16:02:09 <jlaska> #startmeeting
16:02:13 <poelcat> jlaska: no we are done and wouldn't want to degrade the quality of our next release :)
16:02:18 <jlaska> haha
16:02:25 <jlaska> rats, there goes my first excuse ;)
16:02:27 <adamw> poelcat: don't worry, we can do that well enough on our own ;)
16:02:36 <poelcat> lol
16:02:39 <jlaska> #meetingtopic Fedora QA meeting
16:02:47 <jlaska> #topic Gathering warm bodies
16:02:56 <maxamillion> lol
16:03:06 <jlaska> okay ... we've got a few familiar faces already ... let's do a roll call
16:03:08 * jlaska 
16:03:18 * maxamillion 
16:03:19 * poelcat stays in his seat, hi
16:03:23 * tk009 tk009
16:03:37 * wwoods cambot! gypsy! tom servo! and crooooooow!
16:04:05 * kparal1 is here
16:04:25 <adamw> good job with the list then jlaska =)
16:04:39 * dpravec is here
16:04:44 <jlaska> uh oh ... the pressure is on ... good turn out today :)
16:05:32 <jlaska> okay, we've got a hard stop today in 55 minutes (Fedora Belux meeting)
16:05:43 <jlaska> let's do a quick recap from last week
16:05:48 <jlaska> #topic Previous meeting follow-up
16:06:15 * jlaska hopes Viking-Ice is lurking
16:06:20 <jlaska> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Meetings/20090715#Previous_meeting_follow-up
16:06:36 * Viking-Ice jumps in a little late..
16:06:42 <jlaska> Viking-Ice: sweet, welcome
16:06:50 <jlaska> [jlaska] - update fedora-qa privs so that viking_ice is on the default bcc
16:06:58 * f13 
16:07:03 <jlaska> should be good there, Viking-Ice you should now be spamfull :)
16:07:09 <jlaska> f13: welcome!
16:07:35 <jlaska> Next up ...
16:07:39 <jlaska> * [jlaska] - file a bunch of tickets to track wiki RFC's (requests for content) for debugging pages ... email list seeking volunteers after
16:08:06 <jlaska> I filed just 3 so far for the 3 missing Debugging pages beland noted (see http://tinyurl.com/n6n24f)
16:08:19 <adamw> i'm hoping to do some work on those
16:08:36 <jlaska> Will send out a mail to the list letting folks know it's a good way to get involved
16:09:10 <jlaska> adamw: thanks, there were some other pages beland noted could use improvement ... I haven't done anything with those yet
16:09:33 <adamw> yeah, it's something i feel good about working on for sure, i have the resources and time for it again now
16:09:42 <jlaska> Awesome
16:09:46 * adamw went back from 8.9" to 40" of monitor space =)
16:09:50 <dpravec> i will need to feed my 12 months old daughter during this meeting. i would love to move it to another day of week, if that is possible... wednesday is not easy for me (my wife is going away for few hours, its 18:09 here)
16:10:09 <jlaska> dpravec: I've got a spot in the agenda to see if we can work up a new time
16:10:37 <dpravec> if i do not respond quickly, you know why :)
16:10:46 <jlaska> gotcha :)
16:10:49 <jlaska> okay, next up ... my always present Goal topic ...
16:10:57 <maxamillion> adamw: total side note, you getting native res on that vaio p yet?
16:11:08 <adamw> maxamillion: pm
16:11:24 <jlaska> * [jlaska] - update [[QA/Goals]] wiki document
16:11:50 <jlaska> Spent some time on that this morning, but need to keep thinking about a good way  to represent and allow for growth
16:12:50 <jlaska> I'm not ready to toss it out for review yet ... but playing around with different methods in a draft page
16:12:55 <jlaska> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Jlaska/Draft
16:13:12 <jlaska> I'll keep playing throughout the week, if folks have input, feel free to get in touch with me
16:13:44 <jlaska> that's it from me
16:13:53 <jlaska> any other follow-up items folks wanted to discus from last week?
16:14:44 <f13> let me look at the agenda real quick again
16:15:17 <f13> well, we could talk about the changes to F12 schedule
16:15:42 <jlaska> Okay, I'll add that to the news section
16:15:59 <jlaska> #topic In the news - Fedora 12 QA schedule updates
16:16:26 <jlaska> as f13 points out, a group of us gathered in fedora talk this week to hash out some ideas around QA milestones on the F12 schedule
16:17:04 * jlaska trying to find linky
16:17:44 <jlaska> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2009-July/msg00241.html
16:18:11 <jlaska> poelcat: summarized the outcome ... as listed in the email above
16:18:26 <f13> he also updated the schedule pages on his people pages
16:18:42 <f13> http://poelstra.fedorapeople.org/schedules/f-12/f-12-quality-tasks.html
16:19:15 <f13> hrm, that seems not what you need.
