Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2013-10-23)

Kevin Fenzi kevin at
Wed Oct 23 19:41:30 UTC 2013

#fedora-meeting: FESCO (2013-10-23)

Meeting started by nirik at 18:00:04 UTC. The full logs are available at

Meeting summary
* init process  (nirik, 18:00:04)

* ticket #1164 F20 Changes - Process on Changes Freeze  (nirik,
  * AGREED: moving ryu to f21, wait on vagrant and lvm thin
    provisioning. (+8,0,0)  (nirik, 18:05:32)

* ticket #1181 Fedora still vulnerable to BEAST  (nirik, 18:05:42)
  * AGREED: close ticket now that nss is rebuilt. Follow up with other
    related items on list.  (nirik, 18:10:17)

* ticket #1182 F21/F22 System Wide Change: Python 3 as the Default
  Implementation -  (nirik,
  * AGREED: Feature is approved, provided that the contingency plan is
    updated with permitting a mixed environment of py2/py3 (+6,-1,0)
    (nirik, 18:30:22)
  * FESCo strongly advises prioritizing this work on those packages that
    appear in the minimal and cloud images first  (sgallagh, 18:30:33)

* ticket #1183 Don't enable prelink by default in Fedora  (nirik,
  * AGREED: remove prelink from core and standard groups (+8,0,0)
    (nirik, 18:34:20)

* ticket #1170 Working Group call for Volunteers  (nirik, 18:34:39)
  * AGREED: pknirsch will coordinate base design working group for
    fesco. (+7,0,0)  (nirik, 18:47:16)
  * AGREED: working groups can decide if they want new lists when they
    meet (+7,0,0)  (nirik, 19:15:35)
  * AGREED: working groups should have a governance document/charter by
    nov 15th approved by fesco (+7,0,0)  (nirik, 19:22:49)

* Next week's chair  (nirik, 19:27:01)
  * notting to chair next week  (nirik, 19:28:40)

* Open Floor  (nirik, 19:28:44)
  * LINK:   (nirik, 19:33:19)
  * LINK:   (nirik,
  * LINK:   (nirik, 19:35:34)

Meeting ended at 19:40:29 UTC.

Action Items

Action Items, by person
  * (none)

