I'm done arguing with you. Either comment on the process before the vote 
> >> on Monday or forever hold your peace.
> > Which process are you referring to now?
>  
>  I think this is a good time for you to start reading the agenda. 
Please stop being dismissive and read the rest of mails where I gave you 
more input.

Rahul

[Fedora-spins] Spins SIG Meeting(s) / Agenda!

[Jeroen van Meeuwen]

Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>  Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
> > Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> >> Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
> >>> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> >>> I'm done arguing with you. Either comment on the process before the vote
>
> >>> on Monday or forever hold your peace.
> >> Which process are you referring to now?
> > I think this is a good time for you to start reading the agenda.
>  
>  Please stop being dismissive and read the rest of mails where I gave you 
>  more input.
>   
Reviewing what you've written so far;

- not at FUDCon

I've told you I'm sorry, give it a rest already.

- "It's general principle to be inclusive of everyone in the community 
as much as possible"

Wasting my time typing this email is a little more inclusive then I'd 
like to see.

- "I've commented on the spins process extensively"

And how do you think your comments are not in the new process we've come 
up with during FUDCon?

- "what should a report contain?"

I'm not sure yet, have any ideas? This has settled down just under 3 
days, and it hasn't even been voted upon yet. Do you want all the 
details now? You sure? Because that would make it more permanent and 
less flexible then the state it's in now (still open for suggestions).

- you're confused on what process it is we're talking about

Suggested solution: read the Spins_Process page on the Wiki

- you're looking for what the process was and how we streamlined it

Suggested solution: read the Spins_Process page on the Wiki

- you're eager to know what needs to be done for XFCE and other spins 
you submitted

Suggested solution: Await what the Spins SIG comes up with after the 
meeting, since this item is on the agenda

- you have an opinion about Spins being Spins vs. Features

Suggested solution: weight that argument in your vote for the new process

- """It would be still viable if the process is outlined. The process 
has to be in discussed and in place before FESCo delegates it to 
somebody else."""

1) The process is outlined
2) the process has been discussed, with representatives of Rel-eng, our 
dear Feature Wrangler, the Spins SIG leader, a few 
spin-submitting/maintaining users, a FESCo delegate, and reviewed 
afterwards by QA and the Rel-Eng lead. Remember that Rel-Eng in the 
first place is the party to whom FESCo delegated responsibility.

I could continue but I don't feel like it. I sure hope this email sounds 
dismissive enough for you to finally stop arguing over nothing and 
continue the part of the thread where I think you may have actually said 
something useful.

Kind regards,

Jeroen van Meeuwen
-kanarip

[Fedora-spins] Spins SIG Meeting(s) / Agenda!

[Patrice Dumas]

On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 03:56:28PM +0100, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
>  Wasting my time typing this email is a little more inclusive then I'd  
>  like to see.
>
>  - you're confused on what process it is we're talking about
>
>  Suggested solution: read the Spins_Process page on the Wiki
>
>  - you're looking for what the process was and how we streamlined it
>
>  Suggested solution: read the Spins_Process page on the Wiki 
As an external, though contrariant (and out of fedora) reader of
that page, it seems to me that some details are lacking, especially in 
the part:

3. Spins SIG reviews the Spin

    * If the Spin is accepted by the Spins SIG, the page is added to category
Spins_Ready_for_Board
    * If the Spin is not accepted by the Spins SIG, the page is removed from the
Spins_Ready_for_SIG category, and goes back to category Incomplete_Spins

The process for 'Spins SIG reviews the Spin' is lacking.
Maybe it is just that I am missing some information known by
everybody involved, but it is not on this page. 

--
Pat

[Fedora-spins] Spins SIG Meeting(s) / Agenda!

