November 2013 - meetingminutes - Fedora mailing-lists

Fedora Chinese Meeting Minutes (2013-11-29)
by Alick Zhao 29 Nov '13

29 Nov '13

Hi all, The IRC meeting minutes tonight are available at the link [1]. Thanks everyone for attending the meeting. In the meeting we talked about FUDCon bid progress, F20 Release Party, L10N, and others. Please review the proposed ideas and actions. The next IRC meeting will be held on next Friday (2013-12-07). Please come and join the discussion if you can! [1]: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-zh/2013-11-29/fedora-zh.2013-11-29-… ================== #fedora-zh Meeting ================== Meeting started by alick at 13:01:28 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-zh/2013-11-29/fedora-zh.2013-11-29-… . Meeting summary --------------- * 点名 (alick, 13:02:17) * FAS 帐号可以当 OpenID 的。 (alick, 13:09:28) * FUDCON APAC 2014 申办 (alick, 13:15:47) * ACTION: alick post Chinese planning doc to wiki (alick, 13:21:42) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FUDCon:Bid_for_Beijing_2014 (alick, 13:22:44) * ACTION: alick email to FUDCon organizers to update wiki (alick, 13:24:16) * F20 Release Party (alick, 13:30:09) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Release_Party_F20_Beijing (alick, 13:30:28) * 中文翻译 (alick, 13:53:31) * 自由讨论 (alick, 14:04:54) * IDEA: IRC 会议开个主题，大家讨论各自报的 bug 的进展 (alick, 14:07:31) * AGREED: 下次IRC会议开展感动中国十佳Bug评选活动 (alick, 14:12:34) Meeting ended at 14:21:08 UTC. Action Items ------------ * alick post Chinese planning doc to wiki * alick email to FUDCon organizers to update wiki Action Items, by person ----------------------- * alick * alick post Chinese planning doc to wiki * alick email to FUDCon organizers to update wiki * **UNASSIGNED** * (none) People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * alick (90) * Robin_cheese_Lee (28) * biergaizi (25) * zsun (21) * zodbot (15) * tonghuix (13) * BadGirl (6) * tiansworld1 (5) * isyangxin (5) * microcai (3) * gcell (2) * CyrusYzGTt (1) * AndChat|631721 (1) * touparx (0) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 .. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot

1 0

Minutes from today's (11/27/2013) cloud WG meeting
by Sam Kottler 28 Nov '13

28 Nov '13

Thanks everyone who was able to make it to the meeting today! For those who weren't able to make it, here are few important links: Minutes: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2013-11-27/fedora-meeting… Minutes (text): http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2013-11-27/fedora-meeting… Log: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2013-11-27/fedora-meeting… Log (text): http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2013-11-27/fedora-meeting… Here's a summary of the meeting (link to the HTML and text versions above): ========================================== #fedora-meeting-1: Cloud WG weekly meeting ========================================== Meeting started by samkottler at 17:00:23 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2013-11-27/fedora-meeting… . Meeting summary --------------- * rollcall (samkottler, 17:00:37) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/4 (mattdm, 17:04:18) * update on GCE legal and packaging things (samkottler, 17:05:03) * email shk(a)redhat.com if you want to get added to the trusted testers program or want to see the language associated with it (samkottler, 17:05:58) * LINK: http://fedorapeople.org/cgit/skottler/public_git/google-compute-engine-pack… (samkottler, 17:06:59) * Fedora.next product branding (samkottler, 17:16:33) * LINK: http://cloud-images.ubuntu.com/locator/ec2/ (jzb, 17:30:52) * LINK: https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace (jzb, 17:31:23) * AGREED: we'll produce a base image, with tools, and 2-4 images preconfigured for specific uses (samkottler, 17:43:44) * put together a team/plan to work on the PRD (samkottler, 17:53:38) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Cloud_PRD (samkottler, 17:54:17) * open floor (samkottler, 18:02:49) * LINK: https://fedoraserver-wgblog.rhcloud.com/fedora-server-working-group-nov-26-… is a good write-up of that meeting (sgallagh, 18:07:03) Meeting ended at 18:23:52 UTC. Action Items ------------ Action Items, by person ----------------------- * **UNASSIGNED** * (none) People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * samkottler (103) * jzb (52) * mattdm (49) * number80 (38) * frankieonuonga (29) * mrunge (27) * gholms (26) * rbergeron (25) * sgallagh (17) * geppetto (10) * juergh (8) * zodbot (5) 17:00:23 <samkottler> #startmeeting Cloud WG weekly meeting 17:00:23 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Nov 27 17:00:23 2013 UTC. The chair is samkottler. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 17:00:23 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 17:00:37 <samkottler> #topic rollcall 17:00:42 * geppetto is here 17:00:44 <samkottler> \o 17:00:50 <rbergeron> heyooooo 17:00:59 <mrunge> heya! 17:00:59 <juergh> hi all 17:01:01 <samkottler> #chair geppetto mrunge number80 rbergeron mattdm frankieonuonga 17:01:01 <zodbot> Current chairs: frankieonuonga geppetto mattdm mrunge number80 rbergeron samkottler 17:01:27 <jzb> howdy 17:01:32 <samkottler> #chair jzb 17:01:32 <zodbot> Current chairs: frankieonuonga geppetto jzb mattdm mrunge number80 rbergeron samkottler 17:01:35 <mattdm> hi just a sec wrapping up Current Exciting Crisis 17:01:42 <gholms> Heh 17:03:49 * samkottler waits another minute for mattdm 17:03:58 <samkottler> we have a lot more people today than I was expecting :) 17:04:18 <mattdm> https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/4 17:04:27 <mattdm> just fyi :) 17:04:39 <rbergeron> samkottler: you haven't scared everyone off yet 17:04:47 <rbergeron> give it another minute or two :) 17:04:50 <samkottler> *yet* 17:05:03 <samkottler> #topic update on GCE legal and packaging things 17:05:26 <samkottler> so Fedora legal has said that people who wish to sign the google trusted tester document may do so individually 17:05:58 <samkottler> #info email shk(a)redhat.com if you want to get added to the trusted testers program or want to see the language associated with it 17:06:33 <number80> great 17:06:43 <samkottler> frankieonuonga, witlessb, and I started packaging the utlities we'll need 17:06:59 <samkottler> http://fedorapeople.org/cgit/skottler/public_git/google-compute-engine-pack… 17:07:15 <samkottler> help would be much appreciated 17:07:18 <samkottler> commit for everyone! 17:08:02 <mattdm> samkottler awesome thanks 17:08:06 <gholms> Great! How does that help us? 17:08:21 <mattdm> gholms fedora available in more public clouds 17:08:29 <samkottler> gholms: we'll need those tools to make fedora available in gce 17:08:35 <gholms> Wo's going to upload it? 17:08:42 <gholms> *Who's 17:08:54 <number80> samkottler: i could help 17:08:57 <gholms> Not rel-eng, I presume? 17:09:01 <mattdm> gholms eventually, release engineering. once we have it working. 17:09:13 <mattdm> rel-eng uploads ec2, and this is the same. 17:09:23 <gholms> I thought dgilmore wasn't going to do that. 17:09:50 <mattdm> gholms it could be someone working with him. dgilmore doesn't need more things piled on top of him, that's true. 17:09:50 <gholms> (the agreement thing, that is) 17:09:54 <number80> gholms: dgilmore needs moarr people to help him, so we need to get some people to join rel-eng 17:10:05 <gholms> Alrighty 17:10:10 <samkottler> frankieonuonga agreed to be the rel-eng rep a while back 17:10:18 <jzb> number80: what does that entail? 17:10:41 <samkottler> jzb: it'd mainly be scripting stuff to upload to public clouds 17:10:45 <samkottler> tools > humans 17:10:47 <gholms> I'm not trying to stop you or anything; I just want to have a clear picture. 17:11:31 <number80> jzb: plus improving general rel-eng process with more automation 17:11:43 <mattdm> yeah there is a plan to have image uploading be automatic. 17:11:50 <samkottler> it's also possible we could get dgilmore access without signing the document, but that's a whole other discussion 17:13:03 <number80> i'd say no, as it would force someone else to step up into rel-eng 17:13:30 <samkottler> well we should have someone else doing it regardless, but I was just putting that out on the table 17:15:15 <mrunge> esp. when thinking about release cycles, I'd love to see more automation 17:15:37 <rbergeron> automate all the things! 17:15:45 * rbergeron uses overused phrase 17:15:46 <samkottler> #topic +1 17:15:53 <samkottler> #undo 17:15:53 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Topic object at 0x4c516d0> 17:15:55 <samkottler> +1 17:15:57 * rbergeron lulz 17:16:01 <gholms> Heh 17:16:02 <geppetto> :) 17:16:33 <samkottler> #topic Fedora.next product branding 17:16:35 <samkottler> :) 17:17:06 <samkottler> did people get a chance to read the thread on the list? 17:17:17 <mattdm> Yeah -- didn't respond but read it. 17:17:54 <jzb> I threw something out as a starter, I got one reply and I think we were largely saying the same things but slightly differently. 17:18:00 <mattdm> Are we generally in agreement with 17:18:02 <mattdm> Fedora Cloud provides a customizable base image and tools for developing 17:18:04 <mattdm> scale out applications on public and private clouds. 17:18:11 <mattdm> as our overall product? 17:18:14 <number80> yup 17:18:54 <number80> i wished that we added an emphasis on the devops side, but it's only a wording issue 17:19:11 <samkottler> the devops side in what respect? 17:19:18 <samkottler> ephemeralization of infrastructure? 17:19:43 <mattdm> I can get on board with that, although I'm also open to the idea of picking something more specific for the application scale-out approach and focusing around that 17:20:01 <mattdm> eg openshift and/or docker. 17:20:51 <samkottler> I think one thing that ubuntu has done really well in the cloud space is make their stuff extremely general purpose 17:21:06 <juergh> samkottler: +1 17:21:08 <number80> samkottler: not sure, i'm understanding that expression 17:21:31 <mattdm> whereas on the other hand, coreos goes the other way and basically comes batteries-included for a specific purpose. 17:22:01 <number80> It's more about providing tools from end to end of the process: the developer, the operator should use the same image 17:22:04 <mattdm> If I am alone in this, then we can just move on, because I think we can also do general purpose in a very succesful way. 17:22:10 <samkottler> number80: the ubuntu images can run docker, be ephemeral with the latest stuff, are a nice openstack guest standalone, etc. 17:22:20 <number80> samkottler: so we agree ;) 17:22:36 <samkottler> number80: yep, totally 17:23:35 <mattdm> overall, there's a tension between being able to do all of the things and being tailored to do one well. For example, normally one wouldn't want libvirt on a guest image, but that infrastructure will be necessary for selinux-protected docker, so we will want it for that... 17:23:53 <samkottler> mattdm: I don't mind aligning ourselves with certain other projects, but I thnink it's challenging to provide general, widespread value if we do 17:24:01 <mattdm> but it's a _big_ thing to add, so should probably be on the image itself for docker use, rather than installed with cloud-init or otherwise. 17:24:41 <samkottler> I almost feels like we need spins, but for cloud images 17:25:02 <mattdm> samkottler "library of cloud images". yes. 17:25:05 * rbergeron nods 17:25:15 <gholms> Thankfully lots of clouds make image customization a snap, too. 17:25:23 <jzb> samkottler: +1 17:26:29 <samkottler> so then we can produce a base, small image 17:26:36 <samkottler> and other stuff with the "value add" baked in 17:26:49 <samkottler> if you need a multi-tenant docker env, we've got that 17:26:50 <samkottler> etc. 17:26:57 <mrunge> well, I assume, that will confuse users to have a broad library of cloud images 17:27:16 <mrunge> so I'm -1 for (against) specialized images 17:27:27 <number80> the same 17:27:41 <samkottler> confuse users in what way? 17:27:45 <jzb> mrunge: they expect that, especially on AWS 17:27:45 <samkottler> they won't know which one to use? 17:27:57 <number80> i'd rather make it easy to build custom images and have a very bare one 17:28:15 <jzb> number80: we would, but also easy to use off-the-shelf images for specific things. 17:28:16 <mrunge> yeah, or if they see a list of 20 images, what do they do? 17:28:31 <mattdm> jzb +1 to off-the-shelf. 17:28:37 <jzb> mrunge: they pick the one that has the description that matches what they want 17:28:55 <mrunge> jzb, who reads docs? 17:28:55 <jzb> mrunge: this is not uniformed desktop users, this is developers who should be capable of reading a description and picking. 17:29:06 * gholms notes that we had this exact argument with the old spin download page 17:29:14 <samkottler> how many users are able to respin their own images without learning a significant amount of stuff 17:29:18 <jzb> mrunge: the people who choose from umpty-billion different AWS images based on Ubuntu? 17:29:23 <samkottler> remember that we're engineering for the 99% here :) 17:29:27 <gholms> samkottler: In AWS, all of them. 17:29:30 <samkottler> not the people who are in a working group :) 17:29:32 <gholms> Not sure about others. 17:29:40 <number80> jzb: from experience, specialized images always ends up with a lot of unused stuff for 90% of users 17:29:42 <geppetto> I think both extremes will be a bad idea â€¦ you don't want N people all "customizing" the same base into roughly the same baked in image. 17:29:48 <samkottler> gholms: that's not really true, though 17:29:53 <juergh> what about the effort to maintain a whole set of image vs. a bare image and some tools to customize it? 17:30:07 <samkottler> juergh: yep, that's basically what's being proposed 17:30:10 <juergh> think security updates and the likes. 17:30:12 <geppetto> Also the customizing can't be bugfree â€¦ which is a giant negative freeroll. 17:30:13 <samkottler> we'll keep the base image around 17:30:22 <jzb> number80: from experience with... images running in the cloud? 17:30:23 <samkottler> geppetto: mhm 17:30:50 <jzb> number80: this is our "competition" 17:30:51 <samkottler> number80: if the people don't need the stuff on top, then they just use the base image 17:30:52 <jzb> http://cloud-images.ubuntu.com/locator/ec2/ 17:31:23 <jzb> https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace 17:31:27 <number80> jzb: yup, at $dayjob, i'm doing a lot of SaaS migration :/ 17:31:31 <mattdm> So, thinking of the docker use case (just because that's what I'm working with), it's really awesome if there is a pre-made image that I can just launch or download+launch. 17:31:38 * mrunge needs to step out and will come back later 17:31:49 <number80> samkottler: +1 17:32:11 <mattdm> jzb but the cloud-images-locator is just the same as http://fedoraproject.org/en/get-fedora-options#clouds 17:32:36 <juergh> In my experience partners take a bare image, customize it, snapshot it and make that image available to their end users. There's alway some customization necesseray whether you start from a bare image or a specialized iamge. 17:32:59 <juergh> I'm not sold on customized images. 17:33:00 <geppetto> jzb: Is it obvious to other people how all those top 8 entries are different from each other? 17:33:05 <gholms> samkottler: You'vr seen how ridiculously easy EC2's console makes customizing an image, right? 17:33:17 <jzb> mattdm: similar, but my point is that people are capable of navigating things 17:33:41 <mattdm> gholms ridiculous in what sense? :) 17:34:07 <jzb> geppetto: I would hope if someone is doing app development and making some form of informed decision they are capable of reading a description and choosing. 17:34:19 <jzb> geppetto: also, this should not be a bare "the only thing they have is this page" situation 17:34:25 <samkottler> gholms: I wouldn't exactly say that 17:34:33 <jzb> geppetto: once we have soome customized images, we should be promoting them 17:34:34 <samkottler> most people don't build their own AMI's 17:34:54 <gholms> mattdm: Easy enough that I've got people from developers to graphic designers who figured it out on their own. ;) 17:34:56 <jzb> geppetto: e.g. "hey, wanna run docker on Fedora, use <link>" 17:35:16 <gholms> samkottler: From scratch, of course not. But customizi a base image is another story. 17:35:27 <jzb> geppetto: I think we'll put ourselves at a disadvantage having only a base image without any additional value-add images. 17:35:32 <samkottler> again, let's think about actual users 17:35:37 <samkottler> not us, but actual people :) 17:35:38 <jzb> though we should point loudly to the default 17:35:42 <geppetto> jzb: Sure. 17:35:45 <jzb> samkottler: hey, I think. 17:35:55 * jzb thought he was an actual people. 17:36:11 <number80> jzb: for our target, the barest image is itself a value 17:36:16 <gholms> samkottler: I really wish I could show you my data on this. :( 17:36:20 <mattdm> My viewpoint is that we have a pretty decent generic base image right now, and it's not getting very much traction. 17:36:21 * gholms cries 17:36:44 <gholms> mattdm: You know, that's a good point. 17:36:44 <jzb> mattdm: +1 17:36:46 <samkottler> gholms: I don't doubt that it's true, my point is that there are a lot of people who want to use an image without having to "rebake" it 17:37:04 <number80> mattdm: we lacks maintained application stacks :( 17:37:05 <gholms> samkottler: Makes sense 17:37:20 <mattdm> number80 +1 yes. 17:37:27 <number80> i'd rather rely on easily installable SCL than a bunch of images 17:37:41 <samkottler> telling users 'here, launch this AMI and you'll have docker/openshift/whatever' is huge 17:37:55 * gholms nods 17:38:01 <jzb> number80: let me see if I'm understanding this 17:38:05 <frankieonuonga> i am in guys 17:38:08 <frankieonuonga> sorry i am late 17:38:09 <mattdm> what if we kept the library small? three or four things in addition to the base, rather than 20? 17:38:13 <jzb> number80: you feel that offering 20 images is confusing 17:38:22 <jzb> number80: but offering one + shuttling them off to SCLs is not? 17:38:22 <number80> samkottler: we could add a script in user-data for that 17:38:29 <samkottler> 20 images is also insane to test 17:38:38 <samkottler> < 5 is perfect IMO 17:38:47 <number80> jzb: a base image and users are free to install any SCL they need 17:39:03 <jzb> number80: again, that's less confusing than offering it pre-baked? 17:39:07 <geppetto> samkottler: +1 â€¦ extremes of both cases will be pretty bad, IMO. 17:39:13 <jzb> when I can just spin up an Ubuntu image that has what I want? 17:39:43 <mattdm> so, proposal: base image, plus tools for extending (including application stack work), plus 2-4 images preconfigured for specific uses. 17:39:49 <samkottler> mattdm: +1 17:39:49 <jzb> geppetto, samkottler I am in agreement that 20 may be a bit much 17:39:56 <geppetto> mattdm: +1 17:40:00 <jzb> maybe 4 or 5 would be the ideal situation 17:40:26 <jzb> and if we start getting traction, perhaps the larger community will start building + offering more. 17:40:30 <gholms> Not to mention we'd have a lot easier time maintaining and testing just a few images. 17:40:33 <number80> jzb: yes, most of the time, your image will require frying anyway 17:40:43 <number80> n images = n times more QA 17:40:53 * rbergeron thinks there is a healthy balance between gholms's thoughts and samkottler's 17:41:17 <gholms> What if we start with just a few and see where that takes us? 17:41:21 <jzb> so, mattdm's proposal: ^^ 17:41:27 <geppetto> jzb: My guess is that it'd be a mistake to go above ~7 pre. baked images (roughly what people can remember, easily) 17:41:34 <samkottler> yeah, a few seems perfect for now 17:41:35 <frankieonuonga> i am +1 on gholms idea 17:41:40 <jzb> "base image, plus tools, plus 2-4 images preconfiguted for specific uses" 17:41:40 * rbergeron is also pretty sure that the number of folks that take a base image and then snapshot it after updating it in their own way is pretty large 17:41:48 <number80> if we have people to help maintaining more images, why not, but the main goal of fedora.next is to reduce the scope to get better products 17:41:54 <samkottler> if people like them then we can consider making more 17:41:55 <juergh> rbergeron: exactly 17:42:06 <geppetto> If everyone could stop re-proposing what mattdm said, and just +1 that'd be nice ;) 17:42:08 <number80> samkottler: +1 17:42:14 <jzb> so I'm +1 to mattdm / gholms 17:42:25 <jzb> geppetto: +1 17:42:35 * rbergeron just +1s the last 12 things said :) 17:42:37 <juergh> who/what's do decide what those additional images contain? 17:42:37 <frankieonuonga> i have already voted but just to clarigy gholms +1 17:42:48 * jzb +1's rbergeron 17:42:59 <jzb> (I think we have consensus) 17:43:18 * gholms +1s jzb just because :P 17:43:28 <mattdm> juergh all of us, and depending on who wants to work on what. 17:43:44 <samkottler> #agreed we'll produce a base image, with tools, and 2-4 images preconfigured for specific uses 17:43:49 * samkottler is excited about this 17:44:35 <mrunge> yeah, sounds good to me, the fewer, the better 17:45:06 <rbergeron> well - the worst that can happen is that we can find out that they're all wildly popular 17:45:21 <rbergeron> or that we were wrong about he popularity of one or another and ... figure out how to tune it / make it better / drop it 17:45:27 <rbergeron> learning ftw :) 17:45:42 <samkottler> agreed 17:45:56 <mattdm> rbergeron yes. and we need better metrics. we do not really have those right now. that might be a whole 'nuther issue. 17:46:06 <samkottler> next we need to figure out which ones we'll produce, but we can take that to the list 17:46:19 <number80> i suggest polls 17:46:24 * samkottler has a feeling some people will have opinions about that 17:47:07 <number80> i'd rather go ask actual users than relying on how own distorted perception :o) 17:47:13 <number80> well, mine is distorted 17:47:24 <samkottler> number80: well before we can poll we need some options, but yeah an end-user poll would be great 17:47:25 <mattdm> good polls are hard / expensive. 17:47:47 <frankieonuonga> totally agree with number80 but my only problem is how do we gather pols..do we let people vote as they download an image ? 17:47:48 <samkottler> also, remember that most of our target users currently aren't in the community :) 17:47:57 <mattdm> but could we bracket that for now and come back to it? there's more agenda to get through :) 17:48:03 <jzb> mattdm: +1 17:48:07 <frankieonuonga> mattdm: we could poll on the site and collect results on mysql 17:48:09 <mrunge> +1 17:48:12 <mattdm> the topic right now was product branding 17:48:15 <number80> +1 17:48:26 <mattdm> And this question was the big part of that that I felt was open 17:48:42 <mattdm> other than that, I think jzb's initial response was good except I would s/Docker/CoreOS/g 17:48:46 <samkottler> yeah, the PRD and branding docs will be much easier now 17:49:41 <jzb> mattdm: can we +CoreOS? 17:49:42 <samkottler> so should we take the branding document back to the list and move on? 17:49:56 <jzb> but I'm easy, s/Docker/CoreOS/g works too 17:50:24 <rbergeron> isn't coreOS like a ... whole different nut to crack from docker 17:51:10 <mattdm> Fedora happily includes Docker. CoreOS is a platform for Docker deployment + some other stuff, which is basically directly in competition. 17:51:19 <mattdm> friendly, open source competition :) 17:51:42 <number80> may the best win 17:52:04 <jzb> as long as it's us 17:52:08 <jzb> :-) 17:52:12 <frankieonuonga> :-) 17:53:09 * rbergeron looks back to samkottler's branding document question 17:53:24 <mattdm> yeah, +1 to back to the list and next item 17:53:38 <samkottler> #topic put together a team/plan to work on the PRD 17:54:03 <frankieonuonga> just as a reminder...what was PRD again ? 17:54:09 * rbergeron poked away some lsat week. 17:54:17 <samkottler> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Cloud_PRD 17:54:33 * samkottler is planning on working on it on friday and maybe tomorrow depending on how bored he gets 17:54:35 <rbergeron> but slowly. and having help would be teh awesomes so i am not feeling sad and lonely and wondering if i'm doing the right thing :) 17:55:13 * frankieonuonga offers to help samkottler 17:55:17 <jzb> rbergeron: will try to poke at it more this weekend 17:55:29 <jzb> rbergeron: will be doing the traditional gorging tomorrow and Friday 17:55:40 <rbergeron> jzb: TURKEEEEEEE 17:55:43 <samkottler> remember that we agreed to try and get it done by december 15th 17:55:47 <samkottler> which is kinda soon 17:56:02 <samkottler> rbergeron: don't remind me 17:56:04 <number80> rbergeron: i did some proof-reading this afternoon, and i plan to import openstack personas so we could grok our own personas 17:56:24 <frankieonuonga> we use cloud stack where i work so i can do that 17:56:39 <jzb> frankieonuonga: +1 17:56:47 * jzb says, wearing CloudStack PMC hat. 17:56:52 <samkottler> do we want individual personas for each private cloud impl? 17:57:06 <rbergeron> number80: cool, thanks 17:57:12 <rbergeron> samkottler: yeah. it's very soon :) 17:57:28 <number80> jzb: i prefer my yellow shiny eucalyptus t-shirt :P 17:57:37 <rbergeron> frankieonuonga: you just made jzb and ke4qqq smile, lol 17:57:46 <rbergeron> number80: that's because it's an epic shirt 17:57:51 <number80> \o/ 17:57:53 <rbergeron> samkottler: impl? 17:57:56 <frankieonuonga> :-) always a pleasure to ...plus ke4qqq is a huge help 17:58:03 <rbergeron> sorry, my head isn't right 17:58:08 <frankieonuonga> thanks mate 17:58:22 <jzb> samkottler: probably 17:58:58 <frankieonuonga> I would say 2 people in each 17:58:58 <number80> sorry, let's focus 17:59:04 <frankieonuonga> if possible 17:59:44 <samkottler> the PRD is just the kind of thing that requires hammering away on 17:59:44 <number80> (besides fesco meeting in one minute) 18:00:01 <number80> samkottler: +1 18:00:09 <samkottler> anyone have anything else to add on the PRD? 18:00:32 <samkottler> rbergeron: implementation 18:00:39 <rbergeron> samkottler: AHHHH 18:01:47 <samkottler> can we bump the release/lifecycle discussion to next week? 18:01:58 <number80> +1 18:02:02 <mrunge> +1 18:02:05 <mattdm> samkottler yes that's fine.. 18:02:08 <jzb> samkottler: maybe start on email? 18:02:08 <frankieonuonga> +1 18:02:10 <jzb> but +1 18:02:10 * mattdm has fesco meeting now 18:02:11 <number80> maybe kickstarting the discussion on the list 18:02:21 <samkottler> mattdm: can you kick that off on the list? 18:02:28 <mattdm> samkottler yep 18:02:41 <samkottler> mattdm: danke! 18:02:49 <samkottler> #topic open floor 18:03:09 <samkottler> anyone got anything else before we wrap up? 18:03:14 <frankieonuonga> yes 18:03:14 <sgallagh> Dangerous topic: dividing line of Server and Cloud? (Sorry if this was discussed earlier, just got here) 18:03:34 <frankieonuonga> I will wait for sgallagh to finish then i come in with mine 18:03:41 <mrunge> oh yes, good question 18:04:53 <mrunge> and sgallagh IMHO we had that very briefly on the cloud-ml, but didn't come to any conclusion 18:05:00 <frankieonuonga> I want to ask if we have some docs for the server side to find out what their limit is 18:05:02 <sgallagh> So it came up on yesterday's call that it's somewhat ambiguous 18:05:08 <mattdm> It's looking to me that there is going to be some overlap 18:05:12 <sgallagh> s/call/meeting/ 18:05:15 <mattdm> which is not necessarily bad. 18:05:17 <sgallagh> As there should be 18:05:23 <sgallagh> But how much? 18:05:59 <frankieonuonga> I personally think that we need to go in a few months before we know exactly what is happening 18:06:05 <frankieonuonga> but that is just me 18:06:20 <samkottler> sgallagh: it seems like we need to establish where we have the potential to overlap before we can figure out how much overlap is okay? 18:06:41 <mattdm> possibly a lot, at the core level. We're also going to focus on prebaked images for things like docker and openshift 18:06:45 <sgallagh> samkottler: We covered that somewhat in our Server WG meeting yesterday. 18:07:02 <samkottler> sgallagh: I'll re-read the log then, thanks 18:07:03 <sgallagh> https://fedoraserver-wgblog.rhcloud.com/fedora-server-working-group-nov-26-… is a good write-up of that meeting 18:07:10 <mattdm> also, I think that we will be somewhat concerned more with _language_ stacks and server maybe more with _application_ stacks? 18:07:12 * samkottler will make a point of attending those meetings 18:07:36 * frankieonuonga is lost but will figure it out 18:07:52 <sgallagh> mattdm: We're focusing our intentions pretty heavily around the ability to assign "roles" to a server 18:07:57 * number80 gotta go (office building is closing) 18:08:13 <sgallagh> At a high level "i.e. This machine is a domain controller", "This machine is a PostgreSQL server" 18:09:13 <frankieonuonga> by the way guys I am sorry . I know I had promised the packages for about 1 week ago but I have been badly busy at work. anyway happy to say that Samkottler has been a great help so i should be able to finish by end week. sorry again 18:09:43 <mrunge> and how fits e.g oVirt in this figure? 18:10:10 <mrunge> server based on small images 18:10:47 <mrunge> so, somehow oVirt is a classical data-center product 18:10:52 <mrunge> == a server product 18:11:24 <mrunge> but on one side totally based on small images (for compute nodes) 18:11:33 <mattdm> ovirt node vs. ovirt [whatever the not-node-part-is-called] 18:11:54 <mattdm> sgallagh Another differentiator might be image-based deployment vs. kickstart deployment. 18:11:55 * samkottler likes the idea of operating under the premise that server owns the hypervisor and we own the guest 18:12:05 <jzb> samkottler: +1 18:12:18 <frankieonuonga> +1 samkottler 18:12:30 <mrunge> samkottler, in the oVirt case, we would own both 18:12:40 <mrunge> and the same applies to server WG 18:12:42 <mattdm> who owns 'postgresql server' in that model? 18:12:51 <sgallagh> mattdm: I'm not sure if that differentiates the products really 18:13:13 <sgallagh> (Referring to kickstart vs. image) 18:13:26 <sgallagh> To me, the product is the result of that action 18:13:32 <samkottler> mrunge: no in the ovirt case we'd own neither 18:13:59 <samkottler> mattdm: the server WG would own the things that aren't cloud related 18:14:20 <samkottler> so we could own cloud-init, virtio stuff (maybe?) and they would own all the 'regular' packages 18:14:31 <frankieonuonga> i beg to differ...to some extent i think that our images in some cases are used as servers. 18:14:37 <gholms> Seems reasonable 18:14:38 <frankieonuonga> but i might be wrong 18:15:00 <sgallagh> samkottler: I generally agree on the hypervisor vs. guest thing 18:15:09 <sgallagh> Except of course for the tenancy case... 18:16:00 <sgallagh> i.e. virt-on-virt 18:16:22 <jzb> sgallagh: virt-on-virt? 18:16:34 <samkottler> frankieonuonga: oh yeah of course, we're mainly talking about where the server WG's role ends and ours begins 18:16:41 <samkottler> and I guess then where theirs starts again 18:16:44 <sgallagh> jzb: I set up a virtualized cloud and then rent you the ability to do virt inside my cloud 18:16:54 <samkottler> jzb: russia doll virt 18:16:58 <samkottler> russian doll** 18:17:11 <mrunge> jzb, e.g the undercloud-overcloud thing in OpenStack 18:17:19 <mrunge> jzb, named TripleO 18:17:32 <sgallagh> where virt may be one or more of "kvm, xen, lxc, docker..." 18:17:59 <samkottler> sgallagh: so basically you'd own the 'lowest' hypervisor 18:18:01 <jzb> ah 18:18:10 <mrunge> I'm not sure, if we can divide them at all 18:18:17 <samkottler> mrunge: tripleo is a whole other thing from russian doll virt 18:18:25 <mrunge> (I mean server and cloud) 18:19:13 <mrunge> samkottler, I don't think so. 18:19:31 <mrunge> nevertheless, this is nothing we can decide right now 18:19:49 <samkottler> mrunge: tripleo is using openstack to provision physical hardware 18:19:55 <samkottler> mrunge: and then install a hypervisor on top 18:20:17 <samkottler> vs. virtualizing on top of a hypervisor and then using that hypervisor to run another guest inside of it 18:21:21 <mrunge> samkottler, it's not necessarily the case 18:21:30 <samkottler> do we actually want to vote on something related to this? 18:21:32 <mrunge> but usually folks will implement it that way 18:22:35 <samkottler> frankieonuonga: you had something to bring up? 18:22:41 <frankieonuonga> yeah 18:22:55 <frankieonuonga> I am sorry . I know I had promised the packages for about 1 week ago but I have been badly busy at work. anyway happy to say that Samkottler has been a great help so i should be able to finish by end week. sorry again 18:23:17 <frankieonuonga> i thought it might be easier but there are some things i had over looked 18:23:21 <frankieonuonga> so i am doing what i can 18:23:40 <samkottler> no worries - let us know where/when you need help :) 18:23:52 <samkottler> #endmeeting

1 0

Latam Ambassadors Meeting / Reunion de Embajadores de Latam 2013-11-27
by alejandro perez 28 Nov '13

28 Nov '13

Minutes: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2013-11-27/fedora_latam_amb… Minutes (text): http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2013-11-27/fedora_latam_amb… Log: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2013-11-27/fedora_latam_amb…

1 0

Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2013-11-27)
by Marcela Mašláňová 27 Nov '13