16:19:39 <f13> oh, n/m.  It shows the testing of things, just not when they're composed.
16:19:53 * poelcat hasn't done a recent review of the quality schedule... we discussed http://poelstra.fedorapeople.org/schedules/f-12/f-12-releng-tasks.html
16:19:56 <poelcat> which overlaps w/ both
16:20:11 <poelcat> though it should be correct
16:20:30 <adamw> the schedule looks pretty good to me
16:20:35 <adamw> lots of bug review days which i like :)
16:20:57 <jlaska> the added bug days and agreement on the pre/post freeze composes is a huge plus for me :)
16:21:08 <jlaska> so speaking of ... this is a good tie into the next topic ...
16:21:16 <jlaska> #topic Alpha Blocker Bug Day #1 - Friday, July 17th
16:21:36 <jlaska> poelcat: sent out the reminder to f-test-list and f-devel-list ... https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2009-July/msg00239.html
16:21:55 <jlaska> as you can see the list is completely empty right now ... which I don't think means we have no bugs
16:22:00 <jlaska> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=f12alpha
16:22:02 <buggbot> Bug 507676: medium, low, ---, notting, NEW, Fedora 12 Alpha tracker
16:22:38 <adamw> maybe we should look at all f12blocker bugs and see if any are appropriate to block f12alpha too
16:22:46 <adamw> i've honestly just been thinking about f12blocker and not f12alpha...
16:23:01 <jlaska> adamw: that's a good suggestion ... there was also talk about the F11target list which you already commented on I think
16:23:22 <adamw> yeah, i don't have a massively strong opinion on that though.
16:23:37 <jlaska> agreed, nor do I
16:23:40 <adamw> i can take a few minutes today to go through f12blocker and put appropriate stuff on f12alpha too if you like, put that down as an action item
16:23:55 <jlaska> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/showdependencytree.cgi?id=473303&hide_resolved=1
16:24:06 <jlaska> not too too bad
16:24:37 <jlaska> so .. this raises the question for me, what type of issues constitute an Alpha blocker
16:24:42 <jlaska> should we go by severity?
16:24:49 <poelcat> semi-related... I drafted up https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Poelstra/blocker_bug_meeting_sop
16:25:18 <f13> don't we have alpha release criteria we could go by?
16:25:58 <maxamillion> I think https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=510033 should be a F12Alpha blocker
16:25:58 <jlaska> I just see the standard https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/ReleaseCriteria page right now
16:25:59 <buggbot> Bug 510033: medium, low, ---, anaconda-maint-list, NEW, AttributeError: 'NoneType' object has no attribute 'name'
16:26:07 <adamw> i think for alpha we should probably be going more or less by the critical path stuff
16:26:23 <adamw> plus X, maybe? meh.
16:26:26 <jlaska> adamw: that's a good way to tie it into recent proposals
16:26:37 <wwoods> X is in the critical path.
16:26:38 <f13> X is in the critical path
16:26:40 <adamw> oh ok. :)
16:26:43 <adamw> wusses!
16:26:47 <jlaska> ;)
16:27:05 * adamw has visions of ancient beardy types shaking fists
16:28:12 <jlaska> Do folks have any opinions on documenting what we should be keeping on the radar for the alpha?
16:28:21 <adamw> well, my suggestion is - make it the critical path stuff.
16:28:24 <poelcat> adamw: if there aren't many bugs to discuss on Friday... laying out the criteria would be a good thing to do
16:28:29 * poelcat won't be able to attend
16:28:48 <jlaska> adamw: yeah, I think limiting to the scope of components to critical path is a good thing
16:29:07 <jlaska> but does that mean all bugs against critical path components, just urgent, panics etc...
16:29:39 <jlaska> heck, I wonder if we should limit things to critical path for all milestones (and document how the criteria can be extended outside that scope)
16:29:54 <adamw> i dunno, flying by the seat of my pants here.
16:30:05 <jlaska> welcome to the club ;)
16:30:40 <jlaska> I'd be willing to take a crack at documenting some guidelines, but I could use some help with that
16:31:35 <adamw> i can think of some nice-in-theory approaches
16:31:48 <adamw> we could just use the existing work and say 'critical severity bugs in in critical path packages'...
