Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2012-11-21)

Wed Nov 21 18:28:50 UTC 2012

===================================
#fedora-meeting: FESCO (2012-11-21)
===================================

Meeting started by nirik at 18:00:01 UTC. The full logs are available at
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2012-11-21/fesco.2012-11-21-18.00.log.html
.

Meeting summary
---------------
* init process  (nirik, 18:00:01)

* #973 "raising warning flag on firewalld-default feature"  (nirik,
  18:03:05)
  * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/973   (nirik, 18:03:05)
  * AGREED: things look under control, no action at this time.  (nirik,
    18:08:22)

* Next week's chair  (nirik, 18:09:02)
  * ACTION: mitr to chair next week  (nirik, 18:09:42)

* Open Floor  (nirik, 18:09:46)
  * drago01 to file ticket, gather qa/releng feedback and decide next
    meeting.  (nirik, 18:26:05)

Meeting ended at 18:28:08 UTC.

Action Items
------------
* mitr to chair next week

Action Items, by person
-----------------------
* mitr
  * mitr to chair next week
* **UNASSIGNED**
  * (none)

People Present (lines said)
---------------------------
* nirik (47)
* drago01 (16)
* pjones (14)
* limburgher (12)
* mattdm (8)
* mitr (5)
* zodbot (5)
* notting (4)
* twoerner (3)
* mmaslano (2)
* mjg59 (1)
* netSys_phone (1)
* JSchmitt (1)
* t8m (0)
* jwb (0)
--
18:00:01 <nirik> #startmeeting FESCO (2012-11-21)
18:00:01 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Nov 21 18:00:01 2012 UTC.  The chair is nirik. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
18:00:01 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
18:00:01 <nirik> #meetingname fesco
18:00:01 <nirik> #chair notting nirik mjg59 mmaslano t8m pjones mitr limburgher jwb
18:00:01 <nirik> #topic init process
18:00:01 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fesco'
18:00:01 <zodbot> Current chairs: jwb limburgher mitr mjg59 mmaslano nirik notting pjones t8m
18:00:12 <pjones> hello.
18:00:13 <mitr> Hello
18:00:14 * limburgher here
18:00:17 <mmaslano> hi
18:00:23 <twoerner> hi
18:01:30 * notting is here
18:02:54 <nirik> ok, lets go ahead and start in... hopefully a short meeting. ;)
18:03:05 <nirik> #topic #973 "raising warning flag on firewalld-default feature"
18:03:05 <nirik> .fesco 973
18:03:05 <nirik> https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/973
18:03:07 <zodbot> nirik: #973 ("raising warning flag on firewalld-default feature") – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/973
18:03:29 <nirik> so, it sounds like a lot of this is in progress and under control?
18:03:40 <mattdm> I think that's the case, yes.
18:03:51 <mitr> that's great.
18:04:13 <pjones> so we don't need to take any action then, I guess.
18:04:20 <limburgher> Looks from my reading like in this case the process is working.
18:04:52 <mattdm> there is a test day in early dec and i think we need to make extra sure we have a lot of coverage
18:05:01 <twoerner> I agree
18:05:21 <nirik> proposal: things look under control, no action at this time.
18:05:38 <mitr> +1
18:05:53 <mmaslano> +1
18:05:56 <limburgher> +1
18:05:57 * nirik would like to thank mattdm / twoerner / Sparks for working on all this and making it better for f18. :)
18:05:59 <notting> +1
18:06:13 <limburgher> seconded
18:06:15 <JSchmitt> B
18:06:19 <mattdm> :)
18:07:11 <limburgher> Here's hoping for a thorough, well attended, and majorly boring test day.
18:07:20 <mattdm> twoerner was definitely responsive to my concerns.
18:07:30 <notting> limburgher: we'll m ake sure to firewall off the bug reports
18:07:31 <pjones> +1
18:08:08 <limburgher> notting: :)
18:08:17 <twoerner> notting: lol
18:08:22 <nirik> #agreed things look under control, no action at this time.
18:08:28 <nirik> anything else on this?
18:08:58 <mattdm> I'm good
18:09:02 <nirik> #topic Next week's chair
18:09:06 <nirik> anyone want it?
18:09:32 <mitr> I can do that
18:09:42 <nirik> #action mitr to chair next week
18:09:43 <nirik> thanks!
18:09:46 <nirik> #topic Open Floor
18:09:49 <nirik> anything for open floor?
18:09:54 <limburgher> not from me.
18:10:13 <drago01> not sure about it but
18:10:32 <drago01> can we get rid of the "releases must be on tuesday" policy ?
18:10:39 <drago01> it just makes us less flexible
18:10:54 <drago01> (if there is such policy and not just an unwritten rule)
18:11:06 <notting> they generally *must* be on t/w/th. and i think tuesday was just done for consistency
18:11:13 <nirik> well, traditionally, tuesdays are a good news day to release things you want the media to care about.
18:11:29 <limburgher> That's when I drop my new albums.
18:11:33 <limburgher> Books, too.
18:11:36 <nirik> see!
18:11:48 <drago01> notting: t/w/th is good enough ... ie more room ... a single day is too strict imo
18:12:27 <nirik> I'm fine with some wiggle room there, but it does make it more confusing and I would want the same amount of time for onramp...
