Fedora Server WG Candidacy application
by Dan Mossor
Good day fellow Server enthusiasts!
Firstly I would like to apologize for missing this morning's meeting -
I'm in the finals stage of this semester at University, and I elected to
take the day off to work on required school tasks.
Secondly, a little background. I am a Systems Engineer (according to my
employer) which, translated, means I make heterogeneous - and sometimes
"incompatible" - systems work together. I have been in IT since I was a
child, and my service in the United States Navy gave me the training and
experience I needed to make a pretty darned good career out of it. I've
returned to University to finally get a degree - I don't currently have
one and have reached the highest position I can without it.
I have been maintaining servers of one form or fashion since 1993. My
first systems were HPUX and Sun Solaris 2.0. I set up my first Red Hat
server in 1998 to serve as the DNS, web, ftp and file server for the
Commander, US Navy Central Command. While at that station, I was
appointed the Information Systems Security Officer, and was eventually
recognized as having the most secure network in Central Command in 2000.
I have maintained CentOS (and Windows) servers in one flavor or another
since 2003, and have just started the transition at my workplace to a
virtualized infrastructure built on F19 and oVirt. As part of that
transition, I have moved our file server from Windows to a CentOS 6.5
server with Samba, pulling the data from another CentOS server via
iSCSI. I've also deployed a F20 server to fill the role as a local
repository, and another server as our first central identification and
authorization using FreeIPA. There is also another instance in
production serving double duty as the DNS server (integrated with the
FreeIPA server) and eJabberd for a local network IM service.
On a separate network, I am running a pure CentOS environment doing DNS,
web (with trac), file, IM, svn (moving to git), and three CentOS
machines doing nothing but virtual hosting for test instances built on
QEMU and libvirt. This network, while pure in and of itself, is in
parallel with a Windows network that my developers work from. We are
moving away from Windows based development environments to Fedora, so I
can eventually call my network a pure Linux network.
In short, I am a maintainer of servers, and use them in my daily duties
at my day job; I am an end-user of the product. My weakness in the
Fedora community, however, is that I am not a developer. It's not what I
do, I don't want to do it. I make the systems available for the
developers to do their job. To that end, I am very good at what I do.
I feel that I would bring insight and ideas to the WG as an end user of
the product - a voice that needs to be heard by any development project.
It wouldn't do very good to build a product that isn't wanted, or worse,
even needed.
Regards,
Dan
--
Dan Mossor
Systems Engineer at Large
Fedora QA Team Volunteer
Fedora Infrastructure Apprentice
FAS: dmossor IRC: danofsatx
San Antonio, Texas, USA
9 years, 7 months
Server WG Meeting Minutes (2014-04-29)
by Stephen Gallagher
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
===================================================================
#fedora-meeting-1: Server Working Group Weekly Meeting (2014-04-29)
===================================================================
Meeting started by sgallagh at 15:00:36 UTC. The full logs are available
at
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2014-04-29/fedora-meeti...
.
Meeting summary
- ---------------
* roll call (sgallagh, 15:00:36)
* Agenda Item: WG Membership (sgallagh, 15:07:53)
* The Server WG thanks Jim Perrin for his service up to this point
(sgallagh, 15:08:43)
* Server WG Membership (sgallagh, 15:26:03)
* Candidates will present their arguments for their selection on the
mailing list. We will vote next week on who to bring aboard.
(sgallagh, 15:27:23)
* The candidacy period closes on May 6 (sgallagh, 15:29:13)
* Server Role API (sgallagh, 15:29:23)
* LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Server/Technical_Specification
(sgallagh, 15:59:32)
* LINK:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Adamwill/Draft_Server_test_outline
is the link btw. (nirik, 16:03:08)
* Open Floor (sgallagh, 16:28:57)
Meeting ended at 16:32:17 UTC.
