Fedora Board recap 2009-01-21

[Colin Walters]

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Meeting:Board_meeting_2010-01-21

== Roll Call ==
* Present: Matt Domsch, Paul Frields, John Poelstra, Colin Walters,
Dennis Gilmore, Mike McGrath, Chris Tyler (late)
* Regrets: Josh Boyer, Tom "Spot" Callaway, Chris Aillon
* Assigned meeting secretary: Colin Walters

== Agenda ==

=== virtio-win drivers ===
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/advisory-board/2010-January/007853.html
* We have implicitly allowed pre-built binaries in Fedora Hosted that
promote the spread and use of Fedora (liveusb-creator)
* Should provide explicit guidance for the future, and possibly note
in our packaging guidelines
* QUESTION: Does the Board approve the following approach?
** If a code project is available under a Free Software license, you
can make pre-built binaries available on fedorahosted.org as long as
the source code used to build those binaries is also made available
and that the source code and the prebuilt binaries are not distributed
in the same tarball (or, at a minimum, that a "source only" tarball is
available).
** mdomsch: Want to encourage this kind of thing (good experience in
Fedora); particularly use of Fedora as virt platform, and FOSS on
other platforms
** pfrields: Without drivers, virt has much less value.  The board has
made it a point not to restrict choice.
** walters: Provide the best value to people we can through the
constraints we have (FOSS)
** dgilmore: We should focus on Fedora as the distribution (rpms);
things not actually runnable in Fedora should be hosted from a
provider; in this case linux-kvm.org would be a better host.
** mdomsch: this particular virtio-win driver is currently a 1-person
team; it's problematic to host just on Red Hat internal ET server (for
technical/contribution reasons).  Using fedorahosted.org lets
additional people on the Fedora virtualization team participate in the
development and publish builds.
** poelstra: would there be any merit to including in main repos if we
can establish that they were built by a trusted source?
*** pfrields and others: gets too messy in terms of defining "trust,"
as Adam Jackson pointed out on f-a-b
** mmcgrath: Concerns about fedorahosted not being a distribution site
(like alt, or /pub/fedora)  (mdomsch: virt-manager will know how to
download.)
** pfrields: Proposed modification of spot's proposal; suggest hosting on alt
** mdomsch: Board is not in role of defining infrastructure, Infra
team will decide hosting based on details like expected traffic
** dgilmore: Uneasy about fedorahosted.org, not right (long term?)
answer, but it's acceptable.  Concerns about Fedora branding.
** pfrields: Cross platform tools are likely to increase on
fedorahosted.org, growing Fedora brand through hosting is a good thing
* Rough consenus reached
* AGREED:
** Spot's statement above is correct
*** Fedora Hosted is acceptable for this type of material
** Infrastructure will find the correct, preferred place for hosting
in specific cases.

=== Status update from SWG (Strategic Working Group) ===
* Met at first meeting on Monday
* Created wiki page of issues and posted to advisory-board
* No community response so far
* Would appreciate full board review of the outstanding issues and
adjustments to wiki as applicable
** https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Unfinished_Board_issues

* poelstra: Surprised at no community response.
* pfrields: Look over issues list, separate into pieces.   The
community response is likely quiet until there are details to discuss.
* walters: Thought it might be a question of impact; how will this
affect people.
* ctyler: Will expect feedback later, might be too soon.

=== Other items ===
* Brief discussion of issue/ticket queue, basically up2date

== Next meeting ==
* PROPOSED: Thursday, January 28, 2010 UTC 1700 (12:00pm US Eastern)