self-introduce
by Łukasz Posadowski
I don't know if server list have a tradition for introducing, but will
try anyway. I'm Łukasz, on Fedora since Core 1 - never missed a
release. A server spin is my primary choice for home and work desktops,
laptops and VPS'es. I heard about a decreasing interest in a server
spin and decided to be more in touch with it's development. Also, I'm
SeeM2 on #fedora-server channel.
Hello everyone.
--
Łukasz Posadowski
3 years, 2 months
(Re-)Organisation Fedora Server Group Work
by Peter Boy
Folks, we have now spent some time housekeeping and organization, so far without viable result. The only solution I see is a restart with the help of FESCo and/or Council.
We have 2 organisational units: the SIG and the WG. There are 33 names listed on the SIG page, of which only 2 have "reappeared" after the reboot (Matthew and Stephen Smoogen). The last activity was 6 (!) years ago. The current WG lists 8 names, of which 4 are fortunately still highly active. But 50% are inactive at this difficult stage of the reboot.
There is no rule about leaving members or inactive members by voting or WG decision. The only possibility is a decision by FESCo / Council.
At the same time, we need to rethink the relationship between SIG and WG. I quote Stephen Smoogen:
„I think a lot of people applying think that a working group is similar to SIG membership. I made that mistake when I first tried to join when the Server Working Group was formed.
Being a member of a working group is basically a commitment for N hours a week to do whatever is needed for the group to get an edition out the door. It may be writing tests for QA, it may be writing documentation, it may be sitting in multiple meetings in a week to reach a consensus on what is getting done in this edition, and it may be coming in every morning and finding out why a server compose broke (versus others) and see which commit did it. It is called a 'working' group for that reason.“
Looking at the list of people interested in the Server WG, I reckon we are not in the happy situation that 19 people want to (and can) make a "commitment for N hours a week to do whatever is needed".
That considered, it is probably to be preferred to focus more on the SIG. That's the place where discussion and innovation take place. The first thing we have to do is rebuild the SIG.
The Working Group is a special arrangement, according to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Leadership#Working_Groups a subcommittee of FESCo or Council, requires formal membership and active contributions, and is a requirement for Editions.
Please remember: According to our rules (Government Charter), Working Group membership is not a prerequisite for participation in voting and decision-making! Regularly, all (SIG) participants are involved! We are community based. In case of doubt, members of the Working Group are the ones who have to ensure implementation if no one else can do it (or may veto if implementation is not feasible).
Therefore, FESCo / Council should decide / approve
(a) Rebuild Server SIG and gather all interested parties and activists there (see list at the end), as a replacement for the current long list.
(b) Rebuild the Working Group approving the current active members (see list at the end) and if considered useful, additional active participants for specific tasks.
(c) Consider to add a section to the Governance Charter alike „A Working Group member is expected to provide regular and continuous work on one or more of the different work areas as required to keep Fedora Server running. Membership begins on the day of election and lasts for 2 years. The first period ends at the end of the second following year. It is automatically renewed if the member commits to a further period. Renewal is possible as often as desired.“
Looking over the discussion since November last year, I think we have 2 particular areas of focus for the coming months (in addition to the ongoing work on releases and bug fixing):
(a) Building up a new documentation
(b) Establishing a cooperation with Cloud Images
and ultimately probably also
(c) Organisation and Community building
For these areas we would need to find someone who commits to "… N hours a week to do whatever is needed…" and "...sitting in multiple meetings in a week to reach a consensus..." (Stephen Smoogen).
As to the list of participants listed above:
current active WG members:
* Kevin Fenzi (@nirik)
* Stephen Gallagher (@sgallagh)
* Stephen Smoogen (@smooge) (but see below!)