Action Items
- ------------
Action Items, by person
- -----------------------
* **UNASSIGNED**
* (none)
People Present (lines said)
- ---------------------------
* sgallagh (124)
* simo (32)
* tflink (24)
* adamw (21)
* twoerner (20)
* davidstrauss (19)
* stefw (14)
* mitr (13)
* nirik (12)
* zodbot (5)
* mizmo (2)
* tuanta (0)
Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4
.. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iEYEARECAAYFAlNf1IMACgkQeiVVYja6o6PR2gCdF62nHQRpYcBMLRQZL2hrId60
cskAn0Gs0f2DU7zvc3Iydt06CLEDvuBo
=qdL8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
9 years, 7 months
Agenda for Fedora Server WG Meeting (2014-04-29)
by Stephen Gallagher
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
#startmeeting Server Working Group Weekly Meeting (2014-04-29)
#chair sgallagh mizmo nirik davidstrauss adamw simo tuanta mitr
#topic roll call
#topic agenda
#info Agenda Item: WG Membership
#info Agenda Item: Server Role API
#info Agenda Item: Proposed QA Test Plan
#topic WG Membership
#topic Server Role API
#topic Proposed QA Test Plan
#topic Open Floor
#endmeeting
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iEYEARECAAYFAlNfsUsACgkQeiVVYja6o6PoSgCeOogEj9qpB0TXNSEw+ntsvyLM
zhgAoKo41V4Im5X/FiB9Ao0MeUOO1ztW
=jO6H
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
9 years, 7 months
Stepping aside
by Jim Perrin
With everything going on for CentOS 7 prep, community builder setup,
etc, I don't have the time required to contribute in a meaningful way to
this effort. Since I cannot dedicate the time needed, I would like to
step aside so that someone else can step in and participate..
Keep up the good work
--
Jim Perrin
The CentOS Project | http://www.centos.org
twitter: @BitIntegrity | GPG Key: FA09AD77
9 years, 7 months
Soliciting agenda items for 2014-04-28 meeting
by Stephen Gallagher
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
This week, I'd like to put the D-BUS API Role Infrastructure back on
the agenda. I've been speaking with Thomas Woerner (author of
firewalld) and he is interested in building this Role API for us (with
tight integration with firewalld) and would like to join us for this
meeting so we can bring him up to speed on exactly how we want the API
to look and function. I expect this to take most of our alotted hour,
but if there are other important agenda items, please submit them and
we'll plan accordingly.
Thank you very much.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iEYEARECAAYFAlNeTGsACgkQeiVVYja6o6PvrwCghNVgoIpIDodQT4OY26a+yPjw
x2gAmgPonT1dYYPP1VLov4UNCQIlrIur
=WJ2r
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
9 years, 7 months
Deliverables and release engineering changes for Fedora.Next
by Jaroslav Reznik
Hi!
As it seems, Fedora.Next and product planning leads also to changes
how Fedora is produced and how it's going to be distributed to our
users.
For this, we need to collect product deliverables, so needed changes
for release engineering can be planned (and implemented) and as I was
talking to Dennis, we're are currently blocked on it.
I created rel-eng ticket - WGs, please, try to sum up required changes
there (in consumable way), so we have it in one place (for possible
overlaps in requirements etc).
https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5891
Currently, Alpha Change Deadline is planned for no earlier than
2014-07-22, it's not as far as it sounds, especially if changes
in releng are needed. So let's try to work this out as soon as
possible.
I suppose, in the end, FESCo should approve requested changes in
product deliverables. So once requirements are collected, I'll
create (yet another) ticket for FESCo. Or even better - as Cloud
did - Change proposal would be the best solution, even after the
submission deadline.
(Sorry for cross-posting;-).
Thanks
Jaroslav
9 years, 7 months
Draft 'test outline' for Server product (what will be the broad scope of Server testing?)
by Adam Williamson
Hi, folks. So at last week's QA and Server meetings, I assigned myself
to come up with what I then referred to as a 'test plan' for the Server
product (and a couple of other folks to do it for Workstation and
Cloud).
I've written it now, but it occurred to me that what we really wanted
(and what I actually wrote, which I *hope* are the same thing :>) wasn't
really strictly speaking a test plan, but what I've decided to refer to
as a 'test outline'. Here it is, in rough form:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Adamwill/Draft_Server_test_outline
I think this is more a planning document than it'll ever be a working
one; what I expect we'll end up with is some more test cases and test
matrices, and maybe a formal test plan of the kind we kinda gave up
writing for old-Fedora when it became more busywork than anything
productive. But I think this is a necessary step on the road to reaching
that point.
What I've tried to do is look at the documents that define what the
Server product will be - the Product Requirements Document and the
Technical Specification - and derive from those what are the key areas
that will require test coverage, both specific to Server and not
specific to it. I'm hoping that if we can have similar 'outlines'
covering Workstation and Cloud, we will be able to see the shape of just
how much testing F21 will require overall (at least in an ideal world)
and then we can start to draw up a plan for actually doing that testing,
and how we structure that work (whether it's under the auspices of QA or
the working groups or some combination of the two or some entirely new
structure we want to come up with).
Hope this is useful! Please do yell if you want to query any of the
specific points in my draft, or the overall approach I'm suggesting
here, or well anything at all, really, this is all new to all of us :)
Thanks!