[Jeroen van Meeuwen]

Patrice Dumas wrote:
>  On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 03:56:28PM +0100, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
> > Wasting my time typing this email is a little more inclusive then I'd  
> > like to see.
> >
> > - you're confused on what process it is we're talking about
> >
> > Suggested solution: read the Spins_Process page on the Wiki
> >
> > - you're looking for what the process was and how we streamlined it
> >
> > Suggested solution: read the Spins_Process page on the Wiki
>  
>  As an external, though contrariant (and out of fedora) reader of
>  that page, it seems to me that some details are lacking, especially in 
>  the part:
>  
>  3. Spins SIG reviews the Spin
>  
>      * If the Spin is accepted by the Spins SIG, the page is added to category
> Spins_Ready_for_Board
>      * If the Spin is not accepted by the Spins SIG, the page is removed from the
> Spins_Ready_for_SIG category, and goes back to category Incomplete_Spins
>  
>  The process for 'Spins SIG reviews the Spin' is lacking.
>  Maybe it is just that I am missing some information known by
>  everybody involved, but it is not on this page. 
>   
There's an email in my drafts, that describes how I planned to build our 
Spins_SIG_Review_Checklist. In fact, I saved that draft to the Wiki just 
because I was creating it there and didn't have a local copy. It isn't 
finished though, as obviously all this has to have some time to settle 
in writing, somewhere for others to review and edit.

As you *may* have noticed, that Spins_SIG_Review_Checklist is also on 
the Agenda.

Thank you,

Kind regards,

Jeroen van Meeuwen
-kanarip

[Fedora-spins] Spins SIG Meeting(s) / Agenda!

[Patrice Dumas]

On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 04:20:43PM +0100, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
>  There's an email in my drafts, that describes how I planned to build our  
>  Spins_SIG_Review_Checklist. In fact, I saved that draft to the Wiki just  
>  because I was creating it there and didn't have a local copy. It isn't  
>  finished though, as obviously all this has to have some time to settle  
>  in writing, somewhere for others to review and edit. 
I am a bit confused because this is more or less the same than
Spins_Guidelines

>  As you *may* have noticed, that Spins_SIG_Review_Checklist is also on
>  
>  the Agenda. 
You mean
Spins_Guidelines

Anyway, this has no information related with the process itself of 
3. Spins SIG reviews the Spin 

--
Pat

[Fedora-spins] Spins SIG Meeting(s) / Agenda!

[Rahul Sundaram]

Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:

>  - not at FUDCon
>  
>  I've told you I'm sorry, give it a rest already. 
The problem is not me or others being in FUDCon or not but decisions 
being made there which will always exclude people. Ours a global 
community and the ability to attend conferences in a particular place 
anywhere in the world is limited. You said you will do it again which 
seemed to be that you didn't understand the issue. It is nothing personal.

>  And how do you think your comments are not in the new process
> we've come 
>  up with during FUDCon? 
It is not since I wasn't in FUDCon.

>  - "what should a report contain?"
>  
>  I'm not sure yet, have any ideas? This has settled down just under 3 
>  days, and it hasn't even been voted upon yet. Do you want all the 
>  details now? You sure? Because that would make it more permanent and 
>  less flexible then the state it's in now (still open for suggestions). 
Here is what I suggest:

* Postpone the IRC meeting and voting now. It is too early and there has 
not been enough details to warrant a vote yet.

* Post a summary of what was discussed in FUDCon and the new proposal 
discussed in the FUDCon. Communicate as much details as possible so that 
spin owners can understand why the changes were made and ask for input 
in this list and not on a IRC meeting. Wait for a week or two so that we 
can discuss it further and then maybe arrange a IRC meeting.

>  - you're confused on what process it is we're talking about
>  
>  Suggested solution: read the Spins_Process page on the Wiki
>  
>  - you're looking for what the process was and how we streamlined it
>  
>  Suggested solution: read the Spins_Process page on the Wiki 
I already did. You would know that if you had read my mails since I was 
specific and pointed out a few examples where there aren't enough details.

>  - you're eager to know what needs to be done for XFCE and other
> spins 
>  you submitted
>  
>  Suggested solution: Await what the Spins SIG comes up with after the 
>  meeting, since this item is on the agenda 
Since I am part of Spin SIG, I am giving my feedback to try and steer 
the decision in the right direction.