16:32:08 <jlaska> hmm, that's actually good and fits ... KISS
16:32:09 <adamw> but in practical terms i'm not sure it can be that simple. i mean, i'm looking through f12blocker on the side right now
16:32:22 <adamw> and we see 486284 , which is the grub support for ext4 stuff
16:32:42 <jlaska> which is a RFE right?
16:32:56 <adamw> hmm, that's one way to square that circle, yeah
16:32:59 <adamw> RFE's are different!
16:32:59 <adamw> :)
16:33:02 <jlaska> heh
16:33:09 <dpravec> :)
16:33:16 <adamw> well, we can try and go with a simple definition for now and get thornier from there =)
16:33:47 <dpravec> i would also see all apps having manpages...  iirc in debian this is serious bug...
16:33:58 <mcepl> let me just jump in ... "all the bugs on the critical path" is too much IMHO ... there are tons of X bugs where Xorg just isn't. Are those alpha blockers as well?
16:34:00 <dpravec> love to see*
16:34:01 <f13> and if you say critical severity of critical path packages, then we'd have to spend the day defining the criteria to make those bugs critical severity
16:34:06 <f13> because I'm sure most of them aren't.
16:34:11 <f13> or many are that shouldn't be.
16:34:27 <adamw> we have critera for the severity ratings already.
16:34:27 <f13> mcepl: "all bugs" is wrong.
16:34:31 <jlaska> f13: afaik ... severify is defined
16:34:38 <f13> defined yes, applied?
16:34:48 <f13> and does it truly match up with alpha release criteria?
16:35:08 <jlaska> exactly, that's I think what we're working through
16:35:11 <adamw> probably not 100% yet, but that's fine. what we mean is "bugs that are critical if the criteria are properly applied"...
16:35:16 <adamw> yeah, that's what i'm not sure about yet.
16:35:32 <adamw> the grub thing was my first obvious non-conformer, but as jlaska points out that's an rfe, and those are always tricky
16:35:56 <jlaska> it's also tricky to do this pre-freeze ... but I think this is forcing us to ask these questions waaaay before we normally do
16:36:00 <jlaska> which is good
16:36:01 <wwoods> I kinda wish we had some brainstorm type thing that RFEs could go into
16:36:03 <mcepl> f13: OK, is this https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=498457 Alpha blocker (to the best of my knowledge it is still the same in Rawhide as in F11)?
16:36:04 <wwoods> to keep them out of bugzilla
16:36:04 <buggbot> Bug 498457: urgent, low, ---, airlied, ASSIGNED, "radeon" driver fails on F11 Preview and Xpress 200M
16:36:46 <maxamillion> I'm new to the QA meetings so its highly possible this is common knowledge, but what's the process to get a bug added to a blocker list?
16:37:13 <jlaska> maxamillion: thanks for joining!
16:37:19 <adamw> mcepl: i've been working for a while on the basis that bugs in a single specific piece of hardware are not 'critical', only 'high'...could probably codify that more explicitly in the severity policy
16:37:35 <adamw> mcepl: because otherwise we'll just be drowning in critical X bugs
16:37:43 <wwoods> maxamillion: if you're confident that it's actually a blocker (see definitions) then you just add the bug alias (e.g. F12Blocker) to the "Blocks:" field on your bug
16:37:56 <adamw> the alias for f12 alpha is 'F12Alpha'
16:37:59 <mcepl> adamw: yeah, that was exactly my point
16:38:00 <maxamillion> jlaska: happy to be here :) ... mainly jumping in from the aspect of the Xfce SIG, that's my main focus at the moment but Fedora as a whole I'd love to help out as much as I am able
16:38:12 <adamw> mcepl: lemme see what we have written down about that in the policy atm
16:38:19 * mcepl is pull himself out of the discussion again
16:38:22 <mcepl> adamw: nothing
16:38:26 <mcepl> IIRC
16:38:32 <maxamillion> wwoods: are the blocker definitions in the wiki?
16:38:43 <jlaska> maxamillion: that's sort of the discussion now
16:38:47 <maxamillion> jlaska: ah
16:38:51 * maxamillion misunderstood
16:38:55 <mcepl> adamw: just that there is no way how to make Xorg work for this card without quite particular changes in xorg.conf.