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
9 years, 7 months
Server WG Governance
by Stephen Gallagher
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
At the risk of starting two out-of-control threads in one day, I
wanted to bring up a discussion I had with Karsten Wade last week at
Red Hat Summit. We were discussing various governance methodologies,
specifically that of FESCo, the Board, the WGs and CentOS.
There are some very interesting ideas that the CentOS Board has put
into place, the most relevant I think is their mechanism for
consensus-based decision-making[1]. I'd like to describe it a little
bit here and note how I think in many ways this is pretty much how we
in the Server WG have actually been operating thus far and that we may
want to actually formalize it.
The short version of the consensus-based voting is that all decisions
require that all participants can live with the result and that every
member of the voting population (in our case, the nine sitting
members of the WG) can block it.
A blocking vote requires a clearly-expressed statement as to why they
feel that the choice in question violates the criteria of the project
(in our case, it violates our Mission, Vision, PRD or Technical
Specification, or that of the Fedora Project at large).
Voting in CentOS requires at least three +1 votes and zero -1 votes
for any motion to pass, and with at least 72 hours given for
non-present members to express their dissent.[2]
If a blocking vote occurs, this changes the dynamics of the
discussion. In traditional majority votes, the result is usually that
two "sides" emerge, each trying to swing a sufficient number of the
other WG members to their point of view. However, in a consensus-based
process, the behavior is that now the remaining members of the group
must find a compromise (or correct a misunderstanding) in order to
proceed. The benefit here is that the dissenter is treated as someone
to work with, rather than to work around.
Karsten also noted that there is a proviso that if one person is truly
unable or unwilling to meet in the middle, the rest of the board can,
with a unanimous vote, remove a member. So when casting a blocking
vote, it becomes paramount to negotiate to the best solution, because
failing to do so may carry with it the risk of losing a beneficial
member of the group. In essence, a true blocking vote (as opposed to a
+0) is saying "I am willing to leave over this; convince me or come to
a middle ground".
So, with all that being said, I would like to point out that I think
we've actually pretty much done exactly this all along, but without
formalizing it. I think the only decision we've ever made (following
the creation of the PRD) that had any dissenting votes was over the
selection of which database to use as the DB Server Role.
We have so far done an excellent job of reaching consensus (and as a
result, I find that our group has managed a pretty excellent working
relationship with little bad blood). I'd like to strongly recommend
that we formalize this approach, modeled after the CentOS governance.
I think that as long as we behave in this way (where consensus is not
only desired but mandatory), we will keep this group effective and
cordial.
[1]
http://www.centos.org/about/governance/appendix-glossary/#consensus-decis...
[2] http://www.centos.org/about/governance/voting/
p.s. Part of this is also driven by my concerns in other groups in
Fedora where a tradition of "armed camps" seems to have grown up
around all votes.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iEUEARECAAYFAlNVbJAACgkQeiVVYja6o6Nt6ACdGKqMJd1fTcrRizl8OAQDjscR
hPUAlink2dUN1URPcJbTMbEViXgYUGg=
=aliu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
9 years, 7 months
Fedora Server WG Meeting Minutes (2014-04-22)
by Stephen Gallagher
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
===================================================================
#fedora-meeting-1: Server Working Group Weekly Meeting (2014-04-22)
===================================================================
Meeting started by sgallagh at 14:59:09 UTC. The full logs are available
at
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2014-04-22/fedora-meeti...
.
Meeting summary
- ---------------
* roll call (sgallagh, 14:59:17)
* mizmo, nirik sgallagh present (sgallagh, 14:59:59)
* mitr present (sgallagh, 15:01:03)
* ACTION: sgallagh to contact jperrin about whether he wishes to
retain his position on the WG (sgallagh, 15:14:48)
* Meeting did not reach quorum (sgallagh, 15:15:58)
Meeting ended at 15:16:02 UTC.
Action Items
- ------------
* sgallagh to contact jperrin about whether he wishes to retain his
position on the WG
Action Items, by person
- -----------------------
* sgallagh
* sgallagh to contact jperrin about whether he wishes to retain his
position on the WG
* **UNASSIGNED**
* (none)
People Present (lines said)
- ---------------------------
* sgallagh (18)
* mizmo (7)
* mitr (5)
* zodbot (5)
* danofsatx-dt (5)
* nirik (3)
* adamw (0)
* Evolution (0)
* tuanta (0)
* davidstrauss (0)
* simo (0)
Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4
.. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iEYEARECAAYFAlNWiIMACgkQeiVVYja6o6MqEgCfUIHNWeYNJnbytYFH3z/POpLE
MSsAoIKVG9r5Vo2NkHfX7TZiHJ0Ew7P4
=O3p+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
9 years, 7 months