27 Nov '13

=================================== #fedora-meeting: FESCO (2013-11-27) =================================== Meeting started by mmaslano at 18:00:39 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2013-11-27/fesco.2013-11-27… . Meeting summary --------------- * init process (mmaslano, 18:03:04) * #1193 reboots for all updates -- are we ready for this? (mmaslano, 18:03:40) * ACTION: mattdm will contact the Change owner to update the wiki page and release notes (mmaslano, 18:09:08) * #1185 Enable "-Werror=format-security" by default (mmaslano, 18:09:21) * AGREED: Give the go-ahead to mass-file bugs (+5,-0,0) (mmaslano, 18:14:48) * Change owner shouldn't file bugs for those already fixed (mmaslano, 18:15:27) * #1198 Possible changes to Fedora EOL bug procedure (mmaslano, 18:15:36) * defer for a next week, mattdm needs to test it again (mmaslano, 18:17:28) * #1140 F20 Self Contained Changes - week 2013-07-10 - 2013-07-17 (mmaslano, 18:18:10) * ACTION: mmaslano will close the old ticket (mmaslano, 18:20:20) * #1201 Enabling third party repositories (mmaslano, 18:20:34) * ACTION: abadger1999 will rephrase sgallagh question and we will wait for spot answer (mmaslano, 18:28:44) * ACTION: abadger1999 will ask proper questions to legal (mmaslano, 18:40:58) * #1207 provenpackager request (mmaslano, 18:41:06) * ACTION: mmaslano will close this ticket, no -1, auto approval (mmaslano, 18:44:30) * #1208 Request Proven Packager (mmaslano, 18:44:34) * LINK: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Provenpackager_policy (abadger1999, 18:48:13) * ACTION: nirik will close both provenpackager tickets and add permission to those users (mmaslano, 18:51:13) * Next week's chair (mmaslano, 18:51:34) * ACTION: mattdm wil be chairman next week (mmaslano, 18:55:42) * Open Floor (mmaslano, 18:55:49) Meeting ended at 18:59:50 UTC. Action Items ------------ * mattdm will contact the Change owner to update the wiki page and release notes * mmaslano will close the old ticket * abadger1999 will rephrase sgallagh question and we will wait for spot answer * abadger1999 will ask proper questions to legal * mmaslano will close this ticket, no -1, auto approval * nirik will close both provenpackager tickets and add permission to those users * mattdm wil be chairman next week Action Items, by person ----------------------- * abadger1999 * abadger1999 will rephrase sgallagh question and we will wait for spot answer * abadger1999 will ask proper questions to legal * mattdm * mattdm will contact the Change owner to update the wiki page and release notes * mattdm wil be chairman next week * mmaslano * mmaslano will close the old ticket * mmaslano will close this ticket, no -1, auto approval * nirik * nirik will close both provenpackager tickets and add permission to those users * sgallagh * abadger1999 will rephrase sgallagh question and we will wait for spot answer * **UNASSIGNED** * (none) People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * mmaslano (77) * sgallagh (38) * nirik (37) * abadger1999 (29) * mattdm (27) * zodbot (12) * mitr (7) * jreznik (1) * t8m (0) * pjones (0) * notting (0) 18:00:39 <mmaslano> #startmeeting FESCO (2013-11-27) 18:00:39 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Nov 27 18:00:39 2013 UTC. The chair is mmaslano. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 18:00:39 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 18:00:44 <mmaslano> #meetingname fesco 18:00:44 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fesco' 18:00:49 <mmaslano> #chair abadger1999 mattdm mitr mmaslano notting nirik pjones t8m sgallagh 18:00:49 <zodbot> Current chairs: abadger1999 mattdm mitr mmaslano nirik notting pjones sgallagh t8m 18:01:17 * nirik is sort of here, but dealing with an outage 18:01:21 <mmaslano> t8m appologies from meeting 18:01:28 <mmaslano> how many people are here? 18:02:11 <mitr> Hello 18:02:15 <mattdm> i am 18:02:29 <mmaslano> sgallagh: ? 18:02:40 <sgallagh> .hellomynameis sgallagh 18:02:45 <zodbot> sgallagh: sgallagh 'Stephen Gallagher' <sgallagh(a)redhat.com> 18:02:49 <mmaslano> 5 people 18:02:56 <mmaslano> it's a meeting 18:03:04 <mmaslano> #topic init process 18:03:40 <mmaslano> #topic #1193 reboots for all updates -- are we ready for this? 18:03:44 <mmaslano> .fesco 1193 18:03:45 <zodbot> mmaslano: #1193 (reboots for all updates -- are we ready for this?) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1193 18:03:51 <mmaslano> not sure about status of this one 18:04:05 <mmaslano> imho nothing is happening 18:04:13 <sgallagh> I think we were waiting on someone to update the Change page with the actual implementation 18:04:21 <mattdm> we were looking for changes to the feature page and release notes. 18:04:30 <mattdm> also something in the release notes. 18:04:32 <sgallagh> Shall we ping Richard again? 18:04:58 <mmaslano> preferably not in the ticket 18:05:01 <mmaslano> he didn't reply there 18:05:11 * abadger1999 here 18:06:47 <mmaslano> who shall ping him? 18:07:26 <mattdm> I -think- jreznik was going to? 18:07:41 <mmaslano> jreznik: ? 18:08:05 <nirik> actually from last meeting: 18:08:09 * nirik mattdm to contact the Change owner to update the wiki page and release notes 18:08:11 <nirik> :) 18:08:38 <mattdm> oooohh. 18:08:40 * jreznik can re-check and there's follow up to be announced 18:08:42 <mattdm> okay sorry :) 18:08:47 <mattdm> I will do it. 18:09:08 <mmaslano> #action mattdm will contact the Change owner to update the wiki page and release notes 18:09:21 <mmaslano> #topic #1185 Enable "-Werror=format-security" by default 18:09:25 <mmaslano> .fesco 1185 18:09:27 <zodbot> mmaslano: #1185 (Enable "-Werror=format-security" by default) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1185 18:10:44 <nirik> so, not sure there's more to do here for us.... ? 18:11:11 <mmaslano> sgallagh had last comment there 18:11:36 <mmaslano> from last meeting: wait a week for devel feedback (from people already interested); 2) if there are no show-stoppers identified, mass file bugs; 3) 3 weeks later, enable in rawhide configuration by default 18:11:43 <mmaslano> it's a week, so no action 18:11:59 <sgallagh> So I think we just need to vote: okay to mass-file at this point? 18:12:04 <sgallagh> Sorry... 18:12:12 <mitr> Yes, +1 to start filing bugs 18:12:13 <sgallagh> Proposal: Give the go-ahead to mass-file bugs 18:12:17 <nirik> not much more feedback on devel list I don't think... so I think change owners can move forward on 2) and 3) 18:12:17 <sgallagh> +1 18:12:49 <mmaslano> +1 to mass file bugs 18:12:53 <nirik> sure, +1, but they should make sure not to file against the already fixed ones. 18:14:04 <mmaslano> abadger1999: ? 18:14:12 <sgallagh> nirik: Worst-case, they get closed immediately. I'm not too sure I want to force them to do another mass-rebuild just to limit the bug-filing 18:14:15 <abadger1999> +1 18:14:35 <nirik> well, it's not really mass... it's the 300... but whatever. 18:14:48 <mmaslano> #agreed Give the go-ahead to mass-file bugs (+5,-0,0) 18:15:06 <abadger1999> nirik: Agreed 18:15:27 <mmaslano> #info Change owner shouldn't file bugs for those already fixed 18:15:36 <mmaslano> #topic #1198 Possible changes to Fedora EOL bug procedure 18:15:40 <mmaslano> .fesco 1198 18:15:41 <zodbot> mmaslano: #1198 (Possible changes to Fedora EOL bug procedure) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1198 18:16:13 <mattdm> i need to retest this. 18:16:35 <mattdm> I haven't had a chance, though. Vote to defer until more testing is done. 18:16:42 <mattdm> Because _something_ definitely isn't right. 18:16:51 <nirik> fair enough 18:17:28 <mmaslano> #info defer for a next week, mattdm needs to test it again 18:17:43 <mattdm> at LISA I had someone show me bugs he couldn't reopen. saw with my own eyes. 18:18:03 <mmaslano> mattdm: ok, please continue 18:18:07 <mmaslano> in testing :) 18:18:10 <mmaslano> #topic #1140 F20 Self Contained Changes - week 2013-07-10 - 2013-07-17 18:18:14 <mmaslano> .fesco 1140 18:18:15 <zodbot> mmaslano: #1140 (F20 Self Contained Changes - week 2013-07-10 - 2013-07-17) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1140 18:18:38 <nirik> I think this can be closed after the agreed from last week 18:18:47 <nirik> unless there's new info? 18:19:10 <mmaslano> it's not clear from the last comment 18:19:45 <sgallagh> I left it open mainly for us to keep track of it 18:19:47 <mmaslano> should I close it and it's up to QA? 18:19:54 <sgallagh> mmaslano: That's probably fine 18:20:03 <mmaslano> sgallagh: you know what happens to open tickets like this 18:20:05 <nirik> +1 close. 18:20:15 <sgallagh> mmaslano: They waste time in this meeting? :) 18:20:20 <mmaslano> #action mmaslano will close the old ticket 18:20:34 <mmaslano> #topic #1201 Enabling third party repositories 18:20:37 <mmaslano> .fesco 1201 18:20:38 <zodbot> mmaslano: #1201 (Enabling third party repositories) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1201 18:21:55 <sgallagh> The only question that was asked received a prompt answer. 18:22:05 <mattdm> okay, so, that's: okay for coprs. 18:22:17 <mmaslano> spot answered in the ticket: I see no legal issue with a copr including a "repo" rpm that enables that copr on a user's system, assuming, of course, that the copr is in compliance with the legal rules binding coprs. 18:22:35 <mattdm> I'm pretty happy with agreeing to _that_ reduced subset: repo files for COPRs can be shipped in RPMs. 18:22:47 <mmaslano> I'll speak to Mirek tomorrow and close this ticket 18:22:55 <mmaslano> I guess there are no more issues to solve here 18:23:01 <sgallagh> mattdm: But only in RPMs served outside the main Fedora repos 18:23:12 <mmaslano> sure 18:23:19 <sgallagh> just to be clear 18:23:37 * nirik is still confused. 18:23:38 <mitr> I've generally assumed that the primary case here was things like Chrome, Flash and the like, not COPRs 18:24:06 <sgallagh> mitr: I take away from this that Fedora repos cannot ship repo files pointing outside of Fedora repos. 18:24:06 <abadger1999> nirik: I think what spot answered was "the way coprs currently operates is fine" 18:24:10 <nirik> those repo files for copr repos, are shipped in rpms in the copr right? or are you positing they are in fedora itself? 18:24:11 <mattdm> sgallagh Yes. Although I'm also okay in principle with the larger (still reduced) case of including COPRs-repo-rpms in main fedora repos. 18:24:11 <sgallagh> (Yo dawg...) 18:24:41 <mmaslano> mitr: yeah, but legal said no if I remeber 18:24:42 <sgallagh> nirik: The ruling is that they may not be shipped from Fedora[-updates] repos 18:24:42 <mattdm> COPRs is Fedora (Project) but not Fedora (Distribution). 18:24:48 <abadger1999> He was not asked about whether having the copr yum repos be shipped inside of the Fedora Main Repos would be okay. 18:24:55 <nirik> mattdm: that gets back to adding a burden on legal 18:25:02 <nirik> ok, fine. 18:25:05 <mmaslano> abadger1999: so this will be the next question :) 18:25:09 <sgallagh> abadger1999: That was the EXACT question I posed. 18:25:15 <sgallagh> Did I phrase it ambiguously? 18:25:19 <abadger1999> sgallagh: yes. 18:25:37 <abadger1999> Well -- let me verify... I know that spot answered a different question than that. 18:25:42 <sgallagh> "Specifically, does this mean: On a pristine installed system, I cannot do 'yum install package-providing-repo-for-a-copr'" 18:25:56 <nirik> It wasn't clear to me. 18:25:59 <mattdm> proposal: rephrase that question, wait until next week. 18:26:05 * sgallagh sighs 18:26:16 <nirik> yum install http://copr.whatever/foo-copr.rpm 18:26:18 <mattdm> on rereading it looks clear to me but obviously it isn't to everyone. 18:26:30 <mitr> mattdm: ... and ask jwb whether the answer is relevant to the Workstation WG 18:26:30 <mmaslano> sgallagh: only one question per comment, otherwise it's confusing ;-) 18:26:40 <abadger1999> sgallagh: ah here's where things got ambiguous: 18:26:49 <abadger1999> Right after that example you said: "Or does it also mean that COPR cannot provide an RPM for a particular repo. " 18:27:04 <abadger1999> sgallagh: That's the question that spot answered. 18:27:10 <nirik> I think it might be more clear to list out specific examples. 18:27:16 * sgallagh facepalms 18:27:36 <sgallagh> Ok, someone gooder with words than me should do that. 18:27:55 <mattdm> Okay go abadger1999 :) 18:28:03 <abadger1999> haha :-) 18:28:06 <mmaslano> sgallagh: not me, I understand I can install copr repo and it can be shipped :) 18:28:15 <abadger1999> Okay, I can rephrase sgallagh's question. 18:28:41 <sgallagh> Thank you 18:28:42 <abadger1999> If other people have questions, please add those to the ticket yourselves :-) 18:28:44 <mmaslano> #action abadger1999 will rephrase sgallagh question and we will wait for spot answer 18:29:07 <mattdm> On the rest of the question, do we ant to say something about a) the proprietary repos and/or b) non-COPRs free-software repos? 18:29:26 <mmaslano> I guess Workstation WG asked first 18:29:41 <sgallagh> mattdm: I interpreted this to mean that COPRs and non-COPRs free-software repos should be treated equivalently 18:30:18 <mattdm> As I understood it there is a difference because we already have some responsibility over COPRs repos 18:30:19 <mmaslano> if they obey Fedora licensing 18:31:05 <nirik> mattdm: but no one is reviewing that unless someone reports a problem. 18:31:17 <sgallagh> Well, if we assume the ruling is "Fedora distribution cannot ship repo files for COPRs and other external repos", then this is a moot point 18:31:21 <abadger1999> mattdm: My impression from talking with spot at FPC is that COPR is included in "other third party repos" in terms of Fedora Legal having to vette the packages within them in an on-going manner. 18:31:52 <mattdm> okay, so, let's wait until that is answered then. 18:32:06 <sgallagh> Or add your question as a corrolary on the bug 18:32:06 <abadger1999> mattdm: But -- repos with proprietary software are even more work for Fedora Legal to vette than other third party repositories. 18:32:30 <sgallagh> abadger1999: He said "free software" 18:32:46 <abadger1999> So... it may be easier for Fedora Legal to vette Copr repos than, say, the adobe flash repo but it would still be a lot of extra work. 18:33:25 * nirik isnt sure question 2 of the orig ticket was really answered 18:33:59 <nirik> "Can products make third party repositories discoverable via search terms in some fashion and easily enabled without actually shipping the .repo files" 18:34:09 <abadger1999> sgallagh: he == spot? I was just replying to mattdm's "a) the proprietary repos". 18:34:34 <sgallagh> abadger1999: Ah sorry. Missed the a) portion there. Carry on. 18:35:59 <nirik> I guess the 'putting them in docdir' was answered... not sure how else the 'search terms' would work. 18:36:09 <abadger1999> nirik: yeah, I don't think that was directly addressed -- it seems like it's trying to define a boundary in a big grey zone, though, so it may need to be more specific (have an example). 18:36:30 <nirik> yeah, if so we should ask the workstation wg for examples. ;) 18:37:09 <mitr> nirik: GNOME software would be a likely place 18:37:42 <nirik> mitr: sure, but how? 18:38:08 <abadger1999> I think the limits of "discoverable" and "search terms" probably could get us into contirbutory infringement territory. 18:38:10 <mitr> nirik: ... who cares? appdata, /usr/share/gnome-software/something, hardcoded in the binary, what does it matter? 18:38:36 <nirik> mitr: see above. 18:38:43 <nirik> if we point to specific things, legal has to vet them 18:38:55 <abadger1999> So someone probably needs to say "This is how it would operate" and then Legal could say "that is fine" or "that is not fine". 18:39:06 <nirik> right 18:40:29 <nirik> anyhow, lets move on? I or abadger1999 can ask them for more examples? 18:40:39 <sgallagh> Yes please (to both) 18:40:58 <mmaslano> #action abadger1999 will ask proper questions to legal 18:41:06 <mmaslano> #topic #1207 provenpackager request 18:41:13 <mmaslano> .fesco 1207 18:41:14 <zodbot> mmaslano: #1207 (provenpackager request) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1207 18:41:28 <abadger1999> mmaslano: uh... 18:41:45 <abadger1999> I don't think I can sign up for more than rephrasing sgallagh's question. 18:41:54 <mmaslano> abadger1999: fine by me 18:42:30 <mmaslano> abadger1999: I guess we can fight about questions later in the ticket 18:42:55 <mmaslano> Michal Srb, I guess we only approve, no -1 in the ticket 18:42:56 <abadger1999> This second part of the question I'm pretty sure Legal will want to know the specifics of what we want to do is and that's something I odn't know the answer to. 18:43:57 <nirik> mmaslano: yeah, auto approve on this one. 18:44:08 <sgallagh> +1 approve (as noted in the ticket) 18:44:30 <mmaslano> #action mmaslano will close this ticket, no -1, auto approval 18:44:34 <mmaslano> #topic #1208 Request Proven Packager 18:44:39 <mmaslano> .fesco 1208 18:44:40 <zodbot> mmaslano: #1208 (Request Proven Packager) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1208 18:45:14 <nirik> not enough +1's... 18:45:18 * nirik looks 18:45:29 <mmaslano> tstclair 18:45:50 <mmaslano> do we have some minimal +1's? 18:45:54 <mmaslano> I see only +2 18:46:07 * mattdm looks 18:46:26 <mattdm> +1 18:46:31 <sgallagh> other members of the SIG for which he wants provenpackager seem to support it. 18:46:35 <nirik> +1 from me... I've not talked to tstclair in a while, but I recall condor packaging is good. 18:46:35 <sgallagh> I'm +1 on those grounds. 18:47:27 <abadger1999> Has commit on 7 packages: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/users/packages/tstclair?acls=owner&ac… 18:48:09 <abadger1999> mmaslano: You must get at least 3 positive votes with no negative votes, over a one week review period, to be automatically approved. 18:48:13 <abadger1999> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Provenpackager_policy 18:48:40 <mmaslano> he wrote: I'm requesting proven packager status is to coordinate updates with maintainers of the dependency tree. 18:48:47 <mmaslano> how many packages is there? 18:49:03 <mmaslano> is it worth of provenpackager? 18:49:41 <abadger1999> there were no -1's in ticket so really.. we don't need fesco to vote in full, mattdm and nirik's +1 could count towards the "3 positive votes" if they want. 18:49:50 <nirik> right, true. 18:50:15 <mattdm> should i put my +1 in the ticket? does that help? 18:50:24 <nirik> sure. 18:50:36 <abadger1999> mattdm: yeah do that and then we'll just do automatic approval. 18:50:50 <nirik> mmaslano: I can close both those tickets and add the users... 18:50:55 <mmaslano> nirik: thanks 18:51:13 <mmaslano> #action nirik will close both provenpackager tickets and add permission to those users 18:51:34 <mmaslano> #topic Next week's chair 18:52:45 <sgallagh> Don't all volunteer at once... 18:53:27 <mitr> I'm not sure I'll be here next week 18:53:39 <mmaslano> we can volunteer someone who's not here... 18:54:05 * mattdm looks at calendar 18:54:19 <mattdm> okay I can do it :) 18:55:42 <mmaslano> #action mattdm wil be chairman next week 18:55:49 <mmaslano> #topic Open Floor 18:57:29 * nirik has nothing 18:57:32 <mmaslano> nothing? 18:57:38 <mmaslano> I will close the meeting in 3 minutes 18:57:39 <mattdm> *crickets chirp* 18:57:40 <sgallagh> I had something, but I can't bring it to mind. 18:57:49 <sgallagh> I'll post on the list if it turns out to have been important... 18:57:55 <mmaslano> crickets died in the snow... 18:58:02 <abadger1999> sgallagh: you were going to wish everyone a happy holiday season ;-) 18:58:12 <sgallagh> Well, that goes without saying! :) 18:59:32 <sgallagh> mmaslano: Close now and we'll have kept to an hour :) 18:59:44 <mmaslano> fine 18:59:50 <mmaslano> #endmeeting

1 0

Meeting Summary / November 26, 2013
by Máirín Duffy 27 Nov '13

27 Nov '13

Hi folks! Below find a summary of yesterday's meeting. You can also read it in blog format at http://fedoraserver-wgblog.rhcloud.com/fedora-server-working-group-nov-26-m… . Below the summary, you'll find the meetbot links if you'd like to read the raw logs. Meeting Minutes =============== Agenda ====== Our agenda was set ahead of time on the mailing list after an active discussion on the call for agenda post. * Select a new member of the Working Group * Personas Members Present =============== * sgallagh * nirik * mitr * simo * mizmo * davidstrauss * tuanta * Evolution Working Group Member Selection ============================== Jóhann (Viking-Ice) decided to step down from the server working group. So the server working group needs to select a new working group member. As mitr pointed out, our charter says we should choose from “from the active Fedora Server community” but the group hasn’t been around long enough to build up an active community. Since Jóhann represented the QA community in Fedora, we agreed on the following: * We will ask the QA community to recommend someone from their ranks. * If no one from QA steps forward, we will put out a general call, particularly to those who previously volunteered. Personas ======== Most of the meeting time was spent on discussing personas. I (mizmo) gave a status update on where the personas are at right now: * We have a working personas document available at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Server/Personas. It’s based on the personas nirik suggested at last week’s meeting. * We have one sysadmin interview completed to help inform the personas. mizmo and sgallagh interviewed kdetony last week. He is a sysadmin for a large company. (The interview notes are now available in the wiki.) mizmo will interview davidstrauss too when he returns to the US. * sgallagh and mizmo basically put together a FAQ on personas as well (I just put it up on the wiki now.) A quick review -------------- Evolution missed the last meeting, so we filled him in on the point of personas and how we’d go about using them. I added our answers to the persona FAQ so if you are curious about these things please check that out. “I like the general concept,” said Evolution, “so long as we don’t get caught up in arbitrarily pigeon-holing things because of this.” “We all agree on that score,” sgallagh assured him. Persona order? -------------- Nirik also had a great question about whether or not personas have an order to them; they can – for example, we can define a couple of primary personas, have secondary personas, and maybe anti-personas (we would explicitly not cater to the needs of the anti-personas, but could define them for clarity.) The personas from the first draft --------------------------------- So next I walked folks through the three personas we have: * Senior sysadmin / nonprofit org / she’s classified as ‘MacGuyver’ because they don’t have a lot of resources but try to get a lot done * Server app developer / freelancer / (no nickname yet) *Junior sys admin / huge company / lots of resources available (no nickname for him yet either) What does junior mean, and another persona suggestion ----------------------------------------------------- davidstrauss asked, “What makes the third one ‘junior?’” “He might not have as much decision-making power,” I (mizmo) replied, “He’s not the team lead or anything like that. so he may be stuck with decisions made over his head.” “It seems strange to couple abundant company resources with the ‘junior’ guy,” davidstrauss responded. I replied, “Well, not necessarily. E.g., if he needs more hardware he probably won’t have a hard time getting it, but he’s not going to be able to change the bureacracy at his org.” “Well, I guess I’m the contrast to that persona, anyway. We have lots of resources, and I’m CTO,” said davidstrauss. “I think you would be an excellent additional persona,” I replied. “I would probably nickname your persona ‘decision maker.’” davidstrauss answered, “I don’t really care if it’s me, but we need someone with resources + power.” “Yes, a decision maker is an important case,” mitr added. Going meta sgallagh suggested that we add a persona for folks creating a new server role for Fedora Server. This would be a kind of meta persona – a person who contributes to Fedora by putting together a role for the server platform product. We’ll add it as a secondary persona. The question this persona might help answer, as posed by davidstrauss: “How does one create a service that plugs nicely into Fedora?” Developer vs. DevOps “I do agree we need a developer persona (particularly for the requirements on languages and deployment),” mitr pointed out. “Can we clarify that Server is not the OS one uses to actually develop the application (i.e. run Eclipse / ask on stackoverflow …) – that should be Workstation [... which requires inter-WG agreement on the languages and deployment mechanism)." nirik added, "Yes, but we shouldn't ignore that case... they need to install server software to test, etc." I (mizmo) took the action item to modify the developer persona accordingly. I also asked, "Should we have a devops persona too in addition to the developer?" "I thought that was what your developer persona was, there," sgallagh responded. mitr asked, "What would be unique about devops? Ability to deploy and to monitor should already be there." "We could make him devops then," I said, "I think Ijust need more info about how the guy would work. I don't know enough about it. E.g., does a devops person get paged at all hours when there's an outage?" mitr said, "I'd slightly prefer not restricting ourselves to devops (multiple platforms, and speed to deploy are equally important when deploying a 10-year old J2EE application), but I don't feel strongly about it." "The primary difference with DevOps," sgallagh explained, "is the concept of 'Mean time to recovery' is more important than 'Uptime.'" "Does devops necessarily mean a smaller organization?" I asked. "Because I don't know how you'd have them combined into one role for a huge app like the one I'm thinking of." Simo responded, "Well, devops people would say no, but in reality I see real devops only in startups. :) " "Devops kind of captures nicely "the Ruby problem" (sorry, I'm unfairly picking on a single language for simplicity)," mitr added. I asked, "What's the ruby problem?" "The ruby problem is mainly 'the bundling problem' rehashed," sgallagh answered. "Except with a community that has no stake in backwards-compatibility (in the general case.)" "What sgallagh said, + the culture that 'that's how things are done.'" added mitr. To confirm my understanding, I asked, "So with ruby you need devops, because the platform isn't backwards compatible, so you need a developer to port things forward if something goes wrong because of a bug in the platform or whatnot?" "Precisely," sgallagh answered. simo added, "It is not just ruby." "Right, ruby is just a representative example," sgallagh said. "This is true of a lot of Java shops too." "It is also: oh cloud provider X we use is going to change API in 10 days," explained simo. "Need to develop a different connector for the production servers ASAP. Language really doesn't matter" "And Google APIs..." added sgallagh. "So it's really about resiliency not just of the service but also the deployment itself." Simo explained further, "It's about people using *new* platforms that keep changing and shifting all the time. They use so much of *everything* it is all in costant motion." "Well, it's also about a perception change," sgallagh added. "That absolute stability is not as important as rapid recovery." davidstrauss said, "It's part of the perception change I'm referring to in the migrations vs. support duration [thread]. How easy is it to keep the app on a supported foundation? *versus* How long can the foundation we’ve deployed to remain supported?” “It is a lot about automation,” said Simo, “because devops will redeploy a lot. A lot more than traditional ops used to.” Nirik also illustrated the point, “‘Thing x is hard and we only do it once a year, so, lets do it 10x/day now and fix all the problems so that we can keep going.’” “Right, the devops folks pretty much live in the ‘livestock’ side of things, except possibly for their hypervisors,” added sgallagh, referring back to the analogy that some servers are treated as expendable (like livestock), and some are given names and fixed up when they get broken and are kept around long-term (like pets.) “They concentrate on the changing pieces but absolutely rely on the stable infra as well,” simo said. I asked, to confirm, “So devops people are more automated, the traditional people are more ‘omg don’t break it?’” “That’s a pretty fair analogy,” replied sgallagh. So we concluded that I’d make the developer persona more ‘devoppy,’ now that I had a better understanding of what that meant. Where does Server end and Cloud begin? One thing that came up at this point in the conversation was the line between the Cloud product and the Server product. “When it comes to server and cloud usage, I want Fedora to leapfrog the current popular choices philosophically,” said davidstrauss. “Our competition is, in some ways, CoreOS more than Ubuntu.” nirik added, “I think we can add a lot of value in standardizing/best practices…” “Let’s also not get in the Cloud group’s way too much either,” sgallagh pointed out. “I think we probably want to be focusing on the infrastructure to support their product. Fedora Cloud is likely to be Fedora’s answer to CoreOS.” “I’d generally prefer if a Cloud application and Server application were bit-for-bit the same (but it hasn’t been discussed yet,)” mitr added. davidstrauss agreed. “To be honest, I see less and less separation between server and cloud product,” said simo in response to sgallagh. “I wonder if they really will be that different if we keep pushing hypervisor stuff that way.” “I always thought cloud os would care about guests more than bare metal,” simo said. Evolution responded, “There’s a large amount of crossover in the two.” “But the guests are often-times running the server bits we’re interested in,” replied Evolution. simo in response said, “I wonder if it really make sense to have separate stuff in the end.” “We deploy Fedora to bare metal as a container host,” davidstrauss explained. “Once companies like GitHub, Etsy, etc. grow to a certain point, they often substantially leave ‘cloud’ for bare metal. And once they leave cloud, they either deploy to hypervisors on their own hardware or something like the “guest images” to bare metal directly.” sgallagh said, “Whereas our position is to deliver sturdy infrastructure both for traditional roles and to support Cloud deployments.” simo replied to davidstrauss, “True, many company have mixed environments, with in house clouds + overflow on public clouds after some time.” “Some companies opt to run their own clouds. Others move to PXE deployments and similar,” responded davidstrauss. Traditional Developer Persona ----------------------------- “Did anybody have a chance to read through some of the stuff on the developer persona? I kind of really just made it up but I don’t know if I was getting at the wrong thing,” I asked. “E.g., under frustrations: ‘Spending cycles porting code to an endless array of platforms – it’s time-consuming and uninteresting work,’ but I guess a devop wouldn’t do that?” sgallagh answered, “No, devops would pick a minimalist platform and just VM/Containerize it.” I asked further, “Do we care about devs/admins who would need to do porting work like that on a server?” “Traditional app developers will need to be served, yes,” sgallagh answered, “The Oracle DBs and SAPs of the world, for example.” I asked for more examples of traditional deployments, and got the following: * Domain controller * DNS server * Email infrastructure * File server * Storage cluster * Office proxy * Office DNS and web proxy Personas and timelines ---------------------- “We probably should try and finish personas in not too long… given our short timeframe to come up with deliverables/document,” said nirik. “I think we’re pretty close,” I pointed out. “I didn’t see a whole lot of contention here about the ones we have so fair, just some refinements / expansion.” As sgallagh proposed, I’ll try to have the personas document ready to be voted on December 10. Meetbot Minutes: =============== Minutes: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2013-11-26/fedora-meeting… Minutes (text): http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2013-11-26/fedora-meeting… Log: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2013-11-26/fedora-meeting…

1 0

Meeting minutes - today's Env-and-Stacks WG meeting (2013-11-26)
by Marcela Mašláňová 26 Nov '13

26 Nov '13

============================= #fedora-meeting: (2013-11-26) ============================= Meeting started by mmaslano at 13:00:25 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2013-11-26/environment_and_… . Meeting summary --------------- * init process (mmaslano, 13:01:15) * http://piratepad.net/PwUiH4MEPR (mmaslano, 13:09:53) * tools for setting up development environments/more automation for packaging/providing stacks (mmaslano, 13:19:58) * LINK: http://ambre.pingoured.fr/cgit/review_srv.git/ (pingou, 13:41:51) * So, my attempt at summarization: one idea regarding the automatic packaging is to help existing maintainers see the automatically updated spec file and the generated rpm, so they have less work updating the packages, and to enable the eager users to use them AS IS (mmaslano, 13:48:49) * the other idea I saw was: The other idea is to enable easier/quicker packaging of dependent RPM files by generating spec files for the packager automatically (mmaslano, 13:48:58) Meeting ended at 14:00:03 UTC. Action Items ------------ Action Items, by person ----------------------- * **UNASSIGNED** * (none) People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * mmaslano (40) * juhp_ (36) * tjanez (35) * pingou (30) * sochotni (18) * hhorak (6) * samkottler (4) * zodbot (4) * bkabrda (3) * pkovar (1) * abadger1999 (0) * juhp (0) * handsome_pirate (0) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 .. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot 13:00:25 <mmaslano> #startmeeting (2013-11-26) 13:00:25 <zodbot> Meeting started Tue Nov 26 13:00:25 2013 UTC. The chair is mmaslano. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 13:00:25 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 13:00:47 <mmaslano> #meetingname Environment and Stacks 13:00:47 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'environment_and_stacks' 13:01:03 <mmaslano> #chair abadger1999 pkovar tjanez samkottler bkabrda handsome_pirate hhorak juhp 13:01:03 <zodbot> Current chairs: abadger1999 bkabrda handsome_pirate hhorak juhp mmaslano pkovar samkottler tjanez 13:01:15 <mmaslano> #topic init process 13:01:21 <mmaslano> hi guys 13:01:29 <tjanez> hi 13:01:40 <bkabrda> hey 13:01:49 <hhorak> Hi all 13:02:29 <juhp_> hi 13:06:25 <mmaslano> so, do we continue discussion from last week? 13:06:36 <mmaslano> I saw lot of ideas what we should be doing on mailinglist 13:06:48 <mmaslano> but I guess we need higher level ideas... 13:07:10 <juhp_> yes 13:08:14 <tjanez> mmaslano: I agree that we should maybe try to define what our WG in a more general way 13:08:24 <juhp_> should we try to collect ideas somewhere and then try to extract higher level goals from there perhaps? 13:08:45 <mmaslano> tjanez: definitely 13:09:44 <tjanez> juhp_: the piratepad last week was an attempt 13:09:53 <mmaslano> #info http://piratepad.net/PwUiH4MEPR 13:09:59 <tjanez> juhp_: It's been copied to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Toshio/Env_and_Stacks_Charter_Brainstor… 13:10:01 <mmaslano> we can continue there 13:10:31 <hhorak> having in mind concrete ideas from mailing list, we can ask WHY we want to do it and we should get more general ideas 13:10:59 <juhp_> tjanez, thanks - I just opened the pad 13:12:02 <juhp_> it looks more formal than what I had in mind at this stage but good 13:12:49 <mmaslano> it should be shorter 13:12:57 * pkovar is late 13:13:36 <tjanez> one of the high-level goals which comes to mind is "to enable inclusion of all (legally acceptable) stacks in Fedora, which are not possible in today's Fedora landscape (policies, guidelines, tools, ...)" 13:14:07 <tjanez> I'd put it in the pad, however, I don't know where to put it 13:15:15 <juhp_> tjanez, yes 13:15:51 <juhp_> right that is why I would prefer a more free-form wiki page for branch-storming 13:16:12 <sochotni> juhp_: brainstorming? 13:16:21 <juhp_> ah yes thanks ;) 13:16:24 <juhp_> :) 13:16:29 <juhp_> lol 13:17:26 <tjanez> Another thing we should do is define the terms environment and stacks 13:17:32 <juhp_> sochotni, also agree with your idea of a package review app - that seems totally needed - dunno if it is really in the scope of this WG per se 13:17:54 <sochotni> juhp_: it's probably more in line with core fedora infra 13:17:58 <mmaslano> tjanez: personally, I don't are what is stack and what is environment 13:17:59 <juhp_> yes 13:17:59 <sochotni> i.e. generic tooling 13:18:24 <juhp_> could we just be the Stacks WG? :) 13:18:32 <mmaslano> sure :) 13:19:01 <juhp_> seems okay to me too 13:19:36 <bkabrda> so my high-level proposal: tools for setting up development environments/more automation for packaging/providing stacks (meaning python2/python3, ruby/jruby) 13:19:36 <sochotni> I agree it would be less confusing 13:19:40 <juhp_> maybe Env is supposed to imply more than Stacks? <shrug/> 13:19:47 <mmaslano> maybe 13:19:58 <mmaslano> #topic tools for setting up development environments/more automation for packaging/providing stacks 13:21:03 <tjanez> I would also be for just Stacks WG :), but juhp_ has a point, maybe we want to also work on improving the development environment 13:21:12 <tjanez> here is where "environment" comes in :) 13:21:20 <juhp_> true 13:21:34 <juhp_> so maybe we are good with the name then :) 13:22:33 <sochotni> pingou | sochotni: I had started something yes, but I haven't touched it in a while 13:22:42 <sochotni> that was wrt review app 13:23:06 * pingou looks at the title 13:23:12 <tjanez> sochotni: I liked your idea regarding the Fedora review app 13:23:21 <mmaslano> it could improve the process, it could help automatization 13:23:30 <juhp_> yes 13:23:45 <tjanez> sochotni: I think it could be incubated within our WG first and then proposed to general (core) Fedora audience 13:23:57 <mmaslano> tjanez: sounds good 13:24:01 <pingou> I need to get pkgdb2 out of the door, but if there is such a demand I can start working again on the review app 13:24:20 <mmaslano> pingou: I was thinking about automatic generation of srpm from some upstreams 13:24:50 <pingou> mmaslano: things like R, perl, python (to some extend) and php would be pretty easy 13:25:08 <pingou> we already have a bunch of *2spec and sometime even *2rpm 13:25:25 <pingou> the critical part of the review becomes more the license than the spec file 13:25:44 <mmaslano> pingou: yes, we have tools, which we are using for generation of packages 13:26:09 <sochotni> in cooperation with copr we could have automatically updated repos 13:26:11 <pingou> but maybe we could come up with something like: insert here you upstream project url to tarball -> get your srpm here and your rpm from this copr repo 13:26:26 <sochotni> yeah 13:26:27 <juhp_> my cabal-rpm tool can generally generate haskell srpms from upstream but of course that is special case 13:26:46 <mmaslano> pingou: big picture :) give a list of modules, which we want from cpan/other sources and receive them in srpm :) 13:26:48 <sochotni> being able to build stuff by giving Fedora service a github url with sources would be nice :-0 13:26:51 <pingou> a first thing would be to gather all these projects :) 13:27:11 <mmaslano> pingou: we don't need everything available, just list of what's interesting 13:27:24 <pingou> mmaslano: I mean the *2spec projects 13:27:31 <pingou> to see which area we cover 13:27:48 <mmaslano> ok 13:28:08 <mmaslano> pingou: i was also thinking about helper for updating existing packages 13:28:26 <pingou> I've been playing in the R field quite a bit, we have R2spec in the repo that comes in with a R2rpm flavor, the issue of on building the deps when provided with a certain project 13:28:33 <juhp_> mmaslano, yes 13:28:39 <tjanez> So, if I understand correctly, there is demand for an RPM repository that contains all, e.g. CPAN, Pypi packages? 13:28:50 <pingou> mmaslano: one day I will want to write an easy spec API in python :) 13:29:02 * pingou already has his own UpdateRPackage.py that does it :] 13:29:12 <bkabrda> tjanez: I wouldn't say all. more like some of them ("important") in the latest versions or so 13:29:19 <pingou> tjanez: only the one the user asks 13:29:22 <mmaslano> tjanez: not all, we could do only what we have in Fedora. It would safe time which we spend on updates of packages 13:29:27 <pingou> tjanez: maybe like: all the deps for projects X 13:30:17 <tjanez> Aha, ok, this is a bit different 13:30:27 <tjanez> then what I though :) 13:30:52 <tjanez> I would like to come up with some high-level description of what we want this *2spec tools and repositories coming from that 13:31:12 <pingou> (why do I feel like there is an interesting mailing-list I'm missing? :)) 13:31:20 <mmaslano> I gues we have one are what we want to do 13:31:41 <mmaslano> pingou: it should be discussed on our mailnig list, but it wasn't yet 13:31:45 <samkottler> pingou: it hasn't gotten very interesting yet, but you should join the stack-and-envs list 13:31:54 <pingou> samkottler: thanks ;) 13:32:13 <juhp_> envs-and-stacks :) 13:32:24 <pingou> yup I corrected and subscribed, thanks 13:32:38 <samkottler> heh, I figured he'd be able to find it regardless :) 13:32:46 <juhp_> great 13:33:02 <tjanez> One of the goals would be: "To provide repositories with automatically updates specs and generated rpms of Python, Perl, etc. modules that are ALREADY in Fedora" 13:33:24 <juhp_> do we have to restrict to in Fedora already? 13:33:25 <mmaslano> sounds good to me as high level goal 13:33:37 <tjanez> So in a way, the repository would follow upstream release schedule 13:33:44 <pingou> I'd wouldn't do it for things which are already in Fedora 13:33:55 <tjanez> As soon as the upstream puts it on CPAN, PyPI, it would be available in the repo 13:34:04 <pingou> unless indeed there is a major version with API/ABI bump that we cannot back port 13:34:09 <samkottler> there'd be huge bloat in the repos if we did it for everything 13:34:19 <pingou> but otherwise I'd go mroe w/ automated rpm generation for the missing deps 13:34:32 <mmaslano> samkottler: I would prefer only list of important as was said 13:34:36 <juhp_> there could be a middle way - but yeah if you want full automation... 13:34:38 <tjanez> juhp_, pingou: I'm just discussing, I would like to see your point 13:35:06 <samkottler> we might have to figure out how to track ABI changes over time because lots of library authors don't properly version 13:35:31 <pingou> copr is clearly going to lack the space to fully automatically build everything + I just don't think we want that anyway 13:35:51 <juhp_> if we had a lower barrier of entry than main fedora repos it would be a good testing ground for new candidate packages/stacks too 13:36:12 <mmaslano> yeah, but the space on copr is a real problem 13:36:46 <juhp_> sure not everything - I am just suggesting we don't have to restrict to fedora only packages - and even if we do there will be new dependencies that need to be packaged anyway 13:36:46 <pingou> mmaslano: well not so far, but might become yes 13:36:53 <tjanez> juhp_: Yes, I agree, but who should select which subset of PyPi/CPAN is interesting and packaged automatically AS IS 13:37:10 <juhp_> tjanez, right I dunno 13:37:20 <hhorak> samkottler: I already started looking into it and rather than one spicific api/abi testing tool I'd like to come up with some general tool that could test more than that and would be easy to run the same on localhost or in the infrastructure 13:37:29 <pingou> juhp_: I'd go more the opposite, copr are complementary to the official fedora repo, so don't re-build what already is 13:37:33 <juhp_> perhaps additional packages could be added/proposed somehow shrug 13:37:49 <tjanez> juhp_, or do it like AUR in Arch 13:37:59 <juhp_> pingou, okay perhaps - but then what about newer versions 13:38:11 <juhp_> tjanez, yea 13:38:31 <sochotni> hhorak: you mean rpm QA tool? 13:38:36 <pingou> juhp_: then it would appply indeed, but only on branch where this update hasn't been done (for example to get django 1.6 on F20) 13:38:48 <juhp_> sure 13:39:22 <hhorak> sochotni: something like that.. 13:40:33 <juhp_> I like the overall idea we're creating 13:40:57 <tjanez> juhp_: +1 13:41:20 <sochotni> pingou: for the logs, can you point to the codebase for current review tool? 13:41:51 <pingou> http://ambre.pingoured.fr/cgit/review_srv.git/ 13:42:20 <tjanez> Could someone attempt to summarize the general idea of the discussion? 13:42:21 <pingou> but it's still quite far from complete 13:42:37 <mmaslano> juhp_: +1 13:42:58 <sochotni> pingou: I don't expect anything else :-) 13:43:13 <sochotni> it's just something to start off from 13:43:39 <pingou> sochotni: for the record I did put it on the list of things I would like to work on next year (sent to my manager :)) 13:44:02 <pingou> so I might get some time to revive it 13:44:08 <sochotni> pingou: good! 13:46:42 <tjanez> So, my attempt at summarization: one idea regarding the automatic packaging is to help existing maintainers see the automatically updated spec file and the generated rpm, so they have less work updating the packages, and to enable the eager users to use them AS IS 13:46:57 * mmaslano has to leave in 14 minutes 13:47:09 <mmaslano> tjanez: yes 13:47:30 <mmaslano> tjanez: I would be fine with summarization of what we said -> first goal 13:47:44 <juhp_> tjanez, I might add early access to packages/stacks still under/before package review 13:47:44 <mmaslano> and next week we can speak about different area 13:48:21 <tjanez> juhp_: yes, agreed 13:48:30 <tjanez> the other idea I saw was: The other idea is to enable easier/quicker packaging of dependent RPM files by generating spec files for the packager automatically 13:48:49 <mmaslano> #info So, my attempt at summarization: one idea regarding the automatic packaging is to help existing maintainers see the automatically updated spec file and the generated rpm, so they have less work updating the packages, and to enable the eager users to use them AS IS 13:48:50 <juhp_> yes 13:48:58 <mmaslano> #info the other idea I saw was: The other idea is to enable easier/quicker packaging of dependent RPM files by generating spec files for the packager automatically 13:49:42 <hhorak> sounds fine. 13:50:21 <tjanez> There was also an idea regarding trying out a new kind of package review process (via to-be-developed review app) 13:50:45 <hhorak> I remember I heard already of some "rebase helper" that could be used (if ready).. I'll try to get more info and will send to ML. 13:50:50 <tjanez> which could be incubated within our WG and then re-iterated/refined for proposal into Fedora proper 13:52:34 <tjanez> Along side the new review process, we could rethink the packaging guidelines (along the ideas proposed in the ML) 13:53:22 <sochotni> I believe whole approach to packaging could be changed/improved while preserving current guidelines 13:53:31 <sochotni> just giving us more time to actually care bout it 13:55:02 <juhp_> yeah 13:55:36 <tjanez> sochotni: Yes, agreed. I was thinking about also improving the documentation on the Wiki pages so it would be shorter and not mix guidelines, best practices, etc. 13:55:51 <tjanez> But this could be improved independently 13:56:29 <juhp_> that is true - more streamlining and separating to the bare essentials would be good 13:56:30 <tjanez> I also like the idea proposed by hhorak about some sort of CI for our package repositories 13:57:01 <tjanez> So that we ensure that the already included packages stay in good shape 13:57:13 <tjanez> Spec files come to mind first 13:57:40 <sochotni> tjanez: http://jenkins.cloud.fedoraproject.org/job/javapackages-tools/ (that's CI for Java tooling - requires/provides generators etc) 13:57:45 <pingou> I had started to work on something using datagrepper that we could use to rebuild automatically all packages that have not been rebuild in, say, 1 fedora release 13:58:23 <pingou> if that's also of interest, I could pick it up again :) 13:58:25 <mmaslano> I need to go, volunteer who take chairman? 13:58:42 <tjanez> sochotni: Cool, I will check it our 13:59:46 <mmaslano> no volunteer? 13:59:56 <sochotni> we are getting to one hour....we'll just have to pick it up later 14:00:03 <mmaslano> #endmeeting

1 0

Marketing team meeting minutes, November 25, 2013
by Ruth Suehle 25 Nov '13

25 Nov '13

Minutes: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2013-11-25/fedora_marketing… Minutes (text): http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2013-11-25/fedora_marketing… Log: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2013-11-25/fedora_marketing…

1 0

FAmSco meeting 2013-11-25 minutes
by Christoph Wickert 25 Nov '13

25 Nov '13

Minutes: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-2/2013-11-25/fedora-meeting… Minutes (text): http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-2/2013-11-25/fedora-meeting… Log: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-2/2013-11-25/fedora-meeting… Meet you again next week Monday December 2nd at 17:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-2! Regards, Christoph ==================================== #fedora-meeting-2: FAmSCo 2013-11-25 ==================================== Meeting started by cwickert at 17:04:21 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-2/2013-11-25/fedora-meeting… . Meeting summary --------------- * Roll call (cwickert, 17:04:38) * sesivany sent regrets, he his on holidays (cwickert, 17:05:25) * AGREED: : FAmSCo is unhappy about the repeated absence of bckurera but will note remove him from the committee as the elections are around the corner (cwickert, 17:12:07) * LINK: : the agenda for today#s meeting can be found https://fedorahosted.org/famsco/report/9 (cwickert, 17:13:31) * RH Community Credit Card holder for APAC (cwickert, 17:14:51) * AGREED: tuanta to ask rsuehle and rbergeron to talk to the finance people and convince them to allow a non-RH person as CC holder for APAC. Once they have green light, make KageSenshi the CC holder (cwickert, 17:21:56) * EMEA Mentor Nomination: Keiran Smith (cwickert, 17:23:18) * Schedule (cwickert, 17:29:34) * LINK: http://fedorapeople.org/groups/schedule/f-20/f-20-ambassadors-tasks.html (cwickert, 17:29:45) * official release is 2013-12-10, let's hurry up (cwickert, 17:31:18) * ACTION: cwickert to send out the call for release events (cwickert, 17:31:42) * ACTION: cwickert to send aeperezt the pins (cwickert, 17:32:41) * AGREED: cwickert to bring up the idea of a central media production and distribution as ticket. it's unclear if it works, but we should think about it (cwickert, 17:45:05) * ACTION: cwickert to bring up the idea of a central media production and distribution as ticket. it's unclear if it works, but we should think about it (cwickert, 17:45:10) * LINK: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-2/2013-11-18/famsco.2013-11… (tuanta, 17:47:34) * ACTION: if you have anybody who deserves a 10th anniversary shirt and who is not yet listed on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/F20_anniversary_tshirt , please let robyduck know. I am thinking of long-term contributors with great impact who are not part of any group like FAmSCo, FESCo etc, e. g. (former) packagers (cwickert, 17:51:50) Meeting ended at 17:52:47 UTC. Action Items ------------ * cwickert to send out the call for release events * cwickert to send aeperezt the pins * cwickert to bring up the idea of a central media production and distribution as ticket. it's unclear if it works, but we should think about it * if you have anybody who deserves a 10th anniversary shirt and who is not yet listed on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/F20_anniversary_tshirt , please let robyduck know. I am thinking of long-term contributors with great impact who are not part of any group like FAmSCo, FESCo etc, e. g. (former) packagers Action Items, by person ----------------------- * aeperezt * cwickert to send aeperezt the pins * cwickert * cwickert to send out the call for release events * cwickert to send aeperezt the pins * cwickert to bring up the idea of a central media production and distribution as ticket. it's unclear if it works, but we should think about it * **UNASSIGNED** * if you have anybody who deserves a 10th anniversary shirt and who is not yet listed on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/F20_anniversary_tshirt , please let robyduck know. I am thinking of long-term contributors with great impact who are not part of any group like FAmSCo, FESCo etc, e. g. (former) packagers People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * cwickert (97) * tuanta (47) * aeperezt (38) * LoKoMurdoK (14) * zodbot (10)

1 0

Docs Project Meeting Summary 25 Nov 2013
by Pete Travis 25 Nov '13

25 Nov '13

==================================================================================================== #fedora-meeting: Docs Project Meeting - Agenda: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Docs_Project_meetings ==================================================================================================== Meeting started by randomuser at 14:00:02 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2013-11-25/fedora_docs.2013… . Meeting summary --------------- * Roll Call (randomuser, 14:00:03) * release notes (randomuser, 14:05:24) * Guide Status (randomuser, 14:11:00) * Pete wants to get some content pumped into the new MultiBoot guide and get it published (randomuser, 14:11:38) * Check bugzilla for docs work, and open bugs too (randomuser, 14:16:49) * LINK: https://git.fedorahosted.org/git/docs/ARM-getting-started-guide.git (zoglesby, 14:19:53) * zoglesby needs help with the ARM-GSG (randomuser, 14:22:06) * BZ tickets (randomuser, 14:26:57) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=998327 (randomuser, 14:27:10) * the script that redirects to a given locale is broken for romanian (randomuser, 14:27:33) * LINK: http://tinyurl.com/lbrq84 (randomuser, 14:32:09) * thanks ciupicri for the patch! (randomuser, 14:38:03) * open floor discussion (randomuser, 14:41:27) Meeting ended at 14:55:19 UTC. Action Items ------------ Action Items, by person ----------------------- * **UNASSIGNED** * (none) People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * randomuser (67) * jjmcd (17) * zoglesby (11) * ciupicri (8) * pbokoc (6) * pkovar (6) * sgordon (4) * zodbot (3) * yruseva (1) * pwhalen (1) -- -- Pete Travis - Fedora Docs Project Leader - 'randomuser' on freenode - immanetize(a)fedoraproject.org