People Present (lines said)
* nirik (139)
* sgallagh (97)
* mattdm (59)
* jwb (35)
* mitr (34)
* notting (28)
* pjones (24)
* pknirsch (21)
* adamw (17)
* mmaslano (17)
* jreznik (16)
* t8m (11)
* Viking-Ice (9)
* zodbot (9)
* drago01_ (8)
* samkottler (2)
* kalev (1)
* abadger1999 (0)
18:00:04 <nirik> #startmeeting FESCO (2013-10-23)
18:00:04 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Oct 23 18:00:04 2013 UTC.  The chair is nirik. Information about MeetBot at
18:00:04 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
18:00:04 <nirik> #meetingname fesco
18:00:04 <nirik> #chair abadger1999 mattdm mitr mmaslano notting nirik pjones t8m sgallagh
18:00:04 <nirik> #topic init process
18:00:04 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fesco'
18:00:04 <zodbot> Current chairs: abadger1999 mattdm mitr mmaslano nirik notting pjones sgallagh t8m
18:00:20 <nirik> who all is here today for exciting and fun fesco meeting?
18:00:25 <mmaslano> hi
18:00:29 <mattdm> oooh! I am!
18:00:30 <sgallagh> Greetings
18:00:36 <mitr> Hello
18:00:42 <t8m> hi all
18:00:51 <nirik> abadger1999 is off at ansiblefest today, so he likely won't be around.
18:01:07 <pjones> hello.
18:02:31 <notting> i'm here as long as the conference wifi holds up
18:02:37 <nirik> cool.
18:02:44 <notting> (and as long as we don't go too ridiculously long)
18:02:46 <nirik> #topic ticket #1164 F20 Changes - Process on Changes Freeze
18:02:46 <nirik> .fesco 1164
18:02:47 <zodbot> nirik: #1164 (F20 Changes - Progress on Changes Freeze) – FESCo -
18:03:02 <nirik> I'm +1 to jreznik's suggestion in the last comment.
18:03:32 <mitr> +1
18:03:39 <mattdm> Proposal:
18:03:41 <mattdm> mark Ryu Network Operating System as incomplete, postpone to F21
18:03:42 <t8m> +1 from me as well
18:03:43 <mattdm> Vagrant as Self Contained Change, not on any official media - wait for completion by Final Change Deadline, only for marketing purposes
18:03:45 <pjones> I'm +1 to that
18:03:45 <mattdm> same for OS Installer Support for LVM Thin Provisioning - Change is completed, missing user friendliness bits (profiles, LVM team is aware of it)
18:03:47 <sgallagh> nirik: +1, but it doesn't talk about what to do with the LVM change
18:04:00 * sgallagh misread
18:04:03 <mattdm> +1
18:04:16 <sgallagh> I missed the "same for" piece. Pay me no mind.
18:04:24 <mmaslano> +1
18:05:26 <notting> action plan seems reasonable - +1
18:05:32 <nirik> #agreed moving ryu to f21, wait on vagrant and lvm thin provisioning. (+8,0,0)
18:05:42 <nirik> #topic ticket #1181 Fedora still vulnerable to BEAST
18:05:42 <nirik> .fesco 1181
18:05:43 <zodbot> nirik: #1181 (Fedora still vulnerable to BEAST) – FESCo -
18:05:47 <nirik> anything we still need to do here?
18:06:55 * jreznik is here, sorry, blocked on blocker review
18:07:25 <notting> i thought there was some discussion in the bugs of  additional patching required, but i don't think it was anything that required more fesco attention
18:07:35 <pjones> nirik: I don't think so?  we voted last week...
18:07:44 <jreznik> sgallagh: for lvm profiles, for dlehman it's considered done from his side, he told me to ask lvm guys what they think about it
18:07:50 <nirik> yeah, the thread petered out on the devel list, but it sounded like there might be dependent packages that need rebuilding?
18:08:12 <nirik> ok, I'll remove the meeting keyword then and we leave it for final tracking? or just close it?
18:08:26 <mitr> NSS has been switched in f20 (... but not in rawhide?)
18:08:34 <notting> i think we can close it if NSS itself is built
18:08:44 <mitr> The mailing list thread ended up addressing most issues I think
18:08:46 <mitr> => let's close it
18:08:54 <nirik> ok.
18:08:59 <sgallagh> Why isn't it built in Rawhide?
18:09:01 <nirik> why not rawhide? that seems strange.
18:09:04 <sgallagh> That seems to be missing the point
18:09:22 <mitr> I'll ask Elio separately
18:09:30 <pjones> I suspect it's just been overlooked because we're so close to the beta deadline
18:09:40 <pjones> but yeah, asking him can't hurt.
18:09:47 <nirik> yeah, please do.
18:10:06 <mitr> ... never mind, it's already been out in rawhide, so we are fine
18:10:17 <nirik> #agreed close ticket now that nss is rebuilt. Follow up with other related items on list.
18:10:18 <mitr> ("out" == "the offending patch hasn't been applied")
18:10:24 <nirik> cool
18:10:29 <nirik> #topic ticket #1182 F21/F22 System Wide Change: Python 3 as the Default Implementation -
18:10:29 <nirik> .fesco 1182
18:10:30 <zodbot> nirik: #1182 (F21/F22 System Wide Change: Python 3 as the Default Implementation - – FESCo -
18:11:59 <sgallagh> We were waiting on an update to the Change page. I haven't seen one
18:12:20 <nirik> There was some more discussion on list.
18:12:55 <mattdm> Do we want to defer until abadger1999 is back? Is there urgency?
18:13:11 <nirik> yeah, so punt another week and ask them to update contingency planning?
18:13:11 <notting> seems reasonable, i can't imagine there is urgency yet
18:13:11 <pjones> I would be for waiting for him, since he's the closest to this.
18:13:23 <sgallagh> mattdm: Well, we want to give people an idea whether this is likely to pass FESCo
18:13:33 <nirik> proposal: defer a week for more discussion/updating of feature page?
18:13:40 <sgallagh> Although I suppose the previous email "FESCo is inclined to approve" is probably sufficient on that.
18:13:48 <mmaslano> it would be nice to give those who propose the feature at least seems good to us
18:13:58 <sgallagh> I.e. if people want to start this effort, they should feel welcome to go ahead
