18:02:07 <jsmith> #startmeeting Fedora Board Meeting - Open Q&A 18:02:07 <zodbot> Meeting started Fri Aug 27 18:02:07 2010 UTC. The chair is jsmith. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 18:02:07 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 18:02:13 <jsmith> #meetingname Fedora Board 18:02:13 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fedora_board' 18:02:27 <jsmith> #topic roll call for Board members 18:02:34 * mizmo Máirín Duffy 18:02:34 * jsmith is here 18:03:42 * spot is here 18:03:48 * mdomsch 18:04:05 * jsmith tried to get zodbot to announce the meeting, but apparently jsmith doesn't have permissions to do that 18:04:24 <smooge> here 18:04:33 <mdomsch> mmcgrath can I know 18:05:24 <jsmith> Anybody seen any of our other board members? 18:05:30 * jds2001 will be late 18:05:38 <jds2001> $DAYJOB firefighting :/ 18:05:41 <smooge> who is missing? 18:06:10 <jsmith> Rex, Christopher, Chris 18:06:22 <jsmith> Colin as well 18:06:38 <mizmo> colin is around i saw him asking aobut the time zone on whenis good like 20 minutes ago 18:07:15 <jsmith> OK... 18:07:51 <jsmith> #info Remember that we're using the protocol as explained here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board_public_IRC_meetings 18:08:11 <rdieter> hello all (sorry I'm late, work emergency pulled me away) 18:08:15 <jsmith> (Board members are encouraged to speak at any time, in the interest of time) 18:08:19 <jsmith> rdieter: No worries 18:08:39 <jsmith> Also, we're going to limit questions to eight minutes, unless a majority of the board votes to extend. 18:08:47 <jsmith> Any other questions before we get started? 18:09:10 <inode0> Is there a vote on something today as mentioned in last week's minutes? 18:09:29 <jsmith> inode0: We agreed to make this entire meeting Q&A -- votes will be postponed 'til next week 18:10:10 <jsmith> Any other housekeeping questions? 18:10:21 <zodbot> Announcement from my owner (mmcgrath): Public IRC board meeting in #fedora-board-meeting. All are welcome. 18:10:29 <caillon> :-) 18:10:33 <jsmith> It's ten after the hour now -- we'll go until 55 minutes past the hour. 18:10:50 <jsmith> #Open Question and Answer session 18:11:00 <jsmith> #info Open Question and Answer session 18:11:18 <spot> #topic Open Question and Answer session 18:11:28 <jsmith> Yeah, that's it 18:11:31 * jsmith is a fail whale today 18:11:41 <jsmith> #topic Open Question and Answer session 18:12:28 <jsmith> #chair spot rdieter caillon mizmo jds2001 mdomsch caillon smooge walters 18:12:28 <zodbot> Current chairs: caillon jds2001 jsmith mdomsch mizmo rdieter smooge spot walters 18:12:33 <jsmith> Let the questions begin! 18:13:03 * skvidal listens to the crickets 18:13:45 * spot plays musical chairs 18:13:56 <sijis> is this q&a open to public? 18:14:00 <smooge> yes 18:14:01 <spot> sijis: yes 18:14:01 <mizmo> yep! 18:14:04 <jsmith> sijis: Yes :-) 18:14:11 <inode0> ! 18:14:15 <smooge> so speaketh the BOARD 18:14:17 <jsmith> inode0 => 18:14:42 * inode0 just wants to thank spot and others for their tireless work making something important finally happen 18:15:04 <spot> inode0: well, really, it was chipotle that caused that... oh wait, you're talking about sun rpc. :) 18:15:12 * delhage agrees 18:15:13 <spot> inode0: you're welcome. glad to have it done. :) 18:15:17 <jsmith> Indeed -- thanks spot! 18:15:24 <skvidal> technical direction: fedora doesn't have any one group/person who oversees techincal direction or sets goals- do you think that means we end up being disperse and less focused? 18:15:25 <biertie> thanks spot :) 18:15:48 <mdomsch> That's at least a couple wounds spot has managed to heal in the past couple years 18:15:49 <jsmith> skvidal: Good question (but please follow the protocol at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board_public_IRC_meetings) 18:16:33 <spot> 1 down, 3 or 4 to go. 18:16:45 <Southern_Gentlem> ? 