1 0

Fedora Chinese Meeting Minutes (2013-11-22)
by Alick Zhao 22 Nov '13

22 Nov '13

Hi all, The IRC meeting minutes tonight are available at the link [1]. Thanks everyone for attending the meeting. In the meeting we talked about FUDCon bid progress, F20 Release Party, and L10N. Please review the proposed ideas and actions. The next IRC meeting will be held on next Friday (2013-11-29). Please come and join the discussion if you can! [1]: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-zh/2013-11-22/fedora-zh.2013-11-22-… ================== #fedora-zh Meeting ================== Meeting started by alick at 13:07:30 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-zh/2013-11-22/fedora-zh.2013-11-22-… . Meeting summary --------------- * 报到 (alick, 13:07:42) * FUDCON APAC 2014 申办 (alick, 13:14:44) * ACTION: alick to email out the current version of planning document (alick, 13:16:56) * HELP: everyone to update the bid wiki page (alick, 13:20:52) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FUDCon:Bid_for_Beijing_2014 (alick, 13:21:07) * F20 Release Party (alick, 13:25:39) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Release_Party_F20_Beijing (alick, 13:31:17) * ACTION: alick mention budget in mail list (alick, 13:45:25) * 中文翻译 (alick, 13:46:25) * LINK: https://fedora.transifex.com/projects/p/fedora/language/zh_CN/?project=2060 (alick, 13:48:15) * 自由讨论 (alick, 13:55:20) Meeting ended at 14:09:15 UTC. Action Items ------------ * alick to email out the current version of planning document * alick mention budget in mail list Action Items, by person ----------------------- * alick * alick to email out the current version of planning document * alick mention budget in mail list * **UNASSIGNED** * (none) People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * alick (45) * tonghuix_ (30) * endle (18) * zsun (9) * zodbot (6) * BadGirl (4) * chenchacha (4) * isyangxin (2) * zsun_mob (2) * zsun1 (1) * tonghuix (0) * tiansworld (0) * microcai (0) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 .. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot

1 0

Summary/Minutes from today's Fedora Infrastructure meeting (2013-11-21)
by Kevin Fenzi 21 Nov '13

21 Nov '13

============================================ #fedora-meeting: Infrastructure (2013-11-21) ============================================ Meeting started by nirik at 19:00:07 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2013-11-21/infrastructure.2… . Meeting summary --------------- * welcome y'all (nirik, 19:00:07) * New folks introductions and Apprentice tasks (nirik, 19:01:32) * Applications status / discussion (nirik, 19:03:30) * LINK: https://github.com/gildub/arrod (nirik, 19:15:05) * Sysadmin status / discussion (nirik, 19:20:23) * updates applied yesterday, rhel 6.5 out today, will look at upgrading as much as we can before freeze (nirik, 19:22:06) * Upcoming Tasks/Items (nirik, 19:27:46) * LINK: https://apps.fedoraproject.org/calendar/list/infrastructure/ (nirik, 19:27:46) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/3796 - u think Javascript way or dig deeper, and try to change the apps behaviour? (docent_, 19:31:01) * Open Floor (nirik, 19:39:00) Meeting ended at 19:52:14 UTC. Action Items ------------ Action Items, by person ----------------------- * **UNASSIGNED** * (none) People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * nirik (94) * abadger1999 (34) * pingou (28) * threebean (17) * relrod (12) * mirek (10) * docent (9) * abompard (8) * jimikirk (7) * zodbot (5) * lmacken (4) * docent_ (3) * smooge (3) * kde_tony (2) * tflink (2) * samkottler (1) * puiterwijk (0) * mdomsch (0) * dgilmore (0) -- 19:00:07 <nirik> #startmeeting Infrastructure (2013-11-21) 19:00:07 <zodbot> Meeting started Thu Nov 21 19:00:07 2013 UTC. The chair is nirik. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 19:00:07 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 19:00:07 <nirik> #meetingname infrastructure 19:00:07 <nirik> #topic welcome y'all 19:00:07 <nirik> #chair smooge relrod nirik abadger1999 lmacken dgilmore mdomsch threebean pingou puiterwijk 19:00:07 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'infrastructure' 19:00:07 <zodbot> Current chairs: abadger1999 dgilmore lmacken mdomsch nirik pingou puiterwijk relrod smooge threebean 19:00:16 * relrod here 19:00:19 * lmacken 19:00:20 * threebean is here 19:00:29 * mirek also here 19:00:30 * tflink is around 19:00:37 * samkottler is kinda here 19:01:04 * abadger1999 here -- finishing up $otherMeeting meeting notes 19:01:16 <nirik> welcome everyone. 19:01:32 <nirik> #topic New folks introductions and Apprentice tasks 19:01:46 <nirik> any new folks like to introduce themselves ? or apprentices with questions or comments? 19:02:26 <nirik> ok... 19:02:31 * pingou late 19:02:36 <jimikirk> nirik: I'm still looking for sponsor 19:02:55 <jimikirk> nirik: #fedora-devel didn't work 19:02:57 <nirik> jimikirk: sure, although thats not really infrastructure related. ;) 19:03:15 <jimikirk> nirik: ok, talk about it later 19:03:30 <nirik> #topic Applications status / discussion 19:03:36 <kde_tony> .fas kdetony 19:03:36 <zodbot> kde_tony: kdetony 'Anthony Mogrovejo' <tony001983(a)gmail.com> 19:03:43 <nirik> any exciting applications news this week or upcoming? 19:03:49 <nirik> hey kde_tony 19:04:04 <kde_tony> hi nirik :) 19:04:12 <pingou> some pkgdb2 work 19:04:26 <pingou> and a lot of work on fmn, but I let threebean talk about that :) 19:04:34 <mirek> I would like to get more active around cloud - just been on second openstack workshop, can we get keystone credentials to Fedora Cloud get on some place where is not required root and where members of sysadmin-cloud can access it? 19:04:38 * docent_ is late as usual 19:04:55 <threebean> yeah, not much to talk about with fmn unless people have any questions. lots of rapid dev this week and last. 19:05:11 <threebean> We have a cloud instance up here http://209.132.184.212 19:05:25 <threebean> And the source is here https://github.com/fedora-infra/fmn 19:05:45 <threebean> we're working out of the TODO.md file there and are aiming to get this stood up in at least our staging environment by dec. 15th. 19:05:48 <nirik> mirek: possibly. But what things would you do? More help might be someone driving install of our havana or whatever cloud with ansible playbooks. 19:05:56 <pingou> oh threebean check the grey bar at the top and the <title> 19:06:12 <threebean> pingou: will fix :) thanks 19:06:31 * abompard says hello 19:06:44 <lmacken> bodhi: minor bugfix update hit the mashers yesterday. 19:07:03 <abadger1999> threebean, pingou: I thought of one pkgdb+fmn interaction I hadn't before. 19:07:21 <abadger1999> What happens if someone wants to deploy pkgdb2 in their own infrastructure? 19:07:29 <abadger1999> Will they also have to deploy fedmsgand fmn? 19:07:40 <abadger1999> or can we have a fallback notification method of some sort? 19:07:41 <threebean> they won't have to.. but they would if they wanted email notifications. 19:07:56 <mirek> nirik: start new instances, create/change flavours (will probably need that for copr), but yeah, can even install OS havana (or we want to upgrade current one OS to havana?) 19:08:00 * abadger1999 hadn't thought of this until pidora expressed interest in running it too. 19:08:11 <threebean> right, right. 19:08:40 <pingou> abadger1999: I thought about this yesterday indeed, I might have to write the email system finally :/ 19:08:53 <threebean> heh :) 19:09:04 <threebean> what if they don't want emails? (no one wants emails...) 19:09:11 <threebean> pingou, abadger1999: let's ask them first. 19:09:16 <pingou> then they just turn it off :) 19:09:34 <nirik> mirek: well, new instances are either via ansible or self service, so there's not usually much to do there. :) flavors I could see, but we haven't really bothered yet... if you are interested in installing new I can bring you up to speed on that and get you access. There's 0 upgrade path, so no, we don't want to upgrade I don't think. 19:09:38 <pingou> it will have to be swith on/off as I don't want email notifications + fmn 19:10:05 <nirik> mirek: my plan was to install latest one via ansible playbooks, get it all working right, then migrate instances over from the old one (ie, terminate and redeploy) 19:10:06 <abadger1999> <nod> 19:10:12 <abadger1999> okay, sounds like a plan then. 19:10:43 <pingou> threebean: abadger1999 it's just gonna be a hock onto the log() function where all the fedmsg notifications are also set-up 19:10:54 <abadger1999> <nod> 19:11:00 <abadger1999> that makes sense to me. 19:11:00 <threebean> pingou: nice :) 19:11:41 * pingou added some task pro:pkgdb2 for tomorrow \ó/ 19:11:49 <nirik> mirek: anyhow, if you want to work on that, happy to set you up. I keep not getting to it. ;( 19:11:50 <mirek> nirik: if we have HW to run old cloud and new one in paralel, then it would be best 19:12:05 <nirik> mirek: yep. we have 2 machines not in the current cloud. 19:12:47 <nirik> just to note, we go back into freeze next tuesday. :) Anything folks want to try and land before then? 19:13:08 <smooge> sorry I need to move my clock 19:13:15 <threebean> hm.. perhaps we should create nodes for fmn ahead of time? 19:13:24 <pingou> +1 19:13:27 <mirek> hmm since Copr is still not officially part of infra then it is not affected by frezee? 19:13:40 <nirik> mirek: right, it would not be frozen. 19:13:51 <nirik> threebean: could do that yeah... in case. :) 19:14:01 <threebean> :) 19:14:06 <nirik> aat least the stg ones 19:14:16 <threebean> cool 19:14:19 <mirek> nirik: can you point me to openstack playbooks in ansible? I could not find it 19:14:32 <nirik> mirek: it's a seperate repo, let me get it... 19:15:05 <nirik> https://github.com/gildub/arrod 19:15:23 * mirek si looking 19:15:36 * abadger1999 will try to land his python-fedora change today. 19:15:41 <nirik> I've run into various issues with it, the maintainer is pretty responsive, but I keep getting distracted. :) 19:15:46 <pingou> abadger1999: cool! 19:15:57 <nirik> abadger1999: whats in that? 19:15:59 <abadger1999> pingou: heh -- hotfix. Not the release changes. 19:16:16 <nirik> did we need something in there for mod_auth_openid? 19:16:18 * nirik forgets. 19:16:20 <abadger1999> nirik: fix the translation of TG1 apps (notably: fas) 19:16:55 <pingou> abadger1999: still good :) 19:16:56 <nirik> thats a biggie yeah 19:17:38 <nirik> ok, any other apps news? 19:17:58 <mirek> nirik: and is somewher doc how and to which machines we deploy it? could not see anything relevant in doc.git 19:18:38 <nirik> mirek: no doc, I can fill you in after the meeting... basically you fill in some group vars. ;) 19:19:00 <nirik> ideally we get this working and merge it into our ansible repo so we can just deploy/update/change the cloud from the same place we do everything else. 19:19:47 <mirek> nirik: some group vars, yes... :) http://www.survivedavis.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/owl.jpg 19:20:01 <nirik> heh. nice. :) 19:20:02 <mirek> nirik: I will cont. on that with you after meeting 19:20:13 <nirik> thats also known as "this step left as an exersize for the reader" 19:20:21 <nirik> anyhow... 19:20:23 <nirik> #topic Sysadmin status / discussion 19:20:34 <nirik> so, we had an outage yesterday and got everything updated. 19:20:41 <nirik> and today... rhel 6.5 came out. ;) 19:20:45 <relrod> yep :P 19:21:00 <nirik> which is our normal luck. ;) 19:21:15 <nirik> anyhow, so I am going to look at updating all the stuff we can thats non outage causing... 19:21:30 <nirik> and then decide if we want to have another short outage monday before freeze to update outage causing things. 19:22:06 <nirik> #info updates applied yesterday, rhel 6.5 out today, will look at upgrading as much as we can before freeze 19:22:12 * lmacken checks if any of our wsgi stack got updated in 6.5 19:22:17 <nirik> Also I grew db01's disk a bunch. 19:22:53 <nirik> We also have 9 builders on one of our new blades using iscsi. 19:23:14 <nirik> They seemed to do ok at first, but then were very slow later for some things. More data and investigation needed. 19:23:47 <abompard> Quick update of the HyperKitty front: I merged mizmo's work and deployed my redesign of the front page. Now I'm fixing the stuff that broke on real data :-) 19:23:58 <nirik> they did finish all there image builds from rawhide/branched today ok. 19:24:06 <nirik> abompard: cool. ;) 19:24:06 <lmacken> new python beaker and weberror in rhel 6.5. I think that'll only affect fedora-packages 19:24:17 <smooge> oh boy 19:24:28 <pingou> threebean: https://badges.fedoraproject.org/explore/badges/rss we should add it to the planet now :) 19:24:36 <threebean> pingou: oh, right! 19:24:43 <pingou> nirik: the specific planet feeds are managed by puppet right? 19:24:48 <pingou> s/by/in/ 19:25:09 <nirik> abompard: do we want to perhaps roll out a mailman01 production before freeze? or just wait and do prod after f20 is out/with freeze breaks? 19:25:16 <nirik> pingou: you can add them in puppet yeah. 19:25:33 <pingou> threebean: do you or shall I? 19:25:43 <threebean> pingou: go for it :) 19:25:45 <pingou> threebean: on my way 19:26:15 <abompard> nirik: I guess we can wait for f20, working around the schedule may end up being more work 19:26:46 <nirik> abompard: ok. I'm eager to have a prod one, but sure... :) 19:26:59 <abompard> nirik: I can understand that :-) 19:27:46 <nirik> #topic Upcoming Tasks/Items 19:27:46 <nirik> https://apps.fedoraproject.org/calendar/list/infrastructure/ 19:27:56 <nirik> anything upcoming people would like to schedule or note? 19:28:03 <nirik> next week is a holiday in the US... 19:28:13 <nirik> so no meeting, unless someone else wants to run one. ;) 19:28:26 <abadger1999> heh, what days are we supposed to be taking off? 19:28:42 <nirik> thursday and friday 19:28:52 <nirik> are holidays for RH folks in the US. 19:29:00 * nirik will of course likely still be around. 19:29:27 * abadger1999 will try to stay away on Friday. Thursday it will be easier as he'll be in the kitchen. 19:29:40 <nirik> :) 19:29:58 <nirik> you could go do some "black friday" shopping. Won't that be fun? :) 19:30:08 <smooge> I will be around on Thursday and Friday. I plan to cook and run a D&D game but other than that will be around 19:30:18 <abadger1999> nirik: Mmm... black friday is what will keep me at home ;-) 19:30:43 <nirik> abadger1999: yeah, no kidding. 19:30:47 <tflink> nirik: I made the mistake of doing that one year ... no plans to repeat the mistake :) 19:31:01 <docent_> https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/3796 - u think Javascript way or dig deeper, and try to change the apps behaviour? 19:31:43 <nirik> hey docent_ 19:31:47 <docent_> :) 19:31:48 <nirik> good question. 19:31:54 <abadger1999> docent_: Javascript definitely 19:32:42 <docent> ok second question - is that totally dead one: https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/2984 ? :) 19:33:05 <nirik> docent: there were still a few pending I think there... 19:33:10 <nirik> but the main driver of it moved on. 19:33:24 <nirik> we need to look at whats not yet done... 19:33:39 <abadger1999> docent: The linked owasp.org points out that https-only sites are not affected by the known easy vulnerability... that's us. 19:33:58 <docent> abadger1999: great :) 19:34:19 <abadger1999> docent: also, the csrf protection in the URL is for TG1 and TG2. we're getting rid of tg1 and only have one tg2 app at the moment. 19:34:26 * nirik ponders. perhaps a 'git grep db01' and looking for any that still point direct to db01 would show them? 19:34:42 <docent> ok so i'll stick to this csrf-issue with webapps..? or it can be left as it is? 19:34:58 <abadger1999> docent: Fixing it via javascript is a good thing to do. 19:35:04 <docent> ok, great thx 19:35:12 <nirik> looks to me like 'datagrepper' and 'askbot' are the two left. 19:35:20 <abadger1999> as it will keep it out of bookmarks, cut and paste, etc. 19:35:50 <docent> :) 19:35:54 <nirik> abadger1999: would this be a hotfix thing? or ? this is bodhi and pkgdb? 19:36:03 <abadger1999> jsut pointing out that we're not exposed to the automated problems. 19:36:10 <abadger1999> nirik: fas, bodhi, packagedb, elections1. 19:36:29 <nirik> ok. 19:36:33 <abadger1999> We could hotfix. 19:36:48 <nirik> although in practice people only usually copy/paste from bodhi/pkgdb 19:36:56 <abadger1999> But we probably don't 100% need to. 19:37:10 <abadger1999> yeah -- because fas requires that you login to view anything. 19:37:43 <abadger1999> I think I'd hotfix if we're not in freeze. 19:37:46 <nirik> well, with bodhi we could just try and get lmacken to add it to next release, but pkgdb isn't likely to have too many more releases right? 19:38:02 <abadger1999> If we are in freeze, defer deploying until later. 19:38:10 <abadger1999> nirik: correct. 19:38:11 <nirik> yeah, it's a convience. 19:38:31 <docent> ok i'll bother you with that in a few days after meeting. don't know even how to start own dev envs for those apps for now so first i'll have to work this out 19:38:52 <nirik> docent: cool. You can always ask in #fedora-apps on how to get started. 19:38:58 <docent> sure :) 19:39:00 <nirik> #topic Open Floor 19:39:17 <nirik> any items for open floor? suggestions, comments, ideas, turkey recipies? 19:40:11 <relrod> Still looking for people willing to (co)maintain the dpsearch package...We've been following the upstream snapshots (which they've been doing more of lately) and I don't have enough time/energy right now to maintain it as well as it should be. 19:40:18 <pingou> oh has the meeting time changed for you? 19:40:24 <relrod> So if we're still interested in possibly deploying it one day, it'd be nice to have some comaintainers 19:40:54 <pingou> with the time change, it's an hour earlier for us ( abompard and I) 19:41:14 <nirik> pingou: yeah, it's earlier for us too... did you want to move it? 19:41:19 <docent> relrod: is that something suitable for apprentices? 19:41:30 <nirik> relrod: how often? I might be able to help out... 19:41:47 <pingou> nirik: I must say, 9pm is better for me (not in the middle of dinner as it is now), but I'm not the only one :) 19:41:49 <relrod> docent: suitable for anyone in the packager group ;) 19:41:53 <jimikirk> relrod: I'm interested in co-maintaining 19:42:08 <docent> relrod: ha, so no can do for now ;) 19:42:28 <relrod> nirik: one sec 19:42:38 <nirik> pingou: yeah, if we move an hour eariler we need to coordinate with the irc support sig, as they are an hour before this meeting. 19:42:48 <nirik> if we move an hour later we could do that yeah 19:42:52 <pingou> nirik: or one hour later if it was 19:42:53 <relrod> nirik: looks like every 2 weeks or so, lately. 19:43:05 * relrod has no idea when they're going to make 4.54 stable. 19:43:16 <nirik> relrod: if you want to mentor jimikirk, you could add him as comaintainer and show him the ropes. ;) 19:43:30 <pingou> abompard: what's better for you for the meeting (time wise) ? 19:43:51 <abompard> pingou: something earlier would be better 19:43:55 <nirik> relrod: and/or I also could comaintain and help mentor. 19:44:13 <relrod> nirik: sure, happy to add you both. 19:44:13 <jimikirk> nirik, relrod: I'm very interested 19:44:31 <pingou> abompard: and is 9 better than 8 for you? (if we can't move earlier) 19:44:34 <abompard> pingou: but if you prefer 9pm, I can make it work 19:44:37 <abompard> pingou: yeah 19:44:52 <nirik> relrod: cool. I'll need to sponsor jimikirk... but I can do that and we can sort it after the meeting? 19:45:02 <relrod> nirik: wfm :) 19:45:27 <jimikirk> relrod: perhaps meeting in fedora-devel or fedora-admin after this meeting? 19:45:34 <nirik> abompard / pingou we could also just do a whenisgood and see if moving days would be better? 19:45:38 <abompard> pingou: actually I don't mind, 8pm or 9pm is pretty much the same 19:45:42 <relrod> jimikirk: -admin works 19:45:51 <jimikirk> relrod: ok 19:46:11 <pingou> nirik: day is fine for me, it's more the time 19:46:20 <pingou> but if I'm the only one, I'll deal with it :) 19:46:21 <nirik> we have been on thursdays for a long time, but I don't care much as long as the most people could make it. 19:46:34 <pingou> abadger1999: you have a meeting earlier don't you? 19:46:37 <abadger1999> FPC is two hours earlier and lately has gone two hours. That won't go on forever, though (and many times, I don't have to speak in this meeting -- especially when FPC has big things that take 2hours to resolve :-( 19:47:04 <abadger1999> pingou: so I wouldn't object to an hour earlier. 19:47:24 <nirik> also however, there's sometimes a fedora engineering phone meeting now an hour before this meeting... 19:47:32 <nirik> so if we moved earlier that would conflict too. 19:47:38 <abadger1999> nirik: Maybe we could change that one though? 19:47:44 <nirik> possibly yeah. 19:48:01 <abadger1999> I don't think we've met twice at the same time for that yet. 19:48:26 <nirik> so, an hour later wouldn't help any? or it would? 19:48:45 <abadger1999> (Although, I think the next meeting has someone externally scheduled.. so maybe we can't change that one.) 19:48:55 <pingou> earlier is better, then it's later, then it's as it is now 19:49:24 <nirik> perhaps we should do a whenisgood. ;) 19:50:14 <nirik> I'll look at doing that (or someone else can) and send to the list. 19:50:32 <nirik> lets assume current time until/unless we change 19:51:04 <pingou> +1 19:51:20 <nirik> cool. Anything else for open floor? 19:51:36 <relrod> not from me 19:52:11 <nirik> cool. Thanks for coming everyone! 19:52:14 <nirik> #endmeeting

1 0

Summary/Minutes from today's FPC Meeting (2013-11-21 17:00 - 19:00 UTC)
by James Antill 21 Nov '13

21 Nov '13

====================== #fedora-meeting-1: fpc ====================== Meeting started by abadger1999 at 17:04:14 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2013-11-21/fedora-meeting… . Meeting summary --------------- * Roll Call (abadger1999, 17:04:27) * SCLs (abadger1999, 17:06:37) * LINK: https://bugs.linuxfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1164#c7 (abadger1999, 17:07:28) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/363 (kkeithley_, 17:28:32) * 363 exception for bundled library libntirpc in nfs-ganesha (abadger1999, 17:29:31) * Temporary bundling exception for libntirpc in nfs-ganesha until after Fedora 23 approved (+1:5, 0:1, -1:0) (abadger1999, 17:34:38) * #358 Please make some autotools guidelines. (abadger1999, 17:35:59) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/358 (abadger1999, 17:36:03) * ACTION: abadger1999 to write up some guidelines based on past FPC decisions. It will allow both strategies. (abadger1999, 17:45:25) * 359 Forbid sysv initscripts in addition to systemd unit files https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/359 (abadger1999, 17:46:59) * "Packagers MUST NOT include SysV initscripts in addition to systemd unit files, even in a separate <code>$name-sysvinit</code> subpackage." Approved (+1:5, 0:0, -1:1) (abadger1999, 18:07:30) * #361 Two more bundled MD5 implementations (abadger1999, 18:07:42) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/361 (abadger1999, 18:07:46) * New Virtual Provide for C++ port of deutsch's md5 code: bundled(md5-deutsch-c++) passed: (+1:5, 0:0, -1:0) (abadger1999, 18:15:42) * 362 lpf in Fedora (abadger1999, 18:16:20) * #364 exception for bundled library ccan in ocserv (abadger1999, 18:17:27) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/364 (abadger1999, 18:17:31) * LINK: http://ccodearchive.net/ (abadger1999, 18:18:13) * LINK: http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~tangent-trunk/libmemcached/1.2/view/head:/libh… (geppetto, 18:35:18) * LINK: http://burtleburtle.net/bob/c/lookup3.c <= original for that code (abadger1999, 18:38:58) * Open Floor (abadger1999, 18:47:54) Meeting ended at 18:55:41 UTC. Action Items ------------ * abadger1999 to write up some guidelines based on past FPC decisions. It will allow both strategies. Action Items, by person ----------------------- * abadger1999 * abadger1999 to write up some guidelines based on past FPC decisions. It will allow both strategies. * **UNASSIGNED** * (none) People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * abadger1999 (162) * geppetto (58) * RemiFedora (36) * limburgher (23) * tibbs|w (22) * racor (17) * kkeithley_ (6) * zodbot (4) * sgallagh (3) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 .. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot

1 0

Summary/Minutes from today's irc support sig meeting (2013-11-21)
by Kevin Fenzi 21 Nov '13

21 Nov '13

============================================= #fedora-meeting: IRC Support SIG (2013-11-21) ============================================= Meeting started by nirik at 18:00:12 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2013-11-21/irc-support-sig.… . Meeting summary --------------- * init process (nirik, 18:00:12) * Week in review (nirik, 18:03:07) * efi issues/confusion seems on the rise, more docs welcome (nirik, 18:09:43) * next week is holiday in the US, no meeting (nirik, 18:10:59) * Open Floor (nirik, 18:11:29) Meeting ended at 18:20:06 UTC. Action Items ------------ Action Items, by person ----------------------- * **UNASSIGNED** * (none) People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * nirik (35) * danofsatx (11) * EvilBob (10) * DiscordianUK (10) * kc8hfi (4) * zodbot (3) * N3LRX (1) -- 18:00:12 <nirik> #startmeeting IRC Support SIG (2013-11-21) 18:00:12 <zodbot> Meeting started Thu Nov 21 18:00:12 2013 UTC. The chair is nirik. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 18:00:12 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 18:00:12 <nirik> #meetingname irc-support-sig 18:00:12 <nirik> #topic init process 18:00:12 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'irc-support-sig' 18:00:26 <nirik> who all is around for a irc support sig meeting? 18:01:08 <danofsatx> I'm here 18:01:27 <DiscordianUK> i am 18:01:36 <nirik> back in a sec... 18:01:56 * EvilBob 18:03:07 <nirik> ok, lets dive on in then 18:03:07 <nirik> #topic Week in review 18:03:15 <nirik> anything exciting from the last few weeks? 18:03:40 <nirik> we have gotten more f20-beta folks... but I haven't really noticed any common problems they are having or anything. 18:03:49 <danofsatx> Well, I joined the group - does that count? 18:04:02 <nirik> danofsatx: :) welcome 18:04:11 <DiscordianUK> UEFI installs still seem to be a common issue 18:04:28 <EvilBob> A lot of concern about the fglrx/catalyst driver working 18:04:54 <danofsatx> IPv6 is an issue. I haven't nailed down specifics yet, though. 18:05:02 <nirik> DiscordianUK: yeah. Since I now have an efi machine I can help with those... probibly we should do a wiki page writeup or something. 18:05:23 <nirik> EvilBob: sadly so. My distaste for that package continues to grow. ;( 18:05:32 <DiscordianUK> It works for me on a multiple machines 18:05:39 <DiscordianUK> s/a/ 18:05:56 * N3LRX is here 18:06:04 <danofsatx> DiscordianUK: I didn't have an issue with EFI on a clean install of F20. a Dual-boot install of F19 with W8, however, bricked the machine, which is why I got to do a clean F20 install. 18:06:34 <DiscordianUK> But people forget /boot/efi should be the EFI system partition and should not be reformatted 18:06:42 <nirik> EvilBob: it seems safer these days to just assume it doesn't work. ;) 18:06:50 * EvilBob nods 18:07:14 <nirik> DiscordianUK: yeah, a UEFI wiki page might be nice... to just list those differences. 18:07:36 <danofsatx> A lot of the reference documents make no distiction between /boot on BIOS systems and /boot/efi on UEFI systems. 18:07:37 <nirik> I can see about making something and get people to help fill it in. 18:08:13 <DiscordianUK> we populate entries in /boot/efi 18:08:17 <danofsatx> they just default to /boot which could be the source of a lot of confusion 18:08:31 <nirik> yeah, it's just something many aren't used to. ;) 18:08:50 <nirik> also, grub2-efi.cfg instead of grub2.cfg 18:08:57 <nirik> and efibootmgr 18:09:22 <DiscordianUK> i have had my struggles with efibootmgr 18:09:43 <nirik> #info efi issues/confusion seems on the rise, more docs welcome 18:10:18 <nirik> anything else for the last few weeks? 18:10:50 <nirik> I'll note next week in the US is a holiday, so no meeting then. 18:10:59 <nirik> #info next week is holiday in the US, no meeting 18:11:02 <DiscordianUK> okay 18:11:26 <nirik> we have no pending tickets... 18:11:29 <nirik> #topic Open Floor 18:11:41 <nirik> any open floor items? suggestions, ideas, comments, ? 18:12:04 <danofsatx> I need to create a test case for IPv6. Can anyone help with that? 18:12:24 <EvilBob> danofsatx: Not sure what that has to do with this group 18:12:33 <nirik> danofsatx: I could try time permitting... ipv6 works fine here tho. 18:12:51 <kc8hfi> the fedoraunity.org page seems to have trouble finding usernames if someboyd has forgotten their pwd and needs to get it reset 18:13:11 <EvilBob> kc8hfi: the DB is corrupt 18:13:16 <danofsatx> IPv6 in F20 is broken, and I'm not sure of the "correct" test procedures for the Fedora Project 18:13:38 <danofsatx> if there are any, that is 18:13:44 <EvilBob> danofsatx: Lets not drag this group's meeting down with that 18:13:47 <DiscordianUK> i suggest asking in #fedora-qa 18:14:19 <danofsatx> ok - I misunderstood what we were doing here. 18:14:21 <nirik> danofsatx: works here, but yeah, ask qa folks to help duplicate and then file bugs on it. 18:14:23 * danofsatx is sorry 18:14:29 <nirik> no worries. 18:14:32 <kc8hfi> EvilBob: ahh. What do they plan on doing about it? 18:14:41 <EvilBob> kc8hfi: nothing 18:15:35 <EvilBob> kc8hfi: It's perfect, zope+plone is perfectly awesome! You don't question the awesomeness of it! 18:16:18 <nirik> riight. 18:16:50 <nirik> anyhow, thats something for them to determine... not us. ;) 18:16:57 <nirik> anything else for open floor? 18:17:08 <DiscordianUK> not me 18:17:13 <kc8hfi> I reckon i did a bad thing. I questioned just how good zope+plone is! 18:17:51 <EvilBob> kc8hfi: It's OK daMaestro is not here to rip your head off and shit down your neck for it. 18:18:19 <EvilBob> kc8hfi: But now it will be in the log so he will hunt us both down... 18:18:35 <nirik> nice knowing you guys. ;) 18:18:46 * nirik will close out the meeting in a minute if nothing more comes up 18:18:46 <kc8hfi> yeah...that may not be a good thing.... 18:20:03 <nirik> ok, thanks for coming everyone. Do keep helping in #fedora. ;) 18:20:06 <nirik> #endmeeting

1 0

Minutes from today's (11/20/2013) cloud WG meeting
by Sam Kottler 21 Nov '13

21 Nov '13

Thanks everyone who was able to make it to the meeting today! It seems like meeting at 17:00 UTC is tough for some people so we'll work on finding a better time going forward. For those who weren't able to make it, here are few important links: Minutes: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2013-11-20/fedora-meeting… Minutes (text): http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2013-11-20/fedora-meeting… Log: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2013-11-20/fedora-meeting… Log (text): http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2013-11-20/fedora-meeting… Here's a summary of the meeting (link to the HTML and text versions above): ========================================== #fedora-meeting-1: Cloud WG weekly meeting ========================================== Meeting started by samkottler at 17:00:18 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2013-11-20/fedora-meeting… . Meeting summary --------------- * rollcall (samkottler, 17:01:08) * Google compute (samkottler, 17:06:23) * ACTION: mattdm to ping google about gce cloud-init patch upstream (mattdm, 17:09:06) * LINK: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/legal/2013-November/002304.html (samkottler, 17:12:33) * marketing/design document (samkottler, 17:16:35) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/3 (samkottler, 17:17:29) * open floor (samkottler, 17:21:03) * jzb sent out a rough pass at mizmo's questions (gholms, 17:27:33) * ACTION: jzb will send re:invent notes to the list this week (gholms, 17:28:09) * HELP: Please help test f20 images (gholms, 17:30:20) Meeting ended at 17:30:39 UTC. Action Items ------------ * mattdm to ping google about gce cloud-init patch upstream * jzb will send re:invent notes to the list this week Action Items, by person ----------------------- * jzb * jzb will send re:invent notes to the list this week * mattdm * mattdm to ping google about gce cloud-init patch upstream * **UNASSIGNED** * (none) People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * samkottler (52) * mattdm (32) * gholms (24) * jzb (8) * mrunge (6) * zodbot (5) * number80 (0) * rbergeron (0) 17:00:18 <samkottler> #startmeeting Cloud WG weekly meeting 17:00:18 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Nov 20 17:00:18 2013 UTC. The chair is samkottler. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 17:00:18 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 17:00:38 <samkottler> #chair mattdm rbergeron number80 17:00:38 <zodbot> Current chairs: mattdm number80 rbergeron samkottler 17:00:45 <mattdm> hello! 17:00:59 <samkottler> heyya 17:01:08 <samkottler> #topic rollcall 17:01:13 * samkottler is here :) 17:01:14 <mrunge> hey 17:01:23 * mrunge is very shortly here 17:01:26 <samkottler> #chair mrunge 17:01:26 <zodbot> Current chairs: mattdm mrunge number80 rbergeron samkottler 17:01:44 * mrunge suggests a different meeting time, as this is very inconvenient for me 17:02:18 <samkottler> mrunge: that's a good thing to talk about on the list 17:02:21 <samkottler> it's hard to do over IRC 17:02:32 <mrunge> I agree samkottler 17:02:47 <mrunge> esp. since there are other person not attending the meeting as well 17:02:58 <mattdm> thanks for coming nonetheless :) 17:03:18 <samkottler> indeed :) 17:03:31 <samkottler> let's just wait a couple more minutes for people to show up 17:03:47 <mrunge> well, I need to run away very shortly. so, I'll just drop off 17:04:36 * gholms goes to sit with the peanut gallery 17:06:00 <samkottler> okay I guess we'll get started, although we don't have quorum 17:06:09 * mattdm nods 17:06:23 <samkottler> #topic Google compute 17:06:35 <mattdm> I don't know exactly why but it's been a crazy chaotic week nad I feel like zero time has passed since last meeting. *sigh* 17:06:41 <samkottler> frankie isn't here so no update on packaging work right now 17:06:57 <samkottler> mattdm: yeah, same :( 17:07:12 <mattdm> looks like there was agreement on the mailing list that we should focus on cloud-init in the images 17:07:25 <samkottler> mattdm: yeah, seems like we don't even need to vote on that 17:07:32 <mattdm> gholms What do you think about carrying that debian patch? 17:07:56 <samkottler> I was gonna kick the tires on the tools google built, but totally ran out of time 17:08:05 <gholms> I think it should go upstream for review. 17:08:17 <gholms> Then I'm totally happy to grab it. 17:08:29 <samkottler> gholms: does canonical maintain the upstream? 17:08:51 <gholms> Yes 17:08:52 <mattdm> I'll ping the google people about that. 17:09:06 <mattdm> #action mattdm to ping google about gce cloud-init patch upstream 17:09:30 <samkottler> I also reached out to legal about the trusted tester agreement 17:09:40 <samkottler> it's being reviewed right now, I should have word back today or tomorrow 17:09:53 * gholms hopes they aren't reluctant due to canonical's ridiculous contributor licensing racket 17:09:53 <samkottler> things seem promising, though 17:09:56 * samkottler knocks on wood 17:10:01 <gholms> Nice! 17:10:05 <samkottler> gholms: you mean bzr? 17:10:06 <samkottler> :P 17:10:21 <gholms> Nah, the full copyright license thing. 17:10:34 * gholms saves the rant for later 17:10:36 <samkottler> I know, twas kidding :) 17:10:44 <gholms> ;) 17:11:08 <samkottler> so yeah, that's all I've got on the GCE front 17:11:20 <samkottler> anyone got anything else to add? 17:11:22 <mattdm> (they did indicate in a mailing list post that upstream was a goal) 17:11:27 <gholms> What's the trusted tester thing? 17:11:29 <mattdm> that's aall from me for now too. 17:12:11 <samkottler> gholms: google makes people who want to upload images sign a document called the trusted tester agreement to basically give access to more advanced/not thoroughly tested parts of GCE 17:12:33 <samkottler> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/legal/2013-November/002304.html 17:12:51 <gholms> Mere mortals can't upload their own images? How sad. :( 17:13:32 <samkottler> gholms: I think ultimately they will be able to 17:13:40 <samkottler> the features just aren't fully rolled out 17:14:05 * gholms hopes that happens soon 17:14:17 <mattdm> gholms that's actually the state of the art in pretty much most public clouds except ec2 17:15:06 <gholms> Yup. It's really disappointing. 17:16:00 <mattdm> Yup. Next thing, then? 17:16:35 <samkottler> #topic marketing/design document 17:17:25 <samkottler> so some background, the design + marketing teams have asked for some info about what our aims are 17:17:28 <samkottler> so they can plan accordingly 17:17:29 <samkottler> https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/3 17:17:56 <mattdm> it's a really good question :) 17:18:03 <samkottler> if we come across any issues that are contentious they'll have to wait until we have quorum, though 17:18:23 <gholms> I don't think people know the difference between a server and a cloud guest yet, so we probably don't even know ourselves. ;) 17:18:24 <samkottler> mattdm: yeah, slightly interdependent on the PRD 17:18:43 <mattdm> definitely. 17:19:12 <samkottler> jzb just sent a really nice reply to the list 17:19:26 <mattdm> okay, so, proposal: more list discussion here. 17:19:57 <mattdm> (and by here, i mean "on this topic") 17:20:03 <samkottler> mattdm: WFM 17:20:08 <mattdm> (not "here on irc". that would make no sense) 17:20:29 <gholms> There are more people on the list. :) 17:20:58 <samkottler> okay then 17:21:03 <samkottler> #topic open floor 17:21:24 <mattdm> I think we haven't really settled on how targetted we are going to be and how much we're going to do, say, jeos vs. some bigger solution (like coreos+docker) vs. "appliance library" 17:21:50 <samkottler> mattdm: sorry, do you want to keep the last topic going? 17:22:10 <mattdm> eh. that's basically all I have to say and I don't think we're going to decide it right now ;) 17:22:19 <samkottler> agreed 17:22:33 <samkottler> that's part of both the PRD and 'what even are we doing?!' 17:22:37 <gholms> It doesn't even seem like people agree on whether the server should be the minimal thing or the guest should. More discussion is needed. 17:22:55 * mattdm nods 17:23:06 <mattdm> and then an actual decision. 17:23:10 <samkottler> we should probably loop in the server WG 17:23:20 <samkottler> and then have a bigger convo about all this 17:23:36 <mattdm> yeah. I actually have a bunch of mail in my inbox to reply to that relates to all of this. and on the server wg mailing list. 17:23:55 * samkottler needs to subscribe to that list 17:24:05 * gholms is still mad at openstack for overloading the term "server" even more 17:24:15 <mattdm> It's also possible that we end up doing that has a lot of overlap but in different ways. That's not as nice as everything fitting into a jigsaw puzzle but would still be okay. 17:24:37 * gholms nods 17:24:51 <samkottler> gholms: and triple-O even further blurs the lines 17:25:00 <gholms> Heh, yep 17:25:12 <samkottler> treat your servers like cloud guests and then run your cloud guests on your cloud guests 17:25:15 <samkottler> AHHH 17:25:28 * jzb apologizes for being late. Damn time zones. 17:25:33 <samkottler> #chair jzb 17:25:33 <zodbot> Current chairs: jzb mattdm mrunge number80 rbergeron samkottler 17:25:58 <gholms> Heya, jzb 17:26:07 <jzb> gholms: howdy 17:26:10 <mattdm> jzb not too much at this meeting. got anything to raise? 17:26:19 <gholms> samkottler: Eucalyptus does that, and let me tell you, it's awesome. 17:26:26 <jzb> mattdm: have we discussed the branding stuff? 17:26:39 <mattdm> jzb mostly we said "more mailing list discussion" 17:26:41 <jzb> I sent out a rough pass at the Q's mizmo asked 17:26:45 <jzb> OK 17:26:51 <mattdm> i saw but havne't read yet 17:27:07 <jzb> I'm writing up notes from re:Invent that I will share to the list later this week 17:27:22 <mattdm> she asked for that back by dec 3 so I think we should try to have something to by official for next week 17:27:30 <mattdm> "to be" 17:27:33 <gholms> #info jzb sent out a rough pass at mizmo's questions 17:27:56 <jzb> that's all I've got unless someone's got a task for me 17:28:09 <gholms> #action jzb will send re:invent notes to the list this week 17:28:51 * samkottler doesn't have any other topics 17:29:26 <mattdm> yep i think we're done for now. 17:29:40 <mattdm> f20 test candidate images are coming out.... 17:29:55 <mattdm> testing them is a helpful thing to do. :) 17:29:59 <jzb> mattdm: here I was worried I wouldn't have anything to do over Thanksgiving. 17:30:10 <mattdm> jzb right :) 17:30:20 <gholms> #help Please help test f20 images 17:30:39 <samkottler> #endmeeting

1 0

Meeting minutes - today's Env-and-Stacks WG meeting (2013-11-19)
by Marcela Mašláňová 19 Nov '13