18:14:05 <mattdm> I am generally in favor.
18:14:11 <mitr> The outstanding issues were 1) contingency plan, and 2) dnf bindings
18:14:13 <mattdm> And I trust people to work out the details.
18:14:27 <mattdm> Like, for example, those details. :)
18:14:30 <mitr> 2) has been resolved, and 1) AFAICS amounts to "we know we can have one, not sure whether we need to"
18:14:45 <jwb> apologies for interrupting, but can someone ping me when we get to the WG stuff?
18:15:00 <nirik> I'm generally in favor... but would like to see a better contingency plan...
18:15:03 <nirik> jwb: can do
18:15:08 <jwb> thx
18:15:47 <mitr> proposal: Change is approved, to be revisited when planning F21
18:16:30 <t8m> mitr, I think we can wait for the contingency plan proposal or at least some reasoning why we do not need one
18:17:10 <mitr> t8m: it's the other way around - the proposed contingency plan is a side tag; we have dgilmore arguing that that we don't need one
18:17:13 <nirik> yeah, I'd like to see a little better/more planning on contingency before approving
18:17:19 <sgallagh> Proposal: Change is approved, conditional upon the contingency plan as we specified previously
18:17:21 <mmaslano> well, it was proposed using different branch and not merging, but that wasn't approved by relengs
18:17:24 <nirik> I think a side tag is not a good contingency.
18:17:33 <mmaslano> nirik: what else should be done?
18:17:55 <nirik> ship both py2/py3 until the rest of items that were py2 that were not done are fixed?
18:18:02 <notting> i think we need a side tag to *stage*. is the contingency a side tag to build the un-do and then merge that?
18:18:19 <sgallagh> notting: Why do we need a side tag at all?
18:18:25 <nirik> notting: they wanted to build in a side tag, merge, then if it failed unmerge.
18:18:29 <notting> we're going to need py2 and py3 around for at least as long as we've had py2 and p3 so far, i think. depends on how the stacks are packaged
18:18:38 <sgallagh> If the contingency is to ship mixed, then can't we just build in the regular build system?
18:18:41 <notting> sgallagh: to build a stack switch from yum/dnf deps up to anaconda
18:18:46 <sgallagh> Then things can land as they arrive
18:18:53 <mitr> yum/dnf, anaconda, python-kickstart and the like need to land in Python3 version approximately at the same time
18:18:54 <sgallagh> hmm
18:19:08 <sgallagh> Ok, that makes sense.
18:20:20 <nirik> side tags should be short lived not kept around for multiple releases.
18:20:23 <nirik> they just don't work that way
18:21:13 <nirik> anyhow, I'm ok with punting to next week, approving conditionally on a better contingency plan either one.
18:22:11 <mitr> nirik: The proposal is to have a side tag only during the lifetime of f22
18:22:20 <mmaslano> +1
18:22:22 <sgallagh> Proposal: Feature is approved, provided that the contingency plan is updated with permitting a mixed environment of py2/py3
18:22:35 <nirik> mitr: but I don't see how that helps.
18:22:55 <nirik> sgallagh: sure, +1
18:23:00 <t8m> sgallagh, +1
18:23:06 <mitr> sgallagh: that sounds like asking them to ship parallel versions of the yum/anaconda stack
18:23:34 <sgallagh> mitr: Perhaps I was unclear with my phrasing.
18:23:35 <pjones> mitr: well, at least yum bindings?
18:23:35 <nirik> mitr: they said on list that anaconda should be able to keep py2/3 bindings for a few releases?
18:24:01 <sgallagh> That shouldn't imply that any of the components should be duplicated (except maybe bindings).
18:24:11 <mmaslano> sgallagh: +1
18:24:13 <pjones> if we can still use python2 bindings for a couple of releases, that's going to be good enough for anaconda.
18:24:21 <sgallagh> Just that we accept that we might have to have both py2 and py3 in the minimal image for a release
18:24:27 <nirik> right.
18:24:52 <nirik> sgallagh: +1
18:25:03 <mitr> works for me
18:25:05 <mitr> +1
18:25:09 <nirik> so, thats +5 I guess so far
18:25:13 <nirik> any other votes?
18:25:29 <sgallagh> +1 to my own proposal, for the record
18:25:35 <mattdm> I don't want to have both in the minimal image
18:25:43 <kalev> I would like to note that we've had both py2 and py3 on the Desktop image since F19.
18:25:52 <sgallagh> mattdm: Your case might be special.
18:26:09 <nirik> well, this is a contengency plan... not the desired outcome
18:26:12 <mattdm> sgallagh yes but I happen to care about it a lot
18:26:23 <sgallagh> Sorry, again being unclear.
18:26:37 <sgallagh> I mean, your image may be able to avoid this in any case, since you'll probably strip extra stuff out
18:26:46 <sgallagh> Your images don't use anaconda, do they?
18:27:23 <sgallagh> In any case, as nirik said, this is a contingency, not the plan
18:27:27 <mattdm> they use images generated by either anaconda or appliance-creator
18:28:16 <mattdm> yeah, I don't like that as a contingency -- it seems more like failure than a fallback
18:28:19 <nirik> ok, this passes, unless anyone wants to change votes?
18:28:40 <mattdm> i guess i'll officially vote -1
18:28:40 <sgallagh> mattdm: Then let's do our part to ensure that we don't hit this case.
18:28:43 <nirik> the other alternative is: revert work done back to py2
18:28:58 <mattdm> that sucks too but less for the cloud image
18:29:05 <sgallagh> Or force all work in this direction to guarantee compatibility with both
18:29:10 <sgallagh> But I doubt we have that much control
18:29:33 <pjones> sgallagh: I can be +1 as well, since anaconda is covered.
18:30:01 <mitr> There are very few python users in the minimal image IIRC anyway
