16:02:02 <sgallagh> #startmeeting Server Working Group Weekly Meeting (2013-11-12)
16:02:02 <zodbot> Meeting started Tue Nov 12 16:02:02 2013 UTC.  The chair is sgallagh. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:02:02 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
16:02:07 <sgallagh> #chair sgallagh mizmo nirik davidstrauss Evolution Viking-Ice simo tuanta mitr
16:02:07 <zodbot> Current chairs: Evolution Viking-Ice davidstrauss mitr mizmo nirik sgallagh simo tuanta
16:02:12 <sgallagh> #topic roll call
16:02:34 <tuanta> .hellomynameis tuanta
16:02:35 <zodbot> tuanta: tuanta 'Truong Anh Tuan' <tuanta@iwayvietnam.com>
16:02:41 <sgallagh> .hellomynamis sgallagh
16:02:51 <nirik> .hellomynameis kevin
16:02:54 <zodbot> nirik: kevin 'Kevin Fenzi' <kevin@scrye.com>
16:02:58 <sgallagh> .hellomynameis sgallagh
16:03:00 <zodbot> sgallagh: sgallagh 'Stephen Gallagher' <sgallagh@redhat.com>
16:03:04 <kde_tony> ./hellomynameis kdetony
16:03:27 <pingou> .hellomynameis pingou
16:03:28 <zodbot> pingou: pingou 'Pierre-YvesChibon' <pingou@pingoured.fr>
16:03:32 <mitr> Hello all
16:03:36 <sgallagh> kde_tony: Drop the slash
16:03:43 <kde_tony> .hellomynameis kdetony
16:03:44 <zodbot> kde_tony: kdetony 'Anthony Mogrovejo' <tony001983@gmail.com>
16:03:59 <simo> hello
16:04:10 <simo> have we started yet ?
16:04:18 <sgallagh> simo: Doing roll-call
16:04:47 * simo rolls in
16:04:52 * Viking-Ice half in
16:06:11 * nirik is also watching beta release stuff, so will be somewhat distracted.
16:06:18 <sgallagh> Understood
16:07:15 <sgallagh> Evolution can't make it today.
16:07:22 <sgallagh> davidstrauss, mizmo?
16:07:28 <mizmo> .fasinfo mizmo
16:07:31 <zodbot> mizmo: User "mizmo" doesn't exist
16:07:37 <mizmo> .fasinfo duffy
16:07:38 <zodbot> mizmo: User: duffy, Name: duffy, email: fedora@linuxgrrl.com, Creation: 2006-04-07, IRC Nick: mizmo, Timezone: US/Eastern, Locale: en, GPG key ID: 65E04EE2, Status: active
16:07:42 <zodbot> mizmo: Approved Groups: +sysadmin-nuancier gitbadges @gitfedora-magazine marketing gitanaconda fedorabugs cla_fedora @art cla_done gitspacewalk +gitspins @web cvsfedora packager @gitbluecurve @gitthemes gitpulp gitfedoracommunity gitmoksha sysadmin @designteam sysadmin-test gitfedora-zikula @gitfedora-insight-theme gitvirt_web gitfedora-web ambassadors @gitsparkleshare @gitpandix-logos cla_fpca @gitfedora-ux (1 more message)
16:07:42 * mizmo learns her own username
16:07:51 <mizmo> whoah damn sorry i didnt know it was that verbose
16:08:12 <sgallagh> mizmo: (dot)hellomynameis is less so
16:08:14 * mizmo hides in the corner
16:08:16 <Viking-Ice> my fasinfo pales in comparison with that one
16:08:17 <nirik> thats why the 'hellomynameis' is nice for this. ;)
16:08:49 <sgallagh> Ok, I think we have quorum to proceed
16:08:51 <tuanta> or just ".fas"
16:08:56 <sgallagh> #topic agenda
16:09:11 <sgallagh> So, I dropped the ball and forgot to send out an agenda request this week.
16:09:26 <sgallagh> So I guess we'll pretty much go free-form?
16:09:34 <nirik> tuanta: but fas is a wildcard search, so can get a ton of other stuff too. ;)
16:09:40 <sgallagh> (We have plenty to discuss, just no formal agenda)
16:10:08 <mizmo> well i would suggest we discuss your proposal and nirik's proposal
16:10:16 <mizmo> lemme double check and see what the last meeting minutes left open too
16:10:28 <sgallagh> So just a minor note: props to Viking-Ice for suggesting a governance formula that most of the other groups are copying verbatim
16:10:40 <Viking-Ice> sgallagh, just the wise ones ;)
16:10:45 <pknirsch> +1 ;)
16:10:47 <nirik> :) yeah, cool.
