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