18:30:06 <mattdm> anyway, outvoted, moving on. :)
18:30:22 <nirik> #agreed Feature is approved, provided that the contingency plan is updated with permitting a mixed environment of py2/py3 (+6,-1,0)
18:30:33 <sgallagh> #info FESCo strongly advises prioritizing this work on those packages that appear in the minimal and cloud images first
18:30:58 <nirik> should we do the prelink ticket before working groups? or does anyone care which? prelink might be quick (I hope)
18:31:13 * sgallagh remains in the "nuke it from orbit" group
18:31:15 <pjones> I already voted on prelink in the ticket and I've only got 15 more minutes.
18:31:34 <pjones> But I suspect it'll also be super fast, and I don't have any serious objects to the proposed WG members in the ticket.
18:31:36 <nirik> lets get it out of the way...
18:31:40 <nirik> #topic ticket #1183 Don't enable prelink by default in Fedora
18:31:40 <nirik> .fesco 1183
18:31:42 <zodbot> nirik: #1183 (Don't enable prelink by default in Fedora) – FESCo -
18:31:58 <pjones> Proposal: remove prelink from base and standard.
18:32:04 <t8m> pjones, +1
18:32:12 <sgallagh> pjones: +1 (can I vote early and often on this?)
18:32:26 * pjones +1
18:32:29 <nirik> toshio was +1 in ticket
18:32:36 <mitr> I haven't seen enough to suggest that prelink is sufficiently maintained, so... sadly, +1
18:32:40 <nirik> I'm +1 (we are talking remove from standard right?)
18:32:50 <nirik> yeah, sorry.
18:32:58 <pjones> I phrased it very precisely ;)
18:33:02 <notting> base and standard?
18:33:09 <pjones> notting: as in "it should be in neither"
18:33:18 <nirik> you did. I just was off reading the ticket. ;)
18:33:21 <mattdm> +1
18:33:23 <pjones> not meaning to imply that it's in both or something.
18:33:47 <notting> pjones: just that those are the same thing
18:33:50 <notting> anyway, +1
18:33:58 <pjones> notting: oh right.
18:34:00 <pjones> bah.
18:34:11 <pjones> nirik: seems to have passed.
18:34:20 <nirik> #agreed remove prelink from core and standard groups (+8,0,0)
18:34:39 <nirik> #topic ticket #1170 Working Group call for Volunteers
18:34:39 <nirik> .fesco 1170
18:34:40 <zodbot> nirik: #1170 (Working Group call for Volunteers) – FESCo -
18:35:06 <sgallagh> First order here should probably be to discuss the Base Design WG
18:35:18 <nirik> ok
18:35:46 <sgallagh> Last week we happily volunteered notting for the position, but he has had to decline. Sorry about that, notting.
18:36:32 <notting> has had to? :)  heh. in any case, new blood is good.
18:36:34 <sgallagh> nirik: You are the other FESCo volunteer on that group, but as I've also requested you on the Server WG, I would understand if you aren't jumping up and down here
18:37:10 <nirik> mitr: is also there?
18:37:16 <sgallagh> jwb: BTW, we're discussing WGs now.
18:37:23 <sgallagh> Is he?
18:37:31 <nirik> oh yeah, I blame the cold meds. Sorry.
18:37:47 <jwb> :)
18:38:08 <nirik> anyhow, mitr: would you be willing to be coordinator for base wg?
18:38:16 <sgallagh> Hmm, I missed his name. He's also on my request list for Server WG :)
18:38:37 <mitr> sgallagh: I'm also on the server WG, and I specifically don't want to be choosing members of the base WG => I'd like to decline as well
18:39:11 * sgallagh lucked out and claimed the good ones early
18:39:24 <nirik> ha. hot potato hot potato.
18:39:38 <sgallagh> Well, I'd like to make an alternate (non-FESCo) suggestion
18:39:44 <nirik> ok, if no one else will I will help coordinate base design then.
18:39:58 <drago01_> do the selection by a rng ;)
18:40:17 <sgallagh> nirik: Are you withdrawing from the Server WG, or are you going to take both on?
18:40:43 <nirik> sgallagh: well, I could withdraw if you want, or try and do both. So much to do. ;)
18:40:57 <mattdm> we can try to find nirik more minions
18:40:57 <jwb> fwiw, i think some overlap in members is probably good
18:41:05 * pknirsch nods
18:41:07 <jwb> particularly among base and other WGs
18:41:14 <mattdm> overlap between these particulary groups seems good, yeah.
18:41:15 <Viking-Ice> didn't you guys discuss early that this was so time consuming work that one could only serve in one WG?
18:41:21 <pknirsch> especially base will have to talk a lot with the other teams
18:41:28 <sgallagh> Viking-Ice: We phrased it as "strongly recommend against it"
18:41:31 <sgallagh> But didn't forbid it.
18:42:02 <jwb> some people are in a position to do more, so forbiding it would be excessive just on the grounds of "it takes a lot of time"
18:42:06 <mitr> (for the record, I'm crazy enough to still try to do both server and base)
18:42:18 <notting> sgallagh: what was your alternate suggestion?
18:42:20 <mitr> ... depending on what the coordinator chooses, of course.
18:42:20 <nirik> yeah, I signed up for those two too.
18:42:33 <nirik> but if you want to try another coordinator for base that would be fine too. ;)
18:42:34 <sgallagh> I was going to propose pknirsch for the coordinator.
18:42:57 <mattdm> If nirik feels able to do both, I'm +1 to that.
18:43:05 * pjones now has to go.
18:43:27 <pknirsch> i'd certainly be willing to be coordinator for base
18:43:37 <sgallagh> Yeah, if nirik is up to it, I'm fine with that as well. I just don't want him to feel like he's cornered into it :)
18:43:46 <mattdm> I would also be good with pknirsch as alternate if nirik prefers not to
18:43:52 <mattdm> given an out :)
18:43:55 <pknirsch> :)
18:44:11 <nirik> :) ok, in the interests of my time, lets let pknirsch do it. ;)
18:44:30 <adamw> sgallagh asked me to note that i might be interested in joining one of the WGs if there's interest
