changes list for fesco (Cloud WG members -- action needed!)

Matthew Miller mattdm at
Mon Mar 3 13:44:02 UTC 2014

On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 08:05:19AM +0900, Sandro red Mathys wrote:
> > 1. Many of the changes and dependencies are missing owners. It would be
> So, what does being an owner constitute? Pulling strings or doing all
> the hard work? I'd be interested in doing one or two, but e.g. the
> Docker host image still needs SELinux changes, AFAIK and while I could
> write some policy that would work I'm sure someone else could write
> one that would work and was as secure as possible... ;)

Good question. :) It means being responsible for making sure that thing
happens in whatever way necessary. The ideal, easy case is where one cloud
SIG member can in fact do most of the work. (Or two or three members.) But a
lot of these are going to be about coordinating, bribing, and cajoling other
people into doing the heavy listing -- or figuring out alternatives when
that isn't working. For the things which impact overloaded groups like
release engineering and QA, that might include stirring up more volunteers
(from this SIG or from the broader world).

> > 2. Please make sure that we aren't missing anything crucial. Discuss here
> >    if it looks like something is missing.
> Looks good to me but with such a big thing as, it's hard
> to tell whether something was missed until we notice it the hard way.
> Maybe, since the F21 cycle is longer anyway, we should request that
> the involved WGs are allowed to propose changes after the normal
> change deadline if it must.

We discussed this in the FESCo meeting. Anyone _can_ propose changes after
the deadline -- it just becomes naturally harder and harder to to actually
accept them.

> > 3. There's some room to discuss the priorities, although I do think we
> >    have it about right.
> Wondering a bit about one tailored image (Docker) being set to
> 'moderate' and all the others to 'nice-to-have' but figure that's
> because we don't like losing even more to CoreOS than we already have

Yes, that. :)

> (not sure whether having a Docker Host image is enough for that,
> though...the guys at CoreOS are seriously doing great work).

Emphatically yes. We need to get the host image into awesome shape so we can
start building the needed next level too.

> > 4. Do feel free to make any minor cleanup or enhancements. Even spelling
> Nothing to complain this time ;) Except some changes don't have the
> "Cloud SIG owner. ???????" line which is easily added - or is that by
> intent?

Originally, I had only put the owner line in the "external needs" blocks,
with the idea being that we weren't just throwing demands over the wall and
hoping someone else would make them happen. But it really wouldn't hurt to
have them for everything, even if there are still a lot of TBDs.

Matthew Miller    --   Fedora Project    --    <mattdm at>

More information about the cloud mailing list