19 Nov '13

============================================ #fedora-meeting: Env and Stacks (2013-11-19) ============================================ Meeting started by mmaslano at 16:04:20 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2013-11-19/env_and_stacks.2… . Meeting summary --------------- * init process (mmaslano, 16:07:42) * ACTION: pkovar will hunt handsome_pirate for content of WG wiki pages (mmaslano, 16:11:59) * use urls like http://fp.o/wiki/Environment and Stacks/* (mmaslano, 16:13:15) * and categories should use [[Category: Environment and Stacks]] (mmaslano, 16:13:52) * put a link to our homepage to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora.next (mmaslano, 16:17:44) * PRD (mmaslano, 16:19:29) * LINK: http://piratepad.net/PwUiH4MEPR (abadger1999, 17:04:53) * ACTION: everyone to send one general thing they want the WG to enable and one specific thing they'd personally want to work on to the mailing list this week (abadger1999, 17:37:44) Meeting ended at 17:43:04 UTC. Action Items ------------ * pkovar will hunt handsome_pirate for content of WG wiki pages * everyone to send one general thing they want the WG to enable and one specific thing they'd personally want to work on to the mailing list this week Action Items, by person ----------------------- * handsome_pirate * pkovar will hunt handsome_pirate for content of WG wiki pages * pkovar * pkovar will hunt handsome_pirate for content of WG wiki pages * **UNASSIGNED** * everyone to send one general thing they want the WG to enable and one specific thing they'd personally want to work on to the mailing list this week People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * abadger1999 (101) * mmaslano (70) * tjanez (27) * samkottler (17) * drieden (14) * pkovar (11) * hhorak (9) * zodbot (4) * sochotni (2) * nirik (1) * bkabrda (0) * juhp (0) * handsome_pirate (0) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 .. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot 16:04:20 <mmaslano> #startmeeting Env and Stacks (2013-11-19) 16:04:20 <zodbot> Meeting started Tue Nov 19 16:04:20 2013 UTC. The chair is mmaslano. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 16:04:20 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 16:04:27 <mmaslano> #meetingname env and stacks 16:04:27 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'env_and_stacks' 16:05:37 <mmaslano> #chair abadger1999 pkovar tjanez samkottler bkabrda handsome_pirate hhorak juhp 16:05:37 <zodbot> Current chairs: abadger1999 bkabrda handsome_pirate hhorak juhp mmaslano pkovar samkottler tjanez 16:06:06 <mmaslano> how many people is here? 16:06:14 <hhorak> Hi, I am 16:06:24 <tjanez> hi 16:06:24 <drieden> Hello 16:06:24 * pkovar is here 16:06:27 * sochotni 16:07:36 <mmaslano> ok, we have some members here 16:07:42 <mmaslano> #topic init process 16:08:01 <mmaslano> let's go through old stuff first 16:08:27 <mmaslano> I admit I forgot to create trac request, I opened a ticket now https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/4124 16:08:34 <mmaslano> what about wiki pages? 16:09:15 <pkovar> keep them where they are? 16:09:34 <pkovar> i think that other WG are also using fedora wiki, no? 16:10:03 <mmaslano> someone had to create them 16:10:06 <tjanez> I believe handsome_pirate said he'll setup our Wiki page 16:10:14 <tjanez> on Fedora wiki, of course 16:10:32 <mmaslano> I understand he will put content about WG on one place 16:10:33 <pkovar> good, i can help with that 16:10:53 <mmaslano> pkovar: do you want to poke him what's the status or if we have any problem? 16:11:09 * abadger1999 here 16:11:13 <pkovar> sure, will try to hunt him down :-) 16:11:42 <drieden> is handsome_pirate in Westford? If so, want me to follow up with him? 16:11:43 * abadger1999 nots that "space on the wiki" should just be convention. 16:11:59 <mmaslano> #action pkovar will hunt handsome_pirate for content of WG wiki pages 16:12:15 <mmaslano> drieden: I do not know, where is he located 16:12:17 <abadger1999> with mediawiki, convention is usually like [[Category: Environment and Stacks]] 16:12:50 <abadger1999> but in Fedora, we like using urls like http://fp.o/wiki/Environment and Stacks/* 16:13:15 <mmaslano> #info use urls like http://fp.o/wiki/Environment and Stacks/* 16:13:28 <abadger1999> mmaslano: We should also use categories. 16:13:44 <abadger1999> as categories have support in mediawiki (like the listing of all pages in the categories) 16:13:52 <mmaslano> #info and categories should use [[Category: Environment and Stacks]] 16:13:59 <mmaslano> abadger1999: feel free to mark it by yourself 16:14:12 <hhorak> maybe put a link to our homepage to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora.next 16:17:44 <mmaslano> #info put a link to our homepage to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora.next 16:17:49 <mmaslano> more comments to wiki? 16:19:21 <mmaslano> I understand no 16:19:29 <mmaslano> #topic PRD 16:19:41 <mmaslano> let's move what we want to do or should do in our group 16:20:07 <mmaslano> I asked nirik about Formulas - it's sort of dead project, so we can move to next topics :) 16:20:42 <mmaslano> he promised some summary about it, when he has time 16:20:55 <abadger1999> Formulas is good if someone wants to push it. Otherwise, there's no one to do the work. 16:21:05 * nirik subscribed but hasn't had time to send yet. will try today. 16:21:15 <mmaslano> nirik: thanks 16:21:21 <pkovar> what about stacks 2.0? 16:21:26 <abadger1999> AFAIK, there's no code. Just an idea about capabilities. 16:21:45 <hhorak> btw. Dev Assistant is a bit similar project to formulas, afaict... 16:22:08 <mmaslano> pkovar: jan is not here, but he told me he'd like to plan scl-utils-2.0 with bigger changes, maybe incompatible. Re-do what we did wrong 16:22:36 <pkovar> ok, sounds interesting 16:23:08 <abadger1999> hhorak: Looks to me like they differ in scope. 16:23:26 <abadger1999> hhorak: formulas could (theoretically) be the technology that enables DevAssistant. 16:23:39 <hhorak> what we can do even now is we can submit RFE bugs for scl-utils if anybody has some ideas for enhancements.. 16:23:42 <abadger1999> hhorak: but formulas would be more generic in scope. 16:24:17 <mmaslano> hhorak: yes, we'd like to do some planning meeting what Jan should do in next release 16:24:27 <abadger1999> Is there a timeframe? 16:24:29 <mmaslano> ideas are welcomed 16:24:37 <hhorak> abadger1999: thanks for explanation 16:24:44 <mmaslano> abadger1999: at Friday we will start :) 16:25:00 * abadger1999 thinks it could help with FPC if I could tell them -- identify things that can be changed in scls for scl2. 16:25:26 <abadger1999> takes some of the pressure off when you know that the next version won't have the rough edges that you found in the present one. 16:25:47 <mmaslano> abadger1999: I don't think we see same problems (packagers, fpc) 16:26:06 <mmaslano> abadger1999: could we post the plan on mailing list and comment on it? 16:26:13 <abadger1999> mmaslano: FPC is packagers. 16:26:14 <mmaslano> abadger1999: I guess we can put it on some public wiki 16:26:48 <mmaslano> abadger1999: I'm sorry, I ment scl heavy users has different issues than fpc 16:27:30 <abadger1999> mmaslano: To keep growing who is going to use scls the FPC issues should be addressed. 16:28:09 <mmaslano> abadger1999: as I said post your comments on env and stacks mailing list in short summary 16:28:20 <abadger1999> What comments? 16:28:43 <mmaslano> features? 16:28:48 <abadger1999> ? 16:28:55 <abadger1999> I don't understand the context. 16:29:06 <abadger1999> what do you want posted to the ml? 16:29:37 <mmaslano> abadger1999: you said "identify things that can be changed in scls for scl2". I'm saying ok, post list of those things on mailing list 16:29:43 <abadger1999> ah 16:30:29 <abadger1999> mmaslano: I think we probably need to reach out to the other FPC members. 16:31:01 <abadger1999> timeframe for knowing the requirements, ask if they can determine what issues exist with the current implementation by that time, etc. 16:31:38 <abadger1999> Alternately -- will there be an scls3? 16:32:43 <mmaslano> what should be there? 16:33:45 <abadger1999> Very likely. The problem is that right now there's only one large user of scls. As more people start using it for their purposes limitations and issues will crop up that will need to be addressed. 16:34:45 <drieden> It would be helpful to identify these use cases and add them to the prd. 16:34:46 <abadger1999> If scls2 is planned for, say 6 months from now... I don't think that enough people will be using it for fedora packages to identify most of the places where it makes things hard instead of easy for our use case. 16:35:37 <pkovar> drieden: +1. that could also help our documentation efforts 16:36:06 <abadger1999> drieden: Yep -- but I'm saying, it's too early to have identified those well. 16:36:18 <drieden> pkovar Yes, that sounds good. 16:36:43 <drieden> abadger1999 Yes, that makes sense too. You cannot see into the future. But if there are things we know of now, it would be helpful to document. 16:36:58 <abadger1999> We/everyone who works on an scls2 should put in the use cases they can think of but there's not enough of us/enough real scl creators to actually do a good job of that at the moment. 16:37:26 <abadger1999> That's why I'm saying, thinking about there being an scls3 would be a good idea. 16:37:53 <abadger1999> ie: we're thinking that this won't be the last opportunity to break compatibility and rethink the capabilities of hte tool. 16:38:02 <abadger1999> so we don't have to get scls2 perfect. 16:38:13 <abadger1999> it just has to be better than scls1 16:38:29 <abadger1999> Does that make sense 16:38:30 <abadger1999> ? 16:38:34 <pkovar> no software is perfect ;-) 16:38:38 <drieden> :) 16:39:03 <abadger1999> pkovar: <nod> yes. But sometimes we get (rightfully) more attached to stability and backwards compat than perfection. 16:39:09 <mmaslano> imho it's soon to discuss it 16:39:13 <abadger1999> For instance, rpm :-) 16:39:50 <tjanez> While I like the scls (whichever version :-)), I propose we take a step back and try to identify the "big picture" of our WG first. I think the "Charter" thread on the ML (https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/env-and-stacks/2013-November/0000…) was a good start but it died off last week... 16:40:10 <abadger1999> tjanez: +1 16:40:22 <sochotni> tjanez: indeed, not everything is about SCLs 16:40:29 <abadger1999> So one thing in the Charter discussion -- I do not think we should be treading on the FPC ground. 16:40:51 <abadger1999> And I also think we should be careful about creating Guidelines that we want people to follow here. 16:40:52 <drieden> tjanez +1. 16:41:26 <tjanez> abadger1999: Are you referring to my email? 16:41:32 <abadger1999> We should be coming up with guideline drafts here but they should be approved elsewhere. 16:41:43 <abadger1999> tjanez: I think mmaslano's mostly, but yours as well. 16:42:06 <mmaslano> tjanez: I agree with big picture :) 16:42:26 <tjanez> abadger1999, I agree with you and I think we should invent a way to cooperate with FPC 16:42:48 <tjanez> having you on-board makes it easy, though :-) 16:44:01 <tjanez> Well, I would like to iterate our discussion/ideas a little more 16:44:06 <abadger1999> Final discussion, redrafting, and approval of guidelines is something that does require a great deal of attention to precedent and attention to the big picture in Fedora. Whereas what we seem to be leaning towards is finding out both what does and doesn't work via experimentation with new technologies. 16:44:31 <abadger1999> tjanez: to some extent :-) But I'm only one committee member. 16:44:48 <mmaslano> abadger1999: I disagree if we use different repository for playing with new things, it could work 16:45:12 <mmaslano> anyway that's not about what WG will do 16:45:43 <tjanez> abadger1999, I mostly agree with you 16:45:47 <abadger1999> mmaslano: I disagree but when we talk about a different repository, I could see having other bodies like FPC that can do guideline redrafting and approval for that repo. 16:46:08 <tjanez> could we say than that our WG is moving faster and is not restricted so much with current guidelines/policies 16:46:14 <mmaslano> in my opinion it slows down development 16:46:27 <abadger1999> mmaslano: also -- a different repository could be a "wild west repository"... ie: (most) anything goes. 16:46:40 <mmaslano> abadger1999: what I understood from Fedora.next proposal, some WGs should have less strict policies or no policies 16:46:52 <abadger1999> and in that sort of repo, I wouldn't have a problem with no guidelines. 16:47:05 <mmaslano> abadger1999: I would be fine with wild west for images, scl2, ... 16:47:33 <tjanez> So our WG is like "incubation" of ideas 16:47:52 <tjanez> and good ideas are then re-iterated and formalized 16:47:53 <abadger1999> mmaslano: I saw that a little different -- we would have some "repositories" with less strict policies. But those weren't related to the WGs. 16:47:55 <mmaslano> tjanez: that's something to put in PRD :) 16:48:03 <abadger1999> mmaslano: Cool :-) 16:48:37 <abadger1999> mmaslano: So that might be something to put into our charter/prd -- one of the things we want to deliver is anything-goes repositories. 16:48:41 <mmaslano> tjanez: I asked Matt few weeks back, it shouldn't be PRD,because Env and STacks is not a real product. So starting with ideas should be ok 16:49:40 <tjanez> What we still have to do is at least somewhat define the terms environments and stacks 16:49:50 <tjanez> stacks will be easier, I think 16:50:01 <tjanez> since we all have some image of it 16:50:08 <drieden> mmaslano Is there a PRD template that we are supposed to use? 16:50:25 <tjanez> environments (from Matt slides) are not so clear, IMO 16:50:37 <mmaslano> drieden: no, I guess only Workstation has final version of PRD, but we had only list of areas/ideas 16:50:44 * abadger1999 notes -- to organize our thoughts it might be helpful to open a gobby doc. 16:51:00 <hhorak> tjanez: +1 defining the terms also seems essential to me 16:51:22 <tjanez> abadger1999: I haven't used gobby yet, but go ahead, teach us :-) 16:51:31 <drieden> mmaslano Ok. It might be good to have our outline of what we are going to put into the PRD and then focus on those areas. The terms is a great thing to have in the PRD. 16:51:43 <abadger1999> yum install gobby 16:52:36 <abadger1999> join session 16:52:44 <abadger1999> Host: gobby.fedoraproject.org 16:52:48 <abadger1999> Port: 6522 16:52:59 <abadger1999> Name: arbitrary to identify you 16:53:12 <abadger1999> It'll ask for a passwd 16:53:18 <mmaslano> drieden: I thought we should discuss items, which Matt mentioned here http://mattdm.org/fedora/next/#24 16:53:27 <abadger1999> You can get that by doing: ssh fedorapeople.org cat /home/fedora/lmacken/gobby 16:53:47 <abadger1999> If you don't have access to fedorapeople/the ssh command doesn't work, I can PM it to you. 16:53:50 <mmaslano> drieden: and add some parts, which are needed by other WGs, like using containers 16:54:57 <drieden> mmaslano thanks, looking now. 16:56:27 <tjanez> Ok, I'm on gobby now 16:58:13 <abadger1999> tjanez: Cool. I started a doc:Env and Stacks Charter 16:58:34 <tjanez> abadger1999: Yea, I follow you typing live 16:59:18 <drieden> abadger1999 I am unable to get gobby I get permission denied. 16:59:42 <abadger1999> drieden: k. When trying to connect to gobby.fedoraproject.org? 16:59:48 <tjanez> mmaslano: Regarding our charter and Matt's slide 24, how much into details regarding the implementation details we want to go? 17:00:20 <mmaslano> tjanez: now, high level, abstract. 17:00:28 <mmaslano> tjanez: I don't we need details in Charter 17:00:51 <tjanez> mmaslano: Ok, thanks for clearing that up 17:00:56 <drieden> abadger1999 I can get to gobby.fedoraproject.org. Permission denied with ssh 17:01:31 <abadger1999> drieden: k. Private messaging you the gobby.fp.o password. 17:01:42 <tjanez> mmaslano: I'm also in favor of a high-level document 17:03:34 <abadger1999> Okay -- we don't all have access to the gobby package it seems. 17:03:41 <abadger1999> Maybe something like etherpad? 17:03:56 <samkottler> sorry, my TZ's are apparently totally messed up today :( 17:03:59 * abadger1999 figures out where public hosting of that kind of thing is 17:04:00 <mmaslano> etherpad would be fine, if we have some public instance 17:04:16 * abadger1999 found one -- setting up a doc 17:04:53 <abadger1999> http://piratepad.net/PwUiH4MEPR 17:05:07 <abadger1999> Okay, hopefully that works better for everyone. 17:05:27 <abadger1999> Sorry everyone that just got gobby set up :-) 17:07:38 <abadger1999> when I read about env and stacks in mattdm's document... it really seemed like two words to mean the same thing. 17:08:07 <abadger1999> "stacks of software to enable running/developing other software" 17:08:19 <abadger1999> "isolated environments to enable running/developing other software" 17:08:59 <mmaslano> no, see http://mattdm.org/fedora/next/#18 17:09:08 <mmaslano> and http://mattdm.org/fedora/next/#19 17:09:27 <mmaslano> but it's too cloud centric, we should think bigger :) 17:09:59 <mmaslano> samkottler: do you know where to put cartridges? http://piratepad.net/PwUiH4MEPR 17:10:07 <mmaslano> samkottler: and do you know everything about them? 17:10:40 <samkottler> mmaslano: I wouldn't say *everything* but yeah, I know mostly how they work :) 17:10:59 <samkottler> mmaslano: I think they fall into the environments group 17:11:00 <mmaslano> samkottler: I know a little. It's not clear to me what should we do with them 17:11:05 <samkottler> or in a third category 17:11:19 <samkottler> because they're kind of both the runtime and pull in the software 17:11:23 <samkottler> I would lean toward environments 17:12:01 <abadger1999> mmaslano: <nod> I can agree with the examples... I just don't know that the separation he makes between them really exists :-) 17:12:01 <mmaslano> samkottler: and how should they change or should they go into some repo, to make them available easier or what? 17:12:31 * abadger1999 is a little hesitant about "desktop environments" but is willing to see where something specific takes that first. 17:12:44 <samkottler> mmaslano: hmm they're expected to be git repos so it doesn't really make sense to package them IMO 17:12:56 <samkottler> although we could work with the openshift folks to figure out a sane way to package them up 17:13:00 <samkottler> which I imagine will be useful for them, too 17:13:17 <samkottler> abadger1999: yeah, we might end up stepping on some toes with that one 17:13:20 <mmaslano> samkottler: so that's probably the goal for cartridges 17:13:26 <hhorak> Having in mind a difference between env. and stacks in a modularity aspect (http://mattdm.org/fedora/next/#17) then cartridges seem more like stacks to me 17:13:28 <abadger1999> samkottler: alternately -- the goal could be to eventually have a Fedora Cartridges git repo. 17:13:41 <abadger1999> ie: the git repos are the "packaging" 17:14:48 <samkottler> abadger1999: true, although I wonder if we're going to overlap too much with the work that the openshift team is doing 17:15:24 <tjanez> hhorak, +1, as I understand OpenShift Cartridges, they are more like stacks 17:15:42 <abadger1999> samkottler: I'm... not sure :-) I guess Fedora got its start as providing addon packages to RHL that had a known quality to them. 17:15:42 <tjanez> also, Matt put them under Stacks (http://mattdm.org/fedora/next/#19) 17:16:11 <abadger1999> samkottler: And having community (instead of 100% paid people) making and maintaining those packages. 17:16:21 <abadger1999> I could see a similar relationship with the openshift team. 17:16:22 <mmaslano> does it matter? stacks or environment? 17:16:32 <abadger1999> mmaslano: +1 to does not matter :-) 17:16:52 <samkottler> abadger1999: yeah, we should start that conversation with the openshift team, though 17:16:56 <abadger1999> <nod> 17:17:23 <abadger1999> samkottler: So... probably coordination with both inside Fedora Groups and outside Fedora groups is one of our responsibilities? 17:17:27 <samkottler> mmaslano: not really beyond semantics IMO 17:17:57 <abadger1999> (like -- coordinate with openshift team about guidelines and what we provide vs what they provide. Coordinate withh infra for being able to host a git repo for cartridges) 17:18:42 <samkottler> abadger1999: I'm not a huge fan of using fedorahosted for this, though 17:19:11 <abadger1999> samkottler: yeah, I.... am not sure fedorahosted is a good fit. 17:19:26 <abadger1999> samkottler: But wouldn't that be something we coordinate with infra? 17:19:48 <samkottler> abadger1999: yep, I just suspect that FH will be the first suggestion for where it should live :) 17:21:28 <abadger1999> Us: "We need git repos for hosting experimental openshift cartridges with the eventual goal of providing them similar to how we provide yum repositories". Infra: "We currently have git hosting via fedorahosted" Us: "Once we get to $Size or $Officialness or $Other we probably want something more that satisfies those needs better" 17:21:44 <abadger1999> Infra: "Okay, let's talk about budget and timeframe for that" 17:22:08 <abadger1999> samkottler: something like that is how I suspect it might go? Sound reasonable? 17:22:19 <samkottler> abadger1999: yep, WFM 17:27:36 * tjanez will have another meeting in 3 minutes 17:28:12 <mmaslano> abadger1999: I'm also leaving 17:28:19 <abadger1999> tjanez: Note -- we might want to implement the "definitely conflicts with pacaging guidelines" packages in a separate repo from the "experimental but aimed at eventually coming from the main fedora repos" 17:28:25 <abadger1999> as separate repositories. 17:28:31 <mmaslano> abadger1999: could you chair rest of the meeting or I can end meeting in few minutes 17:28:45 <abadger1999> mmaslano: I'm okay to end 17:29:04 <abadger1999> mmaslano: what do we want to do to continue the charter work this week? 17:29:37 <abadger1999> I can paste what we have into a wiki page. 17:29:59 <abadger1999> But people will need to add things to it if we expect it to see progress this week :-) 17:30:14 <tjanez> abadger1999: +1 regarding the eventually coming from the main Fedora repos 17:30:16 <mmaslano> abadger1999: we can continue on the piratepad, but please do backup :) 17:30:41 <abadger1999> mmaslano: Roger -- I'll copy to a wiki page after the meeting 17:31:11 <abadger1999> And set a reminder to check the piratepad later this week for updates. 17:31:54 <abadger1999> mmaslano: what should people do this week to move this forward? 17:32:37 <mmaslano> abadger1999: continue with proposal? 17:33:12 <abadger1999> mmaslano: Right :-) I mean -- what should people actually focus on doing? 17:33:55 <mmaslano> probably on their area of expertise :) which is bad because cartridges, containers, ... not so many people 17:34:34 <mmaslano> but they can add also their ideas from their area if it fits into big plan of WG 17:34:36 <abadger1999> Something like: "Everyone send one general thing they want the WG to enable and one specific thing they'd personally want to work on to the mailing list this week" 17:35:21 <mmaslano> abadger1999: +1 17:35:40 <hhorak> and all can start learning something about cartridges.. 17:36:58 <pkovar> sounds good to me 17:37:26 <abadger1999> Cool. 17:37:30 <drieden> sounds good to me too 17:37:43 <tjanez> abadger1999: +1 on making thing go forward 17:37:44 <abadger1999> #action everyone to send one general thing they want the WG to enable and one specific thing they'd personally want to work on to the mailing list this week 17:39:00 <abadger1999> we'll work on fitting those into the charter draft and maybe what we're going to actually start working on in January based on those. 17:41:10 <mmaslano> I'll close meeting in one minute 17:42:31 <hhorak> So, see you everyone! 17:42:38 <samkottler> cya! 17:42:49 <drieden> bye bye 17:42:51 <pkovar> bye 17:43:04 <mmaslano> #endmeeting

2 1

2013-11-18 - Fedora QA Meeting - recap
by Adam Williamson 18 Nov '13

18 Nov '13

As always, minutes and IRC transcript available on the wiki at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Meetings/20131118 Next meeting is scheduled for 2013-11-25 at 1600 UTC in #fedora-meeting. If you have topics you think we should bring up at the meeting, please add them to the Wiki page at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Meetings/20131125. Thanks! TOPIC: Previous meeting follow-up ======================================================================= * "roshi to help out adamw with CommonsBugs page" - this was done, Common_F20_bugs[1] is now up to date for Beta * "roshi to file Final TC1 compose request" - this was also done[2], and TC1 was built TOPIC: Fedora 20 Final status ======================================================================= * tflink mentioned that the blocker tracking app would be updated 'in the next day or so'. The new version was already available for testing[3] * Several ARM images failed to compose for TC1 due to yumex dependency issue, adamw will try to ensure it's resolved for TC2 * There were still lots of gaps in the matrices from TC1 testing, we should aim to get as close to full coverage as we can with TC2 * TC2 request would likely be filed the day of the meeting TOPIC: Open floor ======================================================================= * cmurf raised the question of whether we should lobby for changes to the 'support status' of LVM thinp and/or btrfs * We voted, and agreed that we would propose to anaconda team and/or fesco that anaconda and F20 marketing be modified to put LVM thinp in 'feature preview mode': the installer should hide it or warn that it is unsupported, and marketing materials should either leave it out or list it as a preview Action items ======================================================================= * jreznik to move forward with proposing switch to 'feature preview mode' for thinp * cmurf and kparal to discuss status of btrfs with anaconda team 1. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_F20_bugs 2. https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5808 3. https://qa.stg.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/ -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net

1 0

Famsco meeting logs
by alejandro perez 18 Nov '13

18 Nov '13

Meeting ended Mon Nov 18 17:19:18 2013 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . Minutes: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-2/2013-11-18/famsco.2013-11… Minutes (text): http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-2/2013-11-18/famsco.2013-11… Log: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-2/2013-11-18/famsco.2013-11…

1 0

Fedora Chinese Meeting Minutes (2013-11-15)
by Alick Zhao 15 Nov '13

15 Nov '13

Hi all, The IRC meeting minutes tonight are available at the link [1]. Thanks everyone for attending the meeting. In the meeting we talked about FUDCon bid progress, F20 Release Party, and L10N. Please review the proposed ideas and actions. The next IRC meeting will be held on next Friday (2013-11-22). Please come and join the discussion if you can! [1]: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-zh/2013-11-15/fedora-zh.2013-11-15-… ================== #fedora-zh Meeting ================== Meeting started by alick at 13:00:37 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-zh/2013-11-15/fedora-zh.2013-11-15-… . Meeting summary --------------- * 报到 (alick, 13:00:57) * FUDCON APAC 2014 申办 (alick, 13:10:53) * ACTION: alick to email out the current version of planning document (alick, 13:14:35) * dongfengweixiao 提到北京联合大学可能可以提供免费场地 (alick, 13:18:06) * ACTION: dongfengweixiao contact Beijing Union Univ for more info (alick, 13:18:35) * ACTION: Li Zhenbo 完善一下 wiki 的 IRC meetings 条目 (endle, 13:19:19) * HELP: everyone to update the bid wiki page: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FUDCon:Bid_for_Beijing_2014 (alick, 13:27:03) * F20 Release Party (alick, 13:30:58) * fedora rel party 上海站日期初步定于12-22 (RobberPhex, 13:34:22) * kraks 会联系地大寻找 F20 relparty 北京站场地 (alick, 13:37:03) * ACTION: tonghuix to find possible bar for relparty beijing (alick, 13:55:17) * 中文翻译 (alick, 13:56:13) * LINK: https://fedora.transifex.com/projects/p/fedora/language/zh_CN/?project=2060 (alick, 13:56:22) Meeting ended at 14:01:27 UTC. Action Items ------------ * alick to email out the current version of planning document * dongfengweixiao contact Beijing Union Univ for more info * Li Zhenbo 完善一下 wiki 的 IRC meetings 条目 * tonghuix to find possible bar for relparty beijing Action Items, by person ----------------------- * alick * alick to email out the current version of planning document * tonghuix * tonghuix to find possible bar for relparty beijing * **UNASSIGNED** * dongfengweixiao contact Beijing Union Univ for more info * Li Zhenbo 完善一下 wiki 的 IRC meetings 条目 People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * alick (55) * tonghuix (15) * endle (11) * RobberPhex (10) * violetzj (7) * zodbot (4) * BadGirl (4) * isyangxin (3) * biergaizi (3) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 .. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot

1 0

Summary/Minutes from today's Fedora Infrastructure meeting (2013-11-14)
by Kevin Fenzi 14 Nov '13

14 Nov '13

============================================ #fedora-meeting: Infrastructure (2013-11-14) ============================================ Meeting started by nirik at 19:00:04 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2013-11-14/infrastructure.2… . Meeting summary --------------- * welcome everyone (nirik, 19:00:04) * New folks introductions and Apprentice tasks (nirik, 19:02:59) * Applications status / discussion (nirik, 19:11:39) * coprs launch going well, 10GB of storage used so far. Next week SCL building hopefully. (nirik, 19:13:46) * new version of fedora-tagger landed in production today. some enhancements requested by community members. (threebean, 19:14:32) * LINK: https://apps.fedoraproject.org/tagger (threebean, 19:14:37) * pkgdb2 is up for testing at http://209.132.184.188/ feedback/bug reports/rfe welcome at https://github.com/fedora-infra/packagedb2/ (pingou, 19:14:44) * fedocal 0.3.0 tagged an deployed today (pingou, 19:15:14) * mailman3 work moving along. Hopefully ready for a prod instance before too long. (nirik, 19:32:01) * python-fedora release blocked by 2 issues. Help wanted to move it along. (nirik, 19:32:22) * Sysadmin status / discussion (nirik, 19:35:17) * fedocal moved to ansible today (nirik, 19:35:41) * outage next week (nirik, 19:36:35) * Upcoming Tasks/Items (nirik, 19:40:53) * LINK: https://apps.fedoraproject.org/calendar/list/infrastructure/ (nirik, 19:40:54) * Open Floor (nirik, 19:42:06) Meeting ended at 19:54:24 UTC. Action Items ------------ Action Items, by person ----------------------- * **UNASSIGNED** * (none) People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * nirik (93) * pingou (37) * threebean (24) * abompard (16) * anshprat (13) * wraeth (12) * docent (11) * abadger1999 (9) * mirek (9) * frankieonuonga (6) * jimikirk (5) * zodbot (4) * lmacken (4) * relrod (3) * ausmarton (1) * tflink (1) * puiterwijk (0) * smooge (0) * mdomsch (0) * dgilmore (0) -- 19:00:04 <nirik> #startmeeting Infrastructure (2013-11-14) 19:00:04 <zodbot> Meeting started Thu Nov 14 19:00:04 2013 UTC. The chair is nirik. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 19:00:04 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 19:00:04 <nirik> #meetingname infrastructure 19:00:04 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'infrastructure' 19:00:04 <nirik> #topic welcome everyone 19:00:04 <nirik> #chair smooge relrod nirik abadger1999 lmacken dgilmore mdomsch threebean pingou puiterwijk 19:00:04 <zodbot> Current chairs: abadger1999 dgilmore lmacken mdomsch nirik pingou puiterwijk relrod smooge threebean 19:00:33 * lmacken 19:00:36 <nirik> who alll is around for a infra meeting? 19:00:39 * pingou 19:00:41 * threebean is here 19:00:55 * ausmarton is here 19:01:15 * relrod is here but won't be for the entire meeting :( 19:01:17 * abompard is here 19:01:18 * mirek is here 19:01:28 * anshprat here 19:01:36 <pingou> relrod: we'll miss you :) 19:01:46 <frankieonuonga> where is relrod going ? 19:02:12 <relrod> pingou: Oh I'll be doing much more fun things like waiting for my mom while she has a doctor appointment ;) 19:02:32 <pingou> relrod: don't forget your phone/laptop/book ;-) 19:02:37 <relrod> yep :) 19:02:41 <pingou> relrod: and hope she does all right ;) 19:02:47 * wraeth is here and would like to introduce himself when appropriate 19:02:48 <frankieonuonga> wish you the best relrod 19:02:50 <nirik> ok, lets go ahead and dive in. 19:02:51 <pingou> (or alright, I never know which is which) 19:02:58 * frankieonuonga is here 19:02:59 <nirik> #topic New folks introductions and Apprentice tasks 19:03:13 <nirik> any new folks want to introduce themselves? or apprentices with question/comments? 19:03:20 <nirik> wraeth: ? :) 19:03:25 <wraeth> hello people :) 19:03:41 <wraeth> I'm Sam (wraeth) - sent the intro email a couple of days ago 19:04:03 <wraeth> i'll just be lurking around while I get a feel for things if that's okay 19:04:29 <nirik> excellent. welcome! 19:04:41 <anshprat> askbot stg looking good 19:04:51 <nirik> it's absoletely fine... ask questions as they come to you. 19:04:53 <anshprat> am just closing on the login part 19:05:04 <wraeth> will do :) 19:05:08 <nirik> anshprat: great work. ;) the multlingual is still not working tho right? ;( 19:05:08 <jimikirk> I also like to introduce myself as an apperentice, My name is James (jimikirk) and I've been looking forward to contribute as a sys admin to fedora project 19:05:18 <anshprat> nirik: nope, another crash 19:05:41 <nirik> welcome jimikirk. 19:05:42 * abadger1999 sorta here... but mostly in fpc meeting 19:06:06 <jimikirk> nirik: thanks, first time here, hope I can help 19:06:07 <nirik> wraeth / jimikirk: you are both interested in the sysadmin side of things? or also application devel/coding/ 19:06:30 <anshprat> nirik: threebean: I am hitting the roads again for 10 days, so will update the bug, we should be good to release a package 19:06:43 <wraeth> i'm interested in coding, but only have experience in scripting - self taught VB long time ago, but want to learn C++ 19:06:44 <threebean> anshprat: safe travels! 19:06:45 <anshprat> echevemaster will mostly pick it up from the bug 19:06:50 <anshprat> threebean: thanks :) 19:07:02 <jimikirk> nirik: I have experience in python, perl, ruby and shell/awk/sed as well as C and C++ 19:07:17 <nirik> anshprat: sounds good. I hope we might be able to also get the theme setup for the update at the same time too. 19:07:25 <anshprat> jimikirk: wraeth: welcome aboard 19:07:55 <anshprat> nirik: alright.. 19:07:56 <nirik> wraeth / jimikirk: cool. See me in #fedora-admin after the meeting and I can set you up in our apprentice group... and see #fedora-apps for our application development/coding folks. 19:08:08 <jimikirk> anshprat: thanks, looking forward to be part of the community 19:08:25 <wraeth> nirik, anshprat: thanks and will do 19:08:47 <nirik> cool. Any other apprentice questions or new folks? if not, moving along... 19:08:49 <jimikirk> nirik: will do 19:09:05 * docent is a bit late ;) 19:09:12 <nirik> Hey docent. 19:09:15 <docent> I'm newcomer - hello guys :) 19:09:31 <docent> I sent my introduce msg yesterday 19:09:40 <nirik> docent: welcome! 19:09:53 <docent> I got some exp in RHELs envs, also use Feodra as my main desktop OS :) 19:09:54 <nirik> docent: are you more intested in sysadmin stuff? or application devel/coding? or both? 19:10:26 <docent> Both. I'm RHCE working full time for the last 12 years ;) I can code safely in Bash / Python / Perl 19:11:27 <nirik> docent: cool. See me in #fedora-admin after the meeting and I can set you up in our apprentice group... and see #fedora-apps for our application development/coding folks. 19:11:39 <nirik> #topic Applications status / discussion 19:11:43 <threebean> fwiw, I already added docent to fi-apprentice this morning. 19:11:50 <nirik> threebean: excellent. thanks. 19:11:57 <mirek> Copr have credentials stored in private infra repo now. 19:11:58 <mirek> Copr got fedmsg certificate and emits messages to bus (thanks to ralph). 19:12:00 <mirek> Copr consumed 10 GB of storage so far, so current storage will last one year. Unless copr become more popular. 19:12:01 <mirek> Hopefully next week will land changes there, that will allow building of software collections there. 19:12:06 <docent> For now I'm looking into http://fedoraproject.org/easyfix/ so will be able to pick something for the beginning 19:12:12 <pingou> (for later: I have a remark regarding the wording on the introduction page) 19:12:29 <nirik> mirek: cool. ;) 19:12:35 <docent> threebean: not true - that was afternoon! ;) 19:12:42 <nirik> mirek: will be interesting to see how usage goes over time. 19:12:43 <threebean> docent: true, true! 19:13:06 <mirek> nirik: yes, I'm watching that closely 19:13:46 <nirik> #info coprs launch going well, 10GB of storage used so far. Next week SCL building hopefully. 19:13:46 <pingou> mirek: I wonder if we would be interested in a /stats page w/ the number of users, repo, copr 19:14:32 <threebean> #info new version of fedora-tagger landed in production today. some enhancements requested by community members. 19:14:32 <mirek> pingou: I would be, but this is just "nice-to-have" and there is long list "we-need-this" 19:14:37 <threebean> https://apps.fedoraproject.org/tagger 19:14:44 <pingou> #info pkgdb2 is up for testing at http://209.132.184.188/ feedback/bug reports/rfe welcome at https://github.com/fedora-infra/packagedb2/ 19:14:52 <pingou> mirek: ok 19:15:00 <nirik> threebean: is there a concise changelog/news ? 19:15:05 <mirek> but i plan to do some health status api call, so we can integrate it with status.fedoraproject.org 19:15:07 <nirik> pingou: have you had much feedback yet? 19:15:14 <pingou> #info fedocal 0.3.0 tagged an deployed today 19:15:22 <threebean> nirik: not readily availble. I can blog that if you think it'd be useful. 19:15:23 <pingou> nirik: I got a couple of bug report and RFE yes 19:16:07 <pingou> one of the bug report had to do w/ the db, took me the whole day to re convert pkgdb1 to pkgdb2 correctly, update and the bug flew away :) 19:16:13 <nirik> threebean: well, if they aren't a big deal not worth it, but if it's worth letting a wider audience know... 19:16:43 <threebean> nirik: cool, I'll give it a look over. 19:16:58 <nirik> hurray on fedocal. ;) 19:17:22 * nirik wonders if we should capture all those updates/changes and push one email/blog post with changes this week... or just do them per app. 19:17:23 <pingou> there has been many many bugfixes that kparal found and reported! 19:17:26 * frankieonuonga has to go. 19:17:44 <nirik> no problem, thanks for coming frankieonuonga 19:17:47 * frankieonuonga will catch the meeting logs 19:17:49 <pingou> I'll probably announce fedocal 0.3.0 as I did last time, but tomorrow :] 19:17:53 <frankieonuonga> thanks nirik 19:18:28 <nirik> so, we have a pretty short unfrozen window... 19:18:37 <nirik> any other plans for things to roll out before next freeze? 19:18:45 <lmacken> I'm going to roll out a new bodhi today, at least to the mashers 19:18:52 <nirik> as always, I'd love to see hotfix numbers go down. ;) 19:19:00 <lmacken> I don't think we'll need to update bodhi on any of the app servers during this window 19:19:03 <nirik> lmacken: cool. 19:19:17 <tflink> we're planning to update blockerbugs production next week 19:19:47 <nirik> tflink: cool. 19:20:44 <nirik> lmacken: reminds me... I don't recall if I filed a bug on this or not... 19:20:57 <nirik> bodhi doesn't seem to always remove tags from builds when someone deletes an update. 19:21:35 <lmacken> nirik: hm, I'll have a look 19:21:57 <nirik> ok. I might have failed to file it, but it's hit me a number of times. ;( 19:22:03 <nirik> ok, any other applications news? 19:22:38 <abompard> nirik: maybe a quick HyperKitty update? 19:22:41 <abadger1999> mm... /me is reminded he needs to make a python-fedora hotfix for the app servers. 19:22:57 <nirik> abompard: please... ;) 19:23:03 <nirik> abadger1999: can we just do a release? ;) 19:23:08 <abompard> it'll be quick: I've been working on the front page redesign that mizmo has mocked up 19:23:13 <abadger1999> nirik: still blocked on two issues. 19:23:26 <abompard> and fixing a few selinux-related bugs on the staging server 19:23:40 <abadger1999> we could revert the present otp code. that would unblock one thing. 19:23:59 <abadger1999> the other isn't a regression so we could roll out a release without fixing it. 19:24:01 <nirik> abompard: cool. What are next steps? 19:24:03 <abompard> it's not pushed yet because I depend on a pull request from her, but it'll be merged soon 19:24:17 <nirik> abompard: ok. 19:24:26 <abompard> when I can merge it I'll push my changes, update the staging server, and make sure it all works 19:25:12 <nirik> ok. 19:25:23 <threebean> abompard: can you give me a ping when you do? I'd like to take another stab at fedmsg there after the next push. 19:25:25 <nirik> abadger1999: well, hopefully we get unblocked at some point. ;( 19:25:36 <abompard> oh by the way, that's more for threebean but if you send an email to a list on the staging server, the actual subscribers have been imported, so it will be distributed to them... 19:25:49 <threebean> abompard: hooray :P 19:26:08 <abompard> threebean: yeah :-) so better not run tests with devel(a)lists.fp.o 19:26:08 <abadger1999> nirik: yeah... seems like we need one more pair of hands to get anywhere. 19:26:28 <nirik> which reminds me that we are going to have to put on our thinking caps when we make a prod mailman3 19:26:44 <abompard> yup. 19:27:36 <abompard> nirik: I'd say make sure all emails sent from this machine go to /dev/null, then add it to the email alias for the regular list 19:27:48 <abompard> and see how it goes 19:28:00 <pingou> threebean: we need also to seat and have a look at fedocal, I'm not sure it's sending msg yet (or we didn't ask him to send msg in places I thought we did) 19:28:03 <nirik> well, the problem is... lists.fedoraproject.org already is mailman2 19:28:27 <nirik> so we need to make it something else or figure some clever way to only redirect part of it/part emails 19:28:44 <abompard> nirik: can't we send the received messages to both mailman2 and the new mailman3 on stg? 19:29:47 <nirik> when we are ready to roll this out for production use we need to make a production instance. we don't want to reuse our staging in production, thats bad form. 19:29:54 <abompard> Oh well, we'll discuss it then. It'll be fun! 19:30:02 <abompard> nirik: true 19:30:03 <nirik> yeah, I'm sure we can work something out. 19:30:28 <abompard> OK that's all for HK 19:30:34 <nirik> I was thinking the prod one would start empty, then as we move lists over to it we migrate them one by one (starting with just a few at first to work out bugs) 19:30:46 <abompard> nirik: yeah, I like that 19:30:57 <nirik> but we might have to call it 'newlists' or something. 19:31:18 <threebean> pingou: sure thing.. I've added the task. 19:31:25 <pingou> \ó/ 19:31:32 <abadger1999> threebean and pingou were talking about schedule for fedmsg-notification and pkgdb2 this morning :-) 19:31:48 <pingou> we were? 19:31:48 <threebean> oh, that's right. 19:31:54 <threebean> fedmsg-notifications due in staging mid december. 19:32:01 <nirik> #info mailman3 work moving along. Hopefully ready for a prod instance before too long. 19:32:11 <pingou> threebean: what was the hashtag you used earlier again ? :) 19:32:22 <nirik> #info python-fedora release blocked by 2 issues. Help wanted to move it along. 19:32:45 <pingou> more seriously, the idea is to use fedmsg-notification to do pkgdb2's notifications 19:32:58 <pingou> which spare me/us from having notifications w/in pkgdb2 19:33:14 * threebean nods 19:33:25 <threebean> and we're aiming for pkgdb2 to land shortly after the f20 final release in 2014. 19:33:46 <nirik> yeah, I am looking forward to fedmsg-notifications. I think it will be mucho cool. 19:33:47 <pingou> same time frame for fedmsg-notification in prod 19:34:04 <nirik> and might help us drop a bunch of other stuff from other apps too. 19:34:11 <threebean> over time, yes. 19:34:16 <nirik> yeah. 19:34:25 <threebean> badges never grew its own email code in anticipation ;p 19:35:02 <nirik> right. 19:35:07 <pingou> \ó/ 19:35:08 <nirik> ok, anything else app wise? 19:35:17 <nirik> #topic Sysadmin status / discussion 19:35:24 <pingou> fedocal is moved to ansible :) 19:35:29 <threebean> awesome 19:35:32 <nirik> so, I'm planning an outage next week... 2013-11-20 19:35:34 <threebean> I didn't realize that was already done. 19:35:41 <nirik> #info fedocal moved to ansible today 19:36:35 <nirik> #info outage next week 19:36:47 <nirik> want to roll up updates and also resize db01's disk 19:37:47 <nirik> since we are out of freeze I have been trying to apply all the piled up stuff from freeze time. 19:37:55 <nirik> there's still a bit more, but getting there. 19:38:11 <nirik> If there is anything someone didn't do due to freeze, do look back and see if it can be rolled out now. 19:38:45 * abadger1999 needs to check if nirik's httpd log change fixed fasClient runs 19:38:55 <nirik> abadger1999: it did. ;) 19:38:59 <abadger1999> Yay! 19:40:06 <nirik> I also am likely going to check rdiff-backup's a final time and then disable bacula. 19:40:53 <nirik> #topic Upcoming Tasks/Items 19:40:54 <nirik> https://apps.fedoraproject.org/calendar/list/infrastructure/ 19:41:04 <nirik> anything upcoming anyone would like to schedule or note? 19:41:48 <threebean> nothing here, other than the new fedmsg-notifications and pkgdb2 due dates. 19:42:01 <nirik> cool. 19:42:06 <nirik> #topic Open Floor 19:42:21 <nirik> anyone have any items for open floor? anything to suggest/discuss? 19:43:07 <pingou> oh yes 19:43:15 <pingou> in the front page for newcomers 19:43:26 <pingou> we ask, what's they background basically 19:43:48 <pingou> but I wonder if it doesn't make people believe that since we know what they are capable of doing 19:43:53 <pingou> we will assign tasks 19:44:00 <nirik> perhaps. 19:44:19 <pingou> so I wonder if maybe we should phrase something on how we are working 19:44:20 <nirik> I think one of the biggest problems we have for new folks is that they do expect to be assigned things. ;) 19:44:32 <nirik> and we are much more 'self motivating' 19:44:36 <pingou> yes 19:44:44 <docent> Yes, we could think about that like this ;) 19:45:08 <pingou> docent: you made me realize this a little earlier 19:45:16 <nirik> we could move to a more mentor driven setup, but sadly, most of us are very busy for that... 19:45:20 <wraeth> nirik, pingou: it could sound like that, i guess, but i felt it was more a case of "what are you capable of now, and what do you want to do later" 19:45:56 <docent> Although I found somewhere note saying that If one wants to startin contributing he could check the easyfix and comment in issues he's interested in 19:45:57 <nirik> ideally shorter term we would have more easyfix tickets... it's hard to come up with good ones all the time tho 19:46:00 * anshprat agrees that folks expect assignments 19:46:01 <pingou> nirik: it would be easier to mentor if they know when they arrive what they want to work on :) 19:46:29 <nirik> pingou: sure, but often folks do not even know what all we have in place to work on. ;) 19:46:39 <pingou> that's true :) 19:46:50 <threebean> yup 19:47:30 <nirik> it's not an easy problem. ;( 19:47:42 <pingou> just food for thought, maybe tomorrow I'll see if I can change a little the wiki page and send the changes for review on the list 19:47:59 <wraeth> one possibility is task/infrastructre related introductions - an overview of what the infrastructure team encompasses what sorts of tasks are involved with them...? 19:48:09 * threebean nods 19:48:55 <pingou> good idea :) 19:49:00 <wraeth> there's a pretty comprehensive of the networking setup, but most of the rest is kind of left to interpretation, from what i could tell so far 19:49:10 <wraeth> *comprehensive introduction 19:49:25 <nirik> yeah, it's hard to think of everything tho. ;) 19:49:32 <wraeth> true :) 19:49:42 <anshprat> documentation is always a royal pain in the wrong place :) 19:50:00 <docent> Hmm honestly at the beginning I was little lost, but in the end I finished at http://fedoraproject.org/easyfix/ and knew that I could pick something from there, so I'm not sure it thsis is that big issue. I mean - there is really good explanation on Your wikis how to proceed, how to go on with things. 19:50:09 <nirik> one thought I had a while back was to try and do some monthly 'intro' class thing.... have apprentices attend and present on various things we do. 19:50:25 <docent> All I had to do was to read those: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/GettingStarted 19:50:31 <anshprat> +1 to classroom 19:50:32 <nirik> yeah. 19:50:49 <pingou> nirik: we have a nice couple of movie of threebean :) 19:50:54 <pingou> movies* 19:50:57 <anshprat> and I volunteer for a session ;) 19:51:02 <nirik> yeah, true. we should link those in getting started. 19:51:13 <threebean> never got the last sysadmin-y one made. 19:51:26 <threebean> frankieo I think said he was going to work on it. 19:51:39 <nirik> ah yeah, thats right. 19:52:30 <nirik> ok, I guess we should close out unless there's some further action item on this we can do? 19:53:04 * mirek would welcome sessions too 19:54:14 <nirik> yeah, I'll look into that more perhaps then. ;) 19:54:22 <nirik> ok, thanks for coming everyone! 19:54:24 <nirik> #endmeeting