18:44:33 <pknirsch> alright, thanks nirik. and i don't want to steal your work :)
18:44:45 <pknirsch> just for the record :)
18:44:46 <adamw> seems like QA might want someone to be 'on the bus' at least
18:44:56 <Viking-Ice> the nomination period is over
18:45:08 <pjones> adamw: there is one WG that currently has no QA people...
18:45:08 <adamw> Viking-Ice: sgallagh was sounding me out the other day about late nominations
18:45:13 <adamw> pjones: which one?
18:45:18 <nirik> pknirsch: I'm sure things would be in good hands with you... and you might have more time to devote to it.
18:45:21 <jwb> er...
18:45:33 <drago01_> adamw: workstation
18:45:33 <adamw> looks like we have viking_ice and handsome_pirate involved in a couple
18:45:37 <jwb> so i asked earlier this week and was told we had to make the list from people on the nominee list
18:45:39 <pjones> "NOTE: There were no representatives from QA that nominated for this WG. I will be encouraging participation from all that want to pitch in anyway, but I'll explicitly try discussing things with QA as we go forward. " - from the workstation list.
18:45:42 <sgallagh> Viking-Ice: As a special case, since he happened to be on vacation the whole nomination period
18:45:51 <Viking-Ice> adamw, more thinking about those that did nominate but did not get selected while people that did not nominate suddenly did
18:45:52 <sgallagh> And having QA people aboard makes sense
18:46:02 <pknirsch> nirik: i'll certainly do my best :)
18:46:05 <nirik> so, votes on pknirsch for coordinator for base design group?
18:46:15 <mattdm> yes let's do one thing at a time here
18:46:18 <mattdm> +1 pknirsch
18:46:21 <adamw> Viking-Ice: yeah, I know - i figured i'd missed the bus...
18:46:22 <sgallagh> +1 pknirsch
18:46:25 <nirik> +1 here
18:46:27 <mitr> +1 pknirsch
18:46:36 <mmaslano> +1 pknirsch
18:46:41 <pjones> +1
18:46:42 * pjones really goes.
18:46:44 <notting> i can be +1 to either nirik or pknirsch
18:47:16 <nirik> #agreed pknirsch will coordinate base design working group for fesco. (+7,0,0)
18:47:19 <sgallagh> jwb: Yeah, and that's officially the rule. But I noted that we were *extremely* limited in QA reps and was hoping we could loophole the guy who was out of touch during the nomination period :)
18:47:20 <nirik> thanks pknirsch
18:47:29 <pknirsch> thanks everyone for the vote of confidence ;)
18:47:38 * adamw is happy to be loopholed or not.
18:47:43 <sgallagh> But that obviously wouldn't be my sole decision
18:47:57 <mattdm> Also note that the initial membership does not automatically constitute the membership 4 life
18:48:01 * adamw is currently 1500 mails behind on devel-list, so missed the whole thing.
18:48:02 <jwb> sgallagh, the issue is that we've already drafted the lists and verified people still want to do it
18:48:10 <nirik> ok, should we now approve/vote on the proposed working groups? or do we want to discuss adding adamw as a late candidate?
18:48:20 <jwb> so unless we're talking about Base, we'd have to bump to add late-commers
18:48:33 <sgallagh> jwb: I was mostly thinking of base, yeah
18:48:50 <jwb> ok.  and to be clear, i want QA input regardless of voting member status.
18:48:51 <adamw> jwb: ah, i wouldn't want to kick anyone out.
18:48:56 <jwb> adamw, base isn't formed.
18:49:01 <jwb> so yeah, maybe loophole there
18:49:05 <drago01_> adamw: just delete those 1500 mails ;)
18:49:08 <adamw> base is probably where i'd be interested in, anyway.
18:49:19 <Viking-Ice> nirik, if you are going to add one in then you can just as well wipe the slate clean regarding the nominators, approving this is a double edged sword
18:49:19 <adamw> drago01_: hell, no, i already found out the bugzilla header thing, which is like my favourite thing all year
18:49:22 <mitr> I'd lean towards not bending the rules  here, 1) as a matter of principle, 2) because bending them doesn't give us _that_ much anyway: elections are within a few months, and we can get QA input even without formal membership
18:49:55 <drago01_> adamw: ;)
18:49:55 * nirik is with mitr
18:50:02 <notting> ... and a WG can have as its first meeting voting to eject one of its own members for a different person anyway. each WG can invent its own loopholes
18:50:03 <pknirsch> i'd personally love you in base, adamw, even if you're late on the bus ;)
18:50:15 <jwb> notting, ha, fair
18:50:19 <pknirsch> hehehe
18:50:24 <adamw> process hackery!
18:50:32 <jwb> governance model is the first thing to draft.  it isn't a hack.
18:50:59 <sgallagh> OK, then it sounds like in order to be fair, we should keep adamw off the lists. Sorry for the noise, folks.
18:51:11 <adamw> so, um, what's the status with the base group?
18:51:20 * adamw is a tad confused whether that is included in the current voting or not
18:51:35 <sgallagh> adamw: The coordinator we selected last week couldn't do it. So pknirsch will draft a group for next week to be ratified
18:51:49 <nirik> right.
18:51:59 <pknirsch> i'll be assembling a list of proposed nominees for it and put it in
18:52:12 <adamw> OK. executive summary: am I too late for that one or not?
18:52:19 <nirik> so shall we vote on each proposed group? or vote +1 on all by default unless objections?
18:52:40 <jwb> adamw, think you're too late
18:52:42 <sgallagh> adamw: I think we're going to stick to the rules
18:52:44 <adamw> roger.
18:52:45 <nirik> adamw: I think we decided you are too late, but that group once formed could decide to drop a member and add you
18:52:50 <sgallagh> However, that doesn't mean you shouldn't participate