* Adam Williamson (@adamw)
Ambiguous WG membership status:
* ngompa
(remembers to have been elected, but currently not listed on Wiki, maybe update was missed)
New participants who could already contribute
* salimma Michel Alexandre Salim (organized follow up IRC meetings)
* pboy Peter Boy (PRD proposal, documentation concept)
* x3mboy Eduard Lucena (Posting the PRD draft in hackmd)
New participants up for contribution opportunities
* @langdon Langdon White
* @abbra Alexander Bokovoy
* @astra David Kaufmann
* @jwhimpel John Himpel
* @sghosh Subhendu Ghosh
* @jbwillia Ben Williams
* @defolos
* @mhoungbo
* @fcami
* @fsaez
* @nb (proposed by St. Smoogen to replace him as WG member )
3 years, 2 months
Agenda next IRC meeting 2021-02-17
by Peter Boy
Agenda proposal
1. Status Reboot Server Working Group
=====================================
As agreed at the last meeting, I sorted out the status of memberships with Matthew. The slates ticket #6 (https://pagure.io/fedora-server/issue/6) and #9 (https://pagure.io/fedora-server/issue/9) now have the required 3 +1-votes and are accepted. Server WG now has 10 new members:
@langdon Langdon White
@abbra Alexander Bokovoy
@salimma Michel Alexandre Salim
@astra David Kaufmann
@jwhimpel John Himpel
@sghosh Subhendu Ghosh
@jbwillia Ben Williams
@x3mboy Eduard Lucena
@pboy Peter Boy
@nb Nick Bebout
(In order of ticket entries).
We now have an organisational basis for further work.
As a reminder I quote St Smoogen once again (You may remember Cato in ancient Rome: Ceterum censeo ...)
"Being a member of a working group is basically a commitment for N hours a week to do whatever is needed for the group to get an edition out the door. It may be writing tests for QA, it may be writing documentation, it may be sitting in multiple meetings in a week to reach a consensus on what is getting done in this edition, …“
We have a lot to do!
Next steps to decide:
(a)
To ensure a certain degree of continuity, the chair and organisation should remain constant for a certain period of time and change periodically.
If there is agreement on this, I pragmatically suggest Michel Salim (salimma) and Peter Boy (pboy, that's me, sorry) take over for the next six months. We have already taken this on for the last few months so it will work.
(b)
Chair will contact members who are no longer active and ask them about their plans to participate or resign.
(c)
We are starting a new slate for interested people, according to my compilation so far
@ngompa,
@defolos,
@mhoungbo,
@fsaez
@fcami
(d)
What to do with SIG and SIG wiki page?
2. Work programme for the coming year
======================================
According to the discussions so far, I propose:
- Fedora Server maintenance (permanent task)
- Build up new documentation („Server Box“ on docs.fedoraproject.org)
- Explore opportunities for cooperation with Cloud (e.g propagate Cloud images for VMs on Server )
3. PRD Update
=============
Step by step through the first draft:
LibreOffice side by side old - new:
https://pboy.fedorapeople.org/FedoraServerPRD-UpdateProposal-V1-0.odt
Alternative:
https://hackmd.io/@x3mboy/HyB92cVl_
Peter
3 years, 2 months
Resigning from Server WG
by Stephen Gallagher
As much as I would like to continue, it has become clear that I just
don't have the cycles needed to directly contribute to the Fedora
Server at this time. I hereby resign from the Server WG.
That said, I *will* still try to contribute where time allows, but I
don't want anything waiting on me.
3 years, 2 months
Interim quick fix of our Wiki page
by Peter Boy
As briefly mentioned at the last IRC meeting, our wiki page is in a pretty embarrassing state.
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Server
Anyone who wants to get to know more about Fedora Server is likely to be put off. With a few changes, at least the worst can be fixed.
I propose the following changes, which we hopefully might be able to agree on in a short time at the upcoming IRC meeting.
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - <
(1)
„more background on this available here“
Replaced by
The founding initiative can be referred here
SECTION policies
(2)
The Server working group meets on a weekly basis in #fedora-meeting-1.
Replaced by
The Server working group meets on a bi-weekly basis in #fedora-meeting.
(3)
The regularly scheduled meeting time is 4 PM ET on Wednesdays.
Replaced boy
The regularly scheduled meeting time is 18:00 UTC on first and third Wednesdays.