1 0

Summary/Minutes from today's FPC Meeting (2013-11-14 17:00 - 19:10 UTC)
by James Antill 14 Nov '13

14 Nov '13

====================== #fedora-meeting-1: fpc ====================== Meeting started by abadger1999 at 17:00:29 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2013-11-14/fedora-meeting… . Meeting summary --------------- * Roll Call (abadger1999, 17:00:41) * #339 software collections in Fedora (abadger1999, 17:03:44) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/339 (abadger1999, 17:03:49) * #352 BLAS and LAPACK packaging (abadger1999, 17:10:14) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/352 (abadger1999, 17:10:19) * Approved (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) FPC favors using environment modules for this as it seems to avoid the problem of applications which might want to link to one blas implementation but a dependent library is linked to another. If someone would present us with a draft based on that we'll be happy to review and vote on it. (abadger1999, 17:25:01) * #355 How to package noarch packages which require a binary dependency which doesn't build on all archs? (abadger1999, 17:25:24) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/355 (abadger1999, 17:25:29) * Noarch_with_unported_dependencies minus the paragraph specifying the fail-and-resubmit option passed (+1:7, 0:0, -1:0) (abadger1999, 17:47:53) * #357 time-api prior to openJDK8 (abadger1999, 17:48:08) * 365 New virtual Provides for javax time-api (abadger1999, 17:51:31) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/365 (abadger1999, 17:51:36) * virtual provides for java8's time api granted (+1:7, 0:0, -1:0) (abadger1999, 17:53:09) * 366 Should we hand enabling third party repositories back to fesco? (abadger1999, 17:53:59) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/366 (abadger1999, 17:54:03) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/671 (abadger1999, 17:56:37) * LINK: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2006-October/msg00132.html (abadger1999, 17:57:40) * LINK: http://www.spinics.net/lists/fedora-extras/msg30902.html (tibbs|w, 18:01:24) * Proposal (See ticket https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/366#comment:1) Is currently (+1:4, 0:1, -1:0) will ask for more votes in ticket. (abadger1999, 18:55:04) * Open Floor (abadger1999, 18:55:12) * #363 exception for bundled library libntirpc in nfs-ganesha (abadger1999, 18:56:22) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/363 (abadger1999, 18:56:32) * Open Floor (abadger1999, 19:01:23) * #362 lpf should not be allowed in Fedora (abadger1999, 19:02:15) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/362 (abadger1999, 19:02:20) * lpf is okay for Fedora, lpf-* packages should move to a more appropriate repo Needs more votes: (+1:3, 0:0, -1:0) (abadger1999, 19:07:41) * 363 exception for bundled library libntirpc in nfs-ganesha (abadger1999, 19:07:59) * Temporary bundling exception for libntirpc in nfs-ganesha until after Fedora 23 -- need more votes in ticket (+1:4, 0:0, -1:0) (abadger1999, 19:10:24) * Open Floor (abadger1999, 19:10:44) Meeting ended at 19:11:27 UTC. Action Items ------------ Action Items, by person ----------------------- * **UNASSIGNED** * (none) People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * abadger1999 (182) * geppetto (68) * spot (57) * tibbs|w (48) * limburgher (47) * jwb (28) * RemiFedora (28) * Rathann (15) * zodbot (8) * kkeithley_ (8) * leamas (8) * racor (7) * nirik (3) * sgallagh (1) * gholms (1) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 .. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot

1 0

Minutes from today's (11-13-2013) cloud WG meeting
by Sam Kottler 14 Nov '13

14 Nov '13

Thanks everyone who was able to make it to the meeting today! For those who weren't able to make it, here are few important links: Minutes: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2013-11-13/fedora-meeting… Minutes (text): http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2013-11-13/fedora-meeting… Log: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2013-11-13/fedora-meeting… Here's a summary of the meeting (link to the HTML version above): ========================================== #fedora-meeting-1: Cloud WG weekly meeting ========================================== Meeting started by samkottler at 17:00:31 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2013-11-13/fedora-meeting… . Meeting summary --------------- * rollcall (samkottler, 17:02:00) * agenda items (samkottler, 17:05:55) * A few tools need to get packaged for GCE support, primarily gcutil and image_bundle. All of them are free software and on GitHub. (gholms, 17:07:58) * ACTION: samkottler to figure out what's needed in koji to get images built there (samkottler, 17:09:44) * LINK: http://lists.debian.org/debian-cloud/2013/10/msg00004.html (mattdm, 17:12:43) * hguemar is looking to package gcutil and image_bundle (number80, 17:14:13) * LINK: https://code.google.com/p/google-compute-engine-tools/ (gholms, 17:15:18) * LINK: https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/compute-image-packages (samkottler, 17:18:18) * ACTION: mattdm to kick of thread re google scripts vs cloud-init (mattdm, 17:23:49) * governance document review before submission to FESCo (samkottler, 17:25:10) * ACCEPTED: add wording to charter about commiting to membership every 6 months like server wg (+6) (mattdm, 17:40:58) * ACCEPTED: governance charter as of https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Cloud/Governance&oldid=360627 ratified (mattdm, 17:44:39) * open floor (mattdm, 17:45:35) * we need to figure out our interaction with the server wg and how we define what we're doing (mattdm, 17:53:35) Meeting ended at 17:57:01 UTC. Action Items ------------ * samkottler to figure out what's needed in koji to get images built there * mattdm to kick of thread re google scripts vs cloud-init Action Items, by person ----------------------- * mattdm * mattdm to kick of thread re google scripts vs cloud-init * samkottler * samkottler to figure out what's needed in koji to get images built there * **UNASSIGNED** * (none) People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * mattdm (92) * frankieonuonga (77) * samkottler (51) * mrunge (38) * number80 (21) * gholms (16) * nirik (8) * zodbot (5) * croberts (3) * geppetto (2) * dgilmore (1) * rbergeron (0) 17:00:31 <samkottler> #startmeeting Cloud WG weekly meeting 17:00:31 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Nov 13 17:00:31 2013 UTC. The chair is samkottler. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 17:00:31 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 17:00:49 <samkottler> #chair frankieonuonga mrunge mattdm rbergeron number80 geppetto 17:00:49 <zodbot> Current chairs: frankieonuonga geppetto mattdm mrunge number80 rbergeron samkottler 17:01:11 <samkottler> anyone I missed? 17:02:00 <samkottler> #topic rollcall 17:02:05 * frankieonuonga is here 17:02:18 * mrunge is here 17:02:19 * gholms takes a seat in the bleachers 17:02:52 * samkottler waits for a few more people to show up 17:03:28 * frankieonuonga suggests three min 17:03:29 <mrunge> imho red_trela said, he didn't had time for this meeting 17:04:16 <mattdm> hi all 17:04:22 <samkottler> hey mattdm! 17:04:25 <mrunge> hey 17:04:28 <number80> hi 17:04:30 <mattdm> sorry I am in a seriously split brain state :) 17:04:39 <gholms> mattdm: Isn't that the norm these days? :P 17:05:01 <mattdm> gholms apparently. :) 17:05:14 <mattdm> I'd take some time off to collect myself but that would just make the problem worse. 17:05:18 <mattdm> so here we are. :) 17:05:23 <samkottler> I have to head into a read-only state at 12:30 17:05:30 <samkottler> mattdm: are you okay with taking over at 12:30? 17:05:32 <mattdm> okay let's go then. :) 17:05:36 <mattdm> samkottler yep 17:05:39 <frankieonuonga> lets play 17:05:40 <samkottler> mattdm: thanks 17:05:45 <frankieonuonga> welcome guys 17:05:51 <frankieonuonga> i mean welcome folks 17:05:55 <samkottler> #topic agenda items 17:06:01 <samkottler> so GCE 17:06:15 <samkottler> I've been talking with the GCE people this past week and have good news 17:06:22 <mattdm> cool 17:06:26 <frankieonuonga> amazing . 17:06:34 <frankieonuonga> whats up ? 17:06:35 <samkottler> there are a few tools that need to get packaged, but all of them are free software and are on github 17:06:39 <mrunge> what is GCE ? 17:06:44 <samkottler> mrunge: google compute 17:06:48 <gholms> Google compute engine 17:06:55 <mrunge> ah, thanks, I see. 17:06:56 <mattdm> Google Compute Engine. A public cloud provider 17:06:56 <number80> samkottler: list them 17:07:19 <frankieonuonga> cool. 17:07:41 <frankieonuonga> samkottler: packaging should be easy 17:07:42 <samkottler> gcutil and image_bundler are the main two 17:07:48 <frankieonuonga> and at least they are open source 17:07:53 <samkottler> s/image_bundler/image_bundle 17:07:58 <gholms> #info A few tools need to get packaged for GCE support, primarily gcutil and image_bundle. All of them are free software and on GitHub. 17:08:20 <mattdm> I looked at the "what does the image need to look like" instructions 17:08:32 <mattdm> it seems like we are mostly in good shape already 17:09:20 <samkottler> I also spoke with dgilmore about how to get images built in koji and we will likely need to work with mikem to write a plugin to handle it 17:09:31 <mattdm> samkottler what format do the images need to be in? 17:09:44 <samkottler> #action samkottler to figure out what's needed in koji to get images built there 17:09:53 <frankieonuonga> samkottler and dgilmore please loop me into it 17:10:03 <frankieonuonga> that is what is needed for koji 17:10:16 <mattdm> samkottler I think they just want a raw disk file, actually. we already make that 17:10:19 <samkottler> frankieonuonga: absolutely, if you want to take charge on that item feel free :) 17:10:20 <frankieonuonga> this should go in line with rel-eng tasks right ? 17:10:30 <samkottler> mattdm: right, but do we need koji to upload it 17:10:39 <frankieonuonga> ok. 17:10:46 <mattdm> samkottler right now dennis uploads the ec2 images by hand 17:10:46 <samkottler> or do we just handle that externally? 17:10:49 <mattdm> koji doesn't do any uploading 17:11:01 <mattdm> we have the start of a separate uploader service for ec2 17:11:18 <mattdm> but it needs polish and finish. (the stuff andrew worked on last summer) 17:12:20 <samkottler> does someone want to take ownership of creating gcutil and image_bundle packages? 17:12:29 <samkottler> I can do a review for them, but I'm pretty swamped this week 17:12:40 <mattdm> we also maybe should look at GCE cloud-init integration 17:12:43 <mattdm> http://lists.debian.org/debian-cloud/2013/10/msg00004.html 17:12:45 <mattdm> gholms ^ 17:12:47 <frankieonuonga> I can take that 17:12:50 <frankieonuonga> not a problem 17:13:02 <frankieonuonga> how soon are they required ? 17:13:22 <mattdm> frankieonuonga it would be pretty nice to have this with F20 17:13:27 <mattdm> so soon :) 17:13:31 <samkottler> frankieonuonga: the sooner the better at this point 17:13:38 <samkottler> yeah, I'd love to get the tools into f20 17:14:04 <frankieonuonga> :-) ok. will look into it and mail you guys tomorrow..but i think i would like to be done by sat 17:14:10 * gholms attempts to find those tools on github 17:14:13 <number80> #info hguemar is looking to package gcutil and image_bundle 17:14:23 <dgilmore> samkottler: we need something out of koji that can run on a releng box and do the uploading 17:14:28 <number80> gcutil is on google code 17:14:41 <samkottler> number80: frankieonuonga already volunteered 17:14:45 <samkottler> you two wanna work together on that? 17:14:59 <samkottler> number80: yeah, I just sent searching again for it, too, and google code is the place 17:15:08 <samkottler> the google folks told me github, not sure why 17:15:18 <gholms> https://code.google.com/p/google-compute-engine-tools/ 17:15:24 <number80> https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/compute-image-packages/tree/master/i… 17:15:35 <number80> i found image_bundle, quite well hidden 17:15:46 <mattdm> number80, gholms, samkottler -- looks like debian is going with the cloud-init integration for running *in* the image 17:16:07 <gholms> mattdm: That's the idea, yeah. Do you happen to know if they bothered to ask upstream as well? 17:16:24 <number80> samkottler: ok, i already started with gcutil last week but i'm fine with leaving image_bundle 17:16:26 <number80> #undo 17:16:26 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Link object at 0x128aebd0> 17:16:28 <mattdm> gholms they said that they would but it might take some time. not sure what that's all about 17:16:45 <samkottler> #link https://code.google.com/p/google-compute-engine-tools/ 17:16:49 <frankieonuonga> samkottler: sure we can work on it together with hguemar 17:16:56 <gholms> samkottler: I already posted that one. ;) 17:17:03 <number80> yup 17:17:15 <samkottler> gholms: without hash-link :) 17:17:37 <gholms> samkottler: meetbot has picked up messages that start with links since 2010. 17:17:44 <samkottler> #undo 17:17:44 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Link object at 0x15360710> 17:17:52 <samkottler> gholms: still fresh at this - thanks :) 17:18:05 <gholms> No worries. I'm happy to help. ;) 17:18:18 <samkottler> https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/compute-image-packages 17:18:53 <gholms> I'm a little concerned by that google code page's source browser not actually containing any code, but I guess that's the best we're likely to get. 17:20:26 <samkottler> gholms: yeah, I noticed that too, not really sure what the deal is with it 17:20:30 <samkottler> I can ask the google folks 17:21:01 <samkottler> anyone else got stuff to add before we move on? 17:21:20 * gholms hopes all the bundled libs for gcutil are easy to split out 17:21:27 <mattdm> At some point we will have to decide if we want to configure the instance with cloud-init or google-startup-scripts 17:21:45 <frankieonuonga> mattdm: yeah you are right 17:21:49 <frankieonuonga> i totally agree. 17:22:12 <mattdm> but having them all available seems like a good start :) 17:22:12 <gholms> mattdm: Is the "one image for everything" idea still important? 17:22:12 <samkottler> I don't really like cloud-init all that much, but it's a known beast 17:22:20 <mattdm> samkottler +1 17:22:41 <gholms> cloud-init is kind of annoying, but on the bright side it's portable. 17:22:41 <samkottler> gholms: it is right now, that's a topic for another meeting 17:22:46 <frankieonuonga> can we lay down all pros and cons on email then decide 17:22:52 * gholms nods 17:22:53 <mattdm> +1 to take to email 17:23:00 <frankieonuonga> +1 17:23:12 <samkottler> who wants to kick off that thread? 17:23:49 <mattdm> #action mattdm to kick of thread re google scripts vs cloud-init 17:23:52 <mattdm> me 17:23:52 <number80> +1 17:23:58 <mrunge> +1 17:24:01 <samkottler> thanks mattdm 17:24:45 <samkottler> can we move on to the governance doc? 17:24:56 <number80> yes 17:25:10 <samkottler> #topic governance document review before submission to FESCo 17:25:25 <samkottler> mattdm: this will run longer than 5 minutes, so do you want to take over? 17:25:36 <mattdm> sure 17:25:56 <mattdm> although, um, I think the state of it is "mattdm said he would make some changes and isn't really done doing everything he said he would do" 17:26:06 * nirik has something for open floor if someone can ping me when it gets to that. ;) 17:26:28 * frankieonuonga will ping nirik 17:26:29 <mattdm> also, I think we should take a look at the docs from other groups and regularize language where we can 17:26:40 <number80> just to notice that there were no changes for 2 weeks 17:26:48 <frankieonuonga> is this the PRD? 17:26:50 <mattdm> so my proposal is for me to actually do those things and bring it back next week 17:26:56 <mattdm> frankieonuonga no, governance doc 17:27:01 <number80> frankieonuonga: nope: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Cloud/Governance 17:27:01 <mattdm> number80 see above :) 17:27:02 <samkottler> mattdm: isn't it due tomorrow? 17:27:08 <frankieonuonga> I see. 17:27:15 <mattdm> gah. lookit the time. 17:27:31 <mattdm> okay so. new plan. :) 17:27:38 <gholms> Heh 17:28:02 <frankieonuonga> we might need to finlize this thing like now..in terms of pressing issues to be discussed . 17:28:05 <mattdm> I edited the document with the basic changes we agreed to last time. 17:28:15 * samkottler has to go mostly offline now 17:28:20 <mattdm> samkottler kk 17:28:57 <frankieonuonga> so what is basically expected in this doc that is not there 17:29:03 <mrunge> is there anything missing in that document? 17:29:07 <frankieonuonga> are there any issues that need clarification ? 17:29:48 <mattdm> one of the issues in the other documents is quorum 17:30:06 <frankieonuonga> mattdm: kindly expound 17:30:17 <mattdm> eh wait we covered that too 17:30:34 <frankieonuonga> oh yeahâ€¦two meetings ago 17:30:37 <frankieonuonga> that we did . 17:30:37 <number80> a quorum of 5 should be ok 17:30:55 <frankieonuonga> we just need to access that log and do what we agreed 17:30:56 <mattdm> okay, so the other thing is that the server wg has a bit about "Each voting member of the working group will confirm their continued membership every six months." 17:30:59 <mattdm> do we want that? 17:31:13 <frankieonuonga> we had talked about this right 17:31:21 <frankieonuonga> we agreed for now..no way. 17:31:34 <frankieonuonga> reasoning behind it was it is a short time to get things going 17:31:43 <frankieonuonga> especially in a field that is still fresh 17:31:57 <mattdm> frankieonuonga I think this was just a way for making sure everyone involved was still active 17:32:04 <mattdm> not a need for a revote 17:32:07 <number80> that's neat though i'd prefer people resigning by themselves 17:32:11 <mrunge> I don't see any issue with refreshing 17:32:27 <number80> the same 17:32:33 <frankieonuonga> wasnt this voted on in that meeting. 17:32:53 <mattdm> frankieonuonga yeah I just wanted to know if we wanted to add their idea 17:32:54 <frankieonuonga> sorry but I feel we might be having the same conversation again 17:33:03 <mrunge> I agree, when anyone can foresee, he has no time to work in the group, I'd expect him/her to resign 17:33:12 <mattdm> okay, so, sounds like we want to leave it as is. 17:33:34 * frankieonuonga nods 17:33:40 <mattdm> do we want to approve it as it is? 17:33:57 <mattdm> do we actually have quorum to do so? 17:33:57 <frankieonuonga> yes. 17:34:01 <mrunge> so, it's and appointment for lifetime? 17:34:10 <mrunge> s/and/an/ 17:34:13 <frankieonuonga> i think we need that until we are good to go.. 17:34:25 <frankieonuonga> or at least until things are of the ground 17:34:26 <mattdm> mrunge we assume there will be enough natural turnover 17:34:44 <mattdm> other groups went the same way 17:34:45 <number80> mrunge: until you're unable to serve like FPC 17:34:50 <mrunge> mattdm, if we can guarantee that 17:35:00 * croberts croberts is here running late 17:35:12 <mattdm> mrunge what, by making sure we burn everyone out? :) 17:35:18 * frankieonuonga waving at croberts 17:35:29 * mrunge likes fresh ideas from fresh people from time to time 17:35:50 <frankieonuonga> i think if we change ideas too soon when starting we will end up failing 17:35:54 <frankieonuonga> sorry to insist on this 17:36:04 <frankieonuonga> but this was discussed in length earlier 17:36:07 <frankieonuonga> with so many reasons 17:36:10 <samkottler> I'm lurking so I think we have quorum 17:36:15 <mrunge> and refreshing is something like refreshing commitment 17:36:55 <mattdm> mrunge okay, so, like the server wg wording? appointments stay until you step down, but you do need to say you still want to be involved? 17:37:05 <mattdm> I'm okay with either adding that or leaving it open as it is now. 17:37:27 <mattdm> "able and willing", with no hard-coded definition of what that means 17:37:30 <mrunge> mattdm, yes, I like that. that's more encouraging 17:37:54 <mrunge> ...encouraging people to do something, 17:38:22 <mrunge> we might want to change that, e.g time-span, if refreshing just becomes tedious 17:38:33 <mattdm> okay, so: proposal: add wording like server wg's about members confirming their membership every six months 17:38:39 <mattdm> +1 to my own proposal 17:38:45 <frankieonuonga> +1 17:38:49 <geppetto> +1 17:38:49 <mrunge> +1 for that 17:39:10 <number80> +1 17:39:15 <samkottler> +1 17:39:38 <croberts> +1 17:40:00 <mattdm> croberts wait that confuses my counting :) 17:40:11 <mrunge> heh 17:40:27 <mattdm> but anyway 17:40:28 <croberts> :P 17:40:53 <frankieonuonga> :-) 17:40:58 <mattdm> #accepted add wording to charter about commiting to membership every 6 months like server wg (+6) 17:41:06 <mattdm> anything else anyone wants to raise? 17:41:28 <mattdm> i went ahead and did that :) 17:41:52 <mattdm> so: proposal: accept governance charter as https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Cloud/Governance&oldid=360627 17:42:07 <mattdm> +1 to myself, again 17:42:08 <frankieonuonga> is there any missing content 17:42:19 <frankieonuonga> maybe something to be included ? 17:42:21 <frankieonuonga> i am not sure 17:42:26 <frankieonuonga> that is why i am asking 17:42:46 <mattdm> frankieonuonga Maybe. I like simple. We can always add additional rules / bylaws if needed 17:43:17 <samkottler> remember that we can always amend stuff 17:43:18 <mrunge> do we want to keep the list of members in that document? 17:43:27 <geppetto> mattdm: +1 â€¦ seems simple enough. 17:43:29 <frankieonuonga> ok . sounds fine. I know nothing about this ..so I will just agree 17:43:44 <mrunge> ... if members change, that document needs to be reviewed again... 17:43:45 <mattdm> mrunge I think so, because it's important for that to be easily findable. 17:43:46 <samkottler> mattdm: +1 17:43:57 <frankieonuonga> +1 17:44:04 <number80> mattdm: +1 17:44:05 <mrunge> ok. +1 tjem 17:44:09 <mrunge> then 17:44:15 <mattdm> mrunge i think it's implied that that section can change to match reality 17:44:23 <mattdm> okay so that's 6 17:44:39 <mattdm> #accepted governance charter as of https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Cloud/Governance&oldid=360627 ratified 17:44:40 <mrunge> I'd expect that kind of information somewhere, mattdm 17:44:53 <mrunge> (members etc.) 17:45:16 * mattdm notes that when the fedora board changed this year, it took 6 months for the list to get updated. :) 17:45:30 <mattdm> okay, so, fesco meeting soon so let's move on. 17:45:35 <mattdm> #topic open floor 17:45:42 <mattdm> nirik? 17:45:47 <frankieonuonga> let me get nirik 17:45:47 <mrunge> yes 17:45:57 <nirik> Just something to ponder on/bring up: 17:46:31 <nirik> how do you folks see the interaction between the server wg and cloud wg? do you want us to handle the server end and you just do images? or you do both? or ? 17:46:57 <nirik> for example, an openstack server is something we might want to make a server role... 17:47:09 <mrunge> well.... 17:47:24 <frankieonuonga> I have a diff opinion 17:47:26 <nirik> I don't know that we need an answer right now, but something to think about? 17:47:26 <mattdm> nirik I think that that's what we're thinking, yes. 17:47:39 <mattdm> nirik looks like we don't have consensus :) 17:47:56 <frankieonuonga> we may need someone on both ends 17:48:00 <mattdm> i think we might provide images for compute hosts in openstack 17:48:06 <frankieonuonga> cause one can not exist without the other 17:48:25 <mrunge> frankieonuonga, no. a server could live without a cloud image 17:48:28 <frankieonuonga> I think that we also need top look at all other platforms 17:48:54 <frankieonuonga> to look i mean 17:49:00 <frankieonuonga> a server could do that 17:49:07 <mrunge> my initial thought saw the cloud wg as wg to provide infrastructure to host cloud images 17:49:20 <number80> nirik: the server WG is quite central due to the various usage, i think that cloud WG will serve as a stakeholder for cloud hosting and we will probably participate to the making and testing 17:49:21 <frankieonuonga> but a server can also exist without having open stack. 17:49:23 <mrunge> and everything in that image will be filled by server wg 17:49:31 <frankieonuonga> there are too many variables 17:50:00 <nirik> right, it's interaction on many levels. ;) 17:50:25 <mattdm> mrunge The Fedora Cloud SIG has traditionally been focused on making Amazon images... in your model there's nothing for us to do. :) 17:50:29 <nirik> there's the bare metal side/server, and then inside cloud instances there could be many servers that people want to run 17:51:08 <frankieonuonga> I think this is something we need to look into for sur e 17:51:10 <frankieonuonga> sure i mean 17:51:20 <mrunge> mattdm, oh yes, there is. but I agreed to shut up ;-) 17:51:27 <mattdm> mrunge lol :) 17:51:43 <mattdm> nirik does that answer your question? heh. 17:51:48 <frankieonuonga> mrunge: dont shut up 17:52:04 <mrunge> frankieonuonga, let's discuss that at a different time 17:52:06 <frankieonuonga> I think this is a healthy conversation 17:52:11 <mattdm> +1 :) 17:52:19 <frankieonuonga> I think we should kick it of on email 17:52:23 <number80> +1 17:52:35 <nirik> yeah, just wanted to start everyone thinking about it. 17:52:44 <frankieonuonga> thanks nirik 17:52:52 <mattdm> frankieonuonga i think this is the 'ZOMG WHAT ARE WE BUILDING?!' thread from last week? 17:53:03 <mattdm> but another thread with a more specific title wouldn't hurt :) 17:53:14 <mattdm> frankieonuonga or mrunge you want to do that? 17:53:25 <mrunge> and I guess, there was an earlier thread as well 17:53:35 <mattdm> #info we need to figure out our interaction with the server wg and how we define what we're doing 17:53:41 <mrunge> mattdm, I can do that 17:53:41 <frankieonuonga> I have already taken a taskâ€¦I dont want to seem like i am hogging 17:53:54 <mattdm> cool mrunge go for it :) 17:53:56 * frankieonuonga thankful that mrunge has taken that 17:54:15 <mrunge> as if my plate wasn't already full enough 17:54:30 <mattdm> I hear you. :) 17:54:35 <mrunge> no, will do that 17:54:35 <frankieonuonga> no offence 17:54:41 <mattdm> okay, so other topics :) 17:54:45 <mattdm> if any. 17:54:46 <frankieonuonga> which reminds me..what happen to that google thing we were to sign for non disclosure or something like that ? 17:54:56 <mattdm> frankieonuonga ping samkottler on that? 17:55:06 <samkottler> frankieonuonga: email me and I'll have them reach out 17:55:06 <frankieonuonga> ok will do 17:55:13 <frankieonuonga> will do 17:55:39 <mrunge> why should there be an nda? it's under ASL, right? 17:55:55 <mrunge> but confirming is better 17:56:57 <mattdm> okay, so I'm going to end the meeting because I need to grab food quick before fesco starts. 17:57:01 <mattdm> #endmeeting

1 0

Abassadors Latam Meeting Logs / Registro de la reunion de embajadores de Latam 2013-11-13
by alejandro perez 14 Nov '13

14 Nov '13

Minutes: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2013-11-13/fedora_ambassado… Minutes (text): http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2013-11-13/fedora_ambassado… Log: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2013-11-13/fedora_ambassado…

1 0

Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2013-11-13)
by Kevin Fenzi 13 Nov '13