18:52:55 <sgallagh> Just that you won't get a vote
18:52:55 <nirik> right.
18:52:56 * adamw has his peanuts ready already/.
18:53:01 <nirik> this is just voting members.
18:53:38 <nirik> ok, so does anyone object to any of the proposed makeup of working groups?
18:54:07 * nirik is fine with all of them in the ticket so far.
18:54:13 * mattdm is too
18:54:22 <mitr> no objections
18:54:44 <mitr> Are there proposed candidates for the cloud group?
18:55:03 <nirik> I don't see them in ticket yet.
18:55:07 <t8m> no objections
18:55:22 <notting> no objections to the list so far. curious how the multi-desktop participation in workstation works out in terms of deliverables, but that's for them to figure
18:55:47 <jwb> i think that's notting's way of saying i'm crazy?
18:56:14 <pknirsch> :)
18:56:28 <nirik> yeah, I definitely am curious how non featured products will shake out...
18:56:45 <sgallagh> mattdm: Cloud nominees?
18:57:03 <nirik> so we need cloud and base... we could do them next week?
18:57:14 <mattdm> no i have my list...
18:57:26 <sgallagh> I have no objections to any of the currently-proposed WGs
18:57:33 <mattdm> i was sure I put it in trac. hold on...
18:57:41 <sgallagh> mattdm: Not there yet, no
18:58:09 <mattdm> one second
18:58:22 <nirik> thats +6 for approving the workstation, server and env and stacks groups I think... (If I counted right)
18:59:18 <jwb> nirik, notting: i have my own ideas on that, but yeah it will be interesting to see.  i've hopefully set it up to be collaborative and not combative
18:59:23 <mattdm> okay there now.
18:59:35 <mattdm> without little nice comments about everyone -- that seems to have gotten lost.
18:59:40 <mattdm> (not sure what happned there.
18:59:54 <sgallagh> mattdm: That's what the "preview" button is for
18:59:55 <sgallagh> :)
19:00:10 <mattdm> preview button probably ate my original post :)
19:00:14 <t8m> no objection to cloud wg list either
19:00:35 <nirik> that does put sam in 2 groups... but if he's got the time I guess...
19:00:37 <sgallagh> Is Sam Kottler okay with serving on both Cloud and Stacks?
19:00:47 <notting> ooh, you tabbed the FPL. no fair going above everyone!
19:01:04 <mattdm> notting mwhahaha.
19:01:07 <notting> samkottler: question for you above
19:01:39 <samkottler> sgallagh: yeah, I'm okay with it despite what my sleep pattern might have to say about it
19:01:50 <mmaslano> I also picked Jens Petersen, and he's already in Workstation, so...
19:02:04 <mmaslano> I'll have to ask him where he'd like to stay
19:02:14 <sgallagh> mmaslano: Ah, I missed that too
19:02:45 <notting> samkottler: sleep pattern, course load, patch backlog...
19:03:05 * nirik has no real objections to proposed cloud makeup either
19:03:31 <samkottler> notting: :P all the things are busy
19:03:44 <notting> cloud group seems ok
19:03:55 <nirik> so, all those ok for everyone then? and we do base next week?
19:04:19 <nirik> query: do we have a short list of deliverables we want from each working group? if not, should we make one now?
19:04:30 <sgallagh> I'd like to recommend that the coordinators of approved WGs get a WhenIsGood sent out to all of their participants and should meet before the next FESCo meeting
19:05:10 <mattdm> nirik: short list of deliverables for product wgs
19:05:20 <mattdm> it is a little more vague for base and env/stacks
19:05:26 <mattdm> which is probably my fault
19:05:51 <nirik> ok, great.
19:05:59 <sgallagh> Also "January 2014" is a little vague as well.
19:06:01 <nirik> just want to make sure groups know what they should be working on.
19:06:05 <sgallagh> Beginning? End?
19:06:06 <Viking-Ice> I would propose WG start working on defining "Product Interactions" a.s.a.p there seems to be a bit of overlap on the suggestion page
19:06:59 <sgallagh> Should we set a deadline for the governance charter?
19:07:01 <mmaslano> mattdm: no worries, guys already have some ideas about env/stack. I can sum ti up on some mailing list
19:07:01 <mattdm> Viking-Ice yes, that's important
19:07:07 <nirik> Viking-Ice: having requirements docs hopefully will help identify those interaction areas.
19:07:29 <mattdm> and if they come into conflict we can work it out.
19:07:38 <nirik> so, speaking of mailing lists...
19:07:52 <sgallagh> Negotiating overlap is one duty that FESCo should be retaining here
19:08:10 <mattdm> +1 sgallagh. and the development will be done in the open so there should not be any surprises
19:08:18 * nirik nods
19:08:59 <nirik> I'd prefer to reuse existing lists if possible...
19:09:08 <mattdm> I'm okay with setting a deadline, but I do note that we put the january deliverable out there so that time demands of the f20 release wouldn't make participation hard.
19:09:14 <mattdm> +1 to prefering existing lists
19:09:16 <nirik> desktop -> workstation, cloud -> cloud, server -> server, stacks and base -> devel
19:09:17 <mmaslano> nirik: I don't :)
19:09:22 <sgallagh> mattdm: Yes, but *when* in January?
19:09:27 <sgallagh> Somewhat vague.
19:09:28 <nirik> mmaslano: ok. why not?
19:09:56 <mmaslano> nirik: I guess someone wanted less email on devel, do you think it will help when we start disucssing stacks there?
19:10:00 <jreznik> sgallagh: I'd say try to avoid early Jan
19:10:02 <jwb> setting a deadline for what exactly?  all of the items on the list?
19:10:02 <sgallagh> I'm planning to use server at lists.fp.o for the Server WG
19:10:22 <t8m> nirik, I think stacks should have its own list
19:10:37 <t8m> nirik, keeping base on devel would be fine (at least for me)