SECTION Assets
(4)
Remove out of date notice
(Will be replaced by remarks at the individuell items)
SECTION Approved documents
(5)
Product Requirements Document - Approved by WG 17 January 2014 Approved by FESCo 22 January 201
Append: Currently under revision (may in red)
(6)
Goals for Server Role Installation - Approved 19 Nov 2013
MOVE to Archive, provisionally without replacement
(7)
Short-Term Goals and Long-Term Goals for Fedora Server
Polish Ideas (small ideas that would add a nice level of polish to the server product.
Both MOVE to archive provisionally without replacement
SECTION Research
(8)
SECTION title
Persona Interviews - Interviews for Persona refinement
Both MOVE to archive provisionally without replacement
SECTION Proposals
(9)
Server Lifecycle Proposal
Updates and Testing Proposal
Both either MOVE to archive provisionally without replacement
Or append Currently under revision
(10)
Server Roles Proposal
MOVE to archive provisionally without replacement
SECTION Meeting Minutes
(11)
MOVE completely to "Older meeting minutes"
FILL in the meetings since Dec. 2020
> - - - - - - - - - - - <
It's not a lot of work, but at least it fixes the roughest deficiencies.
I can make the changes, provided my FAS credentials allow it. But I don't want to stop anyone else from doing it either.
Peter
3 years, 2 months
Info about IRC meeting 2021-02-03 and work to be done
by Peter Boy
For all of us lazy people, I'll briefly summarise the most important topics of the IRC discussions right here.
For greater details see meetbot
summary: https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2021-02-03/fedora-server...
log: https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2021-02-03/fedora-server...
* TOPIC: house keeping *
NAMING
There is some inconsistency with the naming. The last 3 IRC meetings run under 3 different names, which makes it difficult to find them. There are also different group names circulating. In the midterm, the various differentiations are neither helpful nor necessary, and should be consolidated into one consistent naming.
Agreed: For the time being, the upcomming meetings will be organised consistently under fedora-server.
WORKING GROUP MEMBERSHIP
For the upcoming decisions, the formal and adequate procedures must be settled. This includes, above all, membership of the Working Group. It is important to have a certain commitment to participation (see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Server/Governance_Charter).
* TOPIC: Server wiki page update *
The most important adjustments (see https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/server@lists.fedoraproject....) were discussed and decided to implement the changes.
Agreed: Pboy is to carry out the updates.
* TOPIC: Cooperations *
There are a number of factual and also personal shared commonalities of server and cloud group (virtualized server / cloud base images, virtualized services, vagrant, OpenStack, documentation enhancement, etc). And both are currently working on reshaping the workflow and procedures.
Agreed: Discussions should be initiated to see if a cooperation could open up advantages.
Next meeting: Wednesday 2021-02-17 18:00 !UTC!
chair pboy
3 years, 2 months
possibly of interest... making sure our certbot rpms are a
first-class experience
by Matthew Miller
See https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2570 -- in short, Let's Encrypt is
recommending installing certbot via snap. While it's good that snap works on
Fedora systems, it's not the best experience.
The CertBot website https://certbot.eff.org/docs/install.html#operating-system-packages
has this kind of nasty warning:
"While the Certbot team tries to keep the Certbot packages offered by
various operating systems working in the most basic sense, due to
distribution policies and/or the limited resources of distribution
maintainers, Certbot OS packages often have problems that other
distribution mechanisms do not. The packages are often old resulting in
a lack of bug fixes and features and a worse TLS configuration than is
generated by newer versions of Certbot. They also may not configure
certificate renewal for you or have all of Certbot’s plugins available.
For reasons like these, we recommend most users follow the instructions
at https://certbot.eff.org/instructions and OS packages are only
documented here as an alternative."
I'd like to see three things here:
1. Ensure that the scary things that they suggest are never true on Fedora
systems. I think this *should* be the case because of Fedora is generally
on the leading edge in crypto policies and keeps packages up to date
rather than stagnating.
2. Convince EFF/Certbot to not FUD our packages and instead recommend them.
Maybe harder, because there's not the appeal of "one size fits all"
3. Promote slick, out-of-the-box certbot as a Fedora Server feature. And do
whatever it takes to make it really easy. Because that's actually really
valuable.
Is this of interest to anyone?
--
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>
Fedora Project Leader
3 years, 2 months