>  - you have an opinion about Spins being Spins vs. Features
>  
>  Suggested solution: weight that argument in your vote for the new process 
I can't be in the IRC meeting and I don't think voting without details 
in the right way to do it. I am explaining it in the list so you can 
consider it while making the decision.

>  - """It would be still viable if the process is
> outlined. The process 
>  has to be in discussed and in place before FESCo delegates it to 
>  somebody else."""
>  
>  1) The process is outlined
>  2) the process has been discussed, with representatives of Rel-eng, our 
>  dear Feature Wrangler, the Spins SIG leader, a few 
>  spin-submitting/maintaining users, a FESCo delegate, and reviewed 
>  afterwards by QA and the Rel-Eng lead. Remember that Rel-Eng in the 
>  first place is the party to whom FESCo delegated responsibility. 
I don't know what was discussed since a summary wasn't posted in this 
list. Filling in the details would be helpful.

>  I could continue but I don't feel like it. I sure hope this email
> sounds 
>  dismissive enough for you to finally stop arguing over nothing and 
>  continue the part of the thread where I think you may have actually said 
>  something useful. 
If you don't feel I have said anything useful so far, I am sorry to hear 
that but then, we have nothing more to discuss. Carry on with your 
meeting and I will deal with the result when it comes to that point. 
Thanks.

Rahul

[Fedora-spins] Spins SIG Meeting(s) / Agenda!

[Jeroen van Meeuwen]

Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>  Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
> > And how do you think your comments are not in the new process we've 
> > come up with during FUDCon?
>  
>  It is not since I wasn't in FUDCon.
>   
You make it sound so logic, I can only agree with you. You're right. I 
hadn't read anything, I can't remember anything, let alone keep in mind 
what everyone's ideas, comments and recommendations were and shape them 
into the skeleton (read: *THE SKELETON*) of a new process. I'm 
definitely a fail.

> > - "what should a report contain?"
> >
> > I'm not sure yet, have any ideas? This has settled down just under 3 
> > days, and it hasn't even been voted upon yet. Do you want all the 
> > details now? You sure? Because that would make it more permanent and 
> > less flexible then the state it's in now (still open for suggestions).
>  
>  Here is what I suggest:
>  
>  * Postpone the IRC meeting and voting now. It is too early and there has 
>  not been enough details to warrant a vote yet.
>   
NO! Period. Exclamation-mark. Fullstop. Why not? Because our next 
meeting would be only ~2 weeks prior to Beta freeze. Don't recall the 
timeline exactly, don't care enough to look it up for you.

>  * Post a summary of what was discussed in FUDCon and the new proposal
>
>  discussed in the FUDCon. Communicate as much details as possible so that 
>  spin owners can understand why the changes were made and ask for input 
>  in this list and not on a IRC meeting. Wait for a week or two so that we 
>  can discuss it further and then maybe arrange a IRC meeting.
>   
I did ask for feedback on the list, so that the IRC meeting would only 
have the vote. So, here's a couple of suggestions for you:

- stop
- step away from the keyboard
- think of a couple of questions to which the answers may be valuable in 
moving us forward.
- post those questions on the list

> > - you're confused on what process it is we're talking
> about
> >
> > Suggested solution: read the Spins_Process page on the Wiki
> >
> > - you're looking for what the process was and how we streamlined it
> >
> > Suggested solution: read the Spins_Process page on the Wiki
>  
>  I already did. You would know that if you had read my mails since I was 
>  specific and pointed out a few examples where there aren't enough details.
>   
Obviously, I haven't read the rest of your email, doh! I'm obviously 
responding to things I don't read?

> > - you're eager to know what needs to be done for XFCE and
> other spins 
> > you submitted
> >
> > Suggested solution: Await what the Spins SIG comes up with after the 
> > meeting, since this item is on the agenda
>  
>  Since I am part of Spin SIG, I am giving my feedback to try and steer 
>  the decision in the right direction.
>   
I think you're confusing blunt criticism with constructive commentary.