13 Nov '13

=================================== #fedora-meeting: FESCO (2013-11-13) =================================== Meeting started by nirik at 18:00:02 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2013-11-13/fesco.2013-11-13… . Meeting summary --------------- * init process (nirik, 18:00:02) * #1195 WG autonomy (nirik, 18:03:20) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1195 (nirik, 18:03:20) * AGREED: The question is too general. Please bring up specific cases to FESCo's attention as they come up. Specific cases should include anything related to differences from existing Fedora policies, guidelines, or practices. However, autonomy over things already decreed as allowed by Spins to change can be assumed. We expect this will becoming more clear over time. (+8,0,0) (nirik, 18:37:31) * #1196 Set deadline for PRDs (nirik, 18:51:18) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1196 (nirik, 18:51:18) * AGREED: 2014-01-13 deadline for working groups to provide product requirement documents to fesco. (+8,0,0) (nirik, 18:59:15) * #1198 Possible changes to Fedora EOL bug procedure (nirik, 18:59:23) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1198 (nirik, 18:59:23) * AGREED: defer a week and get more input from bz team. (+8,0,0) (nirik, 19:18:01) * #1199 Ratify Base Working Group governance charter (nirik, 19:18:26) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1199 (nirik, 19:18:27) * AGREED: Charter is approved (+7,0,0) (nirik, 19:28:34) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Cloud/Governance (mattdm, 19:28:55) * #1200 Environments and Stacks WG Governance Document (nirik, 19:28:57) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1200 (nirik, 19:28:57) * AGREED: Charter is approved (+7,0,0) (nirik, 19:31:25) * Cloud working group charter (nirik, 19:31:43) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Cloud/Governance (nirik, 19:31:47) * AGREED: Charter is approved (+7,0,0) (nirik, 19:32:56) * Next weeks Chair (nirik, 19:36:34) * ACTION: sgallagh to chair next week (nirik, 19:37:30) * Open Floor (nirik, 19:37:38) * AGREED: please do not use the official epel branch names if you're not intending to build for epel itself (+7,0,0) (nirik, 19:50:56) Meeting ended at 19:52:59 UTC. Action Items ------------ * sgallagh to chair next week Action Items, by person ----------------------- * sgallagh * sgallagh to chair next week * **UNASSIGNED** * (none) People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * nirik (167) * abadger1999 (78) * mattdm (54) * sgallagh (50) * pjones (50) * jwb (46) * notting (39) * jreznik (33) * t8m (27) * pknirsch (20) * mmaslano (19) * dgilmore (19) * mitr (11) * zodbot (10) * w4r3d (3) * tflink (2) * drago01 (1) * ajax (1) -- 18:00:02 <nirik> #startmeeting FESCO (2013-11-13) 18:00:02 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Nov 13 18:00:02 2013 UTC. The chair is nirik. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 18:00:02 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 18:00:02 <nirik> #meetingname fesco 18:00:02 <nirik> #chair abadger1999 mattdm mitr mmaslano notting nirik pjones t8m sgallagh 18:00:02 <nirik> #topic init process 18:00:02 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fesco' 18:00:02 <zodbot> Current chairs: abadger1999 mattdm mitr mmaslano nirik notting pjones sgallagh t8m 18:00:06 <t8m> hello 18:00:16 * notting is here 18:00:17 <mmaslano> hi 18:00:25 * abadger1999 is here 18:00:26 <sgallagh> .hellomynameis sgallagh 18:00:27 <zodbot> sgallagh: sgallagh 'Stephen Gallagher' <sgallagh(a)redhat.com> 18:01:08 <nirik> morning everyone. 18:01:32 <mitr> Hello 18:02:01 * sgallagh is juggling a number of fires today, so please forgive me if my responses are intermittent 18:02:25 <pjones> yo 18:02:37 <nirik> mattdm: you around? 18:03:02 <nirik> ok, lets go ahead and dive in. 18:03:20 <nirik> #topic #1195 WG autonomy 18:03:20 <nirik> .fesco 1195 18:03:20 <nirik> https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1195 18:03:22 <zodbot> nirik: #1195 (WG autonomy) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1195 18:03:24 <nirik> jwb: you around? 18:03:27 <jwb> i am 18:03:38 <sgallagh> nirik: mattdm will be around, he just mentioned disappearing to locate food first 18:03:53 <nirik> fair enough. 18:04:21 * mattdm has food 18:04:41 <pjones> is it soup? 18:04:43 <jwb> are we waiting on me? 18:04:59 <nirik> ok, so I agree with abadger1999 here... this is a difficult thing to write up 18:05:12 <nirik> jwb: no, just wanted you around since you filed the ticket and can add to the discussion? ;) 18:05:20 <jwb> ok 18:05:49 <notting> i do not know that we have a clear enough view where we can define what powers are reserved and what powers are delegated to the states^Wworking groups 18:06:21 <nirik> yeah, it's all kinda still squishy 18:06:38 <nirik> the two areas noted tho have already come up... 3rd party repos and release cycles. 18:06:42 <sgallagh> Proposal: FESCo always has the right to recover any powers it grants to the WGs at need. 18:06:51 <mattdm> pjones it is reheated pad thai 18:06:52 <abadger1999> yeah -- I hope that it might be possible to define in the future but for now it seems more like case-by-case 18:07:04 <pjones> Well, we have representatives in the groups - maybe we can make it their responsibility to raise it on both sides if they think there's a concern, regarding specific issues. 18:07:10 <nirik> sgallagh: I was assuming that was already the case? 18:07:12 <mattdm> I agree with what Toshio said in the ticket 18:07:17 <pjones> i.e. do we actually have to solve this problem for all cases? 18:07:39 <t8m> sgallagh, OK, I think this is implied, however I think we need a mechanism that diverging decisions are escalated or at least announced 18:07:45 <mmaslano> abadger1999: it's not clear to me how draw the line (as you put it) 18:07:48 <jwb> sgallagh, that proposal seems like something you'd do after you actually grant powers to the WGs 18:08:39 <jwb> the specific case taht prompted the broader issue is having packages in the products taht provide .repo files for repositories other than fedora repos. 18:08:43 <sgallagh> jwb: I disagree. After granting powers, deciding that you can take them back would be disingenuous 18:09:01 <pjones> sgallagh: we already have that ability 18:09:04 <mitr> pjones: I think it would be good if we were able to set expectations so that there are few surprises. I'm not sure it's possible. 18:09:07 <pjones> and no, it woudln't. that's absurd. 18:09:16 <jwb> sgallagh, my point was, your proposal isn't really solving the problem. 18:09:19 <nirik> proposal: encourage working groups/liasions to bring to fesco any cases where they plan to diverge significantly from current shared resources or philosophy 18:09:23 <nirik> (ok, that might be to useless0 18:09:25 <notting> jwb: technically, if you say "isn't available in fedora and isn't proprietary", chrome does not fit. 18:09:38 <sgallagh> jwb: Fair enough, I just don't want us locked into any decisions we make today 18:09:40 <jwb> notting, it was the example i was given. is chromium a better example? 18:09:45 <notting> jwb: yes 18:09:48 <jwb> well then assume that 18:09:50 <abadger1999> We could definitely decide on the two specific cases that we know about so far. 18:09:57 <jwb> or assume rpmfusion-free 18:10:04 <pjones> abadger1999: true 18:10:09 <notting> jwb: *bonghits* 18:10:16 <jwb> or assume $some_repo_you_guys_define_as_acceptable 18:10:28 <nirik> so, what are those exact examples? 18:10:41 <dgilmore> we really need to have fesco layout release schedules and lifecycles 18:10:48 <notting> nirik: i think without defining 'shared resources or philosophy', it leaves it rather vague 18:10:56 <nirik> notting: yeah, it does. ;( 18:11:02 <sgallagh> How about distributing RPMs for COPR repos? 18:11:08 <pjones> dgilmore: that's really not what we're talking about right now at all. 18:11:11 <sgallagh> That's a more clear example, I think 18:11:13 <nirik> jwb: can you provide the specific repo cases you were seeing? 18:11:25 <abadger1999> pjones: well, that was the other specific example I was thinking of. 18:11:56 <sgallagh> abadger1999: What was? 18:11:57 <abadger1999> "Can the products define their own separate release schedules and lifecycles" 18:11:57 <pjones> oh, well, okay. 18:12:03 <dgilmore> pjones: its something that cant be up to the Working Groups to decide. but sure 18:12:04 <nirik> dgilmore: thats the next case after this repo one. ;) 18:12:05 <jwb> nirik, chromium is about as acceptable of an example as i can come up with. the general idea is "repo files not fedora" 18:12:11 <dgilmore> nirik: cheers 18:12:29 <pjones> dgilmore: nevermind, I hadn't realized that's where abadger1999 was actually going, thought you were just bringing that up randomly since there was no context. 18:12:30 <jwb> nirik, so if there are limits around what "not fedora" means and we need explicit approval for each repo, fine 18:12:32 <nirik> jwb: but what about them? can we ship them in fedora rpms? can we enable them by default? can we ship them but not enable them? 18:12:41 <dgilmore> pjones: sorry. 18:12:47 <jwb> nirik, can the products enable them by default i believe 18:13:13 <jwb> or point users to them 18:13:16 <nirik> I'd say: no. But they could offer them to the user to accept? 18:13:17 <mattdm> jwb this actually may be a question for _legal_ 18:13:36 <jwb> mattdm, this specific one, sure. the broader question of what autonomy the WGs have isn't 18:14:07 * nirik nods. 18:14:08 <jwb> and if we can't settle on a general method of operation, then we have problems 18:15:05 <jwb> so if FESCo's proposal is "the liaison is responsible for bringing any unclear decisions to fesco"... well that's what we can do but it isn't particularly clear. 18:15:05 <notting> nirik: well, we already have policies on packaging of third-party repo files. so that would be a matter of saying 'these still apply' 18:15:09 <abadger1999> I know it's a departure from precedent but I lean towards allowing enabling by default but retaining fairly tight control over what repos are allowed. 18:15:12 <nirik> so, in this case should we forumate some questions for legal? or? 18:15:34 <jwb> notting, sure. that's why i brought up the question. we have policies saying we don't do it. the draft PRD for Workstation hints at wanting to do it. discuss. 18:15:39 <mattdm> jwb Yeah but this one may not be a good test case for establishing the general 18:15:42 <nirik> notting: right, which is "do not" 18:15:51 <pjones> abadger1999: I really do as well, if only because it affects users' choice of which product they actually want 18:15:52 <jwb> mattdm, so discuss the general without an example. 18:15:53 <notting> nirik: it's "only in %docdir", actually 18:15:54 <mmaslano> jwb: what if we (fesco) just review list of approved decision and decide only about those, which are questionable? 18:16:03 <nirik> notting: ok. 18:16:03 <sgallagh> May I suggest that we're diving into a specific example that should probably have its own FESCo ticket? 18:16:05 <dgilmore> jwb: i guess they bring a proposal to FESCo saying please change this policy 18:16:07 <jwb> mmaslano, possible. 18:16:12 <jwb> dgilmore, consider it brought. 18:16:18 <sgallagh> That we can think on and discuss next week. 18:16:41 <t8m> sgallagh, +1, let's try to at least somehow solve the general problem first 18:16:44 <nirik> abadger1999: so, perhaps 'repos that only contain free software' ? or some other critera? 18:17:25 <dgilmore> pretty sure i was part of FESCo when it was decided to ban them, because someone decided mainting the package in Fedora was too hard, so they pushed an update that basically replaced the package with and enabled .repo file pointing to their external upstream repo 18:17:26 <sgallagh> nirik, abadger1999: Can we please just address this separately from the general question? 18:17:43 <nirik> dgilmore: yep. I recall that as well. 18:17:50 <notting> jwb: hm, "workgroups have autonomy over their content set, over anything that can be resonably considered 'default configuration', and over the implementation of services not provided by the TBD base layer. anything that refers to general fedora policies should be brought for reconsideration in terms of the product split. release cycles & lifetime is all TBD anyway." 18:17:52 <abadger1999> sgallagh: we can but... I don't think we can address the general question with a definite answer. 18:17:57 <jwb> dgilmore, and yet, now we have coprs. designed to do that explicitly ;) 18:18:04 <jwb> LOLOLOLOLOLOL ;) 18:18:15 <sgallagh> abadger1999: Proposal: The question is too general. Please bring specific cases to FESCo's attention as they come up. 18:18:48 <jwb> sgallagh, again, i'm fine with that but you need to be aware that it's nebulous and possibly error prone 18:18:51 <dgilmore> jwb: sure. things change, maybe its time we changed the policy, adding soem restrictions on what can be in .repo files, but thats likelylegals call on hats okay 18:18:54 <dgilmore> whats 18:19:01 <mattdm> In general, Working Groups should have autonomy over decisions which are "self contained". These decisions do need to stay in line with Fedora's overall guiding principles. When decisions have impact beyond that Working Group (impact on other WGs or on existing Fedora subprojects like rel-eng, qa, design, etc.), FESCo will mediate and ultimately make decisions if need be. 18:19:02 <sgallagh> jwb: More so than a blanket statement about autonomy? 18:19:05 <abadger1999> sgallagh: with the caveat that once we have decided on a few (for some definition of few) we might be able to address the general question. 18:19:05 <mmaslano> sgallagh: +1 I don't see how can we specify boundaries 18:19:29 <sgallagh> abadger1999: I think sensible boundaries may start to appear as we go forward, yes. 18:19:41 <drago01> mattdm: "design" ? 18:19:41 <sgallagh> But let's not derail this meeting thinking up such cases. 18:19:47 <jwb> sgallagh, not moreso, just differently. it means the WG has to read FESCo's mind on what is questionable, instead of FESCo reviewing decisions. 18:19:57 <mattdm> drago01 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Design 18:20:26 <abadger1999> liasons should err on the side of caution -- bring to fesco things that are controversial, may have been in conflict with past policy, or represent new directions for fedora. 18:20:55 <t8m> abadger1999, +1 18:20:57 <abadger1999> over time we'll figure out areas where fesco does not have to be involved in future decisions of that sort. 18:21:14 <pjones> I've got an idea. Why don't we leave this as an open question to be discussed occasionally, with everybody keeping an open eye towards the fact that we might eventually have to actually say something about it while they go about their WG work ;) 18:21:39 <sgallagh> pjones: I think you just rephrased my proposal there, so +1 18:21:44 <nirik> pjones: +1, sure. 18:21:47 <abadger1999> pjones: that works for me. 18:21:50 <abadger1999> +1 18:21:52 <pjones> (There, I've invented the FESCo Select Committee On Whether WGs Have Gone Too Damn Far ;) 18:21:52 <mitr> jwb: We've had an example of how expecting FESCo to notice the problematic changes without the change initiator explicitly trying to communicate doesn't work, just las week 18:22:06 <mattdm> jwb does that address your concerns well enough at this point? 18:22:13 <notting> pjones: i'm not sure that *solves* the issue, but it may be reasonable 18:22:25 <pjones> notting: it wasn't intended as a solution, no. 18:22:34 <jwb> mitr, "failing to notice" is exactly what will continue to happen if the WG doesn't think they're decision is controversial 18:22:39 <nirik> mitr: hopefully our liasions will help? 18:22:40 <sgallagh> mitr: How is that relevant? If the WG liason doesn't communicate a controversial chagne to us, it doesn't change anything 18:23:09 <sgallagh> Perhaps we should make that a clear part of the liason job-description? 18:23:17 <t8m> sgallagh, definitely 18:23:20 <nirik> well, it's always going to come down to judgement... 18:23:22 <abadger1999> Note that controversial needs to mean, not just controversial within the WG but within Fedora as a whole, with a knowledge of past history as well. 18:23:38 <mitr> sgallagh: I think therefore that "reading FESCo's mind" is something we actually have to expect and ask, even though it sounds ... kind of difficult 18:23:44 <nirik> unless we say: "all working group decisions must be ratified by fesco" which is insane micromanaging doom. 18:23:45 <pjones> the simple fact of the matter is that if FESCo isn't /paying attention/ to what the WGs do, this whole thing is *going* to fail. 18:24:01 <pjones> and I use that phrase as opposed to "looking over the shoulder" or "backseat driving" on purpose. 18:24:14 <pjones> (or, you know, pick your euphemism) 18:24:14 <jwb> nirik, there's a middle ground 18:24:26 <t8m> which means the FESCO liason role is pretty critical one 18:24:34 <abadger1999> pjones: <nod> Which is kinda why we included the fesco liasons I think... of course with the liasons not actually being on fesco in all cases, it makes things a little bit different. 18:24:40 <notting> alternately: "if a WG is intending to do something against current stated Fedora policies, please raise" 18:24:45 <pjones> t8m: yes. but it also means that WGs and FESCo both need to be keeping that in mind as they go about their business. 18:25:04 <dgilmore> pjones: completely agree, im taking the approach that I have to actively monitor what WG's are doing so i can stay on top of what deliverables will be and if we work out ho to deliver them 18:25:23 <nirik> jwb: sure. agreed, but that middle ground will be a judgement call... either on the liasion's part or fesco or whoever thinks it needs to be discussed by fesco 18:25:53 <nirik> notting: I could agree to that too. 18:25:53 * sgallagh is glad there are three FESCo members on the Server WG. Nothing is likely to sneak by unnoticed there... 18:26:31 <pjones> sgallagh: or that makes it the worst one for that ;) 18:27:23 <abadger1999> notting: although that's not a complete description of the problems that should be raised... there's actually very few things fesco has officially called policy... 18:27:32 <nirik> so, where are we? enough votes to leave this open and continue to look at? enough votes to accept any of the other proposals? new proposal? 18:27:59 <notting> abadger1999: packaging policies, forbidden items, etc. 18:28:08 <notting> update guidelines... there's a lot of things. 18:28:16 <mmaslano> nirik: probably not enough votes, let's vote once again on sgallagh proposal 18:28:35 <t8m> mmaslano, which one? 18:28:59 <abadger1999> notting: But equally, reboot to install updates, one dep solver, backwards compat focus... 18:29:04 <sgallagh> Proposal: The question is too general. Please bring specific cases to FESCo's attention as they come up. abadger1999's addition: once we have decided on a few (for some definition of few) we might be able to address the general question 18:29:16 <mmaslano> Proposal: The question is too general. Please bring specific cases to FESCo's attention as they come up. 18:29:30 <mmaslano> sgallagh: yeah, this one +1 18:29:36 <sgallagh> +1 18:29:48 <nirik> +1 sgallagh (I assume that means keeping the ticket open and trying to address it as we move forward more) 18:29:55 <t8m> sgallagh, +1 18:29:56 <sgallagh> nirik: Yes 18:30:05 <notting> i'm leery b/c this doesn't give much guidance on the type of questions to bring. doesn't seem like enough of an answer 18:30:21 <nirik> notting: counter? 18:30:34 <jwb> notting, that's my concern 18:30:36 <abadger1999> <nod> I think we've said a lot of things in this meeting about type of questions to bring... but they aren't reflected in the Proposal. 18:30:54 <notting> nirik: "Specific cases should include anything related to differences from existing Fedora policies or guidelines." 18:31:25 <abadger1999> and also existing practice. 18:31:41 <pjones> yeah, I think "existing practice" is actually the big (and quite vague) on there 18:31:45 <abadger1999> which is the hardest part to nail down. 18:31:49 <abadger1999> <nod> 18:31:56 <pjones> because obviously there will be a big change to existing practice by /having/ the WGs 18:32:04 <sgallagh> At some point, no matter what, this will be a judgement call by the liasons. 18:32:13 <jwb> why you work this out, it's clear you want me to open a ticket specifically for the repo question right? 18:32:20 <sgallagh> Why don't we assume we can trust them to do their jobs properly until proven otherwise? 18:32:20 <pjones> sgallagh: not by the liasons. By the WGs and by FESCo. 18:32:23 <notting> jwb: yes 18:32:26 <abadger1999> jwb: yes please. 18:32:30 * jwb goes to open a ticket 18:32:31 <nirik> yep. please do 18:32:46 <notting> could add "Autonomy over things already decreed as allowed by spins to change can be assumed." 18:33:07 <pjones> sgallagh: the job of the liason is to make sure the WGs and FESCo are communicating appropriately. That includes bringing issues like this up, but mostly it's making sure we're all informed enough to see them coming. 18:33:12 <abadger1999> notting: +1 18:33:52 <nirik> notting: so, what does that give us for full proposal? 18:34:09 <sgallagh> pjones: I agree. I think that's the point I was trying to make, but just putting a certain measure of responsibility on the liason 18:34:19 <sgallagh> nirik: Spaghetti? 18:34:25 <pjones> it's the opposite of what you said, though. 18:34:26 <nirik> yummy. ;) 18:34:46 <notting> "The question is too general. Please bring up specific cases to FESCo's attention as they come up. Specific cases should include anything related to differences from existing Fedora policies, guidelines, or practices. However, autonomy over things already decreed as allowed by Spins to change can be assumed." 18:34:58 <sgallagh> notting: +1 18:34:59 <notting> "We expect that this will become more clear over time." 18:35:14 <nirik> so, this implies closing ticket? 18:35:20 <mattdm> notting +1 18:35:30 <abadger1999> notting: +1 18:35:39 <mmaslano> notting: +1 18:35:45 * abadger1999 doesn't care if we close the ticket or have it as a standing item. 18:35:49 <nirik> sure, +1 18:35:58 <pjones> I think a standing item may still be better, but +1 18:36:06 <abadger1999> It could be like open floor. 18:36:06 <mattdm> I would like to add (maybe just informally) that we don't necessary plan to *block* change, but we just want to _talk about it_. 18:36:20 <t8m> notting, +1 18:36:24 <mitr> notting: +1 18:36:28 <pjones> mattdm: I'd have thought you'd have learned that people read that the same way ;) 18:36:37 <abadger1999> mattdm: well.... I think it all depends on the change and also as the time frame we talk about. 18:36:55 <abadger1999> So at this point... I think it's still case-by-case. 18:36:56 <mattdm> pjones *sigh* 18:37:02 <notting> erm, then "We expect that this separation will become more clear over time, and policies and practices will change over time." 18:37:27 <mattdm> abadger1999 right obviously not all changes are rubber stamped. But we aren't anti progress, or else we wouldn't be doing _any_ of thise. 18:37:31 <nirik> #agreed The question is too general. Please bring up specific cases to FESCo's attention as they come up. Specific cases should include anything related to differences from existing Fedora policies, guidelines, or practices. However, autonomy over things already decreed as allowed by Spins to change can be assumed. We expect this will becoming more clear over time. (+8,0,0) 18:37:32 <abadger1999> notting: +1 18:37:43 <nirik> you want me to amed? its already really long. ;) 18:38:08 * pjones thinks that's good enough. 18:38:14 <nirik> move on? 18:38:27 <sgallagh> please 18:38:38 <nirik> jwb was filing ticket for the repo thing... do we want also another ticket for release cycle? 18:38:56 <dgilmore> nirik: I think its something that needs to be made clear 18:39:02 <abadger1999> nirik: yep. Should we ping pknirsch to do that? 18:39:06 <dgilmore> nirik: so from my perspective please 18:39:18 * pknirsch is lurking! 18:39:21 <pknirsch> whatup! 18:39:25 <nirik> sure. I don't care who does it, but we should ask for input from all the working groups on it. 18:39:45 <nirik> I know there's been talk of different release cycle in the server wg... 18:40:02 <dgilmore> nirik: well if we dont have a consistent release cycle for all products we lead to insanity and confusion 18:40:15 <nirik> dgilmore: +1 from me on that. 18:40:32 <mattdm> release cycle is clearly something that affects us all. 18:40:37 <pknirsch> mhm 18:40:47 <dgilmore> yep, which falls to FESCo to set 18:40:50 <nirik> pknirsch: can you file a fesco ticket about release cycles and needs for the various groups and if it should be the same for all, etc? 18:40:52 <abadger1999> Ah -- also related to the previous proposal... we should make sure to specifically alert all the fesco liasons about the decision and to read the fesco discussion. 18:40:56 <nirik> or I guess I could do it? 18:41:10 <t8m> abadger1999, +1 18:41:20 <nirik> abadger1999: good idea. Would someone be willing to send them all email about it? ;) 18:41:35 <abadger1999> nirik: yep, I'll take that on. 18:41:40 <nirik> and note the release cycle ticket too perhaps? 18:41:47 <ajax> "consistent" and "uniform across products" aren't necessarily the same thing. 18:41:57 <pknirsch> nirik: i can if you want to, or abadger1999 :) 18:42:34 <abadger1999> ajax: <nod> Although I think we probably want uniform across products for at least a few releases while we get our footing. 18:42:34 <pknirsch> at the end of the day though should we mandate a release cycle for all products? also future ones? 18:42:43 <pjones> I don't think they need to all be /the same/ release cycle. I do think they all need to be a part of the same broader plan. 18:42:50 <pknirsch> i mean, if some product decides to only do rolling releases? 18:42:56 <mattdm> pjones +1 broader plan! 18:43:01 <abadger1999> Creating three (or four depending on what base design decides their scope is) is going to be hard enough. 18:43:03 <pknirsch> what that then be shut down? 18:43:26 <pjones> pknirsch: I think "no rolling releases" fits well within "Specific cases should include anything related to differences from existing Fedora policies, guidelines, or practices." 18:43:27 <abadger1999> *three or four products 18:43:28 <pknirsch> s/what/would/ 18:43:39 <pjones> pknirsch: i.e. that's not an option right now without more discussion on it specifically 18:43:46 * pknirsch nods 18:44:04 <nirik> pknirsch: hard to say without more details, but that is less of a bad case in my mind than 'product 1 wants to release 6 times a year' 'product 2 wants to release 3 times' etc 18:44:16 <pknirsch> nirik: right 18:44:32 <dgilmore> they need to be on the same release cycle 18:44:33 <pknirsch> as base would have to do lots of releases then 18:44:41 <pknirsch> dgilmore: right 18:44:50 <dgilmore> released on the same day, eol on the same day 18:45:09 <pknirsch> well, one product could decided to eol one release later? 18:45:13 <pknirsch> maybe? 18:45:19 <nirik> anyhow, would someone be willing to file this ticket? I don't know we can/should discuss this without more input right now. 18:45:20 <dgilmore> but doing things like cloud update images monthly should be allowed 18:45:30 <pknirsch> good point 18:45:33 <dgilmore> pknirsch: no eol needs to be the same 18:45:41 <mattdm> even the update images (which I'm all for!) would be nice in broader context. 18:45:57 <pknirsch> dgilmore: hm, thats going to be really tricky though. there will be no possibility for long time releases then 18:45:57 <tflink> if the different products are on different timelines, qa processes like blocker bugs may also need to be changed 18:46:19 <dgilmore> pknirsch: there is, just that all products get it 18:46:21 <pknirsch> dgilmore: but i understand your point 18:46:33 * nirik can file that. ;) 18:46:34 <nirik> Shall we move on ? 18:46:35 <mitr> Let's give this more time - at least in server WG we are not nearly agreed on what we want, perhaps some of the options will be eliminated before this even gets to FESCo 18:46:47 <pjones> mitr: +1 18:46:56 <nirik> mitr: yes, I'll file a ticket and we can collect input. 18:47:03 <abadger1999> nirik: yes please -- we need to discuss this but we probably should do it next week after people have a chance to write ideas into the ticket. 18:47:11 <nirik> or you are saying 'wait to file the ticket even' ? 18:47:33 <pjones> Bludgeoning "it must be this way" policy down is not the way, and we shouldn't do it. What we should do is let people consider what would be best, and then try to arrive at a sensible master plan for the whole thing that includes as much of that as possible. 18:47:50 <nirik> ok, then: 18:48:31 <pjones> s/people/WGs/ 18:48:38 <t8m> pjones, +1 18:48:50 <mattdm> pjones +1 18:48:52 <nirik> I guess I can see starting to collect ideas now, or waiting. 18:49:54 <nirik> proposal: file fesco ticket to collect ideas on lifecycle and release cadence 18:50:10 <abadger1999> I think that timeframe and allocating new resources would be the big things 18:50:50 <nirik> very much so. 18:51:01 * pknirsch nods a lot 18:51:05 * nirik listens to crickets. ok, I'll file and move on then. 18:51:06 <abadger1999> ie: we don't say you can never do that but rather, you can't do that for the next release and you need to talk to X, Y, Z about what human resourcs you need to bring to the table to make it happen. 18:51:18 <nirik> #topic #1196 Set deadline for PRDs 18:51:18 <nirik> .fesco 1196 18:51:18 <nirik> https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1196 18:51:19 <zodbot> nirik: #1196 (Set deadline for PRDs) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1196 18:51:29 <nirik> I'm fine with the poposed date in there. 18:52:04 * pjones too 18:52:06 <jwb> um 18:52:13 <t8m> +1 to the proposed date 18:52:15 <pjones> that's two months from today 18:52:17 <jwb> yeah, so it would have been nice to be CC'd on this ticket 18:52:31 <jwb> <- not in fesco. don't get ticket email by default. 18:52:34 <abadger1999> fesco meetings are on wed... maybe tuesday would be a more practical deadline :-) 18:52:53 <nirik> jwb: possibly all liasions would have been good to cc. 18:52:54 <pjones> abadger1999: I think the idea is to give us each a full day to read it 18:52:55 <abadger1999> but yeah, +1 for that week. 18:53:02 * nirik wonders if we should make an alias. ;) 18:53:08 <pjones> abadger1999: which I can certainly get behind. 18:53:11 <pjones> nirik: probably, yes 18:53:15 <abadger1999> or just cc all liasons on all fesco tickets? 18:53:23 <abadger1999> (like the fpc point of contacts) 18:53:30 <t8m> nirik, what about just adding all liaisons to the fesco alias 18:53:49 <t8m> nirik, being there does not give them the power to vote on FESCo :) 18:54:01 <nirik> t8m: it's a list... 18:54:16 <t8m> s/alias/list 18:54:19 <t8m> then 18:54:21 <nirik> abadger1999: we could, we can add anyone to bcc to fesco tickets on trac 18:54:23 <abadger1999> is there a separate fesco list and alias? 18:54:30 <nirik> no alias. it's a lsit. 18:54:36 * abadger1999 sees that answer jsut before he asks it 18:54:55 <nirik> jwb / pknirsch: would you like to get cc'ed on all fesco tickets? or is that too much noise? 18:55:03 <pknirsch> nirik: please do! 18:55:05 <abadger1999> I don't know -- previous fesco's set it up to be private to fesco. 18:55:06 <jwb> i'm fine with it 18:55:25 <abadger1999> so yeah, I'm more +1 to the CC plan. 18:55:38 <t8m> I'd say that FESCo liaison should have most of FESCo member privileges except the voting :) 18:56:01 <nirik> ok, can do. 18:56:02 * abadger1999 really needs to include more context in his messages so people know what he's +1 to and what he's not :-) 18:56:05 <sgallagh> t8m: Isn't voting the *only* privilege? 18:56:07 <notting> and i can't imagine someone would be in a position to be a liason and not be comfortable with excessive amounts of e-mail 18:56:07 <nirik> ok, back to this ticket... shall we vote? or ? 18:56:22 <notting> nirik: yup, that's a date. +1 18:56:25 <abadger1999> +1 18:56:34 <mattdm> +1 18:56:41 <notting> (i.e., it's arbitrary, but it's a defined arbitrary and therefore better than before) 18:56:43 <t8m> sgallagh, well if you do not count receiving more mail as privilege ;) ;) 18:56:44 <sgallagh> nirik: We're voting on the Monday I suggested? 18:56:58 <sgallagh> the 13th? 18:56:59 <mmaslano> +1 to CC 18:57:02 <sgallagh> If so, +1 18:57:36 <abadger1999> sgallagh: correct.. except for mmaslano who's apparently voting on dding liasons to the trac CC :-) 18:58:11 <nirik> so, thats +7? 18:58:17 <nirik> (so far) 18:58:32 <mitr> +1 on the date 18:59:15 <nirik> #agreed 2014-01-13 deadline for working groups to provide product requirement documents to fesco. (+8,0,0) 18:59:23 <nirik> #topic #1198 Possible changes to Fedora EOL bug procedure 18:59:23 <nirik> .fesco 1198 18:59:23 <nirik> https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1198 18:59:26 <zodbot> nirik: #1198 (Possible changes to Fedora EOL bug procedure) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1198 19:00:08 * jreznik is here to answer question, summary in the ticket 19:00:20 <mattdm> yeah, so I was shocked when I learned it worked this way. 19:00:22 <sgallagh> mattdm: Want to phrase this as a soundbite we can vote on? 19:00:24 <nirik> so, whats the proposed change? 19:01:22 <jreznik> the remaining question is what to do with that reopen issue 19:01:37 <jreznik> otherwise we already do it in the way mattdm proposed 19:01:40 <mattdm> a) leave bugs in needinfo state until the _next_ product as closed b) close as INSUFFICIENT_DATA instead of WONTFIX and c) change the message asking people to either file a new bug or ping an ombudsman of some sort (a role we don't have but I think we should) 19:01:43 <nirik> I'm very - on leaving things open in needinfo personally.. 19:02:00 <jreznik> nirik: for how long? 19:02:06 <mattdm> nirik are you okay with a _longer_ needinfo? 19:02:07 <abadger1999> jreznik: just one clarification -- anyone in the fedora packager group can reopen correct? 19:02:09 <nirik> no. 19:02:16 <notting> only filer can? 19:02:18 <nirik> say you have a f18 bug... 19:02:23 <notting> or no one, b/c we close the product? 19:02:25 <mattdm> notting filer _cannot_ 19:02:28 <mattdm> notting right. 19:02:40 <mattdm> actually, except I can. possibly all packagers can. 19:02:42 <nirik> you provide a patch or detailed info on how to fix it. 19:02:46 <mattdm> but regular users can't. 19:02:46 <jwb> fwiw, the kernel team uses a needinfo period of 2 weeks, then clsoe with insufficient_Data 19:02:54 <nirik> but the maintainer does not get to it. f18 goes eol. 19:02:56 <jwb> regardless of release standpoint 19:03:07 <nirik> the needinfo is wrong there. There's no info needed. It will never get fixed in f18 19:03:15 <mattdm> jwb that's not a big issue because people can reopen. it only becomes a big issue once the whole _release_ is closed. 19:03:23 <jreznik> for c) initially there was "clone a bug" but I think that was jwb who asked me to change that, we wasn't aware of that reopen issue 19:03:32 <mattdm> nirik info is "is this still an issue?" 19:03:47 <nirik> and you clear that and it's a open f18 bug. 19:03:47 <mattdm> cloning is kind of terrible in bugzilla 19:03:49 <jwb> cloning a bug is horrible. please don't do that 19:03:51 <jreznik> nirik: but it could be fixed in next version 19:04:16 <t8m> hmm what about automatically changing the product to next fedora and putting in needinfo and closing if still in needinfo this fedora is closed 19:04:17 <jreznik> jwb: well, c) proposed by mattdm is now - file a new bug 19:04:18 <mattdm> nirik -- i'm okay with forcing an update of the version if we can do that. 19:04:45 <mattdm> jreznik but to be clear I only think that's okay if we give people a longer window. 19:04:52 <nirik> t8m: hard to sort out... and confusing for maintainers that it's not right version 19:05:20 <nirik> mattdm: right, i don't know if thats possible, but I would be ok with that... if you reopen, it forces it against rawhide or last stable or something. 19:05:22 <mattdm> "My bug was closed and Fedora doesn't care about me" is in the top ten things I hear from people when asking for feedback on their experience with us. 19:05:37 <notting> you can't repoen while changing release? or we don't give you an interstitial that allows that? 19:05:49 <jreznik> mattdm: that's the problem - we can't fix all bugs... never, ever... 19:06:17 <sgallagh> I have to run for today, sorry. 19:06:28 <jreznik> and I think it's better to admit we're not able to fix it over letting it open indefinitely and waiting for miracles 19:06:35 <mattdm> notting right now, the users have no option to do either. 19:06:38 <abadger1999> mattdm: note -- this wouldn't change it really... the real problem is that no maintainer is looking at that set of bugs. 19:06:50 <nirik> notting: not sure. I think it won't let non fedorabugs/priv people reopen and change version... or it doesn't make clear you have to do that and won't let it happen until you do 19:07:24 <jreznik> nirik: so the question is if we can grant these privs and how sane it is to grant this privs 19:07:34 <mattdm> I think having a "bug ombudsman" role is really what we need. I'm not volunteering for that (I might have, about 8 years ago...) 19:07:47 <nirik> I don't know... bugzilla folks haven't answered the bug mattdm opened yet. ;) 19:07:50 <jreznik> mattdm: what's bug ombudsman? 19:08:00 <jwb> chief triager. 19:08:03 <jreznik> nirik: so I'll try to check with them 19:08:19 <nirik> bugzapper? :) 19:08:26 <jreznik> jwb: it's sad we don't have triagers anymore but I understand nobody wants to do it... 19:08:33 <mattdm> I hear the point about more honest / real problem / lots of bugs / etc., but it really is leaving a bad taste in users' mouths 19:08:36 <jwb> i do it all day long and i don't want to do it. 19:09:24 <abadger1999> mattdm: I mean -- leaving hte bug open with no comments for multiple releases is still going to leave a bad taste in users' mouths. 19:09:32 <jreznik> mattdm: trust me, I'd be more than happy to close 0 unfixed bugs over 9000... 19:09:34 <nirik> I agree it can be improved... I'm just not clear on what we can do to improve it yet. 19:09:44 <jreznik> abadger1999: yep 19:09:55 <mattdm> abadger1999 yeah, but closing it with no opportunity to respond is like a poke in the eyes on top of that. 19:09:57 <jreznik> it also helps maintainers to clear a bit theirs backlog 19:10:08 <jreznik> mattdm: and we're trying to solve this problem 19:10:09 <nirik> I'm against mattdm's a and b... I think a bug triager/ombudsmen would be great, but not sure who will do it. ;) 19:10:47 <jreznik> mattdm: it was mistake, we weren't aware of this rebase/reopen issue at that time, it's there just one release 19:11:02 <mattdm> jreznik I'm told that it has been the case for several years. 19:11:03 <jreznik> and I'll be more than happy to fix it 19:11:07 <mattdm> I it's hard to test that. 19:11:10 <nirik> proposal: defer a week and ask bz folks for any technical help they can give us and if any folks want to try and be ombudsmen. 19:11:17 <jreznik> mattdm: no, previously we said "clone a bug" and it worked 19:11:37 <mattdm> ah I see. before _that_, was said "reopen", and _that_ worked. 19:12:02 <nirik> right... first break was old versions getting closed to new bugs 19:12:03 <jreznik> but kernel guys were unhappy about clones, kde guys... 19:12:09 <mattdm> When I started this whole mass-closing of bugs at Fedora Core 2 or whenever, I actually added myself to the CC of each one. 19:12:15 <mattdm> and handled any complaints. 19:12:16 <nirik> then cloning fixed that, then it broke with telling people reopen 19:12:28 <jreznik> nirik: yep 19:12:30 <notting> i agree we should advise something that works 19:12:32 <mattdm> But in order for someone to do that now, I think it would be a full-time job. 19:12:34 <nirik> I read thru all the ones I get. 19:12:47 <jreznik> mattdm: it would be more that full time job 19:12:57 <nirik> and if anyone replies to them I'm happy to reopen. I think it's happened once or twice 19:13:06 <jreznik> I try to take a look at least on a few bugs I'm closing but 9000 is 9000 19:13:17 <abadger1999> notting: +1 19:13:21 <notting> *a* proposal could be to lengthen the period before closing, and change the message back to clone 19:13:28 <jreznik> so change the wording? 19:13:31 <notting> if people don't want clones, i'm fine with waiting for bz team ideas 19:13:52 <abadger1999> maybe change wording to "clone or reopen if you're a fedora packager" 19:14:21 <mattdm> jreznik you don't have to look at every one, but it would be good if there were an opportunity for users to get help without feeling abandoned. 19:14:23 <nirik> well, comments still work for users after the version closes? or no? 19:14:26 <jreznik> notting: I'm not sure about that longer period... if one month is not enough, half year would not be enough neither... people react on the warning and eol, in between not many bugs are updated 19:14:37 <jreznik> nirik: yes 19:14:52 <notting> jreznik: i can let that go 19:14:57 <mitr> mattdm: That's almost equivalent to "it would be good if bugs got fixed" - true, but we haven't even started thinking how to do that 19:15:03 <abadger1999> if bz team can provide a fix that's even better but I wouldn't want to keep the wrong advice while waiting :-) 19:15:03 <nirik> then we could add "or comment on this bug to have the maintainer reopen it for you" but that only works if the maintainer or a cc'ed person is looking 19:15:08 <abadger1999> nirik: uhh.... 19:15:10 <notting> but i think we should definitely either change the wording so it gives the users an option that works, or fix the reopening 19:15:11 <jreznik> mattdm: it's fedora - you have to be active to get stuff done sometimes... 19:15:32 <abadger1999> nirik: yeah -- I think many of htese bugs are being closed in the first place because the maintainer isn't actively watching and dealing with the bug. 19:15:35 <nirik> well, we just need to decide wording in the next month or so right? 19:15:36 <jreznik> notting: yep, I'm sad the change caused this issue 19:16:03 <notting> i'm ok with leaving it for a week to get bz maintainer input 19:16:06 <abadger1999> so depending on them to reopen is... less than optimal. 19:16:07 <jreznik> maybe encourage people to try to talk to maintaner? 19:16:21 <abadger1999> notting: +1 19:16:35 <t8m> abadger1999, +1 19:16:35 * nirik is ok with that too. Hopefully they can help us. 19:17:01 <mmaslano> notting: +1 19:17:03 <nirik> mattdm: ok with you? 19:17:03 <t8m> notting, +1 19:17:09 <abadger1999> <nod> and if not we can change the wording next week. 19:17:15 <jreznik> abadger1999: yep 19:17:20 <pjones> notting: +1 19:17:33 <mattdm> nirik Yeah, I can wait. My main concern is making sure users don't feel like their involvement results in a slap in the face. 19:18:01 <nirik> #agreed defer a week and get more input from bz team. (+8,0,0) 19:18:11 <nirik> mattdm: sure, I agree we should make it better for sure. 19:18:26 <nirik> #topic #1199 Ratify Base Working Group governance charter 19:18:26 <nirik> .fesco 1199 19:18:27 <nirik> https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1199 19:18:28 <zodbot> nirik: #1199 (Ratify Base Working Group governance charter) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1199 19:18:51 <w4r3d> Hola alguien habla español? 19:18:59 <nirik> note: according to the working groups doc, we should be asking the board to approve these, but I think thats silly and we should do it and ask the board to yell if they have a problem. ;) 19:19:19 <pjones> w4r3d: nyet 19:19:20 <mmaslano> I want to ask hear if everyone is fine that WGs do no vote about their members 19:19:42 <mmaslano> only Env and Stacks agreed on election after year of service 19:19:43 <mattdm> nirik yes, that came basically from https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Defining_projects, which says "Only the Fedora Project Board announces new Fedora projects." 19:19:53 <mitr> nirik: the Board is supposed to approve the PRDs, not the charters 19:20:42 <w4r3d> Hola tengo una duda 19:21:01 <dgilmore> w4r3d: No esta un reunión 19:21:22 <tflink> w4r3d: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicating_and_getting_help?rd=Communicat… for irc channels with more spanish speakers 19:21:23 <nirik> mattdm: yeah, I think thats historical and shouldn't matter anymore, but the Board could disagree I guess. 19:21:35 <w4r3d> gracias 19:21:46 <mattdm> nirik yeah. I'm good with let's-approve-them-here-and-send-em-on-for-ack 19:22:09 <nirik> mmaslano: I'm ok with no voting. I'm a little worried that there might be not enough new blood/turnover, but perhaps we can address that when we see it... 19:22:40 <mmaslano> nirik: exactly my point 19:22:45 <mmaslano> how would we do it? 19:23:01 <t8m> mmaslano, I'd prefer if the WG's memebers were voted on but I can live with the governance charters as they are and see and correct if bad things happen latter 19:23:01 <jwb> you pay attention, and you step in as the overseeing body 19:23:11 <nirik> on the other hand voting is bad because we want people who know the area/are technical, and voting is popularity. 19:23:51 <abadger1999> I've been a little surprised at how the WG's have decided to optimize for consistency with the past but... not sure I would meddle. 19:23:53 * jreznik still thinks WG are evolution of SIGs with stamp and can't imagine SIG members would be voted 19:24:26 <mattdm> FESCo elections (and this goes back to the autonomy discussion) are the democratic check on all of this. 19:24:28 <abadger1999> jreznik: heh -- but in a SIG, there wouldn't be a voting member vs non-voting member distinction. 19:24:35 <t8m> nirik, you could say that about FESCo member voting as well 19:24:42 <nirik> t8m: yep. indeed. 19:25:05 <jreznik> abadger1999: actually we tried FKDESCo once in KDE SIG :) with voting members preselected 19:25:43 <nirik> so, +1 from me for the base charter. when/if we see issues with elections/no elections we can step in. 19:25:57 <t8m> +1 agree with nirik 19:25:58 <mmaslano> ok, so I'm +1 for Base WG charter 19:25:59 <notting> i'm +1 to the charter as well. but i can abstain, as i'm on it 19:26:05 <abadger1999> +1 as well 19:26:28 <mitr> jwb: "this doesn't sound quite right but I can't put my finger on it", "there have been more flamewars than usual", "people seem to be leaving"... it's not at all obvious when to step in 19:27:02 <pknirsch> isn't that what the liasions are for though? 19:27:10 <mattdm> +1 to charter 19:27:12 <notting> mitr: well, we did that due to those and other reasosn in the creation of the committees, so...? 19:27:17 <mattdm> and +1 to pknirsch 19:27:20 <notting> (maybe i missed the point of what you said) 19:27:35 <jwb> mitr, *shrug*. FESCo created the WGs. FESCo is the overseer. you get to figure it out 19:27:41 <nirik> any other votes? 19:27:49 <pjones> nirik: I'm +1 to it 19:27:59 <jwb> NOTE: Acting on behalf of the board, i closed board ticket 168 which was opened for Board approval of charters 19:28:07 <jwb> so please just approve the charters 19:28:12 <jwb> and then send the PRDs up 19:28:15 <mattdm> okay awesome. 19:28:17 * jwb points this out to sgallagh 19:28:18 <abadger1999> jwb: Thanks 19:28:34 <pjones> jwb: sgallagh left already, so you may want to point it out individually later 19:28:34 <nirik> #agreed Charter is approved (+7,0,0) 19:28:39 <nirik> thanks jwb 19:28:46 <jwb> pjones, he opened the ticket, so i'm guessing he'll see it 19:28:48 <nirik> there was one further ticket that came in... 19:28:54 <mattdm> so, just at the meeting prior to this one cloud wg approved charter 19:28:55 <mattdm> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Cloud/Governance 19:28:57 <nirik> #topic #1200 Environments and Stacks WG Governance Document 19:28:57 <nirik> .fesco 1200 19:28:57 <nirik> https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1200 19:28:58 <zodbot> nirik: #1200 (Environments and Stacks WG Governance Document) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1200 19:29:08 <nirik> mattdm: sorry... 19:29:10 <mattdm> (oops, do that first) 19:29:16 <nirik> mattdm: yeah, lets do that one next 19:29:21 <mmaslano> abadger1999: well written 19:29:50 <t8m> +1 at least we'll see whether voting on members or not is better or not 19:29:51 <abadger1999> thanks. Of course, there was lots of other contributors to it ;-) 19:29:52 <nirik> +1 here (again, unsure how voting will work out, but hey) 19:29:54 <mattdm> +1 19:29:59 <mmaslano> +1 19:30:02 <abadger1999> +1 19:30:28 <notting> +1 19:30:56 <pjones> +1 19:31:25 <nirik> #agreed Charter is approved (+7,0,0) 19:31:31 <abadger1999> elections for voting members and the way we handle abstentions are the two main ways this differs from the other charters. 19:31:43 <nirik> #topic Cloud working group charter 19:31:47 <nirik> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Cloud/Governance 19:32:01 <mattdm> this is substantially the same as the server one 19:32:07 <pjones> +1 19:32:09 <nirik> sure, +1 19:32:11 <mattdm> +1 19:32:14 <notting> +1 19:32:16 <mmaslano> +1 19:32:29 <abadger1999> +1 19:32:31 <t8m> +1 19:32:56 <nirik> #agreed Charter is approved (+7,0,0) 19:33:35 <nirik> so, we are missing workstation? 19:34:23 <nirik> or wait. 19:35:46 * sgallagh returns 19:36:05 <nirik> yeah, we didn't approve workstation yet right? 19:36:34 <nirik> #topic Next weeks Chair 19:36:38 <nirik> who wants it? 19:36:40 <sgallagh> I haven't done it in a while 19:37:21 <nirik> it's so much fun! 19:37:30 <nirik> #action sgallagh to chair next week 19:37:38 <nirik> #topic Open Floor 19:37:56 <nirik> so the deadline for gov docs is the 15th? do we want to vote on workstation in ticket? or ? 19:38:24 <abadger1999> I don't think there's a hurry to approve -- it was just a deadline for submission. 19:38:32 * nirik notes its very similar to others. ;) 19:38:54 <nirik> ok, any items for open floor? 19:39:08 <sgallagh> Let's vote in tickets and add it to the meeting next week if there are any concerns 19:39:25 <sgallagh> I have one, but it might be more for FPC. 19:39:51 <sgallagh> Ive heard from the RDO folks that they're using the Koji buildsystem to build a EL 6 version of RDO 19:40:15 <sgallagh> This includes dependencies that are replacing copies in RHEL 6, but they aren't pushing these to the EPEL repo. 19:40:27 <sgallagh> They're instead just using Koji and creating a repo of their own. 19:40:29 <nirik> ok, just using private branches/scratch builds? 19:40:45 <sgallagh> It wasn't clear if this was a spirit-of-the-law violation to me. 19:41:34 <pjones> I'm not sure why we care? 19:41:41 <sgallagh> nirik: They originally were using the el6 branch, but I did notice that after our conversation, python-memcached moved to el6-havana 19:41:41 <nirik> well, we allow scratch builds for anything thats free enough to be in fedora, so this seems like it would be ok to me... but possibly copr would be a better place down the road? 19:41:51 <pjones> nirik: exactly 19:41:52 <sgallagh> Yeah, I recommended COPR as well 19:41:57 <abadger1999> I think if the builds aren't going into the fedora/epel repos, Im rpetty sure it's not FPC :-) 19:42:26 <pjones> But... it's builds for RHEL. I realize we're the overseers of EPEL as well, but it's still kind of not our jurisdiction. 19:42:26 <nirik> if they are doing branches they just need to realize that they can't currently ever delete them. ;) 19:42:50 <pjones> abadger1999: exactly 19:43:11 <nirik> now, if they are building stuff thats not ok license wise thats a problem. 19:43:57 <nirik> ok, any other open floor items? 19:44:10 <sgallagh> nirik: Ok, so to be clear, this is a "go ahead, have fun" answer? :) 19:44:29 <abadger1999> sgallagh: That's a good point about the branches too -- if they continued to use el6 it would pollute the branch for people who actually wanted to work on epel6 packages. 19:44:49 <pjones> sgallagh: yes 19:44:51 <abadger1999> i don't see a problem if they're using separate branches and a different repo. 19:44:53 <nirik> sgallagh: as far as I can see based on what I know... 19:45:05 <nirik> abadger1999: well, different repo wouldn't work. 19:45:12 <nirik> oh, rpms repo... sure. 19:45:16 * nirik was reading that as git repo. 19:45:17 <sgallagh> abadger1999: Well, these are el6 branches for packages that exist in base RHEL 19:45:21 <abadger1999> (although they may need something special for buildrequires) 19:45:39 <sgallagh> So theoretically, no one would ever be using those for an official EPEL build, per policy 19:45:53 <nirik> oh, I see. I misunderstood. 19:46:04 <abadger1999> sgallagh: ah.... I see... I think I'd be against reusing the el6 branches for that but it's more theoretical. 19:46:06 <nirik> that does seem like it would be confusing. 19:46:26 <nirik> typically when something lands in rhel the epel version is blocked. 19:46:41 <nirik> but scratch builds still work of course. 19:46:41 <abadger1999> yeah, confusion. git branch -a python-memcached... oh, why is this in epel, isn't it in rhel? 19:46:47 <abadger1999> things like that. 19:46:50 <sgallagh> abadger1999: As I mentioned above: the package that brought this up moved it to el6-havana after we discussed it 19:46:56 <abadger1999> <nod> 19:47:10 <abadger1999> sgallagh: yep. So tell them, please do more of that :-) 19:47:18 <notting> i'm ok with 'please do not use the official epel branch names if you're not intending to build for epel itself' 19:47:40 <nirik> yeah, +1 19:47:58 <t8m> notting, +1 19:48:05 <sgallagh> notting: +1 19:48:41 <mitr> notting: +1 19:49:42 <nirik> ok, do we want to agree to that? or just have sgallagh pass that along? 19:50:14 <abadger1999> notting: +1 19:50:18 <mmaslano> +1 19:50:56 <nirik> #agreed please do not use the official epel branch names if you're not intending to build for epel itself (+7,0,0) 19:51:01 <pjones> sure, I guess? It seems like they were talked to, realized they were wrong, and stopped 19:51:04 <nirik> anything else open floor wise? 19:51:49 * nirik will close out in a minute if not. 19:52:55 * notting has to head off to a different meeting @ 3 anyway 19:52:57 <nirik> Thanks for coming everyone! 19:52:59 <nirik> #endmeeting