16:10:49 * pknirsch lurks again
16:10:51 <Viking-Ice> I think I got server roles nailed here https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Johannbg/FOSSP#Server_Roles.2C_Technologies_and_Features_in_FedoraOS_Server_Platform_.28_FOSSP_.29
16:11:15 <mizmo> looks like we didn't resolve this from last time: "Each server could have multiple roles at the same time"
16:11:44 <mizmo> i thought we agreed not to have 500 PRDs last time
16:12:01 <sgallagh> Viking-Ice: That's quite exhaustive. Let's take a look at that a little later (hopefully we can all scan through it in parallel)
16:12:11 <sgallagh> mizmo: Not the same thing
16:12:29 <mitr> Viking-Ice: could you send an e-mail to the list about the document, to make sure everyone gets a chance to review/think about it?
16:12:37 <sgallagh> A server having multiple roles could be as simple as "In my cost-constrained office, I want my domain controller to also be my email server"
16:13:06 <Viking-Ice> mitr, the is an draft for the FOS proposal
16:13:09 <nirik> huh, yeah, thats a long set of stuff.
16:13:20 <mizmo> sgallagh, it seems like some folks were against that and some were for it, last meeting iiuc
16:13:24 <Viking-Ice> mitr,  but it covers most stuff we have talked about
16:13:34 <sgallagh> mizmo: There was concern about being able to test such things.
16:13:38 * nirik opens a tab to read it at some point.
16:13:44 <sgallagh> Which is certainly valid.
16:13:53 <mitr> Viking-Ice: all the same, I can't really comment on that long document during the same hour I've first seen it
16:14:15 <nirik> yeah, testing can be a big pain if we have 10 featured things and you can install any one or any combo of them.
16:14:16 <sgallagh> I'd be inclined to propose that the mechanisms we settle on should *allow* it, but state that we recommend against it and don't test it.
16:14:19 <mitr> sgallagh: We aren't ordinarily concerned about testing a system that has both Firefox and Devhelp installed; isn't this the same thing?
16:14:24 <Viking-Ice> mitr, yeah I actually was going to send this out yesterday ( and now I was just talking about server roles spesific section there )
16:14:37 <nirik> but we could also just say 'we test each of these things alone, let us know if they interact poorly'
16:14:39 <mizmo> maybe let's focus on the drafts that have been out on the list for a week+ and make sure this new draft document is put on the queue to discuss on the list?
16:14:51 <Viking-Ice> mitr, but I was up 02:00 thinking about the update/upgrade lifecycle stuf
16:14:52 <mizmo> are we diving into multiple roles at once topic now?
16:14:52 <nirik> mizmo: +1
16:15:01 <sgallagh> mitr: At first glance I agree with you, but with server applications they can sometimes interact with each other in odd ways.
16:15:20 <kde_tony> mizmo: +1
16:15:23 <sgallagh> Such as requiring mod_nss vs. mod_ssl in apache (to pluck a known example out of the air)
16:15:43 <mizmo> sgallagh, can you chair me?
16:15:46 <Viking-Ice> server can have one or more roles
16:15:50 <sgallagh> Can we pick one thing to discuss at a time and set the topic?
16:15:52 <Viking-Ice> there is no doubt about that
16:15:53 <sgallagh> #chair mizmo
16:15:53 <zodbot> Current chairs: Evolution Viking-Ice davidstrauss mitr mizmo nirik sgallagh simo tuanta
16:15:54 <mitr> sgallagh: that's agood point
16:16:06 <mizmo> #topic Can a single server have multiple roles?
16:16:12 <Viking-Ice> I say yes
16:16:18 <Evolution> very much yes.
16:16:19 <Viking-Ice> it can have multiple roles
16:16:23 <nirik> I think so too...
16:16:35 <nirik> but we need to be clear what we test in that world. ;)
16:16:37 <mitr> Yes
16:16:39 <sgallagh> As I said above, I think it must be possible, but we can probably get away with stating that we only test each role in a vacuum
16:17:00 <Viking-Ice> we chose a role and we test cover that role
16:17:15 <mitr> Alternatively, when/if we get automated tests, doing a "full install" and running all the tests on it should be reasonable - but let's nto commit do doing manual work twice
16:17:22 <Evolution> do we document roles that obviously conflict?
16:17:28 <simo> well in some cases you can in some others you cannot
16:17:31 <simo> practical example
16:17:33 <Viking-Ice> Evolution, I would say not
16:17:36 <simo> in freeipa we use mod_nss
16:17:51 <simo> so you won't be able to use it with another program that depends on mod_ssl
16:17:52 <mizmo> it looks like another concern from last week's minutes, about multiple roles per server, was how to install the server that way
16:18:09 <sgallagh> Evolution: That would still require testing all of them together to learn whether they conflict.
