Soliciting Agenda for Weekly Server SIG Agenda (2015-11-10)

[Stephen Gallagher]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 11/10/2015 08:38 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 8:14 AM, Major Hayden <major at mhtx.net>
> wrote:
>> On 11/10/2015 05:34 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>>> Lastly, I want to open a new topic: Should the Server SIG be
>>> responsible for the "minimal" environment group in comps.xml?
>>> Technically, it is available on the Server install media, so we
>>> should decide if that makes sense for us to own in an official
>>> capacity. Many people already assume that we do, but as of
>>> right now, minimal installs report themselves as
>>> non-productized installations.
>> 
>> As someone who uses the minimal environment quite regularly, this
>> is definitely something I'm interested to discuss. ;)
> 
> Isn't this something that we've repeatedly asked the Base WG to
> define and maintain?

That is and always has been unclear. I had a conversation with some of
the Base WG during the systemd conference last week and they weren't
sure if that was their duty either.

My understanding of the division is that it's the Edition SIGs
responsibility to be defining actual deliverable artifacts (which in
my mind means any installable env group shipped on our media). The
Base WG's responsibility is to define the platform atop which the
artifacts can be built.

I don't (personally) think that the Base WG output should necessarily
be installable or even self-hosting; I think it should be a definition
of what constitutes the minimal set of functionality for which we are
willing to call something "Fedora". (Note, I intentionally choose the
term "functionality" and not "packages", because I think we also need
to consider the possibility that reorganization of the output of
packages may be necessary to produce a sensible view of this base
platform.

This may be a controversial statement about the Base WG. I think it
matches the definition provided at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Base, however. (With the exception that
I don't believe Base should be self-hosting, because that necessarily
makes it a larger set than any of the installed Editions.)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iEYEARECAAYFAlZB+BsACgkQeiVVYja6o6PeEQCfWH/tuZ2nEFtJV+M8wzWF7i5W
u0MAn0fT0bcOZGdn0ii+OmtvRE9czDF9
=gmbC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----