> > - you have an opinion about Spins being Spins vs. Features
> >
> > Suggested solution: weight that argument in your vote for the new process
>  
>  I can't be in the IRC meeting and I don't think voting without details 
>  in the right way to do it. I am explaining it in the list so you can 
>  consider it while making the decision.
>   
You're not explaining anything, you're dismissing everything we did for 
reasons of your absence and <insert-the-other-favorite-here>, almost 
entirely similar to how I'm dismissive towards you.

> > - """It would be still viable if the process is
> outlined. The process 
> > has to be in discussed and in place before FESCo delegates it to 
> > somebody else."""
> >
> > 1) The process is outlined
> > 2) the process has been discussed, with representatives of Rel-eng, 
> > our dear Feature Wrangler, the Spins SIG leader, a few 
> > spin-submitting/maintaining users, a FESCo delegate, and reviewed 
> > afterwards by QA and the Rel-Eng lead. Remember that Rel-Eng in the 
> > first place is the party to whom FESCo delegated responsibility.
>  
>  I don't know what was discussed since a summary wasn't posted in this 
>  list. Filling in the details would be helpful.
>   
There were no meeting minutes being kept track of during the meeting, 
regrettably. But, in case you want my 5-minute after best-recollection 
of what happened, that has been on the Wiki:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Spins_NewProcess

Note that this is a very quick and dirty list of things as I recalled 
them happening in the meeting, not the meeting minutes.

Other pages needed to complete the details on these pages you have so 
far should be in the making but somehow the person tasked to create 
those pages does not seem to be able to find the time to actually do 
what he's intended to do.

> > I could continue but I don't feel like it. I sure hope this
> email 
> > sounds dismissive enough for you to finally stop arguing over nothing 
> > and continue the part of the thread where I think you may have 
> > actually said something useful.
>  
>  If you don't feel I have said anything useful so far, I am sorry to hear 
>  that but then, we have nothing more to discuss. Carry on with your 
>  meeting and I will deal with the result when it comes to that point. 
>  Thanks.
>   
No, thank you!

Kind regards,

Jeroen van Meeuwen
-kanarip

[Fedora-spins] Spins SIG Meeting(s) / Agenda!

[Rahul Sundaram]

Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
>  
>  You make it sound so logic, I can only agree with you. You're right. I 
>  hadn't read anything, I can't remember anything, let alone keep in mind 
>  what everyone's ideas, comments and recommendations were and shape them 
>  into the skeleton (read: *THE SKELETON*) of a new process. I'm 
>  definitely a fail. 
The process is defined and decisions being made where majority of the 
people affected by the process cannot participate. Nobody posts a 
meeting summary.

The spin process wiki page doesn't say draft or skeleton or anything 
like that. It appears on it's own and a vote is being rushed based on 
that in a IRC meeting (which I cannot attend) where a lot of details 
haven't been discussed yet.

A new procedure for reports every week has been added to the process 
where nobody has even a vague idea (according to you) on what it should 
contain.  This all doesn't look like the right thing to do.

> > * Postpone the IRC meeting and voting now. It is too early and
> there has 
> > not been enough details to warrant a vote yet.
> >
>  
>  NO! Period. Exclamation-mark. Fullstop. Why not? Because our next 
>  meeting would be only ~2 weeks prior to Beta freeze. Don't recall the 
>  timeline exactly, don't care enough to look it up for you. 
Regardless of the time period, rushing through a vote with a skeleton 
proposal isn't going to benefit anybody. It would just lead to more 
confusion as has been evident over 3 releases in the past. So give it 
time and work through the details carefully.

>  Obviously, I haven't read the rest of your email, doh! I'm
> obviously 
>  responding to things I don't read? 
Then I don't see the point of asking me to read a process wiki which has 
very few details. I have already read and commented on it.

>  I think you're confusing blunt criticism with constructive
> commentary. 
Perhaps but I am tired of running around and want it to stop. I have 
wasted enough time unnecessarily. I am very frustrated with this 
repeatedly. Let's get it right, this time.