19:10:44 * pknirsch nods
19:10:57 <pknirsch> we can always prefix the subject with [BaseWG] e.g.
19:11:03 <mitr> sgallagh: If we weren''t 90% done by Jan 1, and started to look at the specific deadline to get something delivered, we'd be in deep trouble anyway
19:11:05 <sgallagh> We should consider publishing regular updates to devel@ though
19:11:07 <pknirsch> so that it can be clear that the topic is about that
19:11:16 <nirik> well, the problem with more lists is that people don't like subscribing to more and mroe lists, so they stop... and sure your new list is quiet, but only because you aren't getting the feedback you really should be getting.
19:11:24 <nirik> I guess I could see stacks being seperate.
19:12:18 <mmaslano> nirik: ok, I'll ask rest of the group again, they wanted new today
19:12:38 <mattdm> mmaslano you can ask them on the new list!     oh wait.
19:12:40 <nirik> how about this proposal: use existing lists for now, working groups when they meet can decide if they require a new list and request it?
19:12:44 <mmaslano> mattdm: ha
19:12:54 <sgallagh> nirik: Seems reasonable to me. +1
19:13:21 <mitr> +1 (let's not spend time on this...)
19:13:23 <nirik> instead of us deciding, they can decide how best to go.
19:13:38 <mattdm> +1 to all of those sentiments
19:14:19 <nirik> any other votes? objections? :)
19:15:03 <mmaslano> +1
19:15:05 <t8m> +1
19:15:28 <notting> nirik: i like it. +1
19:15:35 <nirik> #agreed working groups can decide if they want new lists when they meet (+7,0,0)
19:15:43 <nirik> ok, what else do we need to decide here?
19:15:54 <jwb> did you set deadlines for specific items on the list of stuff to produce?
19:16:17 <jwb> "january" is all i heard, and i'm assuming that's for all the things in the lsit
19:16:17 <nirik> we have not yet.
19:16:21 <nirik> yeah.
19:16:43 <sgallagh> Governance charter really should be sometime in December
19:16:44 <mattdm> Do we need deadlines or is it okay to just start working? Is there a lack of urgency without?
19:16:48 <mitr> jwb: mentions January only for the first 2
19:16:55 <sgallagh> If only to give time to deal with any voting app stuff
19:16:58 <drago01_> how about "asap" (so that we can plan for a release)
19:17:23 <mitr> Overall I'm not thrilled about establishing too many interim deadlines (... and imposing a waterfall model by that)
19:17:27 <jwb> i would think you at least want the governance charter set before you start working on the PRD
19:17:40 <jwb> and does fesco have to approve that?
19:17:44 <mattdm> and we want to start working on the prd right away
19:18:07 <notting> a PRD can predate governance, no?
19:18:16 <jwb> it can, but i'm not sure you want it to
19:18:23 <nirik> I'd say yes, or at least object if there's something problematic in one.
19:18:38 <jwb> what happens if people quit because they don't agree with the majority?
19:18:42 <jwb> etc
19:19:32 <nirik> I'd hope we wouldn't get too complex with charters...
19:19:35 <pknirsch> you can always start drafting it though i suppose?
19:19:52 <jwb> pknirsch, it?
19:19:55 <pknirsch> prd
19:20:03 <pknirsch> e.g. start getting input
19:20:05 <nirik> if it would help I can whip up a default/template thing for groups?
19:20:10 <pknirsch> collecting it in a wiki or some form
19:20:13 <pknirsch> etc.
19:20:37 <jwb> yes, yes, sure.  but i think getting the charter in place is important enough to give it a due date.  it doesn't have to be complex, but i think it's necessary
19:20:45 <mattdm> +1 jwb
19:20:50 <nirik> how about dec 1st?
19:20:50 <pknirsch> sure, absolutely
19:20:52 <mattdm> let's make that soon then.
19:21:01 <jwb> nirik, i was thinking more like nov 15
19:21:01 <nirik> sorry, thats a sunday
19:21:09 <nirik> ok, thats fine too
19:21:15 <mattdm> +1 nov 15th
19:21:20 <nirik> +1 nov 15th
19:21:44 <mitr> +1 nov 15th
19:21:52 <sgallagh> +1 nov 15th
19:22:12 <sgallagh> Are we requiring FESCo ratification, or are we giving a free hand here?
19:22:25 <jwb> the FESCo section on the wiki page implies approval
19:22:26 <notting> +1 nov 15th
19:22:30 <t8m> +1
19:22:32 <mmaslano> +1
19:22:42 <jwb> or if not approval, at least oversight of some form
19:22:45 <sgallagh> jwb: Right, thanks. Just making sure.
19:22:49 <nirik> #agreed working groups should have a governance document/charter by nov 15th approved by fesco (+7,0,0)
19:22:59 <sgallagh> i.e. "We vote unanimously to be dictators-for-life" won't fly :)
19:23:08 <jwb> heh
19:23:42 <nirik> ok, anything further we need to setup for working groups?
19:24:05 * nirik will move on to open floor in a min if not
19:24:13 <drago01_> just one question are they supposed to stick "forever" or just kick of the new products etc?
19:24:52 <drago01_> if yes how does those interact with fesco? who approves features etc etc. (lots of open questions)
19:24:53 <sgallagh> drago01_: We agreed last week that the charter would go into effect at the next FESCo election period
19:24:59 <nirik> IMHO they are around as long as that product is a featured product produced by fedora
19:25:23 <nirik> yeah, there's def lots of open questions still.
19:25:27 <sgallagh> I'd say that's also part of the governance that they have to design
19:25:33 <drago01_> ok
19:25:49 <sgallagh> Are they designing the "100% all of the future" PRD, or the F21 PRD?
19:26:03 <sgallagh> (for example)
19:26:24 <sgallagh> Let's leave that up to the charter process to deal with
19:26:31 <sgallagh> And if it's not satisfactory, revisit then
19:26:44 <mitr> We all have better things to do than to hypothetically discuss how 5 different groups will solve the same problem, don't we?