18:16:49 <mdomsch> skvidal: I disagree with the initial assertion - that _is_ FESCo's role 18:16:53 <jsmith> skvidal: I may have a naive understanding, but I personally think FESCo should take that the lead in the technical direction and decision making role 18:17:05 * spot agrees with mdomsch and jsmith on that 18:17:15 <jsmith> skvidal: One of the things that I'd like to discuss with FESCo is whether or not *they* think they have that role 18:17:15 <skvidal> ! fesco has no authority or any developer resources to direct 18:17:26 <mdomsch> skvidal: neither does the board for the most part 18:17:29 <skvidal> so they can sing and dance all they want but w/o any capacity to DO anything 18:17:50 <skvidal> mdomsch: if that's the case then is fedora as an organization doomed to unfocused development? 18:17:56 <mdomsch> last time I looked, the only one here who can direct other people's work on a day-to-day basis is spot 18:18:03 <spot> skvidal: i'm not necessarily against figuring out if there is a way to put some of Red Hat's devel resources at FESCo's disposal. 18:18:11 <jsmith> skvidal: I'm open to proposals on how you think we can get more traction within FESCo. 18:18:19 <skvidal> mdomsch: spot sadly cannot direct the desktop team folks afaik 18:18:38 <walters> skvidal: to do what? 18:18:45 <skvidal> walters: focus goals for fedora 18:18:52 <skvidal> or to defocus things which are non-goals 18:19:15 <rdieter> I see most work/change being driven by individual developers, groups/sigs, etc. that's where the fun happens. 18:19:27 <skvidal> it seems w/o that we're at the whim of whatever someone happens to be working on 18:19:36 <mizmo> rdieter, except when they dont communicate with each other :( which isnt fun 18:19:38 <mdomsch> yeah - spot can't direct _me_ either, but clearly having a manager isn't a prerequisite to being a contributor who gets things done 18:19:39 <spot> skvidal: again, i don't think it is impossible for FESCo to have some say in where paid Fedora development happens, whether it is desktop or not. 18:19:40 <skvidal> and whether or not it can qualify as a 'feature' - for whatever that means 18:19:58 * spot would be happy to be involved with FESCo in that discussion 18:20:00 <rdieter> mizmo: indeed, that's where guidance from above can help (like fesco, et al.) 18:20:00 <Southern_Gentlem> -? 18:20:06 <skvidal> mdomsch: but if you work on renovating 'foo' and foo is something everyone uses - you can deeply impact the distro 18:20:14 <mizmo> that seems kind of a circular argument though? 18:20:17 <smooge> Southern_Gentlem, after this question 18:20:19 <jsmith> skvidal: As a board, we set the overall vision for Fedora. But we depend *very heavily* on individuals to do the heavy lifting. FESCo should take a role in making the technical decisions regarding features, major changes, etc. 18:20:59 <jsmith> skvidal: In general, that means that we are sometimes dispersed and not working in unison 18:21:01 <mdomsch> FESCo does get to approve major changes, or NAK them if they so choose. 18:21:03 <skvidal> so, in short, if there is an organization or sig who can direct developers and they have influence over important pkgs, then they win, defacto 18:21:12 <skvidal> mdomsch: it can't stop their committing, really. 18:21:15 <skvidal> mdomsch: not w/o a fist fight 18:21:16 <caillon> i do think a FESCo like thing should eventually be able to help direct, but if we want to be able to do that, we need to make Fedora more about coding and less about packaging 18:21:22 <skvidal> mdomsch: I mean fesco couldn't stop the kde commits 18:21:24 <skvidal> it still can't 18:21:48 <skvidal> mdomsch: if someone has commit access to a pkg, fesco can't stop them. 18:21:57 <jsmith> skvidal: Again, if you have a proposal on how to better organize things, the Board is willing to consider it 18:22:08 <walters> skvidal: it should be able to, at least if there's rough consensus they're screwing things up 18:22:09 <rdieter> skvidal: fesco (or whoever) can impose sanctions, if required, for those not playing nice 18:22:17 <walters> skvidal: especially if it's part of core 18:22:18 <skvidal> rdieter: sanctions on what grounds? 