Meeting minutes Env-and-Stacks WG meeting (2014-01-07)

Wed Jan 8 15:34:50 UTC 2014

This should be obviously yesterday meeting minutes.

On 01/07/2014 03:54 PM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
> ============================================
> #fedora-meeting: env and stacks (2014-01-07)
> ============================================
>
>
> Meeting started by mmaslano at 13:00:41 UTC. The full logs are available
> at
> http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2014-01-07/env_and_stacks.2014-01-07-13.00.log.html
>
> .
>
>
>
> Meeting summary
> ---------------
> * init process  (mmaslano, 13:01:15)
>
> * PRD  (mmaslano, 13:04:16)
>    * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Mmaslano/Draft:Env_and_Stack_PRD
>      (mmaslano, 13:04:20)
>    * ACTION: tomorrow will be finished first draft  (mmaslano, 14:17:39)
>
> Meeting ended at 14:17:43 UTC.
>
>
>
>
> Action Items
> ------------
> * tomorrow will be finished first draft
>
>
>
>
> Action Items, by person
> -----------------------
> * **UNASSIGNED**
>    * tomorrow will be finished first draft
>
>
>
>
> People Present (lines said)
> ---------------------------
> * tjanez (42)
> * juhp_ (37)
> * mmaslano (28)
> * samkottler (14)
> * hhorak (10)
> * bkabrda (6)
> * pkovar (5)
> * pingou (4)
> * zodbot (4)
> * pkovar1 (2)
> * sochotni (2)
> * hhorak1 (1)
> * abadger1999 (0)
> * juhp (0)
> * handsome_pirate (0)
>
>
>
>
> 13:00:41 <mmaslano> #startmeeting env and stacks (2014-01-07)
> 13:00:41 <zodbot> Meeting started Tue Jan  7 13:00:41 2014 UTC.  The
> chair is mmaslano. Information about MeetBot at
> http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
> 13:00:41 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea
> #link #topic.
> 13:00:51 <mmaslano> #meetingname env and stacks
> 13:00:51 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'env_and_stacks'
> 13:01:07 <mmaslano> #chair abadger1999 pkovar tjanez samkottler bkabrda
> handsome_pirate hhorak juhp
> 13:01:07 <zodbot> Current chairs: abadger1999 bkabrda handsome_pirate
> hhorak juhp mmaslano pkovar samkottler tjanez
> 13:01:15 <mmaslano> #topic init process
> 13:01:18 * samkottler is here
> 13:01:28 <juhp_> hi
> 13:01:31 <tjanez> Hi
> 13:02:19 <bkabrda> hi
> 13:02:22 <pkovar> hi there
> 13:02:53 <mmaslano> hi guys
> 13:02:57 <hhorak1> Hi
> 13:04:16 <mmaslano> #topic PRD
> 13:04:20 <mmaslano> #info
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Mmaslano/Draft:Env_and_Stack_PRD
> 13:06:05 <mmaslano> did you have time to read it?
> 13:06:30 <samkottler> I've gone through it a bit, I think one big gap is
> that we don't have user stories
> 13:06:44 <mmaslano> feel free to define them
> 13:07:40 <tjanez> samkottler: I was thinking about it since I had a
> homework last to time to summarize the Big Data SIG use case
> 13:08:42 <tjanez> Should we have an additional section in the PRD for
> Use cases?
> 13:08:52 <tjanez> Or should we emulate Personas?
> 13:09:58 <juhp_> probably use cases would be ok?
> 13:11:31 <hhorak> I guess use cases could be part of the particular
> taks' definition, I don't think we have some general group use cases, do
> we?
> 13:12:06 <pkovar> hhorak, +1
> 13:13:49 <tjanez> hhorak, your proposal is probably ok for simpler use
> cases, but a more complex description of, for example, what the Big Data
> SIG wishes from our WG should be described separately
> 13:15:04 <bkabrda> tjanez: but if the Big Data SIG wants that, they
> should provide use cases and we should think about how we solve them,
> right?
> 13:16:11 <mmaslano> tjanez: if I remember correctly, they wanted scl
> 13:16:21 <tjanez> bkabrda, agreed. That's why I was in favor of having a
> separate section in the PRD.
> 13:17:30 <tjanez> mmaslano, they want a way to provide language
> ecosystems in fedora that aligns w/ how the language itself is used
> 13:17:37 <juhp_> I think the PRD tasks list looks pretty good - though
> maybe a bit ambitious of one year :)
> 13:17:47 <juhp_> of = for
> 13:18:11 <tjanez> SCLs are a part of the solution
> 13:18:11 <hhorak> tjanez: if these use cases are covered by more tasks,
> then yes. But I don't think we have such general use cases right now.
> 13:18:26 <mmaslano> tjanez: I'm not against their usecase, but I guess
> we don't have time to create so many Personnas as Server did
> 13:18:48 <tjanez> Ok, I agree it would look a bit odd to only have one
> use case
> 13:19:12 <mmaslano> tjanez: feel free to add it. I don't think we have
> people for doing more
> 13:19:13 <tjanez> in that case it would be better to put it as an
> example under one task
> 13:20:11 <mmaslano> samkottler: do you have more usecases on your mind?