1 0

Re: [Ambassadors] REMINDER French Fedora Meeting Today #fedora-meeting-1
by Emmanuel Seyman 13 Nov '13

13 Nov '13

* Reminder [12/11/2013 08:30] : > > This mail is a reminder for today's meeting for the French speaking community. > > Ce mail est un rappel pour la réunion de la communauté francophone. The minutes: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2013-11-12/fedora-meeting… The logs: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2013-11-12/fedora-meeting… Emmanuel

1 0

Meeting Summary / November 12, 2013
by Máirín Duffy 12 Nov '13

12 Nov '13

Hi folks! Below find a summary of yesterday's meeting. You can also read it in blog format at http://fedoraserver-wgblog.rhcloud.com/?p=16 . Below the summary, you'll find the meetbot links if you'd like to read the raw logs. Meeting Minutes =============== Here’s a run-down of today’s Server Working Group meeting: Agenda ====== * Can a single server have multiple roles? * Installation of base + roles Can a single server have multiple roles? ======================================== This topic discussion covered the following points: * We agreed that a single server should be able to serve multiple roles. * Testing combinations of roles on the same server will be tricky. There are some known combinations that will not work (for example, FreeIPA isn’t compatible with mod_nss.) * We’ll start with basic, single server roles, and over time we will adde tested combinations. (All agreed.) “A server having multiple roles could be as simple as “In my cost-constrained office, I want my domain controller to also be my email server,” said sgallagh. I pointed out there were some concerns about that approach last week. sgallagh responded, “There was concern about being able to test such things.” “Yeah, testing can be a big pain if we have 10 featured things and you can install any one or any combo of them,” said nirik. “But we could also just say ‘we test each of these things alone, let us know if they interact poorly.’” mitr asked sgallagh, “We aren’t ordinarily concerned about testing a system that has both Firefox and Devhelp installed; isn’t this the same thing?” “At first glance I agree with you,” replied sgallagh. “but with server applications they can sometimes interact with each other in odd ways. Such as requiring mod_nss vs. mod_ssl in apache (to pluck a known example out of the air.)” “Server can have one or more roles,” added Viking-Ice. “There is no doubt about that.” “But we need to be clear what we test in that world,” said nirik. “Yes,” agreed mitr. sgallagh added, “As I said above, I think it must be possible, but we can probably get away with stating that we only test each role in a vacuum.” “We chose a role and we test cover that role,” said Viking-Ice. “Alternatively, when/if we get automated tests,” said mitr, “doing a ‘full install’ and running all the tests on it should be reasonable – but let’s not commit do doing manual work twice.” Evolution asked, “Do we document roles that obviously conflict?” “I would say not,” answered Viking-Ice. “Well in some cases you can in some others you cannot,” simo answered. “In freeipa we use mod_nss… so you won’t be able to use it with another program that depends on mod_ssl. That may change in time to avoid issues, and fedora server contribution may actually help smooth those issues in some cases.” sgallagh also answered, “That would still require testing all of them together to learn whether they conflict.” “We can only guarantee what we test,” said simo. “So perhaps we should start just with bare roles, and in time add explicitly tested combinations.” mizmo brought simo’s proposal to the table and it was supported by everyone: *** Regarding multiple roles on one server, we will start with just bare roles, and in time add explicitly tested combinations. *** Installation of base + roles ============================ mizmo brought up, “It looks like another concern from last week’s minutes, about multiple roles per server, was how to install the server that way.” “You install the base server ( which I call FOSSP, )” replied Viking-Ice, “then install one or more roles.” “Yeh, that makes sense to me,” replied mizmo. “The anaconda UI actually makes this pretty easy… you can set various roles to be compatible / incompatible and let users select.” sgallagh asked, “By way of comps groups?” “Yep,” mizmo replied. “That’s the way to go in my opinion too,” said nirik. mizmo added, “If we have a better answer to comps groups or want to expand on them or fix them, though – it should be possible, I think.” “I think we can agree on this “FedoraOS Server Platform ( FOSSP ) is made available with or without an predefined server role,ready to use ks for traditional method of installation,directly into an isolated or OS container or as an whole-disk images to be used in private/public cloud as instance-store image or standalone server in the cloud itself.” “Way too many decisions in one sentence,” said mitr. nirik responded, “-1 on kickstarts.” “I think kickstart is too implementation-specific, although it’s obviously going to come into play,” added mizmo. “Kickstarts should be supported but not required,” simo added. sgallagh asked nirik, “Can you expand on that?” “Kickstarts only work at install/create time. You can’t for example install foo and then decide to add role bar later,” said nirik. “Kickstarts contain too many site-specific items.” mizmo responded, “If the role was a comps group, you could though,” pointing out how a role could be added on later. “Yes, which is why I think it’s a better solution,” said nirik. “So you’re just opposing pre-generated kickstart files we make available, rather than ‘don’t use kickstart to set up servers,’ I assume?” sgallagh asked nirik. “Yes,” nirik replied. “Nirik,” said Viking-Ice, “We install either the base server or base server + 1 ( and later as has been decide ) or more roles. We test this as is as it comes from us.” “I’d like to see it in anaconda/yum groups personally,” said Evolution. “Kickstart recipes would be good, but as a community thing maybe outside what we’re doing here.” mizmo added, “I don’t think we have a good GUI way to install groups post-install, though.” “That ‘needs to change,’” said mitr. “Mind, it’s not a matter of adding a comps group only; installing a server role should also allow easily invoking a GUI to set up that role as a group.” “That’s one thing actually I want to talk using Cockpit for, when that project finds its feet a bit,” sgallagh pointed out. “Which brings up for me how we still need to discuss personas :) ” said mizmo. Viking-Ice replied, “I think we can drop personas and target and just do the prd’s for roles.” mizmo questioned Viking-Ice, “Then how do you know how to make the decisions if you dont know who the product is for?” “Well, roles should be targeted at personas,” sgallagh said. “Where the persona may simply be “Admin that needs to run a mail server. Or more likely “Admin that needs to be able to manage a groupware suite.” “Right,” said Viking-Ice. “Our audience are administrators, and we do not care at which level or how experienced they are.” “I think we should actually be aiming to target a more junior admin than we traditionally have,” responded sgallagh. “I think it would be good to be clear about our targets,” added nirik. “What kind of personas do you have in mind?” asked simo. “Unix-savvy admin vs clueless admin? Are there any other?” mizmo replied, “Let’s pick that up after the install base + roles topic.” sgallagh said, “For post-install, I was personally envisioning doing something like canned ansible recipes (formulas?)” “Again, tho, the problem is that they are very site specific,” responded nirik. “BTW you can add an role later ( After install via yum or dnf foo )” said Viking-Ice. nirik replied, “If they are comps groups, sure… but if they are, why not use that in the installer to install whatever the person wants? Or they can write their own kickstart.” “Can we agree on goals instead of technology first?” asked mitr. mizmo, sgallagh, and simo agreed to this. Viking-Ice continued, “We provide vm’s and best out of the box experience ( which can be read as few steps to get it going.)” “I think we need to decide only if we want to make it easy to install a ‘role’ and when. Only at anaconda time or at any time?” said simo. mitr proposed a couple of goals: * “Goal 1: automated (“mass”) install within a larger Linux infrastructure (e.g. PXE is an option, may have LDAP/IPA.)” * “Goal 2: manual install without a supporting infrastructure (e.g. the very first Linux server).” After that we ended up hopping on an etherpad (via piratepad.net) and working through some goals. We got a good set of initial goals and deferred some goals for later discussion, then promoted the document to the wiki, here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Server/Proposals/Server_Roles/Installation_G… We ran out of time and decided not to continue past the original allotted time this week. Further discussion about server role installation goals will take place in this thread on the mailing list. Meetbot Minutes: =============== Minutes: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2013-11-12/fedora-meeting… Minutes (text): http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2013-11-12/fedora-meeting… Log: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2013-11-12/fedora-meeting…

1 0

meeting Minutes 2013-11-12
by Toshio Kuratomi 12 Nov '13

12 Nov '13

Summary: This week's meeting pretty much wrapped up the governance document drafting process. ============================================ #fedora-meeting: Env and Stacks (2013-11-12) ============================================ Meeting started by mmaslano at 13:01:33 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2013-11-12/fedora-meeting.2… . Meeting summary --------------- * init process (mmaslano, 13:01:39) * governance draft (mmaslano, 13:05:16) * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Toshio/Env_and_Stacks_Governance (mmaslano, 13:06:41) * HELP: (bkabrda, 13:10:48) * AGREED: leave proposal as is, but change the part about filling empty seats. Election should happen on january 2015. Who can vote will be worked out later. (+5,-0,0) (mmaslano, 13:37:11) * Voting group to be cla+1 approved (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) (abadger1999, 14:00:59) * Proposal Elections for half the seats will be held afer every fedora release (approximately 6 months) to match with fesco. Elected members serve for 2 release cycles before needing to stand for re-election Passed (+1:8, 0:0, -1:0) (abadger1999, 14:21:45) * Candidates for the Env and Stack WG are anyone in cla+1 Passed (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) (abadger1999, 14:23:58) * We'll follow fesco election process on other details not mentioned here Passed (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) (abadger1999, 14:27:07) * Change few days for lazy consensus to 3 days. Passed (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) (abadger1999, 14:41:54) * Request trac for ticketing and voting Passed (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) (abadger1999, 14:45:46) * ACTION: mmaslano will take care of trac request (mmaslano, 14:46:19) * ACTION: abadger1999 to update the election doc and post link to the list and fesco ticket. (abadger1999, 14:59:15) * Open Floor (abadger1999, 14:59:34) Meeting ended at 15:01:29 UTC. Action Items ------------ * mmaslano will take care of trac request * abadger1999 to update the election doc and post link to the list and fesco ticket. Action Items, by person ----------------------- * abadger1999 * abadger1999 to update the election doc and post link to the list and fesco ticket. * mmaslano * mmaslano will take care of trac request * **UNASSIGNED** * (none) People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * abadger1999 (118) * juhp (113) * mmaslano (76) * tjanez (70) * samkottler (41) * bkabrda (29) * j_dulaney (25) * hhorak (18) * zodbot (10) * pkovar (9) * jreznik (7) * sgallagh (5) * pknirsch (2) * hhorak1 (1) * jwb (1) * drieden (1) * handsome_pirate (0) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 .. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot

1 0

FAmSCo meeting minutes 2013-11-11
by Jiri Eischmann 11 Nov '13

11 Nov '13

Hi, we had another FAmSCo meeting today, mostly discussing swag for F20 cycle. If you'd like to know more, read the minutes: Minutes: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-2/2013-11-11/famsco.2013-11… Minutes (text): http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-2/2013-11-11/famsco.2013-11… Log: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-2/2013-11-11/famsco.2013-11… The next meeting will be on Nov 18th. I'm gonna travelling from tomorrow till Nov 30th. Alejandro Perez will chair FAmSCo meetings in the meantime. Jiri

1 0

2013-11-04 - Fedora QA Meeting - recap
by Adam Williamson 09 Nov '13

09 Nov '13

As always, minutes and IRC transcript available on the wiki at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Meetings/20131104 Next meeting is scheduled for 2013-11-11 at 1600 UTC in #fedora-meeting. If you have topics you think we should bring up at the meeting, please add them to the Wiki page at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Meetings/20131111 . Thanks! TOPIC: Previous meeting follow-up ======================================================================= * "roshi to write up recap of the graphics test week" - this was done[1] TOPIC: Fedora 20 Beta status ======================================================================= * There was at least one blocker bug known not to be resolved in Beta RC2[2] * We also needed information on #1023556[3] from dlehman * #1004621[4] may possibly be worth considering for FE or blocker status TOPIC: Open floor ======================================================================= N/A Action items ======================================================================= * viking-ice to check his possible resize issue in at least TC6 (ideally RC2) 1. http://scriptogr.am/roshi/post/graphics-test-week-recap 2. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1022206 3. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1023556 4. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1004621 -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net

1 0

[Base] Summary/Minutes from today's Base WG meeting (2013-11-08)
by Dennis Gilmore 08 Nov '13

08 Nov '13

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 ============================================================== #fedora-meeting: Fedora Base Design Working Group (2013-11-08) ============================================================== Meeting started by pknirsch at 15:00:59 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2013-11-08/fedora_base_desi… . Meeting summary - - --------------- * Governance discussion & draft (pknirsch, 15:12:13) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Server/Governance_Charter (jwb, 15:17:02) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Server/Governance_Charter looks good :) (haraldh, 15:19:36) * AGREED: (haraldh, 15:20:05) * AGREED: Proposal: Take the server governance charter and replace the names and present to FESCO for approval (pknirsch, 15:22:11) * ACTION: haraldh Proposal: Take the server governance charter and replace the names and present to FESCO for approval (pknirsch, 15:23:36) * Regular meeting times (pknirsch, 15:28:03) * Keep meeting time at 15:00 UTC for the time being (pknirsch, 15:33:00) * Base mailing list discussion (pknirsch, 15:33:28) * AGREED: (haraldh, 15:37:11) * AGREED: Stay with fedora-devel mailinglist, use [Base] in subject to indicate emails around Base Design discussions (pknirsch, 15:39:33) * Role of Base Design group discussion (pknirsch, 15:42:57) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Critical_path_package?rd=Critical_path_packa… (dgilmore, 15:45:34) * LINK: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/lists/critpath?tg_format=plain&collct… (dgilmore, 15:45:57) * LINK: http://fpaste.org/52688/38392758/ (pknirsch, 16:19:54) * Base definition: installer, compose tools, minimal install (for some definition there), and functionality the majority products want to use (pknirsch, 16:21:30) * Open Floor (pknirsch, 16:25:50) * jreznik working on a communication plan with other WGs (pknirsch, 16:33:25) * ACTION: jreznik working on a communication plan with other WGs (pknirsch, 16:34:04) Meeting ended at 16:41:32 UTC. Action Items - - ------------ * haraldh Proposal: Take the server governance charter and replace the names and present to FESCO for approval * jreznik working on a communication plan with other WGs Action Items, by person - - ----------------------- * haraldh * haraldh Proposal: Take the server governance charter and replace the names and present to FESCO for approval * jreznik * jreznik working on a communication plan with other WGs * **UNASSIGNED** * (none) People Present (lines said) - - --------------------------- * pknirsch (195) * dgilmore (105) * haraldh (69) * jreznik (68) * jwb (57) * masta (15) * zodbot (9) * kmacleod (1) * sgallagh (1) * Southern_Gentlem (1) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJSfRdSAAoJEH7ltONmPFDRu4oQAKCaUJKJ77tMVokEqtCfNNHj BXN5xuB58a3m/9j4G6sSvVd7lYU9Zq+EqJ0ANfQYOiythks3DLUkR7uDzAXHAqvA 5IgmxSa3M/Yu27W1qzAXEcg3sdC7hlybUnRqy0oneX1JbRBiykU852AvaLeqUfsJ e/Um55YvgywIVjBk4p9hJgVBZZRGo74qV4EOXvVYigbGCrMzXisrthJ4dhRb5br4 o4bN/6Ys5zjK3VUuyF6eNKMV7eOzdqPH7HTVWhoo+SC827n8FqMwrvlASEk7GaEd dM3FHboFng5RUqAFocq8GJxGAgn07UeJVYPQlK5GSasbwnfwBJaEbZPeRVpKM6QM yjdkMjlln5kr2HJaN9kHtCTMt5DJgymUjm11MmlP9LEzgxuFOjI480vjSGReHYWB YZMv0Mf80PKpgZvxIR4fxwtpLD/lJSJT7cbDniX0lMtW2WPWVurZGI7qniSy98Wv tfBfovtzbmPg3Gb8cYhw35VeDm/5jSF5+IhA1EfuSUyqADcBAWaeHsaAtHUZNszf c3Wx7rA58h0oEA4HMUYzBQaCWh7e3UPB6kn61YuriuXwMx6aHv5b0fHe6/jF5u0l EpYq74bpLrNEvXyiyY6U4Wli5/XaNzwOubxq9PbUYYvxl6gmfD/aVVW2nI3C3Fju jQD7H6ANNs7RIC//XTHq =/qx5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Fedora Chinese Meeting Minutes (2013-11-08)
by Alick Zhao 08 Nov '13

08 Nov '13

Hi all, The IRC meeting minutes tonight are available at the link [1]. Thanks everyone for attending the meeting. In the meeting we talked about FUDCon bid progress, F20 Release Party, and L10N. Please review the proposed ideas and actions. The next IRC meeting will be held on next Friday (2013-11-15). Please come and join the discussion if you can! [1]: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-zh/2013-11-08/fedora-zh.2013-11-08-… ================== #fedora-zh Meeting ================== Meeting started by alick at 13:01:51 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-zh/2013-11-08/fedora-zh.2013-11-08-… . Meeting summary --------------- * 点名 (alick, 13:02:03) * zsun sent regrets for not being able to attend this meeting (alick, 13:07:53) * FUDCON APAC 2014 申办筹备 (alick, 13:11:51) * alick gbraad try to work out the plan document for venue provider by next week (alick, 13:13:53) * ACTION: alick gbraad try to work out the plan document for venue provider by next week (alick, 13:14:02) * HELP: everyone to update the bid wiki page: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FUDCon:Bid_for_Beijing_2014 (alick, 13:14:54) * IDEA: 申办维基页的场地同 GNOME 用户组的申办提案（外加地大），列出若干候选。 (alick, 13:17:32) * F20 Release Party (alick, 13:23:56) * shlug找到场地，在静安区 (RobberPhex, 13:28:28) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/F20_release_events (alick, 13:33:24) * IDEA: 北京的 relparty 日期建议为 2013-12-21/22 Sat/Sun (alick, 13:43:48) * IDEA: 北京的 relparty 地点个人建议这次放在学校 (alick, 13:44:56) * ACTION: RobberPhex call for talks for F20 Release Party Shanghai (alick, 13:49:01) * ACTION: alick call for talks for F20 Release Party Beijing (alick, 13:49:23) * 中文翻译 (alick, 13:51:13) * LINK: https://fedora.transifex.com/projects/p/fedora/language/zh_CN/?project=2060 (alick, 14:04:51) Meeting ended at 14:05:24 UTC. Action Items ------------ * alick gbraad try to work out the plan document for venue provider by next week * RobberPhex call for talks for F20 Release Party Shanghai * alick call for talks for F20 Release Party Beijing Action Items, by person ----------------------- * alick * alick gbraad try to work out the plan document for venue provider by next week * alick call for talks for F20 Release Party Beijing * RobberPhex * RobberPhex call for talks for F20 Release Party Shanghai * **UNASSIGNED** * (none) People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * alick (52) * RobberPhex (15) * isyangxin (7) * BadGirl (5) * zodbot (4) * biergaizi (2) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 .. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot

1 0

Summary/Minutes from today's Fedora Infrastructure meeting (2013-11-07)
by Kevin Fenzi 07 Nov '13

07 Nov '13

============================================ #fedora-meeting: Infrastructure (2013-11-07) ============================================ Meeting started by nirik at 19:00:22 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2013-11-07/infrastructure.2… . Meeting summary --------------- * welcome y'all (nirik, 19:00:23) * New folks introductions and Apprentice tasks. (nirik, 19:02:04) * Applications status / discussion (nirik, 19:09:09) * coprs is announced. Work will be ongoing to move it to a more standard application setup (nirik, 19:11:48) * we are go for release next tuesday of F20beta (nirik, 19:21:01) * our next freeze will start on 2013-11-26 (nirik, 19:21:37) * Sysadmin tasks/Discussion (nirik, 19:23:33) * Upcoming Tasks/Items (nirik, 19:26:18) * LINK: https://apps.fedoraproject.org/calendar/list/infrastructure/ (nirik, 19:26:18) * Open Floor (nirik, 19:30:05) Meeting ended at 19:34:08 UTC. Action Items ------------ Action Items, by person ----------------------- * **UNASSIGNED** * (none) People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * nirik (71) * mirek (21) * anshprat (14) * frankieonuonga (13) * abadger1999 (11) * zodbot (4) * croberts (4) * ausmarton (3) * edgar_ (2) * smooge (1) * robyduck (1) * relrod (1) * puiterwijk (0) * lmacken (0) * threebean (0) * mdomsch (0) * pingou (0) * dgilmore (0) -- 19:00:22 <nirik> #startmeeting Infrastructure (2013-11-07) 19:00:22 <zodbot> Meeting started Thu Nov 7 19:00:22 2013 UTC. The chair is nirik. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 19:00:22 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 19:00:23 <nirik> #meetingname infrastructure 19:00:23 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'infrastructure' 19:00:23 <nirik> #topic welcome y'all 19:00:23 <nirik> #chair smooge relrod nirik abadger1999 lmacken dgilmore mdomsch threebean pingou puiterwijk 19:00:23 <zodbot> Current chairs: abadger1999 dgilmore lmacken mdomsch nirik pingou puiterwijk relrod smooge threebean 19:00:34 * frankieonuonga is here 19:00:46 * relrod here 19:01:00 * mirek here 19:01:12 * ausmarton here 19:01:13 * abadger1999 here 19:01:24 * anshprat here 19:01:57 <nirik> morning everyone. 19:02:04 <nirik> #topic New folks introductions and Apprentice tasks. 19:02:09 <frankieonuonga> morning to you 19:02:17 <nirik> any new folks? or apprentices with questions or comments? 19:02:22 <frankieonuonga> it is however night time for me in nbi 19:02:31 <nirik> I'll note that I have been slow to send out the monthly apprentice email. Will send later today. 19:02:44 <anshprat> I am done with askbot stg , now working on packaging . Its done and tested on epel 19:02:53 <anshprat> need to do it on fedora / rawhide 19:03:11 <mirek> I have question, can I do something as apprentice in cloud? 19:03:27 <anshprat> I am kinda hardpressed for time these days, so any apprentice help would be great.. 19:03:33 <nirik> anshprat: cool. thanks for working on it. ;) 19:03:43 <mirek> I have openstack workshop done, so I thought that I can do some small task in cloud 19:03:44 <nirik> mirek: not sure what you mean? what sort of thing? 19:03:52 <nirik> ah, work on the cloud itself? 19:04:07 <mirek> yes 19:04:17 <ausmarton> I need help in picking a task. 19:04:47 <anshprat> ausmarton: wanna help me out? :D 19:05:15 <ausmarton> yeah, I think I can. 19:05:23 <anshprat> maybe we should do something like pair programming in apprenticeship as well :) 19:05:35 <anshprat> ausmarton: great, thanks, ping you after meeting in #fedora-apps 19:05:35 <nirik> mirek: well, I need to figure out how to setup access better. There's several people interested in helping with cloud stuff. Also, not clear what tasks we need done right now, but we could try and make a list. ;) so, yes, help welcome, just need to organize it more. 19:07:02 <mirek> nirik: I definitelly should be able to add and remove volumes, which otherwise you have to do :) 19:07:34 <nirik> mirek: yeah, the way we have things setup thats a task done by root on lockbox01 tho... 19:07:48 <nirik> so we need to figure out how to setup access better 19:08:19 <nirik> but I can try and work on that... 19:08:29 <mirek> nirik: no problem, no rush. I can file tickets as well. But if you figure somthing I can off load some work from you. 19:08:47 <nirik> yeah, thanks much. 19:09:09 <nirik> #topic Applications status / discussion 19:09:18 <nirik> any applications news/status/plans? 19:10:11 <mirek> Copr is publicly announced, and open to everybody with FAS account. And officially supported. Well supported just by me. So I want to start worki 19:10:12 <mirek> ng on flipping it to standard infra component 19:10:37 <nirik> cool. How much uptake have you seen? I've seen builders being spawned. ;) 19:11:00 * robyduck late, sorry 19:11:23 <nirik> no worries. 19:11:32 <mirek> nirik: it is iddling right now 19:11:48 <nirik> #info coprs is announced. Work will be ongoing to move it to a more standard application setup 19:12:18 <mirek> but several projects and user has appear in last few hours, so I will watch the trend 19:12:21 <nirik> There's been some work on mailman3/hyperkitty... we remade the staging instance today, so hopefully we are close now to being able to do a prod instance. 19:12:43 <nirik> mirek: yeah, will be good to see how popular it is. Might also do a blog post or a devel-announce post on it? 19:13:01 <mirek> I want to ask - can I have postgresdb on standard fedora server? 19:13:35 <mirek> nirik: I sent it just to devel. I want to make bigger rush, once we accept it as part of infrastructure 19:14:12 <nirik> mirek: currently we have 1 large pgsql server that all the various applications use. We don't do db's on application servers usually. 19:14:16 <nirik> sounds reasonable. 19:14:36 <mirek> also I would like to have some nicer domain. probably cnamed to current one, is it possible 19:15:09 <mirek> copr have in db, just names of projects and small data for each build, so that db is quite small. and will be small. 19:15:11 <nirik> in infra we were trying to move apps to use 'apps.fedoraproject.org/appname' but some aren't yet 19:15:37 <nirik> and yeah we could do another domain (if it's available), but we have to go thru legal and such 19:16:18 <mirek> I meant somethin under fedoraproject.org. e.g. copr.fedoraproject.org 19:16:20 * nirik guesses most of the other application folks are not present today. :) 19:16:26 <mirek> but ok, I will try to move it to apps 19:16:27 <nirik> ah, yeah, we can do that... 19:16:41 <nirik> we never decided if it was going to be a hard rule or not. 19:16:57 <nirik> one advantage is that if you login one place you could share the auth cookie for another app 19:17:15 <anshprat> yeah, pretty quiet in here today! 19:17:23 <mirek> and db... from what I seen that db stuff is indepenent from application. all apps have cname for its db server, even if it is still same box 19:17:44 <mirek> so I assumed that we can move db in one step and app in another 19:17:44 <nirik> yep. we talked about splitting them out someday, but haven't. 19:18:05 <nirik> I still need to look at replication setups and see if we can do some replication. 19:18:48 <nirik> any other application news? 19:18:52 <abadger1999> yeah -- with openid, single sign on shouldn't depend on being under apps.fp.o anymore 19:18:57 <nirik> mirek: oh, is there any movement on koji integration yet? 19:19:03 <nirik> abadger1999: yeah. 19:19:46 <abadger1999> Sortof a non-news from me 19:19:58 <mirek> nirik: little - mclean and james are working on haveing namespaces in koji. I did not start working on my parts yet, as I have still lots of work on this phase 19:19:58 <abadger1999> I have a ton of non-infra/non-coding work right now 19:20:14 <abadger1999> scls and fesco and new env and stack working group. 19:20:16 <nirik> mirek: understandable. 19:20:27 <nirik> abadger1999: yeah. ;( 19:20:31 <abadger1999> If anyone wants to help out with python-fedora or such, just let me know. 19:20:47 <nirik> Oh, one thing to note... well, several related things: 19:20:54 <anshprat> abadger1999: what all things in there? 19:21:01 <nirik> #info we are go for release next tuesday of F20beta 19:21:02 <abadger1999> I'll make time to get you up to speed on making a release/outstanding issues so I'm not a single point of failure. 19:21:37 <nirik> #info our next freeze will start on 2013-11-26 19:21:49 <nirik> so, not much time unfrozen. 19:21:53 <edgar_> What need to be done in python-fedora? 19:21:57 <abadger1999> anshprat: For python-fedora right now, we have an outstanding issue about how to integrate otp support. 19:22:04 <nirik> would be good to get ready for the unfreeze and land things we want to. :) 19:22:30 <abadger1999> anshprat: we also have an outstanding issue about newer flask changing what can be stored in sessions. 19:22:42 <abadger1999> Those two things need to be solved and then a new release made. 19:22:55 <edgar_> ok 19:22:59 <abadger1999> Talk to me in #fedora-apps after the meeting and I'll link you to the existing bugs and such. 19:23:08 <anshprat> abadger1999: alright 19:23:24 <nirik> cool. ;) 19:23:33 <nirik> #topic Sysadmin tasks/Discussion 19:23:43 <nirik> Not too much on the sysadmin side... 19:23:54 <nirik> fixed our volume issues on the openstack cloud finally. 19:24:23 <nirik> Found out that when you remove a volume it also dd's /dev/zero to it... which caused some problems when I nuked a 200GB volume. 19:24:33 <mirek> :) 19:24:43 <nirik> Got our new blade server finally up and happy with iscsi... 19:24:58 <nirik> Built a buildvm on it and ran some benchmarks. 19:24:58 <mirek> where some problems = half of the cloud goes down 19:25:14 <nirik> mirek: yeah. apparently they made it a config option in newer openstack... 19:25:15 * croberts waves 19:25:20 <croberts> sorry im late 19:25:24 <nirik> no problems 19:25:55 <nirik> nothing else too exciting to report on the sysadmin side. The usual new mailing lists, hosted projects, etc etc. 19:26:18 <nirik> #topic Upcoming Tasks/Items 19:26:18 <nirik> https://apps.fedoraproject.org/calendar/list/infrastructure/ 19:26:29 <nirik> anything upcoming folks would like to schedule or note? 19:27:00 <croberts> i am going to ask for updates and assign myself to the wiki tickets you listed nirik: so i apolgize up front for the mailing list spam 19:27:07 <croberts> reflecting those changes 19:27:15 <nirik> croberts: no problem. 19:27:31 * nirik gets also bcc'ed on any infrastructure tickets changes. I'm used to lots of emails. 19:28:08 <anshprat> nirik: which list gets *all* the infra tickets mail? I would like to get a daily digest I guess.. 19:28:28 <smooge> are we looking at another week of freeze? 19:28:31 <nirik> anshprat: there's not one. It depends on components where they go 19:28:43 <nirik> anshprat: if you want I can add you to bcc tho 19:28:51 <nirik> smooge: nope. Beta release on tuesday. 19:28:59 <anshprat> nirik: sure, that should be great, thanks 19:30:05 <nirik> #topic Open Floor 19:30:11 <nirik> anything anyone has for open floor? 19:30:19 <nirik> questions, comments, ideas, pie recipes? 19:30:43 <frankieonuonga> yeah…I am updating search wiki page and doing an email tomorrow 19:30:50 <nirik> great. 19:30:57 <frankieonuonga> have two guys helping so far which is great 19:31:04 <nirik> frankieonuonga: ping me after the wiki page update and I can give feedback. ;) 19:31:20 <frankieonuonga> nirik: thank you 19:31:23 <frankieonuonga> :-) 19:31:25 <frankieonuonga> i will 19:31:29 <nirik> great. 19:31:33 <anshprat> frankieonuonga: I should be able to pitch in from this month end onwards.. 19:31:53 <frankieonuonga> anshprat: thank you 19:31:57 <frankieonuonga> that would be great 19:32:06 <frankieonuonga> remember this is not mine..it is for all of us 19:32:11 <anshprat> :) 19:32:18 <frankieonuonga> no boss if you ask me 19:32:23 <frankieonuonga> :-) 19:32:57 <nirik> cool. 19:33:07 <nirik> anything else from anyone? if not will close out in a minute. 19:34:05 <nirik> Cool. Thanks for coming everyone! 19:34:08 <nirik> #endmeeting

1 0

Summary/Minutes from today's FPC Meeting (2013-10-07 16:00 - 17:35 UTC) (unofficial pre-meeting started at 15:20 UTC)
by James Antill 07 Nov '13

07 Nov '13

====================== #fedora-meeting-1: fpc ====================== Meeting started by abadger1999 at 16:11:40 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2013-11-07/fedora-meeting… . Meeting summary --------------- * SCL Draft discussion (abadger1999, 16:11:50) * approve the Retirement section of the SCL Draft (abadger1999, 16:42:23) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Toshio/SCL_Guidelines_(draft)#SCL_Retir… (abadger1999, 16:42:32) * retirement section of SCL draft approved (+1:5, 0:0, -1:0) (abadger1999, 16:46:33) * filesystem location (abadger1999, 16:47:07) * LINK: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/2013-November/009728.ht… (abadger1999, 16:47:54) * dots in version portion (abadger1999, 16:52:28) * Agreed that the version portion of scl names must include dots. (+1:5, 0:1, -1:0) (abadger1999, 17:00:35) * #352 BLAS and LAPACK packaging (abadger1999, 17:01:27) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/352 (abadger1999, 17:01:32) * deferred BLAS LAPACK discussion waiting on spot's input (abadger1999, 17:04:29) * #355 How to package noarch packages which require a binary dependency which doesn't build on all archs? (abadger1999, 17:04:40) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/355 (abadger1999, 17:04:45) * ACTION: abadger1999 to write a draft based on the nodejs strategy that also accounts for BuildRequires (abadger1999, 17:17:03) * #357 time-api prior to openJDK8 (abadger1999, 17:22:28) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/248 (abadger1999, 17:25:36) * General Guideline allowing Reverse Bundling for backwards compat will finish voting in ticket (+1:4, 0:0, -1:0) (abadger1999, 17:39:47) * Open Floor (abadger1999, 17:40:40) Meeting ended at 18:36:19 UTC. Action Items ------------ * abadger1999 to write a draft based on the nodejs strategy that also accounts for BuildRequires Action Items, by person ----------------------- * abadger1999 * abadger1999 to write a draft based on the nodejs strategy that also accounts for BuildRequires * **UNASSIGNED** * (none) People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * abadger1999 (198) * RemiFedora (70) * geppetto (65) * tibbs|w (23) * limburgher (13) * racor (8) * Rathann (6) * zodbot (5) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 .. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot

1 0

Summary/Minutes for Wednesday's FESCo Meeting (2013-11-06)
by Toshio Kuratomi 07 Nov '13

07 Nov '13

====================== #fedora-meeting: fesco ====================== Meeting started by abadger1999 at 18:02:39 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2013-11-06/fedora-meeting.2… . Meeting summary --------------- * Roll Call (abadger1999, 18:02:59) * #1185 Enable "-Werror=format-security" by default (abadger1999, 18:04:46) * Adding to gcc's -Wall as a local Fedora patch was rejected (abadger1999, 18:08:12) * Deferred another week awaiting results of mass rebuild (abadger1999, 18:08:45) * #1192 OpenH264 as an automatic download by firefox/Statement to the ietf WebRTC working group (abadger1999, 18:08:58) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1192#comment:8 (abadger1999, 18:12:45) * additional text from pjones approved (+1:7, 0:0, -1:0) (abadger1999, 18:39:05) * ACTION: abadger1999 to take care of sending the statement to the ietf. (abadger1999, 18:40:38) * #1191 Fedora 20 schedule adjustment (abadger1999, 18:42:00) * Move up the final freeze by one week passed (+1:7, 0:0, -1:1) (abadger1999, 18:51:11) * #1194 Ratify Server Working Group governance charter (abadger1999, 18:51:54) * Server working group governance charter approved (+1:8, 0:0, -1:0) (abadger1999, 18:55:37) * #1193 reboots for all updates -- are we ready for this? (abadger1999, 18:55:56) * Change owners are trusted to, _and dependent upon_, highlight all relevant changes. Not noting important changes (whether due to oversight or intentionally) breaks the Change process, and would sadly motivate FESCo to institute a more heavy-handed and higher-overhead process, which nobody wants to have. (mitr, 19:22:54) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1001335 (jreznik, 19:23:51) * mitr's proposal to update change policy passed (+1:5, 0:0, -1:1) (abadger1999, 19:40:45) * Proposal to Keep F20 behavior as-is (all offline updates for gnome). Update Change page to reflect current implementation, update docs and release notes to match. Passed (+1:5, 0:2, -1:0) (abadger1999, 19:43:30) * #1189 Stalled bug 758826 -- requesting intervention (abadger1999, 19:46:21) * twoerner working on an update. Will update the bug report. (abadger1999, 19:50:39) * Open floor (abadger1999, 19:50:45) * F21 Change Process (abadger1999, 19:51:20) * F21 Change Process is open for submissions (abadger1999, 19:52:15) * Elections (abadger1999, 19:52:23) * jreznik will send an announcement that we're seeking an Election Wrangler. (abadger1999, 19:53:56) * Next week's Chair (abadger1999, 19:54:05) * nirik to chair next week's meeting (abadger1999, 19:55:03) * Open Floor (abadger1999, 19:55:10) * Regarding the earlier discussion on OpenH264, if Fedora community members have a project in Fedora that is intending to use OpenH264 in some way, please talk to FESCo before integrating code to use it. (notting, 20:02:39) Meeting ended at 20:06:34 UTC. Action Items ------------ * abadger1999 to take care of sending the statement to the ietf. Action Items, by person ----------------------- * abadger1999 * abadger1999 to take care of sending the statement to the ietf. * **UNASSIGNED** * (none) People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * abadger1999 (159) * nirik (70) * mattdm (60) * sgallagh (57) * pjones (48) * notting (47) * mitr (46) * adamw (38) * mclasen (33) * jreznik (24) * t8m (21) * drago01 (13) * zodbot (10) * twoerner (7) * jwb (7) * mmaslano (6) * jreznik2 (2) * masta (1) * Southern_Gentlem (1) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 .. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot

1 0

Fedora Ambassadors Latam Meeting Log / Registrs de la reunion de embajadores de Fedora latam 2013-11-06
by alejandro perez 07 Nov '13

07 Nov '13

Minutes: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2013-11-06/fedora_ambassado… Minutes (text): http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2013-11-06/fedora_ambassado… Log: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2013-11-06/fedora_ambassado…

1 0

Fedora Cloud WG weekly meeting minutes - 6 Nov 2013
by Sam Kottler 06 Nov '13

06 Nov '13

Thanks everyone who was able to make it to the meeting today! For those who weren't able to make it, here are few important links: Minutes: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2013-11-06/fedora-meeting… Minutes (text): http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2013-11-06/fedora-meeting… Log: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2013-11-06/fedora-meeting… Here's a summary of the meeting (link to the HTML version above): ========================================== #fedora-meeting-1: Cloud WG weekly meeting ========================================== Meeting started by samkottler at 17:00:29 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2013-11-06/fedora-meeting… . Meeting summary --------------- * Roll call (samkottler, 17:04:35) * Announcements (samkottler, 17:05:53) * ACTION: frankieonuonga to bump his initial mail about roles + responsibilities (samkottler, 17:09:30) * rbergeron frankieonuonga stahnma samkottler to work on the PRD (samkottler, 17:19:19) * the goal for PRD completion is december 15th, the pace needed for that will be determined on the list (samkottler, 17:23:54) * AGREED: the goal for PRD completion is december 15th, the pace needed for that will be determined on the list (+5) (samkottler, 17:25:13) * pending tickets (samkottler, 17:25:55) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/1 (samkottler, 17:26:26) * LINK: https://git.fedorahosted.org/git/cloud-image-service.git (samkottler, 17:32:38) * frankieonuonga will work with dgilmore and others in rel-eng to communicate about WG plans and help automate different processes (samkottler, 17:33:49) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/2 (samkottler, 17:40:46) * ACTION: samkottler to do more research into the actual tools and their licenses that are required to build GCE images (samkottler, 17:48:18) * open floor (samkottler, 17:54:21) * hguemar looking to package gcutil (number80, 17:54:34) Meeting ended at 18:01:08 UTC. Action Items ------------ * frankieonuonga to bump his initial mail about roles + responsibilities * samkottler to do more research into the actual tools and their licenses that are required to build GCE images Action Items, by person ----------------------- * frankieonuonga * frankieonuonga to bump his initial mail about roles + responsibilities * samkottler * samkottler to do more research into the actual tools and their licenses that are required to build GCE images * **UNASSIGNED** * (none) People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * samkottler (87) * frankieonuonga (73) * number80 (35) * dgilmore (32) * rbergeron (27) * stahnma (20) * nirik (5) * zodbot (5) * geppetto (5) * sgallagh (3) * mattdm (3)

1 0

EMEA ambassadors meeting minutes 2013-11-06
by Jiri Eischmann 06 Nov '13

06 Nov '13

Hi, we had another EMEA ambassadors meeting tonight. Although the meeting started 30 minutes late because I was travelling and arrived late 14 ambassadors attended and 56 minutes. If you'd like to know more, read the minutes: Minutes: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2013-11-06/emea_ambassadors… Minutes (text): http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2013-11-06/emea_ambassadors… Log: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2013-11-06/emea_ambassadors… The next meeting will be on Nov 20th. I'll be travelling and won't be able to attend it. Someone else will chair it. Most likely Affix. Jiri