16:39:04 <jlaska> no worries, as I see it ... trying to figure out a good way to help contributors know what a good blocker candidate bug is
16:39:18 <adamw> mcepl: yeah, so by the current quite short stanza in 'how to triage' it should be urgent, i agree; i'll add a caveat about hardware-specific issues there
16:39:25 <wwoods> maxamillion: current definition is, roughly, http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/ReleaseCriteria
16:39:29 <adamw> mcepl: in practice i've been calling bugs like that 'high', not 'urgent'
16:39:38 <maxamillion> wwoods: thank you
16:40:07 <jlaska> okay ... let's summarize this topic ...
16:40:40 <jlaska> * the current release criteria are located at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/ReleaseCriteria
16:41:10 <jlaska> * For the Alpha, we've decided to evaluate bugs by severity:urgent and compoent in critial path packages?
16:41:22 <jlaska> or is that still a proposal that needs hashing through?
16:41:59 <jlaska> adamw: got a link to the severity definitions?   I think my awesome bar still has the old draft link
16:42:06 <f13> mcepl: re that bug, this is where we start to apply "how many people does it hurt" thinking, as well as "how long until it can be fixed"
16:42:19 <adamw> jlaska: there's two places: the How to Triage page - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/How_to_Triage#Checklist_for_NEW_Bug_Triage (number 9)
16:42:36 <adamw> that has the quick practical instructions
16:42:46 <adamw> then the bug workflow page - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/BugStatusWorkFlow - has more detailed policy
16:42:54 <adamw> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/BugStatusWorkFlow#Priority_and_Severity
16:43:04 <wwoods> the release criteria can (and should!) be updated to better match reality and new policies/proposals
16:43:15 <wwoods> they're not set in stone or anything
16:43:24 <adamw> i have just added a quick exception to the how-to-triage page for hardware-specific issues
16:44:12 <jlaska> okay ... so we'll go with the notes above for now.  And likely adjust as needed
16:44:36 <jlaska> if folks are interested in helping to define, feel free to drop me a line or send ideas to the mailing list
16:44:51 <jlaska> #topic Fedora 12 Test Day schedule
16:45:00 <jlaska> Just a quick blurb about F12 test days ...
16:45:04 <jlaska> the schedule is light at this point still
16:45:18 <jlaska> however, adamw and I have a few topics planned that haven't yet landed on the schedule
16:45:40 <adamw> you may have to remind me about those, my brain is feeling lightly frazzled atm :)
16:45:49 <jlaska> ... incoming ...
16:46:01 <jlaska> I've got the full links in the minutes and on the discussion <tab>
16:46:10 <jlaska> but what's being planned so far includes:
16:46:12 <jlaska> *  Revisit of X drivers (e.g. nouveau)
16:46:12 <jlaska> * Anaconda F12 features
16:46:12 <jlaska> o Storage cleanup [1]
16:46:12 <jlaska> o RAID [2]
16:46:14 <jlaska> o Partition UI cleanup [3]
16:46:16 <jlaska> * Upcoming NetworkManager changes
16:46:19 <jlaska> o IPV6 [4]
16:46:21 <jlaska> o System-wide connections [5]
16:46:24 <jlaska> o Mobile broadband updates [6]
16:46:27 <jlaska> * Audio test day
16:46:29 <jlaska> 
16:47:12 <jlaska> if folks have ideas or would like to pitch a test day topic ... let me or adamw know ... or send a suggestion to the team list (fedora-test-list)
16:47:43 <jlaska> Dracut and Virtualization are already planned
16:47:58 <jlaska> and thanks to Viking-Ice for his help in fleshing out test and debugging pages for dracut!
16:48:14 <adamw> yeah that was awesome
16:48:25 <jlaska> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Dracut/Debugging
16:48:30 <jlaska> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Dracut/Testing
16:48:42 <jlaska> okay ... 12 minutes remaining ...
16:48:46 <jlaska> switching over to autoqa
16:48:48 <jlaska> #topic AutoQA - update from wwoods
16:49:06 <jlaska> wwoods: want to walk us through a brief update?