18:12:50 <nirik> for example, if we released thursday, we should still have at least 4 days to mirror.
18:13:15 <pjones> notting: It's starting to seem like consistency isn't really as valuable as we thought at the time...
18:13:32 <limburgher> Hobgoblins, and all that.
18:13:45 <limburgher> But only if it's needless.
18:14:36 <nirik> well, it makes it more confusing for everyone... "when is release? tuesday" is easiler than "5 days after a go meeting, which could be any day that allows for a tuesday/wed/thursday release day"
18:14:55 <nirik> but anyhow, does this need to be decided now? do we want to change the release day?
18:15:25 <drago01> nirik: it come up in the recent thread about the go/nogo meeting time
18:15:33 <drago01> hence why I brough it up
18:15:46 <nirik> yeah, in this case though, I think it's a sidetrack...
18:16:15 <nirik> if the problem is that go/nogo is on a holiday, moving it to monday still wouldn't leave enough time to release thursday next week, IMHO.
18:16:21 <nirik> or only barely.
18:16:44 <drago01> nirik: my proposal was move the go/no go and the relase by one day rather then a week
18:16:57 <mitr> drago01: IOW, having the meeting daily?
18:16:57 <pjones> which still isn't great.
18:17:05 <drago01> and got as a response "no we can't the policy says we can only release on tuesday"
18:17:06 <pjones> mitr: no, have the meeting friday
18:17:14 <drago01> which just does not make sense
18:17:53 <nirik> well, our policy has been "slips result in a 1 week slip"
18:17:59 <drago01> pjones: yeah got that from the folllwing mail ... but the fact that we are that inflexible might still be worth fixing
18:18:03 <mjg59> Oh crap sorry today
18:18:12 <drago01> *mails
18:18:54 <drago01> nirik: yes but does this has to be the case? "we have always done it" is not really a good reason
18:18:57 <nirik> anyhow, I guess I'm not against smaller slips in principal... but having a go/gogo every day would be very wearying.
18:19:13 <nirik> drago01: I'm just saying what the policy has been, not that we can't change it.
18:19:21 <mattdm> comment from the peanut gallery: I think not having too much granularity by default is a feature. A week slip isn't much bigger than a day in the grand scheme of things.
18:19:40 <drago01> mattdm: when you have 10 slips it is
18:19:59 <mattdm> Nah, when you have 10 slips it's *even more* lost in the noise.
18:20:07 <nirik> this cycle has been atypical on that front. ;)
18:20:35 <mattdm> And if there *were* daily slips, that might have made it be 70 instead of 10 -- how does *that* benefit anyone?
18:20:49 <netSys_phone> good afternoon
18:21:05 <pjones> mattdm: true, but that's not really what drag01 is talking about
18:22:01 <nirik> so, whats the proposal here? just allow releases on tue/wed/thu? but then that means what for go/nogo? always on thursdays, if nogo, friday, if nogo monday, if nogo thursday... ?
18:22:03 <limburgher> In any case, that's a topic for another time, possibly combined with schedule/feature process discussions.
18:22:07 <pjones> if we made the policy say "release must be t/w/th with a preference for t" instead of "must be t" it would a) better express our actual constraints, and b) save us from the general case where thursday is a holiday being a major problem.
18:22:48 <pjones> proposal: change our release policy such that releases must be on Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday, but always pick Tuesday by default unless there's a specific reason not to.
18:22:50 <nirik> how does it save us from that? would mean we push release to thursday and go/nogo to monday?
18:23:07 <pjones> nirik: it would mean we can push the go no/go to friday
18:23:12 <nirik> pjones: sure, I'm fine with that. (but I would also like to hear from qa/releng about it)
18:23:19 <nirik> pjones: friday is also a holiday.
18:23:23 <pjones> which on thanksgiving isn't that useful, but there are smaller holidays on thursdays in some places.
18:23:36 <nirik> sure.
18:23:53 <nirik> on a normal year we would also have already released by now, so it would be moot.
18:24:18 <pjones> yeah - again looking at the generic case not this particular quagmire
18:25:01 <nirik> anyhow, I am +1 to your proposal, but would like qa/releng input in case they have some nasty stopper...
18:25:02 <drago01> pjones: yeah that makes sense
18:25:28 <pjones> fair enough: drag01 can you file a ticket on this so we can reasonably get qa/releng input and revisit?
18:25:42 <pjones> drago01, that is.
18:25:50 <drago01> pjones: sure
18:26:05 <nirik> #info drago01 to file ticket, gather qa/releng feedback and decide next meeting.
18:26:08 <nirik> thanks drago01
18:26:23 <nirik> oh, and marketing...
18:26:28 <nirik> Any other open floor items?
18:27:17 * nirik listens to the chirping...
18:27:24 <nirik> will close in a minute if nothing else.
18:28:04 <nirik> Thanks for coming everyone!
18:28:08 <nirik> #endmeeting
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20121121/0ac2fe9b/attachment.sig>