1 0

Fedora ARM Status Meeting Minutes 2013-11-06
by Paul Whalen 06 Nov '13

06 Nov '13

Thanks to those that were able to join us for the status meeting today, for those unable the minutes are posted below: Minutes: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2013-11-06/fedora-meeting… Minutes (text): http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2013-11-06/fedora-meeting… Log: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2013-11-06/fedora-meeting… #fedora-meeting-1: Fedora ARM status meeting ============================================ Meeting summary --------------- * 1) Kernel Status Update (pwhalen, 21:03:57) * LINK: Latest QE results http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Architectures/ARM/Quality_Assurance/Kernel_Te… (bconoboy, 21:13:58) * F20 beta supports versatile xpress, panda board, trimslice, highbank, midway, beagle xm (no network), beaglebone black, wandboard (bconoboy, 21:14:45) * graphics work on vexpress, trimslice (bconoboy, 21:15:25) * LINK: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Architectures/ARM/Supported_Platforms for more platform limitations (bconoboy, 21:16:37) * Wandboard graphics may arrive in 3.12 (bconoboy, 21:18:48) * 2a) Aarch64 - Status Update (pwhalen, 21:19:16) * ACTION: pbrobinson / dgilmore / blc / masta to collude on aarch64 koji planning (bconoboy, 21:33:02) * 3) F20 Beta RC4 Testing Summary (pwhalen, 21:34:25) * LINK: Installation: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Current_Installation_Test (pwhalen, 21:34:33) * LINK: Base: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Current_Base_Test (pwhalen, 21:34:38) * LINK: Desktop: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Current_Desktop_Test (pwhalen, 21:34:43) * Install validation complete (pwhalen, 21:35:00) * Base validation complete (pwhalen, 21:35:00) * Need help testing Desktops - Pick your favourite (pwhalen, 21:35:00) * ACTION: masta will test xfce and mate images (bconoboy, 21:36:57) * 4) Open Floor (pwhalen, 21:40:28) * LINK: http://scotland.proximity.on.ca/raspberrypi/test-releases/pidora-19/ (agreene, 21:44:59) * ACTION: agreene to send email to the list with pidora-19-alpha pointer shortly (bconoboy, 21:44:59) * AGREED: happy birthday masta (bconoboy, 21:46:50) Meeting ended at 21:49:31 UTC. Action Items ------------ * pbrobinson / dgilmore / blc / masta to collude on aarch64 koji planning * masta will test xfce and mate images * agreene to send email to the list with pidora-19-alpha pointer shortly Action Items, by person ----------------------- * agreene * agreene to send email to the list with pidora-19-alpha pointer shortly * dgilmore * pbrobinson / dgilmore / blc / masta to collude on aarch64 koji planning * masta * pbrobinson / dgilmore / blc / masta to collude on aarch64 koji planning * masta will test xfce and mate images * pbrobinson * pbrobinson / dgilmore / blc / masta to collude on aarch64 koji planning * **UNASSIGNED** * (none)

1 0

Meeting Summary / November 5, 2013
by Máirín Duffy 06 Nov '13

06 Nov '13

Hi folks! Below find a summary of yesterday's meeting. You can also read it in blog format at http://blog.linuxgrrl.com/2013/11/05/fedora-server-working-group-nov-5-meet… . Below the summary, you'll find the meetbot links if you'd like to read the raw logs. Meeting Minutes =============== Here’s a run-down of today’s Server Working Group meeting: Agenda ====== * Finalizing the Governance Charter * Is Fedora Server One Product? Finalizing the Governance Charter ================================= We had a discussion about two pending issues with the governance charter and another issue regarding the use of the word 'quorum' in the document before ultimately approving it. Group Membership ---------------- Should the voting members of the server working group should be required to be members of other Fedora teams as specified by their seat/slot? We came to agreement after this discussion that it made sense to drop the group mappings for now, but to also be sure that we added a note to the membership section that we encourage involvement from all parts of Fedora. Term Length for Voting Members ------------------------------ Should membership as a voting member on the server working group be unlimited / at will or should there be terms and elections/votes inbetween? We agreed on a proposal that Nirik put forward that we would have indefinite terms with periodic (every 6 months) confirmations and that we would also revisit that decision in 6 months' time since we don't yet know "a) how long we exist, b) how many non voting active people there are in 6 months, c) if we need more fresh voting members or if as Viking-Ice notes the active people in the community would be enough for that.” Quorum ------ mitr pointed out that the charter said we must have a quorum of 5 people to vote, which means the majority of 5 people (which is 3) positive votes would be required to agree to something in a vote. The intention behind the statement was to require 5 positive votes, regardless of how many people were present at the meeting, so the verbiage was updated to reflect that and all agreed to it. Governance Charter is Finalized by Server WG -------------------------------------------- sgallagh will bring it to FESCo for review and approval. Is Fedora Server One Product? ============================= We didn't finish this discussion, so it will probably have to be brought back up next week. This was a very active and interwoven discussion, so here is my best attempt at summarizing it; I hope it's a fair summary: Terminology Trouble ------------------- We seem to have a lot of confusion about the term 'product' vs the term 'role' - if you eliminate both those terms and replace them with 'thingy' then we seem to agree on a lot more things than it appears on the surface. I don't think we came up with viable terminology that made sense to everybody, though. Shared Components ----------------- We all agree - whether the term 'product' or the term 'role' was used - that they will share kernel, booting, basic libraries, and choice of configuration/management/etc. Preferred/Featured Technology Choices ------------------------------------- It was proposed that we would make technology cohices about what is the single supported way to do something (e.g., postfix for mailservers) but users will not be precluding from installing alternatives (e.g., qmail for mailservers), they will just get less support for it. There was concern about the usage of the term 'support' and the term 'featured' was suggested, and I didn't see any other discussion about this. Multiple Roles Per Single Server -------------------------------- There was some disagreement about whether or not multiple roles/products could be installed on the same server and whether or not something like this was possible. I don't see much resolution to the conflict though, I think the discussion died off for lack of time to resolve it. Getting A PRD Started --------------------- There was a disagreement about whether or not we needed one PRD with all of the various roles/products in it, or whether we needed one PRD per role/product. Both sgallagh and nirik proposed that we put together a PRD with separate chapters with the option to split it up into different documents later if necessary. There was some discussion about what parts of a role/product PRD would be in the upstream's scope and what would be in our scope (modification and integration to meet our goals would be in our scope.) Then there was discussion over what a PRD is for. I think the conclusion there was that it was to describe 'a common base platform with feature application stacks built on top of it' to FESCo in order to get their approval. Meetbot Minutes --------------- Here is the official meetbot meeting minutes with links to the full raw log: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2013-11-05/fedora-meeting… Full set of meetbot links: Meeting ended Tue Nov 5 18:03:12 2013 UTC. Minutes: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2013-11-05/fedora-meeting… Minutes (text): http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2013-11-05/fedora-meeting… Log: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2013-11-05/fedora-meeting…

1 0

Server WG meeting minutes 11-05-2013
by Truong Anh Tuan 06 Nov '13

06 Nov '13

Hi everyone, I think it's worth to send the meeting minutes to the list, especially for people who missed it. Minutes: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2013-11-05/fedora-meeting… Minutes (text): http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2013-11-05/fedora-meeting… Log: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2013-11-05/fedora-meeting… ====================================================== #fedora-meeting-1: Server Working Group Weekly Meeting ====================================================== Meeting started by mizmo at 16:02:30 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2013-11-05/fedora-meeting… . Meeting summary --------------- * roll call (mizmo, 16:02:39) * agenda (mizmo, 16:05:11) * LINK: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/server/2013-November/000425.html (mizmo, 16:05:38) * Finalizing the Governance Charter (mizmo, 16:06:58) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Server/Governance_Charter (mizmo, 16:07:13) * AGREED: In the governance charter, we will drop group mappings, with a note saying we'd love involvement from any parts of the project. (mizmo, 16:23:41) * Finalizing the Governance Charter: Term Limits (mizmo, 16:23:58) * AGREED: We'll add a section to the governance charter setting 6-month membership confirmation periods, but we will also revisit that decision in 6 months time based on the community activity, how long we intend to exist, etc. (mizmo, 16:51:49) * AGREED: 'Quorum' for our purposes is at least 5 '+1' votes, and is not proportional to the number of members attending the meeting where the vote takes place. (mizmo, 16:56:31) * AGREED: (revision) The number of votes required to pass a vote is at least 5 '+1' votes, and is not proportional to the number of members attending the meeting where the vote takes place. (mizmo, 16:58:10) * ACTION: mizmo to take agreed points and edit the governance charter (mizmo, 17:00:08) * AGREED: We'll stay and work through more items on the agenda (mizmo, 17:02:39) * Is Fedora Server One Product? (mizmo, 17:03:04) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Server/Product_Requirements_Document (mizmo, 17:09:18) * ACTION: mizmo to set up short term / long term goals document on wiki (mizmo, 17:45:40) * AGREED: Fedora Sevrer is a common base platform with 'featured application stacks' built on top of it. We commit to produce, test and distribute these application stacks. (mizmo, 17:45:51) * AGREED: Our primary deliverable for January should be the definition of how we're going to prepare the platform and the requirements for an application stack to be promoted to first-tier inclusion. (mizmo, 18:00:40) * AGREED: (revised) Our primary deliverable for January should be the definition of how we're going to prepare the platform and the requirements for an application stack to be promoted to featured status. (mizmo, 18:02:02) Meeting ended at 18:03:12 UTC. Action Items ------------ * mizmo to take agreed points and edit the governance charter * mizmo to set up short term / long term goals document on wiki Action Items, by person ----------------------- * mizmo * mizmo to take agreed points and edit the governance charter * mizmo to set up short term / long term goals document on wiki * **UNASSIGNED** * (none) People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * mizmo (190) * Viking-Ice (156) * nirik (112) * sgallagh (63) * mitr (59) * tuanta (23) * Evolution (7) * zodbot (6) * kde_tony (4) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 .. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot Kind regards, Tuan

1 0

FAmNA meeting minutes
by Jon 06 Nov '13

06 Nov '13

====================== #fedora-meeting: FAmNA ====================== Meeting started by masta at 02:00:04 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2013-11-06/famna.2013-11-06… . Meeting summary --------------- * === FAmNA Roll Call === (masta, 02:00:04) * === Announcements === (masta, 02:03:20) * === Tickets === (masta, 02:05:54) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/famna/report/9 (masta, 02:05:54) * == Open Floor === (masta, 02:09:04) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora.next (sgallagh, 02:16:08) * Server WG would like Ambassadors to talk to the community about Fedora.Next (masta, 02:22:35) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora.next (masta, 02:22:43) * get ideas about what the community thinks about the new changes, and have constructive talk to bring back to the WG's (masta, 02:23:20) Meeting ended at 02:40:43 UTC. Action Items ------------ Action Items, by person ----------------------- * **UNASSIGNED** * (none) People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * masta (48) * sgallagh (28) * kk4ewt (10) * zodbot (6) * ParadoxGuitarist (5) * dramsey (4) * Award3535 (2) * inode0 (2) Thanks -Jon Disnard irc: masta fas: parasense

1 0

Meeting minutes from today's Env-and-Stacks WG meeting (2013-11-05)
by Marcela Mašláňová 05 Nov '13

05 Nov '13

============================================ #fedora-meeting: Env and Stacks (2013-11-05) ============================================ Meeting started by mmaslano at 16:02:38 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2013-11-05/environment_and_… . Meeting summary --------------- * init process (mmaslano, 16:05:34) * communication channels (mmaslano, 16:06:15) * mailing list was set env-and-stacks(a)lists.fedoraproject.org (mmaslano, 16:12:19) * no new irc channel because of many time zones most of the communication will be happening on mailing list (mmaslano, 16:13:00) * Meeting frequency and times (mmaslano, 16:15:26) * LINK: http://whenisgood.net/fedenvstk/results/q3gmp7 (abadger1999, 16:24:49) * odd and even weeks will have different time for meetings because of time zones (mmaslano, 16:30:02) * AGREED: 16:00 UTC for week starting 19th November (mmaslano, 16:31:00) * everyone will look at whenisgood and will try to pick second date. The preferred time by juhp_ and bkabrda should be acceptable for most of the group (mmaslano, 16:33:58) * trac (mmaslano, 16:34:06) * handsome_pirate will create wiki for our WG (mmaslano, 16:41:28) * Discussions around the WG governance charter (mmaslano, 16:42:01) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Cloud/Governance is Cloud's (handsome_pirate, 16:45:14) * abadger1999 will put together a governance draft (mmaslano, 17:05:57) * LINK: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/desktop/2013-October/008245.html (juhp_, 17:11:49) * rest of the discussion will happen on mailing list. abadger1999 will write up the charter as soon as we will know what do we want to do (mmaslano, 17:32:28) * Open Floor (mmaslano, 17:34:59) Meeting ended at 17:37:58 UTC. Action Items ------------ Action Items, by person ----------------------- * **UNASSIGNED** * (none) People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * handsome_pirate (85) * mmaslano (83) * abadger1999 (70) * tjanez (46) * juhp_ (41) * drieden (18) * samkottler (15) * hhorak (15) * pkovar (10) * zodbot (4) * nirik (2) * masta (1) * pknirsch (1) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 .. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot 16:02:38 <mmaslano> #startmeeting Env and Stacks (2013-11-05) 16:02:38 <zodbot> Meeting started Tue Nov 5 16:02:38 2013 UTC. The chair is mmaslano. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 16:02:38 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 16:02:42 * samkottler is here 16:02:47 <handsome_pirate> Yay 16:02:50 <mmaslano> #meetingname Environment and Stacks 16:02:50 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'environment_and_stacks' 16:02:56 * handsome_pirate waves from the crows nest 16:03:01 <tjanez> Hi 16:03:04 <juhp_> hi 16:03:06 * pkovar is here 16:03:13 * mmaslano just arrived 16:03:29 <mmaslano> hhorak: is here, hi 16:03:31 * abadger1999 here 16:03:41 <drieden> Hi 16:03:57 * hhorak is greeting 16:04:23 * handsome_pirate will be right back 16:04:46 <mmaslano> Jens is not here 16:04:57 <juhp_> I am Jens :) 16:05:05 <mmaslano> great :) hi 16:05:25 <mmaslano> I'll do table of members for next week... 16:05:34 <mmaslano> #topic init process 16:06:10 <mmaslano> so let's discuss what other groups already discussed 16:06:15 <mmaslano> #topic communication channels 16:06:28 <mmaslano> We have mailing list 16:06:51 <samkottler> do we want to setup a new IRC channel? 16:07:42 <tjanez> Regarding the mailing list, I just updated its description a couple of hours ago 16:08:00 <drieden> I think an IRC channel for env and stacks would be helpful 16:08:05 <tjanez> Open to suggestions/improvements, though 16:09:16 <tjanez> I don't feel we need a new IRC channel (yet) 16:09:35 <samkottler> why not? 16:09:45 <samkottler> what's the disadvantage of having it? 16:10:07 <tjanez> samkottler: Just though mailing-list is where discussion should take place 16:10:36 <tjanez> samkottler: And there are plenty of existing IRC channels 16:10:40 <abadger1999> better than a new irc channel would just being able to find everyone on irc but given the difficulty setting up a common meeting time, that's probably a wishlist item ;-) 16:10:41 <mmaslano> discussion with friends about a problem is fine, but discussion about future of something is different thing 16:10:50 <mmaslano> abadger1999: yeah 16:11:06 <juhp_> abadger1999, hehe :) 16:11:25 <mmaslano> do you want to vote about every topic or we just agreed on something? 16:11:37 <juhp_> well I don't mind but also feel that irc channel is not so urgent 16:11:46 <samkottler> I think we can use general concensus in this case 16:11:55 <samkottler> most people don't want a new channel :-) 16:12:13 <hhorak> I'd also prefer discussions of mailing list, it's more transparent for everyone.. we can set irc channel later.. 16:12:16 <tjanez> I'm fine with both, voting and consensus 16:12:19 <mmaslano> #info mailing list was set env-and-stacks(a)lists.fedoraproject.org 16:12:36 <mmaslano> ok, it also looks like consensus to me 16:13:00 <mmaslano> #info no new irc channel because of many time zones most of the communication will be happening on mailing list 16:13:34 <mmaslano> if someone's unhappy about anything, then please say so 16:13:42 <mmaslano> otherwise next topic 16:13:45 <drieden> makes sense, I agree with the no IRC. 16:14:14 <abadger1999> we could all idle in #fedora-devel I suppose. 16:14:37 <mmaslano> everyone is already there (I guess) 16:14:40 <samkottler> I think most of us already do 16:14:44 * handsome_pirate returns 16:14:59 * abadger1999 hasn't been but could start.... it was domnated by desktop flame wars for a while :-/ 16:15:14 <abadger1999> actually... let's just talk about irc channels later. 16:15:21 <mmaslano> fine by me 16:15:26 <mmaslano> #topic Meeting frequency and times 16:15:30 <abadger1999> when outsiders start asking where to find us on irc. 16:15:55 * handsome_pirate isn't in #fedora-devel by default, but will be from now on 16:16:12 <juhp_> I am usually there 16:16:50 <handsome_pirate> As far as meeting frequency, while we're hashing things out, we may want to have them fairly often 16:16:53 <handsome_pirate> Weekly 16:17:10 * masta looks in and lurks 16:17:10 <handsome_pirate> Tuesday is better than Monday 16:17:20 <handsome_pirate> Fedora QA meeting is Mondays at this time 16:17:26 <mmaslano> handsome_pirate: you are evil :) 16:17:32 <handsome_pirate> mmaslano: heh 16:17:45 <mmaslano> juhp_: abadger1999: I was wondering if you wish to go to every second meeting 16:17:49 <handsome_pirate> mmaslano: We can set it up to alternate time each week so we get the most coverage 16:17:57 <mmaslano> so you don't have to be up in strange times 16:18:06 <juhp_> that might be good 16:18:27 <samkottler> 16:00 UTC on tuesdays works really nicely for me 16:19:14 <handsome_pirate> +1 16:19:18 <handsome_pirate> But, I can do otherwise 16:19:51 <hhorak> alternate times seem good and 16:00 works for me as one of the alternatives 16:20:00 <mmaslano> it could be better, but okay 16:20:23 <tjanez> I'm fine with weekly meetings, but I would prefer less meetings when there are less things to discuss 16:20:32 <mmaslano> let's do another whenisgood for odd and other for even week 16:20:34 <handsome_pirate> +1 16:20:35 <mmaslano> tjanez: I agree 16:20:42 <juhp_> sounds good 16:20:45 <handsome_pirate> I just see that right now we likely have plenty to do 16:20:55 <handsome_pirate> This can be revisited later 16:21:04 <handsome_pirate> So, one time is Tues, 1600 16:21:24 <handsome_pirate> So, how about another time? 16:21:27 <mmaslano> juhp_: which time and day do you prefer 16:21:33 <tjanez> Ok. Tuesday, 16:00 UTC works for me for the next couple of months 16:21:41 <mmaslano> it's 1:00 in the morning for you, so you can pick 16:21:44 <hhorak> I don't think we need another whenisgood, we just need to pick up the second time. 16:22:19 * abadger1999 has noticed that biweekly meetings tend to have lower overall attendance (maybe because people forget which week they're in?) 16:22:43 <juhp_> mmaslano, well roughly 12:00 from now +-4 hours would be fine 16:22:49 <mmaslano> abadger1999: that's for smart telephones are ;-) 16:22:53 <juhp_> but might still be easier to use whenisgood :) 16:23:11 <abadger1999> mmaslano: yeah.. but people book other meetings and events as well... 16:23:18 <mmaslano> juhp_: also bkabrda can't in this hour, so maybe he should specify his preference too 16:23:24 <juhp_> right 16:23:46 <tjanez> I agree with juhp_, use whenisgood and make precedence to bkabrda and juhp_ 16:24:14 <mmaslano> abadger1999: do you want to setup another whenisgood 'cause you know how to do it properly on first time? :) 16:24:27 <abadger1999> Why don't we just use the same one? 16:24:46 <abadger1999> and select the best time that includes slavek? 16:24:49 <abadger1999> http://whenisgood.net/fedenvstk/results/q3gmp7 16:25:15 <pkovar> abadger1999 good point :-) 16:25:25 <tjanez> agreed, thinking out of the box :-) 16:25:48 <tjanez> maybe people should adjust/amend their general availability? 16:25:55 <abadger1999> Tuesday, wed, fri 13:00 or 14:00 16:26:00 <juhp_> so around 13:00 UTC might work 16:26:06 <juhp_> yeah 16:26:47 <hhorak> there seems to be no other option including bkabrda on Tue 16:27:31 <hhorak> and probably not better option in other days either 16:27:34 * handsome_pirate is +1 Tues 16:27:35 <samkottler> 13:00 UTC is 5am local time for abadger1999 and it's a little early for me 16:27:44 <handsome_pirate> Keep it somewhat simpler 16:27:45 * samkottler would like ot keep the meeting on tuesdays generally 16:27:59 <handsome_pirate> samkottler: We can both show up to the office a bit early :) 16:28:01 <abadger1999> samkottler: I kinda thought that the idea was that I wouldn't be able to make this alternate meeting? 16:28:11 <abadger1999> and from the looks of it drieden won't either. 16:28:25 <mmaslano> samkottler: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meetingtime.html?iso=20131105&p1=1960… 16:28:30 <mmaslano> samkottler: it's hard :) 16:29:04 <handsome_pirate> Anyway, how about ML for this one? 16:29:10 <handsome_pirate> We ought to move on 16:29:12 <drieden> abadger1999 13:00 is tricky for me, I'm getting my kids ready for school, but can be available sporadically at that time. 16:29:34 <samkottler> mmaslano: yeah it's difficult, we'll figure it out on the list :-) 16:29:38 <juhp_> it is 10pm here but that is okay 16:30:02 <mmaslano> #info odd and even weeks will have different time for meetings because of time zones 16:30:04 <abadger1999> drieden: I take it 14:00 Wed is even worse for you? 16:30:20 <abadger1999> (since you have the hours after that blocked off as well) 16:30:32 <drieden> abadger1999 Yes 14:00 wed is a regularly scheduled meeting 16:31:00 <mmaslano> #agreed 16:00 UTC for week starting 19th November 16:31:36 <mmaslano> let's stare into whenisgood and write on mailing list 16:31:49 <mmaslano> we have still lot to do today 16:31:52 <tjanez> mmaslano: +1 16:32:12 <drieden> mmaslano +1 16:32:37 <hhorak> +1 16:33:08 <handsome_pirate> +1 16:33:17 <juhp_> +1 16:33:47 <tjanez> So, should we move on to trac? 16:33:54 <handsome_pirate> Sure 16:33:54 <pkovar> +1 16:33:58 <mmaslano> #info everyone will look at whenisgood and will try to pick second date. The preferred time by juhp_ and bkabrda should be acceptable for most of the group 16:34:03 <handsome_pirate> nirik: You around? 16:34:06 <mmaslano> #topic trac 16:34:12 <nirik> handsome_pirate: yes, but in meeting. 16:34:32 <handsome_pirate> nirik: Roger 16:34:39 <mmaslano> I'm not sure if we need trac, but we probably need some wiki with information about us and our goals 16:34:45 <handsome_pirate> nirik: I pinged because we may be asking for a trac 16:34:53 <handsome_pirate> +1 to wiki 16:35:03 * handsome_pirate doesn't know about trac 16:35:04 <tjanez> Does anyone have an idea what would be in the trac? 16:35:23 <samkottler> meeting items probably primarily 16:35:26 <nirik> handsome_pirate: please file an infrastructure ticket with what you need. 16:35:30 <mmaslano> we could trac process of some issues, but that can be done differently 16:35:31 <abadger1999> I think trac is nice if we need ticketing but otherwise... not needed. 16:35:46 <handsome_pirate> Indeed 16:35:51 <samkottler> a lot of the work we have to do is with fesco and other groups so we can use their bug trackers 16:35:52 <juhp_> trac might be good for collecting todo's and such rfe's etc 16:35:58 <handsome_pirate> Yeah, we can likely make do with action items 16:36:12 <mmaslano> drieden: you might know about something better for tracking progress. But I'm not sure what do we need trac right now 16:36:36 <hhorak> +1 for wiki, but not sure if we need git/ticket system for anything.. 16:36:47 <abadger1999> I'd say, let's get started using the wiki and just stay aware that when we start accumulating things that look like tickets, we then ask to have a trac instance. 16:36:51 <drieden> mmaslan Trac can be set up with git for storage and landing page, and for tracking issues, but I don't really use trac for tracking issues. 16:37:07 <tjanez> hhorak, abadger1999: +1 16:37:12 <juhp_> abadger1999, sounds reasonable 16:37:44 <drieden> mmaslano wiki sounds good for now. I should have said that I haven't had to use trac for tracking issues. 16:38:13 <abadger1999> <nod> 16:38:40 * handsome_pirate will set up wiki bit 16:38:41 <handsome_pirate> s 16:38:51 <pkovar> let's stick with the fedora wiki. i think that's what other groups are also using 16:39:01 <handsome_pirate> Aye 16:39:07 <handsome_pirate> I mean in Fedora's wiki 16:40:23 <mmaslano> seems like consensus to me 16:40:33 <mmaslano> who will create wiki? 16:40:42 * handsome_pirate will 16:41:28 <mmaslano> #info handsome_pirate will create wiki for our WG 16:42:01 <mmaslano> #topic Discussions around the WG governance charter 16:42:08 <handsome_pirate> I'll get everything done up, then ping links to the list for approval/editing 16:42:13 <mmaslano> handsome_pirate: great 16:42:23 <juhp_> cool 16:42:55 <drieden> handsome_pirate yee be a good fellar yee bee (pirate accent) 16:43:30 <handsome_pirate> heh 16:43:40 <handsome_pirate> arrr 16:43:49 <juhp_> deadline is next week? 16:44:04 <handsome_pirate> Indeed 16:45:14 <handsome_pirate> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Cloud/Governance is Cloud's 16:45:20 * juhp_ hasn't seen any of the (draft) charters yet... 16:45:21 <handsome_pirate> I propose we do similar 16:45:24 <juhp_> aha 16:45:35 * handsome_pirate is a fan of simple and flexible 16:46:11 <abadger1999> yeah -- the only thing I'd change is how abstentions are counted in voting. 16:46:18 <juhp_> yeah probably a good idea to base the initial charter off other's work? 16:46:20 <mmaslano> abadger1999: do you what we should do about governance charter? I thought FESCo I picked voting members and that's it 16:46:45 <pkovar> so, can we just adopt that Making Decisions part on the cloud page? 16:46:46 <handsome_pirate> juhp_: That's what others are doing, is basing their charters off each other 16:46:50 <mmaslano> abadger1999: ah, true. Do you want to be able vote before or after meeting via email? 16:46:54 <abadger1999> mmaslano: fesco determined that the initial seeding of the group was at your (the liason's) discretion. 16:47:06 <abadger1999> but it's our job to decide how the group is governed in the future. 16:47:11 <handsome_pirate> Aye 16:47:24 <handsome_pirate> We would want to add a section on succession 16:47:27 <handsome_pirate> sp? 16:47:41 <handsome_pirate> ie, to figure out members to come after us 16:47:44 <abadger1999> we could say "in the future, there's one person who has absolute authority" or "anyone can vote and after one week the most votes wins". 16:47:51 <abadger1999> or anything in the middle :-) 16:48:07 * handsome_pirate is for nominations from the community 16:48:23 <handsome_pirate> ie, any intersted parties can be nominated or self nominate 16:48:41 <handsome_pirate> But, maybe have current voting members vote 16:48:42 * abadger1999 thinks the cloud governance is good looking. 16:49:01 <handsome_pirate> Indeed 16:49:35 <abadger1999> I guess the only doubt I have about adopting hte cloud model is that we might be a bit different in our goals. 16:49:46 <abadger1999> the cloud group is producing a product. 16:50:01 <abadger1999> My impression from mattdm is we're more a research and development group. 16:50:31 <handsome_pirate> ie, where all the fun stuff happens :) 16:50:40 <juhp_> true 16:50:41 <tjanez> Another question I have is what happens after FESCO elections if the current FESCO appointee is not re-elected? 16:50:52 <abadger1999> less about making decisions, more about working to enable wholly new things. 16:51:05 <handsome_pirate> tjanez: Good point, that 16:51:18 <abadger1999> tjanez: I can't speak for future fescos but I think current fesco would say: 16:51:28 <abadger1999> fesco just has to agree to the liason. 16:51:46 <abadger1999> so if the new fesco doesn't have a problem with the current liason, they'd continue in that capacity. 16:52:08 <abadger1999> only if the new fesco sid "We don't can't work with $person" would the liason need to change. 16:52:12 <abadger1999> *said 16:53:17 <tjanez> abadger1999: I agree, FESCO will not be causing problems :-) 16:53:40 <hhorak> abadger1999: sounds good to me 16:53:48 <handsome_pirate> +1 16:54:28 <pkovar> +1 16:54:34 <tjanez> I'm OK with serving as long as we are able to/willing, maybe it just sounds very autocratic to outsiders 16:54:45 <handsome_pirate> Indeed 16:55:04 <abadger1999> (of course, each WG can also say that they don't want to be represented by a certain liason as well). 16:55:24 <tjanez> But on the other hand, I really don't see ourselves as a ruling body 16:55:27 <mmaslano> I guess group can pick who will be voting members, no problem 16:55:35 <tjanez> but rather an enabler for people to work 16:55:40 <abadger1999> <nod> -- for some things I think a certain amount of autocracy is good... where precedent and knowledge of what came before is important. 16:55:41 <mmaslano> tjanez: yeah, I'd rather see us as working body :) 16:55:50 <abadger1999> not sure if that's a concern for this gorup or not. 16:56:07 <juhp_> right 16:56:38 <abadger1999> So maybe we should first ask, what is our role in Fedora? 16:56:41 <abadger1999> What do we do? 16:57:58 <tjanez> Well, I would say use only as much birocracy as we need for working and develop it later as we define our mission and goals more clearly 16:58:21 <handsome_pirate> You know, I suddenly find myself leaning to the way that QA does things: Whoever wants to do something does it 16:58:33 <mmaslano> tjanez: we should solve this question until next week, when is deadline 16:58:54 <drieden> I think the Governance document can be separated from the "charter or what we do document" 16:59:21 <abadger1999> drieden: <nod> -- but I think governance depends on the charter. 16:59:30 * samkottler unfortuatenly has to leave now 16:59:37 <samkottler> I'll read the transcript later on 16:59:49 <handsome_pirate> +1 17:00:03 <juhp_> does someone want to take a stab at a draft charter? 17:00:05 <tjanez> For governance, I'm fine with something simple (e.g. similar to Cloud WG governance) 17:00:23 <drieden> tjanez +1. Consistency across the groups would be helpful 17:00:27 <handsome_pirate> Okay, I'm +1 not having governance in charter 17:00:43 <tjanez> We'll just have to change the thing with trac (they use trac) 17:00:52 <handsome_pirate> So 17:00:56 <hhorak> +1 for simplicity 17:01:01 <handsome_pirate> What is it that we'll actually be doing? 17:01:10 * juhp_ should look at the workstation draft too... 17:01:23 <mmaslano> handsome_pirate: I summarized what all of you told me 17:01:44 <tjanez> I think only slavek replied to your email 17:01:46 <mmaslano> handsome_pirate: languages, programming environments, setup databases, ... 17:01:51 <abadger1999> How about this -- let's adopt something very similar to the cloud wg governance but revisit the govenerance doc after f21 is out? 17:02:01 <mmaslano> abadger1999: +1 17:02:08 <tjanez> +1 17:02:09 <handsome_pirate> +1 17:02:10 <drieden> +1 17:02:11 <abadger1999> when we know about what we're actually doing in practice. 17:02:29 <juhp_> sounds ok to me but good to review a draft together next week 17:02:31 <hhorak> +1, maybe we can only be more specific (or change later) what "few days" mean and so on.. 17:03:06 <juhp_> (or by next week:) 17:03:17 <handsome_pirate> Okay, so we'll want to push things like python 3 17:03:20 <drieden> hhorak sounds good. It is a little vague right now 17:04:20 <abadger1999> k 17:04:26 <abadger1999> I'll put together a draft. 17:04:29 <juhp_> I will try to have a quick look at what other WGs are doing on their charters so far 17:04:55 <abadger1999> If next week's meeting is at 13:00 I won't be around to present it but I can send a link to the list. 17:05:00 <drieden> Is there a link to the other charters? 17:05:29 <mmaslano> #info abadger1999 will put together a charter draft 17:05:37 <abadger1999> err 17:05:40 <mmaslano> drieden: I guess they send links to devel maling list 17:05:41 <abadger1999> mmaslano: governance draft 17:05:46 <mmaslano> #undo 17:05:46 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Info object at 0x41454090> 17:05:57 <mmaslano> #info abadger1999 will put together a governance draft 17:06:05 <tjanez> Regarding other charters, we should probably have in mind, we are very much different from the three product WGs 17:06:15 <abadger1999> I think driedenwas making the separation that charter is more -- what are we going to do... which we don't know yet. 17:06:23 <juhp_> server one looks similar https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Server/Governance_Charter 17:06:25 <abadger1999> <nod> 17:06:29 * hhorak don't think other WG have much sofar either (just a guess) 17:06:36 <juhp_> didn't read carefully yet though 17:07:12 <handsome_pirate> Yeah, looks like everyone is making their 'charter' a governance doc 17:07:19 <handsome_pirate> We may want to avoid this 17:07:21 <juhp_> (I believe the Workstation draft was posted to desktop - I didn't have time to look at it yet) 17:07:31 <handsome_pirate> Charter is more for purpose than governance 17:07:35 <hhorak> server's seem to be very similar to cloud's one 17:07:45 <drieden> Yes, I meant the "What we do" charters for the other groups. I'm okay with the Cloud Governance charter wiki about the governing structure. 17:08:13 <tjanez> drieden: Yes, I was also talking about the "what we do" charter 17:08:27 <pkovar> juhp_: the workstation one is here https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/desktop/2013-November/008259.html 17:08:28 <handsome_pirate> So, the hard part is to expand "languages, programming environments, setup databases, ..." into a proper document 17:08:36 <juhp_> pkovar, thanks 17:10:08 <mmaslano> I was sort of hoping people will post their ideas on mailing list 17:10:29 <tjanez> I think a good starting point for "what do we do" is mmaslano's mailing post 17:10:30 <handsome_pirate> Well, how about this: I'll start a ML thread on this? 17:10:36 <tjanez> and slavek's answer 17:10:50 <mmaslano> I spoke with most of you and create some points 17:11:04 <mmaslano> for example documentation - there is not much to add 17:11:18 <mmaslano> pkovar has imho a good plan 17:11:39 <tjanez> We should somehow separate the "what we are doing currently" from "what this WG will enable so people can develop/package new stacks/environments 17:11:49 <juhp_> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/desktop/2013-October/008245.html 17:12:21 <mmaslano> we might have a problem, that other WG believe we should do something else. I already heard we should do containers, but I refused 17:12:34 <mmaslano> I guess none of us is aware of details of containers 17:12:49 <juhp_> lightweight virt? 17:13:02 <mmaslano> probably all of them, maybe pick the best 17:13:08 <pkovar> juhp_: oh yeah, that's the actual charter :-) 17:13:10 <mmaslano> I guess Base group took it back 17:13:19 <abadger1999> Hmm... maybe we should be enabling people to do containers... but our role there would be supporting the people who know about it. 17:13:46 <mmaslano> maybe 17:14:13 <pknirsch> i'm fine with taking this to the Base WG discussion and see what they think about it. 17:14:16 <pkovar> or who want to learn about it? 17:14:17 <abadger1999> My feeling might be.. let's say containers is a new technology that only a few people are aware of. We'd help them document containers, see what they can do. 17:14:52 <abadger1999> create a proof of concept or two around them (which might be actual working software in fedora) 17:15:19 <abadger1999> and then if it was something that should really permeate all of fedora, we'd pass them along to the base design wg. 17:15:51 <abadger1999> who would see how containers could be applied throughout the OS. 17:15:56 <mmaslano> abadger1999: do you have someone in mind who will do it? 17:16:07 <tjanez> abadger1999: +1, but maybe not pass it to the base design WG, but to a "Fedora commons in ring 2" 17:16:12 <abadger1999> mmaslano: nope. 17:16:25 <handsome_pirate> hrm 17:16:36 <abadger1999> someone would have to come to us in that example. 17:16:38 <handsome_pirate> We all ought to look into it 17:16:47 <mmaslano> abadger1999: me neither which is reason why I didn't want it 17:17:18 <mmaslano> did we agreed on something yet? 17:17:58 <juhp_> perhaps it is something we could discuss later on the ml? I am not sure either if it is in our scope or not 17:18:12 <handsome_pirate> Indeed 17:18:12 <hhorak> we all probably should learn the basics about containers if we need to talk/vote about it in the future.. 17:18:23 <handsome_pirate> Anyone here a decent writer? 17:18:29 <handsome_pirate> hhorak: +1 17:18:33 <abadger1999> I guess I see us s -- "wild ideas come here first, get incubated, and then when they're no longer wild and unknown ideas, they go onto a different part of fedora to be integrated more heavily" 17:18:35 <tjanez> I would prefer to discuss the general "what will we do" on the ML 17:18:51 <handsome_pirate> hence my comment above about all of us looking at it 17:19:00 <handsome_pirate> abadger1999: +1 17:19:17 <tjanez> Do we still have time until next week's meeting? 17:20:05 <mmaslano> I guess so 17:21:08 <tjanez> Maybe we should also advertise our ML and WG on the devel and point people there for a discussion on "what will we do" 17:21:19 <juhp_> yes 17:21:22 <tjanez> I think its critical to define what is in our scope and what not 17:21:29 * handsome_pirate just popped an email off to the M/L 17:21:37 <juhp_> agreed 17:21:38 <tjanez> So that other WG won't have wrong expectations 17:21:50 <tjanez> which will cause problems later... 17:22:11 <hhorak> sorry, I'd need to leave.. will read the log later. 17:22:14 <tjanez> handsome_pirate: thanks! 17:22:48 <abadger1999> tjanez: +1 17:23:14 <mmaslano> who will write it? 17:23:44 <handsome_pirate> Who's a good writer? 17:23:47 <abadger1999> I can write it -- but not until we decide what we want it to say :-) 17:24:05 <handsome_pirate> abadger1999: Hence the ml thread I just started 17:24:38 <abadger1999> handsome_pirate: Did you get moderated? it didn't show up i nthe archives. 17:25:41 <tjanez> handsome_pirate: I also can't see your email 17:26:13 <tjanez> It got moderated: Reason: Post by non-member to a members-only list 17:26:44 <pkovar> handsome_pirate: but you seem to be subscribed jdulaney at fedoraproject.org 17:26:55 <handsome_pirate> I just resent it 17:27:09 <handsome_pirate> With right email address 17:27:35 <abadger1999> Cool. 17:28:01 <abadger1999> So yeah -- we can discuss this on the mailing list and I can start drafting next week. 17:28:03 <tjanez> I can write an email to devel and advertize this thread, if we agree to it? 17:28:10 <abadger1999> works for me. 17:28:39 <handsome_pirate> +1 17:28:50 <drieden> +1 17:29:04 <juhp_> great 17:29:06 <abadger1999> If you disagree with the direction handsome_pirate and I proposed, be sure to say that so that we get discussion about the alternative directions we could move in :-) 17:30:51 <tjanez> well, should we wrap up this meeting? 17:31:14 <mmaslano> do we have action item for this topic? 17:31:46 <handsome_pirate> mmaslano: Discussion on ml thread, abadger1999 to write up charter 17:32:15 <tjanez> handsome_pirate starts the discussion on the ML, tjanez will write an email to devel asking for contribution from non-members 17:32:26 <abadger1999> Note -- I can promise a governance doc for next week but I can't promise a Charter Document for next week. 17:32:28 <mmaslano> #info rest of the discussion will happen on mailing list. abadger1999 will write up the charter as soon as we will know what do we want to do 17:32:30 <abadger1999> Only the start of it. 17:32:37 <mmaslano> that's fine by me 17:32:41 <abadger1999> Cool. 17:32:54 <handsome_pirate> +1 17:33:34 <tjanez> +1 17:33:56 <juhp_> +1 good 17:34:18 <drieden> +1 17:34:20 <abadger1999> +1 17:34:23 * juhp_ is still a bit unclear about goverance vs charter but probably will become clearer as we discuss 17:34:35 <juhp_> erm governance 17:34:45 <mmaslano> probably 17:34:59 <mmaslano> #topic Open Floor 17:35:03 <mmaslano> anything else? 17:36:28 * handsome_pirate is good to go 17:36:41 <drieden> I don't have anything 17:36:53 <tjanez> nothing more from me 17:37:46 <mmaslano> let's go home 17:37:56 * abadger1999 will start work! 17:37:56 <abadger1999> ;-) 17:37:58 <mmaslano> #endmeeting

1 0

Fedora marketing meeting minutes, November 4, 2013
by Ruth Suehle 04 Nov '13

04 Nov '13

Minutes: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2013-11-04/fedora_marketing… Minutes (text): http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2013-11-04/fedora_marketing… Log: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2013-11-04/fedora_marketing…

1 0

FAmSCo meeting minutes 2013-11-04
by Jiri Eischmann 04 Nov '13

04 Nov '13

Hi, we had another regular FAmSCo meeting. 4 out of 7 members attended and the meeting lasted for 57 minutes. If you'd like to know more, read the minutes: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-2/2013-11-04/famsco.2013-11… Minutes (text): http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-2/2013-11-04/famsco.2013-11… Log: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-2/2013-11-04/famsco.2013-11… The next meeting will be on Nov 11th. Jiri

1 0

Fedora Chinese Meeting Minutes (2013-11-01)
by Alick Zhao 01 Nov '13

01 Nov '13

Hi all, The IRC meeting minutes tonight are available at the link [1]. And it looks good! Thanks everyone for attending the meeting. Thank zsun for chairing the meeting. In the meeting we talked about FUDCon bid progress, and F20 Release Party, and L10N. Please review the proposed ideas and actions. The next IRC meeting will be held on next Friday (2013-11-08). Please come and join the discussion if you can! [1]: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-zh/2013-11-01/fedora-zh.2013-11-01-… ================== #fedora-zh Meeting ================== Meeting started by zsun at 13:05:06 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-zh/2013-11-01/fedora-zh.2013-11-01-… . Meeting summary --------------- * 点名 (zsun, 13:05:23) * FUDCON APAC 2014 申办筹备 (zsun, 13:11:38) * IDEA: 不在北京的成员可以协助一些不需要在现场做的事情 (zsun, 13:33:39) * F20 Release Party (zsun, 13:36:53) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Meeting:APAC_Ambassadors_2013-10-26 (zsun, 13:41:09) * LINK: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/F20_release_events (zsun, 13:41:22) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_organize_a_Fedora_event (zsun, 13:42:56) * endle建议与shlug合作举办rel party (zsun, 13:44:08) * ACTION: RobberPhex与SHLUG沟通rel party事宜 (zsun, 13:50:50) * 中文翻译 (zsun, 13:56:19) * LINK: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/trans-zh_cn/2013-October/001658.h… (zsun, 14:01:48) Meeting ended at 14:10:51 UTC. Action Items ------------ * RobberPhex与SHLUG沟通rel party事宜 Action Items, by person ----------------------- * RobberPhex * RobberPhex与SHLUG沟通rel party事宜 * **UNASSIGNED** * (none) People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * zsun (83) * RobberPhex (20) * zodbot (14) * tonghuix (12) * endle (12) * biergaizi (11) * isyangxin (7) * BadGirl (7) * xlzyjfy (7) * gcell (4) * chenchacha (4) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 .. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot

1 0

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

meetingminutes November 2013