18:22:32 <caillon> and I think also we need to decide to ship a product that everyone can get behind, not just poop out something every 6 months because its time. 18:22:39 <mdomsch> skvidal: well, yes, but, if push comes to shove, FESCo could restrict someone's commit access if they were making commits that directly conflicted with FESCo's direction. FESCo could also have rel-eng untag builds. 18:22:46 <spot> caillon: not sure i like your choice of words there. 18:22:57 <jsmith> skvidal: Are you arguing that FESCo should be able to override them? Or that FESCo is powerless? I'm not sure I follow your train of thought 18:22:58 <walters> yeah...think positively please! 18:23:07 <skvidal> jsmith: exactly. 18:23:12 <skvidal> jsmith: EITHER fesco has to have authority 18:23:13 <skvidal> OR 18:23:14 <mizmo> spot, youre the one who brought up chipotle... 18:23:16 <skvidal> they are powerless 18:23:21 <spot> mizmo: true. 18:23:24 <skvidal> those are the two choices. 18:23:34 <smooge> OR somewhere in between. It depends is the usual word 18:23:41 <jsmith> skvidal: Are you willing to write a proposal for the Board to consider that picks one of those two sides and runs with it? 18:24:26 <skvidal> jsmith: I don't think a proposal is possible w/o buy-in from various mgmt inside rh to enforce fesco guidelines internally. 18:24:36 <walters> skvidal: well, we need to do that 18:24:39 <rdieter> I didn't think there are sides to pick (really?), and that it should be obvious that fesco has the power to enforce the policies/rules it makes 18:24:49 <skvidal> rdieter: it is not obvious to me at all 18:24:56 <skvidal> and I was on fesco for long enough to see that 18:25:11 <rdieter> ok, let's make it happen then. what's in the way? 18:25:12 * caillon thinks we're at 8 minutes 18:25:38 <jsmith> skvidal: I'd love to continue this conversation on the advisory-board list :-) 18:25:41 <kambu> ! 18:25:55 <walters> we had a question from Southern_Gentlem i think 18:26:08 <smooge> He withdrew his question 18:26:12 <walters> ah 18:26:13 <jsmith> skvidal: It's clear there are a lot of mixed feelings about FESCo in general, and we'd like to try to come to a resolution of some sort 18:26:33 <skvidal> okie doke 18:26:33 <jsmith> OK... next question? 18:26:53 <inode0> ? 18:27:00 <cebbert> what we need is a dictator who can rule with an iron fist 18:27:21 <jsmith> cebbert: Please use the protocol, thanks :-) 18:27:26 <jsmith> inode0: Go ahead 18:27:29 * FranciscoD *chuckles* 18:28:00 <ctyler> Just back from running dgilmore to the airport, sorry I'm late 18:28:00 <mdomsch> didk kambu have something for the previous topic? 18:28:05 * delhage points out kambu typed "!" 18:28:05 <kambu> yes i did 18:28:09 <inode0> speaking of resources, as commarch funds are more and more spent to support development through FADs does it make sense to have some group make those decisions? 18:28:44 <kambu> I believe chaos is a good thing, FESCo should not hinder someone from solving a problem just because it isnt on the agenda 18:28:47 <inode0> perhaps FESCo for some of those funds? 18:29:01 * peteforsyth is in fly-on-wall mode..interested in y'all's approach to online community and governance. Hope that's OK :) 18:29:30 <kambu> therefore, the current role of FESCo seems to serve its purpose 18:29:42 <mdomsch> inode0: e.g., let FESCo spend the CommArch money and plan FADs to further its goals, so it doesn't feel as powerless? 18:29:43 <jsmith> inode0: I think FADs are primarily organized through FAMSCo... 