> 13:20:24 <mmaslano> samkottler: um user stories?
> 13:20:28 <samkottler> I think the main ones from my perspective are:
> 13:20:37 <samkottler> 1) the big data stuff they've asked for
> 13:20:50 <samkottler> 2) the 'developer who deploys code' use case
> 13:21:12 <samkottler> 3) people who want to redistribute applications
> using SCL
> 13:21:32 <samkottler> there are a lot more, but those are the main
> overview ones
> 13:24:05 <mmaslano> samkottler: can you add it there?
> 13:24:20 <tjanez> I agree that the PRD task lisk is pretty big. Do we
> want to eliminate the tasks that we deem not to important / out-of-scope
> or do we want to put "everything we came up with" in the PRD?
> 13:24:21 <samkottler> mmaslano: yeah, I'll write up my thoughts on it
> after the meeting
> 13:24:43 <samkottler> tjanez: I think we can remove very specific stuff
> and just make it high level
> 13:25:16 <tjanez> samkottler, I have something for the big data stuff
> user story in mind. Want me to take it?
> 13:25:28 <samkottler> tjanez: sounds good
> 13:25:37 <samkottler> or we can talk after and figure out where things
> overlap and go from there
> 13:25:38 <juhp_> samkottler, I agree good to have user stories to
> motivate the task list
> 13:26:25 <tjanez> samkottler, ok
> 13:26:41 <hhorak> tjanez: Some kind of highlighting was also on my mind
> -- at least labeling some tasks as important and consider the rest as
> nice to have
> 13:26:49 <juhp_> there might be some user stories in the Workstation PRD
> too - eg developers wanting latest stacks etc
> 13:27:02 <samkottler> well the PRD shouldn't really be a task list, it
> should be a document showing our purpose
> 13:27:10 <samkottler> tasks can be defined completely outside of that
> 13:27:15 <juhp_> true
> 13:27:52 <tjanez> hhorak, yes that would be good. We don't want to
> promise too much and then underdeliver
> 13:28:54 <hhorak> samkottler: I agree, but what we have that is actually
> what I'd expect, just call it differently than "tasks", maybe "goals"?
> 13:29:09 <samkottler> hhorak: +1 to goals
> 13:29:15 <juhp_> I will probably re-read the draft Workstation PRD and
> can try to pick out any potential user stories for this WG at the same time
> 13:29:16 <tjanez> samkottler, I agree with you that our PRD should also
> include a paragraph about the general purpose of our WG
> 13:30:06 <juhp_> yeah Goals sounds better probably
> 13:30:19 <tjanez> +1 for goals
> 13:30:51 <juhp_> we can break out more detail tasks etc latter based on
> the Goals list :)
> 13:32:23 <tjanez> Regarding the purpose/aim of our WG, I have two
> proposals:
> 13:32:29 <tjanez> Our WG incubates ideas, some will be later abandoned,
> some will be re-iterated and formalized and then put into Fedora
> *proper* (we also need to define Fedora *proper*)
> 13:32:35 <tjanez> 2) We are working on enabling new things (including
> new ways to get Fedora, new things that are Fedora)
> 13:32:45 <tjanez> Both are from our previous IRC meetings
> 13:36:36 <juhp_> I missed the last meetings last month so may be missing
> some context, but personally I feel more excited and motivated by (2)
> 13:37:45 <hhorak> tjanez: I understand "proper" as "stable"
> 13:39:37 <juhp_> do we have a deadline for the current scoping/planning
> phase or for the "PRD" at least?
> 13:40:02 <hhorak> juhp_ I guess the deadline is on Monday
> 13:40:20 <juhp_> ok right
> 13:40:28 <tjanez> hhorak, "stable" is probably also too vague. I was
> thinking more in terms of "Officially released and endorsed (supported?)
> by the Fedora Project."
> 13:40:32 <pkovar> yep, it should be jan 13
> 13:41:20 <juhp_> official Fedora
> 13:42:10 <hhorak> tjanez: juhp_: that seems fine to me
> 13:42:31 <juhp_> so we probably need a draft ready within the next
> couple of days for final review?
> 13:43:06 <mmaslano> yes
> 13:44:23 <tjanez> Should we leave the task list as it is and work on
> polishing the PRD or do we want to shorten it, pick focus?
> 13:45:56 <mmaslano> tjanez: mostly there are listed tasks, which have
> dedicated developer
> 13:45:57 <bkabrda> tjanez: I'm for shortening. let's leave out the
> things that are marked as "out of scope" (CI, scl-utils v2)
> 13:47:48 <hhorak> bkabrda: I'd rather leave it there, maybe move it to
> special category "out of scope", since otherwise somebody can come up
> with the same topic in a year again and again, while not knowing that it
> is out of scope..
> 13:48:22 <pkovar> yes, that makes sense
> 13:48:44 <bkabrda> hhorak: sounds good
> 13:48:51 <pkovar> i think a special section at the bottom can't hurt
> 13:49:42 <juhp_> so should we add a Goals section?