>  You're not explaining anything, you're dismissing everything
> we did for 
>  reasons of your absence and <insert-the-other-favorite-here>, almost 
>  entirely similar to how I'm dismissive towards you 
Since I am not present, I can't know why without you and others who did 
attend post some details. Any of those attended post a summary please?

>  Other pages needed to complete the details on these pages you have so
>
>  far should be in the making but somehow the person tasked to create 
>  those pages does not seem to be able to find the time to actually do 
>  what he's intended to do. 
Who is that? Can he do it before the voting?

Rahul

[Fedora-spins] Spins SIG Meeting(s) / Agenda!

[Joe Nall]

On Jan 15, 2009, at 9:43 AM, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:

>  You make it sound so logic, I can only agree with you. You're
> right.  
>  I hadn't read anything, I can't remember anything, let alone keep in  
>  mind what everyone's ideas, comments and recommendations were and  
>  shape them into the skeleton (read: *THE SKELETON*) of a new  
>  process. I'm definitely a fail. 
First thing you have said that I can agree with.

joe

[Fedora-spins] Spins SIG Meeting(s) / Agenda!

[Jesse Keating]

On Thu, 2009-01-15 at 20:48 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>  The problem is not me or others being in FUDCon or not but decisions
>
>  being made there which will always exclude people. Ours a global 
>  community and the ability to attend conferences in a particular place 
>  anywhere in the world is limited. You said you will do it again which 
>  seemed to be that you didn't understand the issue. It is nothing
>  personal. 
Sounds like you'd rather FUDCons never happened at all.  It also seems
you've confused "created a proposal" with "made a set in stone final
decision".  These are two different things.  The fact that many key
players in the game happened to be in the same place, at the same time,
and were able to dedicate some high bandwidth discussion to the matter
led to a pretty good proposal.  It's no different than somebody thinking
up a proposal by themselves, or while talking with somebody on the
phone, or IRC, or even email.  It's a proposal.  It can be modified, it
can be adjusted, it can be rejected, etc..  It's a proposal.

I get the fact that you resent being in a timezone and location that
makes it difficult for you to participate in higher bandwidth forms of
communication (irc, phone, face to face).  I can't help that.  However
I'm not about to force the entire Fedora project slow to a crawl just so
that every thought, comment, discussion, fart, whatever happens via a
public email.  That's just ridiculous.  People will continue to talk on
IRC, will continue to chat via IM, will continue to talk on phones, and
will even *shock* talk in person!  Ideas, proposals, and even a decision
or two, depending on the group, will be made in these ways.  Deal with
it.

-- 
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating

[Fedora-spins] Spins SIG Meeting(s) / Agenda!

[Rahul Sundaram]

Jesse Keating wrote:
>  On Thu, 2009-01-15 at 20:48 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > The problem is not me or others being in FUDCon or not but decisions 
> > being made there which will always exclude people. Ours a global 
> > community and the ability to attend conferences in a particular place 
> > anywhere in the world is limited. You said you will do it again which 
> > seemed to be that you didn't understand the issue. It is nothing
> > personal.
>  
>  Sounds like you'd rather FUDCons never happened at all.  
No. I travelled over 20 hours of flight to attend it twice. So I 
certainly understand the value of it. You got to read what I said before 
assuming anything of that sort.

https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-January/msg00789.html

"Such decisions shouldn't be taken at FUDCon because it automatically 
excludes people who cannot be present at the event. You should use the 
events only to discuss the issues and make the decisions over mailing 
lists or irc where others can participate as well. "

  However
>  I'm not about to force the entire Fedora project slow to a crawl
> just so
>  that every thought, comment, discussion, fart, whatever happens via a
>  public email.  That's just ridiculous.  
Yes. it is but just made up a completely fictitious situation just to 
demolish it. I know that form of argument. It even has a catchy name but 
I forget it now.  Just read the mail I replied to and what I said was 
much more reasonable than what you are making it out to be.