18:30:04 <inode0> jsmith: I know how they are done now, I'm asking if that is the right way? 18:30:09 <mdomsch> Some FADs have been organized around development topics 18:30:27 <ctyler> jsmith: depends what they're about 18:30:51 <pjones> that seems like a really strange thing for FESCo to do 18:30:51 <mdomsch> inode0: I don't know how they're done today; I believe that someone proposes a FAD, CommArch says "yes, we have this much $ to spend on a FAD, here you go". 18:31:09 <mdomsch> the "someone" could be any group that wants a FAD, and within the budget constraints 18:31:35 <inode0> Right, and is commarch or FESCo in a better position to make that call for development FADs (put another way) 18:31:59 <mdomsch> has CommArch had to turn down FADs due to lack of budget? 18:32:18 <mizmo> i think inode0 is more getting at by funding a FAD on x, CommArch is making a FESCO-like decision? 18:32:23 <mdomsch> or do we forsee a growth in FADs that could not be satisfied? 18:32:26 <mizmo> i don't think theres a concern about exhausting funds? 18:32:37 <inode0> it isn't just about turning them down or funding them, it is also about encouraging them where they are beneficial 18:33:31 <mdomsch> FESCo could certainly propose FADs to further its goals 18:33:34 <inode0> which FESCo could maybe just take a more active role in doing regardless of the funding source 18:33:44 <mizmo> inode0++ 18:33:49 <jsmith> inode0: +1 18:34:39 <jsmith> Next question? 18:35:03 <inode0> ! 18:35:20 <jsmith> => inode0 18:35:22 <mizmo> if there aren't any questions in the queue we might want to address stephen gallagher's proposal to advisory-board-list 18:35:39 <inode0> I'd like to just point out that a lot of contributors think the FAMSCo budget is just for ambassadors and it isn't. 18:35:52 <jsmith> inode0: Yes, I think that's a fair thing to highlight 18:35:57 <inode0> If developers need funds for anything, please ask. 18:36:21 <inode0> EOF 18:36:28 <spot> ooh, i want a ZOMG. 18:36:40 <spot> </offtopic> 18:36:55 <smooge> is that the one that does 0-60 in 2.1 seconds? 18:37:06 <spot> smooge: only if it is being chased. 18:37:45 <notting> ! 18:37:55 <jsmith> mizmo: We talked about this in last week's board meeting -- II think we need to finish the Vision statement first, then discuss governance with regards to that vision 18:38:03 <jsmith> => notting 18:38:35 <jsmith> notting: Go ahead :-) 18:39:08 <notting> with regards to fesco becoming more of an enforcing body, historically , there's been a reluctance to ... suggest ... to contributors that their energies are better focused elsewhere. 18:39:31 <notting> if the board would like fesco to be a more enforcing body, does that mean they are ok with taking a stronger stance in this area? 18:39:32 <notting> EOF 18:40:22 <spot> "Gee, we're really grateful that you've electrified the toilet seat, but maybe that's not what we need right now." 18:40:24 * mdomsch says yes. Otherwise, what does setting direction mean. 18:40:24 <walters> i don't see how it's any different from rough consensus of a project's maintainers not allowing bad code in 18:40:29 <jsmith> I think we agree that if FESCo is going to make technical decisions, it needs to be able to say no. 18:40:43 <jsmith> We might disagree about the exact details, but in general, the answer to your question is "yes" 18:40:49 <mmcgrath> ! 18:41:01 <jsmith> => mmcgrath 18:41:38 <mmcgrath> To add onto that, does the board think FESCo should be making "should" decisions as well as the "can" decisions they're making now? 18:41:49 <mizmo> from a user experience perspective i think its more important to say no then yes 18:42:21 <jsmith> mmcgrath: That's an awfully vague question... can you be more specific? 18:42:33 <inode0> ! 18:42:49 <mmcgrath> FESCo seems to be a policy and approval body right now, it doesn't seem to be focused on what Fedora should be. It's just making engineering decisions. 