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-meeti... . 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-...
meetingminutes@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Máirín Duffy