Rahul

[Fedora-spins] Spins SIG Meeting(s) / Agenda!

[Jesse Keating]

On Thu, 2009-01-15 at 23:26 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>  "Such decisions shouldn't be taken at FUDCon because it
> automatically 
>  excludes people who cannot be present at the event. You should use the 
>  events only to discuss the issues and make the decisions over mailing 
>  lists or irc where others can participate as well. " 
I see you're still completely ignoring the fact that what came out of
FUDCon was a /proposal/, and not a decision.

-- 
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating

[Fedora-spins] Spins SIG Meeting(s) / Agenda!

[Rahul Sundaram]

Jesse Keating wrote:
>  On Thu, 2009-01-15 at 23:26 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > "Such decisions shouldn't be taken at FUDCon because it automatically 
> > excludes people who cannot be present at the event. You should use the 
> > events only to discuss the issues and make the decisions over mailing 
> > lists or irc where others can participate as well. "
>  
>  I see you're still completely ignoring the fact that what came out of
>  FUDCon was a /proposal/, and not a decision. 
There is nothing in the original mail that calls for a meeting indicate 
anything about a proposal. It just declares that the spin sig is going 
have to bi weekly meetings (where was that discussed before?) and says 
we have come up with a spin process.

https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-January/msg00695.html

Nothing in the wiki either says draft or proposal or anything like that.

https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-January/msg00768.html 


makes it sound like a final decision as well.

If this is really just a proposal, give it more than 3 days instead of 
voting in such a hurried manner after announcing a spin sig meeting out 
of the blue with no prior discussions of time or date or interval. There 
are lot of basic details we need to discuss about this and we need to 
discuss it on list before moving to a IRC meeting and voting about it. 
Please give it more time and do it right.

Rahul

[Fedora-spins] Spins SIG Meeting(s) / Agenda!

[Jesse Keating]

On Fri, 2009-01-16 at 00:27 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>  If this is really just a proposal, give it more than 3 days instead
> of 
>  voting in such a hurried manner after announcing a spin sig meeting out 
>  of the blue with no prior discussions of time or date or interval. There 
>  are lot of basic details we need to discuss about this and we need to 
>  discuss it on list before moving to a IRC meeting and voting about it. 
>  Please give it more time and do it right. 
Well if we don't want to have any spins for F11 so that we can spend the
time and hash out every single detail over public email, that's fine
with me.  I'll be over here getting actual work done.

-- 
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating

[Fedora-spins] Spins SIG Meeting(s) / Agenda!

[Rahul Sundaram]

Jesse Keating wrote:
>  On Fri, 2009-01-16 at 00:27 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > If this is really just a proposal, give it more than 3 days instead of 
> > voting in such a hurried manner after announcing a spin sig meeting out 
> > of the blue with no prior discussions of time or date or interval. There 
> > are lot of basic details we need to discuss about this and we need to 
> > discuss it on list before moving to a IRC meeting and voting about it. 
> > Please give it more time and do it right.
>  
>  Well if we don't want to have any spins for F11 so that we can spend the
>  time and hash out every single detail over public email, that's fine
>  with me.  I'll be over here getting actual work done. 
Discussing and coming up with a solid process *is* part of getting 
actual work done. Skipping on this in the name of "actual work" is what 
has caused confusion over the past few releases. However, there is no 
blocker to getting Fedora 11 spins out continuing whatever we had in the 
past as the way to get that done while we continue to improve on doing 
this better for the next release. If it just can't be done let's do 
remixes on our own instead for a release or two till we manage to find 
time and interest to do this correctly. Rushing out a vote in a with 
only a skeleton process is no way to do this.

Rahul

[Fedora-spins] Spins SIG Meeting(s) / Agenda!