18:42:54 <mmcgrath> so Fedora's been engineered, not designed. 18:43:39 <mmcgrath> so does the board think they should be pushing FESCo to step in more into the design of what Fedora should be? 18:43:50 * mmcgrath admits he might not be making sense. blames IRC 18:44:01 <walters> hmm, i wouldn't say "design" but "technical direction", probably 18:44:12 <jsmith> And I wouldn't use the word "pushed", either. 18:44:24 <spot> i would agree with "technical direction" as being a responsibility of FESCo. 18:44:28 <jsmith> I don't think it's as much about "pushing" as it is "working together" 18:44:53 <jsmith> I think FESCo should work together with the board to make sure they share the same vision for Fedora, and then work together to realize that vision. 18:45:10 <mizmo> i kinda think the board and fesco should design fedora together as a product with the board settings the vision and fesco determining how to best make it happen technically 18:45:14 * spot would love to see FESCo and the Board say "these are some big problems that we're going to rally the community to solve" 18:45:19 <mizmo> yeh exactly what jsmith said lol 18:45:25 <mizmo> jinx :) 18:45:29 <jsmith> Right now, the Board is working on their vision statement. When done, we expect to consult with FESCo to get things lined up behind said vision 18:45:55 <mizmo> having the vision will help define the major problems - whats a problem in the context of one vision might be a positive in another 18:46:08 * jds2001 apologizes for being very late 18:46:13 <mdomsch> we've already started to do just that... There's a back-and-forth on what the Board really means by the stable updates policy, for example. 18:46:14 <jsmith> jds2001: No worries 18:46:34 <smooge> mmcgrath, are you at EOF? 18:46:37 <mmcgrath> EOF 18:46:38 <jsmith> inode0: Your comment? 18:46:44 <inode0> should and must are two dangerous words to say to a volunteer - be careful using them in their direction :) 18:46:57 <skvidal> ! 18:47:16 <jds2001> inode0: i sort of think that they have to be used. 18:47:24 <mdomsch> inode0: careful, I agree. But we shouldn't be scared to use them too. 18:47:33 <jsmith> inode0: What would the RFCs look like without "shall" and "must" and "should"? We obviously need to be considerate (and even compassionate?), but we must also draw some boundaries 18:47:33 <jds2001> and also, as mizmo so eloequently put i, the word "no". 18:47:47 <skvidal> -! 18:47:50 <jsmith> skvidal: Go ahead 18:47:55 <mizmo> i think 37signals says something like say no to a feature request the first three times, consider yes the 4th time 18:47:56 <skvidal> withdrawn 18:48:27 <smooge> mizmo, that is an old zen practice I think. 18:48:32 <jsmith> Or, at a minimum, ask "Why?" until you get to the root of the problem, like a famous car manufacturer used to do 18:48:39 <mdomsch> like it or not, the CVS->git conversion was a "must" 18:48:39 * inode0 points back to the last thing spot said ... without using either 18:48:42 <inode0> EOF 18:48:56 <mizmo> zazen 18:49:15 <jsmith> OK, we have time for one more question I think. 18:49:22 <jsmith> (Maybe two if they're short) 18:50:31 <skvidal> ? 18:51:03 <rdieter> skvidal's on fire 18:51:13 <jsmith> skvidal: Go ahead! 18:51:14 <skvidal> what's our target again? I was looking for it in the wiki and I couldn't find it 18:51:18 <mdomsch> rdieter: we need to be sure skvidal is at the next set of election town halls :-) 18:51:42 <jsmith> skvidal: We have a mission statement, that should explain what we're doing now to reach the target. 18:51:59 <jsmith> skvidal: We're working on a vision statement (thanks, mizmo!) which defines where we want to be in 5 to 10 years 18:52:03 <skvidal> to reach the target? 