19:26:46 <nirik> I don't think it's possible to design one thing now that will be good forever. :) At least not if you want it to adopt good changes moving forward.
19:26:53 <notting> sgallagh: 'next election period'? that would be next month,.
19:26:53 <nirik> right. moving on then...
19:26:56 <mitr> Let's either prescribe a common solution now, or ove to a different topic.
19:27:01 <nirik> #topic Next week's chair
19:27:08 <nirik> who wants it?
19:27:20 <sgallagh> notting: Last week we agreed to move the election period until after the WG initial deliverables
19:27:24 <sgallagh> For pretty much this reason.
19:27:48 <notting> sgallagh: ok
19:28:03 <nirik> did we get a board ack for that? (or ask for one)?
19:28:15 <notting> i can do next week, it's been a bit
19:28:26 <sgallagh> nirik: I think jwb gave us tacit approval on their behalf.
19:28:35 <nirik> notting: thanks!
19:28:40 <nirik> #info notting to chair next week
19:28:44 <nirik> #topic Open Floor
19:28:56 <nirik> I had 2 random things to mention...
19:29:11 <sgallagh> So, I've been hanging around blocker bug meetings lately. Things look a little risky for Anaconda...
19:29:16 <mattdm> I think we should probably formally ask the board
19:29:21 * mattdm can file a ticket
19:29:23 <nirik> 1. There's some talk on the devel list about sponsorship... did we want to look at making any changes in the sponsorship process for packagers?
19:29:25 <sgallagh> mattdm: Thanks
19:29:36 <jwb> sgallagh, i don't think i can speak for the board.  i also don't think there will be a big deal about it
19:29:50 <sgallagh> jwb: Hooray for cognitive dissonance ;-)
19:29:56 <Viking-Ice> sgallagh,  what do you mean risky?
19:30:09 <jreznik> sgallagh: for elections, I can take care, already asked ankur and we need a new elections coordinator but I can do it probably
19:30:11 <sgallagh> Viking-Ice: As in, it doesn't look like they'll be ready in time for beta
19:30:21 <Viking-Ice> so what else is new?
19:30:42 <jwb> sgallagh, that's not so much cognitive dissonance as "sigh, formality seems excessive but sigh"
19:30:56 <mitr> Re: elections, the current FESCo policy mentions "the combined elections" FWIW - but that's all up to the board
19:31:34 <jreznik> mitr: well, it makes sense to combine both - I think this is combined work of both FESCo and Board
19:31:46 * nirik now cannot recall the second thing he was going to mention. oh well, must not be important. ;)
19:32:00 <notting> i really have to head out at this point...
19:32:29 <Viking-Ice> sgallagh,  I've been trying get somekind of feed back from the anaconda team regarding their development cycle because to be able to deal effectively with multiple products in QA we need to either need to move it sooner or later in the release cycle
19:32:29 <mattdm> hey where IS the current election schedule policy?
19:32:39 * jreznik will take care of elections coordination, just wanted more data before doing so... as otherwise it would be the right time to start coordination
19:32:52 <mattdm> fesco page just says "FESCo elections will be held twice a year, as part of the Fedora Project combined election process." -- with no reference to that process.
19:33:19 <nirik>
19:33:22 <jreznik> mattdm: there are some rules in the overall schedule but we are not very strict
19:34:08 <mattdm> nirik that page doesn't seem to say how the schedule is determined
19:34:30 <nirik>
19:34:53 <mattdm> nirik gah infinite loop!
19:35:34 <nirik>
19:35:39 <sgallagh> So as far as I can tell, the exact timing is left unspecified
19:36:01 <mattdm> jreznik do you mean you plan to talk to the board and i shouldn't?
19:36:15 <nirik> we changed our exacting policy to be the 'combined' one, but yeah, not sure where the combined one is defined.
19:36:26 <jreznik> mattdm: - some rules are there but we don't use this big schedule anymore and ankur did it in it's own
19:36:41 <jreznik> mattdm: yeah, I'm planning to do it
19:36:51 <jreznik> btw. we need elections wrangler...
19:36:52 <mattdm> jreznik okay awesome. so I won't. :)
19:37:09 <jreznik> so any volunteer? otherwise I'll take care
19:37:28 <mattdm> *crickets*
19:37:37 <sgallagh> Proposal: Eliminate voting and allow people to serve until they're sick of it... /sarcasm
19:37:50 <nirik> well, you can also ask for volunteers on list, etc...
19:37:57 <jreznik> sgallagh: it would be pretty short term
19:38:00 <nirik> anyhow, anything further for open floor? or shall we close out?
19:38:04 <jreznik> nirik: yep, planning to do so
19:38:22 <Viking-Ice> sgallagh,  propsal: magic eight ball to be used instead ;)
19:38:27 <jreznik> just there's usually more work from my side to coordinate work/schedules than just doing by myself
19:38:44 <sgallagh> Viking-Ice: Shh... that's actually how the voting system works under the hood
19:38:45 <jreznik> but once I come back with answer from Board, I'll start with it
19:39:21 <jreznik> another question jwb raised some time ago - do we still need Board and with products governance...
19:39:22 * nirik will close in a minute if nothing further
19:39:52 <jwb> jreznik, that's clearly something for the board to decide
19:39:54 <sgallagh> jreznik: I don't think that FESCo can unilaterally dissolve the Board.
19:40:04 <nirik> indeed.
19:40:16 <sgallagh> Nor do I think that starting a coup is a good way to proceed on these plans :)
19:40:26 <nirik> ok, thanks for coming everyone.
19:40:29 <nirik> #endmeeting
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the devel mailing list