> 13:50:18 <tjanez> juhp_, I though we want to rename the Tasks section to
> Goals
> 13:51:50 <juhp_> yes
> 13:51:57 <juhp_> just checking :)
> 13:52:36 <tjanez> ok :)
> 13:52:57 <mmaslano> so, when do you plan to finish it?
> 13:53:12 <mmaslano> because we should approve it before saying it's okay
> 13:53:19 <juhp_> right
> 13:54:04 <juhp_> we might need a couple of rounds of drafts - time is
> certainly short
> 13:55:14 <hhorak> If we want to label some tasks/goals as our priority,
> I'd propose those that have some requirement already: taskotron, scls,
> copr, documentation for scl
> 13:55:38 <juhp_> +1
> 13:56:10 <mmaslano> +1
> 13:56:14 <tjanez> hhorak, +1
> 13:56:48 <juhp_> I like some of the Automation stuff too
> 13:57:49 <juhp_> but I agree focusing is good
> 13:58:06 <tjanez> If pingou plans on working on "Automated package
> review tools", we could also mark that as a pripority
> 13:58:18 <juhp_> ah yeah
> 14:00:35 <tjanez> Some parts of the Tasks/Goals list seem to terse to me
> (e.g. Build systems, SCL). Does anyone share that opinion?
> 14:01:20 <juhp_> so can we have a final draft ready by Thursday so we
> can all vote/approve it by Friday hopefully?
> 14:01:26 <juhp_> tjanez, I tend to agree
> 14:02:00 <juhp_> probably good to reword some of it after changing Tasks
> to Goals
> 14:02:15 <tjanez> juhp_, +1 for Thursday
> 14:03:22 <juhp_> or is Thu too late?  well maybe we need a initial draft
> for review tomorrow?
> 14:03:58 <tjanez> juhp_, yes, we need to polish the wording and make it
> understandable for someone not coming from our WG (Fedora even).
> 14:03:58 <mmaslano> I'm fine with Thursday, but I already wrote what I want
> 14:04:44 <juhp_> mmaslano, okay :)
> 14:06:03 <juhp_> mmaslano, it is ok for us to edit that page right? :)
> 14:06:36 <mmaslano> right
> 14:06:47 <tjanez> I don't know enough about the details of the Build
> systems, SCLs and CI, but I would ask someone knowledgeable to expand
> and clarify those parts
> 14:07:20 <juhp_> probably good if people can post to the mailing list
> after making larger changes to it anyway - I will try to keep an eye on
> the page and also help with editing
> 14:07:38 <juhp_> tjanez, +1
> 14:07:53 <tjanez> CI is probably not critical, since it will be put in
> the Out-of-scope section, right
> 14:08:03 <pkovar1> (i can also help with editing)
> 14:08:04 <pingou> tjanez: my idea was about moving the packge review off
> bugzilla and integrate it with fedora-review, so "tools" might be a
> little excessive :)
> 14:08:43 <tjanez> pingou, thanks for dropping in :)
> 14:08:47 <pingou> sure thing
> 14:08:55 <mmaslano> pingou: sounds lovely
> 14:09:18 <pingou> mmaslano: gotta say, I've had the idea for a little
> while :]
> 14:09:19 <tjanez> well, feel free to edit that part of the PRD. I wrote
> it based on the email by sochotni
> 14:10:14 <tjanez> I put a general term "Automated package review tools"
> in the PRD, since PRDs are suppose to be general
> 14:10:35 <juhp_> and for things we think should be
> changed/updated/expanded maybe good to post specific
> suggestions/question to the ml to get attention
> 14:10:47 <pingou> tjanez: well that part seems like a nice TODO list for
> the tool :D
> 14:11:22 <tjanez> pingou: yes, I agree :)
> 14:12:23 <tjanez> juhp_: yes, it's probably best to highlight the
> "controversial" parts and discuss them on the ML
> 14:13:03 <mmaslano> could someone finish meeting instead of me? I have
> to go to another meeting
> 14:13:49 <tjanez> mmaslano, I can finish it, just tell me where to find
> a cheat-sheet for the commands
> 14:13:50 <juhp_> tjanez, right or like you said things one is unsure about
> 14:14:25 * bkabrda needs to go, too
> 14:14:51 <sochotni> tjanez: https://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot
> 14:15:13 <sochotni> at least I think so :-0
> 14:15:25 <tjanez> sochotni, thanks
> 14:16:11 <tjanez> Well, do we agree that the first draft should be ready
> tomorrow?
> 14:16:16 <mmaslano> +1
> 14:16:20 <tjanez> And the final draft on Thursday
> 14:16:25 <juhp_> +1
> 14:16:31 <hhorak> +1
> 14:16:32 <juhp_> sounds good to me
> 14:16:35 <bkabrda> +1
> 14:16:47 <mmaslano> or do you want to close meeting right now?
> 14:16:55 <tjanez> +1
> 14:17:00 <tjanez> mmaslano, you can close
> 14:17:04 <juhp_> +1
> 14:17:13 <pkovar1> +1
> 14:17:39 <mmaslano> #action tomorrow will be finished first draft
> 14:17:43 <mmaslano> #endmeeting
>
>