fedora_board
MINUTES
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