topics for monday's IRC meeting

[Haïkel]

2014-06-19 17:00 GMT+02:00 Matthew Miller <mattdm at fedoraproject.org>:
> We have a number of open tickets in the board private issue tracker. 27, in
> fact. I'd like to start closing these or moving them to the public tracker.
> Some of these are actually resolved, in some cases in a way that's clear
> from looking at the ticket, and others a little more ambiguously. I'd like
> to go through some of the ones that are either urgent or easy (or both).
>
> Most of the easy ones I'm going to move to the public tracker, and most of
> them just need someone to take ownership -- I'll not list these individually
> here, but maybe we could go through them quickly in the meeting (unless we
> can cross them off before then!)
>
> I think one of the most urgent (although not easy) is the request for a
> Fedora Plasma product. There was an answer from the board, but I don't think
> that the KDE team quite felt that it was clear. We should be clear. I also
> don't want to hash this out in the meeting (since that's not a great use of
> eeryone's time). In the ticket, Josh wrote what seems to be a consensus
> proposal on Fedora products in general:
>
>> We stalled on this. The summary of where we left off seems to be a common
>> criteria of:
>>
>> * Addresses a new, relevant, and broad usecase or userbase that Fedora is
>>   not currently serving
>>
>> * The usecase should be something the Board sees as being a long term
>>   investment
>>
>> * The Product should be coherent with all of Fedora's foundations
>>
>> being used for new Product creation. Does that seem accurate?
>
> I'd like to see a simple +1/-1 vote on this (either in the existing private
> ticket or in the meeting). And then, if that passes, a similar vote on the
> KDE proposal.
>

As I wasn't around when this ticket was dicussed, here's my opinion:
Any new product proposals should be approved by both Fesco and Board,
and I agree that all the points mentionned by Josh falls under our
juridiction.
I'd add another point is about the sustainability of the product,
personnally I'm not worried about the KDE SIG which has been strong
but I fear  one-manned products popping-up, we might need to have a
probation period when there's uncertainty.

> If that isn't the actual consensus, or if there are counter-proposals, I'd
> really like to have those prepared beforehand (or, worst case, deferred to
> the next meeting to vote on). That way we can talk and think about them
> outside of the meeting -- IRC meetings can be a frustratingly difficult
> medium for coming to agreement.
>
> I'd also like a vote on the proposed guidelines for press releases. (I'll
> move that one to a public ticket shortly.)
>

I'm fine with mjg59 proposal

> Are there other issues/requests we should cover collectively in the meeting?
>

I'm worried about the FPC sorry state and the SCL stuck process but
unless someone involved (fesco, FPC, SCL) opens up a ticket, we can't
do much.
SCL unclear status might hinder up to 3 working groups
(stacks-and-env, cloud and maybe server)

> As always, I think we have a lot more to do and talk about as well, but I
> think most of that is list discussion at this point, not meeting items.
>
> Also, we had the idea of scheduling guest reports at meetings in the future.
> I think this is great -- but also didn't organize that in reasonable time
> for this time around. :) Maybe we should plan on that for the *next* IRC
> meeting on July 7th? Suggestions for where to start? FAmSCo, maybe?
>

+1 for july, 7th
I'd rather start by fedora.next and try to identify asap weak links,
having representatives from all groups concerned.
F21 is a critical release and I'd like to have a clear overview of
what's going on so we could act in order to make it work.

best regards,
H.

>
> --
> Matthew Miller
> <mattdm at fedoraproject.org>
> Fedora Project Leader
> _______________________________________________
> board-discuss mailing list
> board-discuss at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/board-discuss