16:49:20 <wwoods> sure
16:49:55 <wwoods> So the first big milestone for autoqa is still the israwhidebroken.com project
16:50:10 <wwoods> the first big chunk of that was writing the rawhide acceptance test plan
16:50:14 * kparal2 has rejoined because of broken internet connection, sorry
16:50:20 <wwoods> that's https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Rawhide_Acceptance_Test_Plan
16:50:42 <wwoods> last week I finished writing the test cases
16:50:49 <jlaska> kparal2: no worries, welcome back :)
16:51:06 <wwoods> two of the test cases required some critical path work to be done first
16:51:12 <wwoods> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Core_package_dependency_closure_test_case
16:51:16 <wwoods> and https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Core_package_existence_test_case
16:51:48 <wwoods> those test cases will probably change as we develop some tools for examining the critical path packages
16:52:03 <wwoods> and then there's the two super-basic functional tests: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Network_basic_test_case
16:52:07 <wwoods> and https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Yum_simple_update_test_case
16:52:33 <wwoods> as described in the test plan, those are the two functional things we'll check before bothering with any other testing
16:52:44 <wwoods> so don't get confused and think "this is all the testing they're doing?"
16:53:05 <wwoods> this is just the set of things we have to test before the *real* testing can even start.
16:53:32 <wwoods> so anyway - first versions of all the test cases are now complete and I'm starting to read up on autotest
16:53:44 <wwoods> and write automated tests for these test cases
16:53:48 <wwoods> using the autotest API
16:54:21 <wwoods> more info about the tasks / progress can be found here: https://fedorahosted.org/autoqa/milestone/israwhidebroken.com
16:54:40 * jlaska adds a blurb about cricital path to the test plan risks section
16:55:19 <Viking-Ice> Could we please not use this <code>blurp</code> and rather use <pre>blurp</pre> in the wiki when working with commands
16:55:34 <wwoods> that doesn't work inside bulleted lists.
16:55:38 <maxamillion> wwoods: http://autotest.kernel.org <-- is this the autotest you are talking about?
16:55:42 <wwoods> or rather, it breaks numbered lists
16:55:43 <wwoods> maxamillion: yes
16:56:17 <jlaska> wwoods: cool, any other updates/concerns?
16:56:30 <Viking-Ice> then let's not use it et al..
16:56:48 <jlaska> I've asked kparal2 to look at the test case tickets you've outlined too ... so he'll be trying to familiarize himself soon
16:56:49 <adamw> actually, for commands you should use {{command|foobar}}
16:56:50 <f13> maxamillion: yes, I've been working on getting it packaged and deployed in Fedora infrastrcuture for our use
16:56:58 <adamw> oh, that's just for one-word commands though
16:57:00 <Viking-Ice> adamw: that equally sucks...
16:57:03 <adamw> sorry.
16:57:04 <f13> any other colors we'd like the bike shed?
16:57:04 <maxamillion> f13: ah, awesome
16:57:07 <wwoods> jlaska: not really? things are going to get harder when we start trying to do the boot / installer / functional tests
16:57:09 <f13> or can we move on?
16:57:12 <adamw> f13: puce!
16:57:27 <wwoods> but we'll deal with that once some of the other autotest stuff is worked out.
16:57:44 <jlaska> wwoods: yeah exactly
16:58:04 <jlaska> Viking-Ice: perhaps an offline discussion around updating the usage of <code> in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Help:Editing ?
16:58:10 <jlaska> okay last topic  ...
16:58:13 <jlaska> with 2 minutes left
16:58:24 <jlaska> #topic Updated meeting time
16:58:49 <jlaska> I'm sorry, but the meeting planner doesn't allow for more TZ's ... but here's what I'm looking at so far
16:58:52 <jlaska> http://timeanddate.com/worldclock/meetingtime.html?month=7&day=15&year=2009&p1=0&p2=256&p3=207&p4=204
16:59:14 <adamw> was it bugzappers we did a matrix for before?
16:59:30 <jlaska> I'd like to adjust the meeting a bit to accomodate dpravec's schedule better ... besides it's been @ 16:00 for too long now :)
16:59:32 <Viking-Ice> who do need these time changes
16:59:53 <tk009> adamw:  yes
17:00:01 <adamw> ah, ok. so we don't have one for qa
17:00:06 <f13> jlaska: that would mean moving it earlier
17:00:08 <jlaska> tk009: do you have a link?
17:00:10 <adamw> jlaska: we should probably do the same as we did for bugzappers
17:00:17 <jlaska> f13: another day or earlier
17:00:19 <f13> jlaska: I think at most I'd be comfortable one hour earlier
17:00:23 <adamw> set up a matrix of possible times and see when works best for everyone
17:00:25 <tk009> I dont sorry, not on my machine
17:00:34 <adamw> yeah, we really can't have it more than one hour earlier for those on the west coast
17:00:43 <adamw> one hour earlier is 7am for us in winter
17:00:51 <jlaska> adamw: rise and shine!