18:52:17 <skvidal> so we have a mission which aims at a target but we don't know what the target is? 18:52:29 <mizmo> hm i can't find it either 18:52:30 <jds2001> we know what the target is. 18:52:32 <mizmo> there is a wikipage, i've seen it 18:52:32 <skvidal> or are we going to fire away and whatever we hit, that was the target 18:52:41 * jsmith has seen it too 18:52:44 * jds2001 too 18:52:50 <mizmo> no it's something like, normal people who are slightly geeky / curious about tech 18:53:03 <skvidal> okay - maybe it shouldn't be QUITE so hard to find? 18:53:04 * mizmo goes wiki spelunking 18:53:08 <mizmo> yeh it should not be 18:53:10 <jds2001> and are willing to participate in the process when it breaks 18:53:46 <jds2001> that could mean things like "be repsonsive in bug reports", etc 18:53:57 <mizmo> http://lwn.net/Articles/358865/ 18:54:08 <mizmo> We found four defining characteristics that we 18:54:08 <mizmo> believe best describe the Fedora distribution's target audience: 18:54:08 <mizmo> Someone who (1) is voluntarily switching to Linux, (2) is familiar 18:54:08 <mizmo> with computers, but is not necessarily a hacker or developer, (3) is 18:54:08 <mizmo> likely to collaborate in some fashion when something's wrong with 18:54:09 <mizmo> Fedora, and (4) wants to use Fedora for general productivity, either 18:54:11 <mizmo> using desktop applications or a Web browser. 18:54:30 <skvidal> mizmo: thank you 18:54:51 <mizmo> it should be way more front and center 18:54:59 <mizmo> i could not find it in wiki search at all 18:54:59 <skvidal> so we've precluded servrs from the target 18:55:00 <skvidal> that's fine 18:55:04 <skvidal> I just wanted to confirm it 18:55:11 <Oxf13> ! 18:55:15 <skvidal> EOF 18:55:22 <mdomsch> skvidal: primarily due to the lifecycle that doesn't tend to match server deployments 18:55:28 <jds2001> as a target as such, yeah. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be cognizant of the use case. 18:55:39 <nirik> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User_base ? 18:55:41 <jsmith> OK folks... we're just about out of time. 18:55:43 <jds2001> after all, that's how i make my living :) 18:55:48 * mdomsch too 18:55:52 <jsmith> Thanks again to everyone for coming out, and asking some great questions! 18:55:55 <rdieter> gold star for nirik 18:56:07 <walters> skvidal: hmm, i wouldn't say it can't be *a* target, just not *the* target 18:56:18 <jsmith> Again, feel free to bring up these types of questions and discussions on the advisory-board list 18:56:37 <peteforsyth> bzz bzz, says the fly -- I am very impressed with your meeting, this has been really fun and informative -- and thanks to mizmo for a little jargon help! 18:56:37 <spot> yes. the target is buying Minnesota elections... *cough* 18:56:48 <jsmith> (preferably with proposals for solving problems) 18:57:06 <mattdm> not preclude any feature development that goes beyond that audience. 18:57:06 <mattdm> By having an audience in mind, we as a community can prioritize 18:57:06 <mattdm> resources, and at the same time make it possible for people who want 18:57:06 <mattdm> to concentrate on other audiences to build community around those 18:57:07 <mattdm> efforts." 18:57:46 <mattdm> (oops sorry i hate xchat) 18:57:56 <jsmith> #topic Any Other Business? 18:58:36 <jsmith> #info Next week's Board meeting via telephone, mizmo's turn to take notes 18:58:53 <mizmo> sorry i missed last meeting :( i was getting fit for my wedding dress 18:58:58 <mizmo> timing didnt work out 18:59:02 <jsmith> A reminder to the Board members that I sent an email re: better times for the meeting 18:59:14 <rdieter> mizmo: good excuse! :) 18:59:20 <jsmith> mizmo: No worries -- We all have real lives too 18:59:21 <goozbach> friday afternoon is kinda difficult 18:59:26 <mizmo> hehe 18:59:28 <jsmith> goozbach: I agree :-) 18:59:39 <jsmith> And with that... I move that we adjourn. 18:59:57 <jsmith> #endmeeting