[Bryan Kearney]

Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
>  Bryan Kearney wrote:
> > Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
> >> The Spins SIG is going to have regular, bi-weekly meetings. I've 
> >> chosen Mondays at 18:00 UTC, on even weeks, and it will not take more 
> >> then one hour.
> >>
> >> Obviously, we can pre-discuss most of the items on the agenda on our 
> >> mailing list fedora-spins -at- lists.fedoraproject.org.
> >>
> >> With help of several key people in the current Spins process, 
> >> including Process-Guru and current Feature Wrangler John Poelstra, 
> >> we've come up with a real Spins Process during this last FUDCon.
> >>
> >> If you are a member of Release Engineering, Quality Assurance, FESCo 
> >> or Infrastructure, I would like you to attend.
> >>
> >> Our first meeting (in the series of regular meetings) would be 
> >> January 19th, 18:00 UTC, for which I'm going to set the Agenda now:
> >>
> >> == Agenda ==
> >>
> >> # Finalizing Spins Process[1], vote
> >
> > May I suggest part of this discussion is spin versus feature. I ask 
> > becuase the process (for me) got hairy when combined with the feature 
> > process.
> >
>  
>  We've beaten that horse during FUDCon and the Spins Process is now 
>  separate from the Feature Process, although with the primary features of 
>  the Feature Process such as Freezes and Wrangling. 
Sorry..I was not at FUDCon and did not see the doco. I am fine with the 
outcome, just wanted to see it written down.

Thanks!

-- bk

[Fedora-spins] Spins SIG Meeting(s) / Agenda!

[Jeroen van Meeuwen]

Bryan Kearney wrote:
>  Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
> > Bryan Kearney wrote:
> >> Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
> >>> == Agenda ==
> >>>
> >>> # Finalizing Spins Process[1], vote
> >> May I suggest part of this discussion is spin versus feature. I ask 
> >> becuase the process (for me) got hairy when combined with the feature 
> >> process.
> >>
> > We've beaten that horse during FUDCon and the Spins Process is now 
> > separate from the Feature Process, although with the primary features of 
> > the Feature Process such as Freezes and Wrangling.
>  
>  Sorry..I was not at FUDCon and did not see the doco. I am fine with the 
>  outcome, just wanted to see it written down.
>   
Cool, fair enough. fwiw, I did not intend to sound harsh by any means.

Kind regards,

Jeroen van Meeuwen
-kanarip

[Chitlesh GOORAH]

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 1:26 PM, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
>  The Spins SIG is going to have regular, bi-weekly meetings. I've
> chosen
>  Mondays at 18:00 UTC, on even weeks, and it will not take more then one
>  hour. 
>  #* Who's the maintainer of each spin, and where can we reach
> them?
>  #* Fedora Electronic Lab 

Hello,

I won't be able to attend the meeting, so about FEL, I still maintain
it and will continue to do so.
How to contact me ? chitlesh [AT] fedoraproject org

Chitlesh

[Fedora-spins] Spins SIG Meeting(s) / Agenda!

[Jon Stanley]

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 7:26 AM, Jeroen van Meeuwen <kanarip(a)kanarip.com&gt; wrote:

>  The Spins SIG is going to have regular, bi-weekly meetings. I've
> chosen
>  Mondays at 18:00 UTC, on even weeks, and it will not take more then one
>  hour. 
This time will be bad for me over the next several weeks since I have
physical therapy for my busted shoulder. However, as that ends towards
the middle of February, then I should be good for this time.

[Fedora-spins] Spins SIG Meeting(s) / Agenda!

[Jeroen van Meeuwen]

Jon Stanley wrote:
>  On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 7:26 AM, Jeroen van Meeuwen
> <kanarip(a)kanarip.com&gt; wrote:
>  
> > The Spins SIG is going to have regular, bi-weekly meetings. I've chosen
> > Mondays at 18:00 UTC, on even weeks, and it will not take more then one
> > hour.
>  
>  This time will be bad for me over the next several weeks since I have
>  physical therapy for my busted shoulder. However, as that ends towards
>  the middle of February, then I should be good for this time.
>   
We've rescheduled due to a conflict with the Release Engineering 
meeting, on the same time as the EPEL meeting, but different alternating 
weeks, does that help?

Kind regards,

Jeroen van Meeuwen
-kanarip