17:01:04 <Viking-Ice> f13: does that fit the crappy daylight savings time or do we need to change it again later in the year?
17:01:11 <jlaska> ugh, that'd be a wakeup call
17:01:12 <kparal2> maybe it could be changed depending on summer time?
17:01:20 <adamw> Viking-Ice: at present we're not changing for dst
17:01:27 <jlaska> we keep it UTC
17:01:36 <f13> Viking-Ice: as stated, an hour earlier puts it at 0700 during the winter here in the states
17:01:39 <adamw> Viking-Ice: it's the same time in utc all year, which means for most people it moves one hour when dst hits
17:01:45 <jlaska> okay, so I'll take an action to work up a matrix on the wiki and ask folks for their input
17:01:51 <f13> the only other day I have an early meeting is every other Tuesday
17:02:04 <adamw> jlaska: if you go through the test-list archives you can probably find a link to the matrix example page
17:02:05 <f13> so every other day either current time or less good one our earlier worksf or me
17:02:05 <jlaska> hopefully we can find a time that can highlight availability for folks
17:02:16 <jlaska> adamw: yeah I recall seeing it a long while ago ... thanks I'll take a look
17:02:27 <adamw> jlaska: oh, found it: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Bugzappers_meeting_matrix
17:02:44 <jlaska> adamw: sweet, thx
17:03:00 <jlaska> okay I'll work this up and ask folks to update sometime after the meeting
17:03:16 <jlaska> #topic Open discussion
17:03:25 <jlaska> okay ... time for the word of the day
17:03:43 <jlaska> 'Sassafras'
17:04:12 <jlaska> jk ... are there any topics/concerns folks want to raise during the meeting?
17:04:20 <kparal2> i just have a question - how many RHEL guys participate in the Fedora test days? just to have the notion
17:04:39 <adamw> depends on the topic
17:04:43 <adamw> how do you mean 'rhel guys' exactly?
17:05:09 <kparal2> well, internal redhat employees, working in RHEL
17:05:10 <Viking-Ice> Rebrand rawhide spins I think nirik push this to legal or some where else we need to keep an eye for it
17:05:17 <Viking-Ice> on it I mean
17:05:33 <adamw> kparal2: varies hugely by topic...some test days are essentially only _for_ that kind of person, but for something like, oh, nouveau test day, probably none
17:05:35 <f13> kparal2: that's quite hard to measure
17:05:47 <kparal2> ok
17:06:00 <jlaska> Viking-Ice: oh thanks ... is there action needed by us on that topic, or is this something to keep on the radar?
17:06:03 <adamw> Viking-Ice: what's our involvement in that?
17:06:03 <f13> kparal2: many "rhel guys" are Fedora users themselves, many are upstream developers who use Fedora as a deployment and test platform, and many use Fedora for next RHEL development
17:06:21 <Viking-Ice> we make live cd for test day
17:06:26 <Viking-Ice> do we need to rebrand them
17:06:34 <jlaska> oh interesting
17:06:40 <jlaska> ugh
17:06:47 <Viking-Ice> exactly
17:07:01 <jlaska> okay, will definitely keep an eye on that and update the livecd creation page if needed (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Test_Days/Live_Image)
17:07:08 <jlaska> Viking-Ice: thanks!
17:07:17 <Viking-Ice> this is just plain stupid
17:07:48 <adamw> Red Hat sues the Fedora QA group? :D
17:08:01 <jlaska> awesome
17:08:08 * adamw sees spot bearing down on him with legal papers
17:08:13 <Viking-Ice> think xfce spin maxamillions case
17:08:18 <Viking-Ice> rawhide spins that is
17:08:18 <jlaska> right
17:08:31 <Viking-Ice> and all spins sigs for that matter
17:09:05 <f13> well, given that Red Hat/Fedora is the copyright holder on Fedora, we can make a case that we're allowed to do things with the copyright/logo that others aren't necessarily allowed to do
17:09:16 <f13> so things like snapshots and test day isos would fall under allowed
17:09:38 <jlaska> Any other topics/concerns to raise in the meeting today folks?
17:10:01 <maxamillion> sorry, was side tracked by $dayjob
17:10:13 <jlaska> maxamillion: no worries
17:10:43 <jlaska> okay gang ... let's wrap it up for today
17:10:52 <jlaska> I'll follow-up later today with minutes
17:10:57 <jlaska> thanks everyone for your time :)
17:11:04 <jlaska> #endmeeting