16:18:10 <simo> that may change in time to avoid issues
16:18:16 <Viking-Ice> you install the base server ( which I call FOSSP ) then install one or more roles
16:18:25 <simo> and fedora server contribution may actually help smooth those issues in soem cases
16:18:28 <sgallagh> simo: I cited that exact example about twenty lines ago :)
16:18:30 <nirik> it's a factorial problem. ;)
16:18:31 <mizmo> Viking-Ice, yeh that makes sense to me
16:18:32 <simo> but we can only guarantee what we test
16:18:40 <simo> so perhaps we should start just with bare roles
16:18:47 <simo> and the in time add explicitly tested combinations
16:18:52 <mizmo> simo +1
16:18:55 <simo> sgallagh: sorry
16:19:01 <Viking-Ice> simo, sounds like a sane approach
16:19:03 <sgallagh> simo: Not a problem. Just glad we agree :)
16:19:21 <sgallagh> simo: +1 to that. Want to phrase it as a proposal we can ack?
16:19:29 <nirik> right. just want to be clear we set expectations.
16:19:29 <mizmo> are we all agreed on simo's approach? "Start with just bare roles, and in time add explicitly tested combinations"
16:19:42 <simo> +1
16:19:45 <sgallagh> mizmo: +1
16:19:46 <mizmo> +1
16:19:48 <Viking-Ice> +1
16:19:59 <mitr> +1
16:20:00 <nirik> sure +1
16:20:01 <Evolution> +1
16:20:17 <mizmo> #agreed Regarding multiple roles on one server, we will start with just bare roles, and in time add explicitly tested combinations.
16:20:22 <tuanta> +1
16:20:34 <sgallagh> #topic Installation of base + roles
16:20:46 <sgallagh> This was starting a discussion a few lines ago, probably worth calling it out
16:20:54 <mizmo> the anaconda ui actually makes this pretty easy...
16:21:05 <sgallagh> mizmo: By way of comps groups?
16:21:07 <mizmo> you can set various roles to be compatible / incompatible and let users select
16:21:09 <mizmo> sgallagh, yep
16:21:14 * nirik nods.
16:21:17 <Viking-Ice> I think we can agree on this "FedoraOS Server Platform ( FOSSP ) is made available with or without an predefined server role,ready to use ks for traditional method of installation,directly into an isolated or OS container or as an whole-disk images to be used in private/public cloud as instance-store image or standalone server in the cloud itself. "
16:21:21 <nirik> thats the way to go in my opinion too
16:21:22 <mizmo> if we have a better answer to comps groups or want to expand on them or fix them though it should be possible i think
16:21:40 <nirik> Viking-Ice: -1 on kickstarts
16:21:57 <mizmo> i think ickstart is too implementation specific although it's obviously going to come into play
16:22:02 <mizmo> kickstart even lol
16:22:02 <sgallagh> nirik: Can you expand on that?
16:22:04 <simo> kickstarts should be supported but not required
16:22:12 <mitr> Viking-Ice: way too many decisions in one sentence
16:22:51 <nirik> kickstarts only work at install/create time. You can't for example install foo and then decide to add role bar later.
16:23:06 <nirik> kickstarts contain too many site specific items.
16:23:07 <mizmo> nirik, if the role was a comps group you could tho
16:23:12 * sgallagh wants a roll-bar on his high-performance server
16:23:21 <nirik> mizmo: yes, which is why I think it's a better solution
16:23:50 <mizmo> nirik, i dont think we have a good gui way to do it though
16:24:02 <nirik> do what?
16:24:07 <mizmo> install groups post-install
16:24:08 <sgallagh> nirik: So you're just opposing pre-generated kickstart files we make available, rather than "don't use kickstart to set up servers", I assume?
16:24:09 <Evolution> I'd like to see it in anaconda/yum groups personally. kickstart recipes would be good, but as a community thing maybe outside what we're doing here.
16:24:15 <nirik> mizmo: yum/dnf?
16:24:28 <Viking-Ice> nirik, we install either the base server or base server + 1 ( and later as has been decide ) or more roles
16:24:29 <mitr> mizmo: that "needs to change" - mind, it's not a matter of adding a comps group only; instaling a server role should also allow easily invoking a GUI to set up that role
16:24:31 <nirik> sgallagh: yes
16:24:35 <mizmo> nirik, it's not a gui though, im just thinking if we're trying to target ms admin coming over
16:24:35 <sgallagh> mizmo: That's one thing actually I want to talk using Cockpit for, when that project finds its feet a bit
16:24:37 <Viking-Ice> nirik, we test this as is as it comes from us
16:24:52 <mizmo> which brings up for me how we still need to discuss personas :)
16:24:54 <Viking-Ice> as an group
16:25:05 <nirik> mizmo: is that a target for us? ;)
16:25:10 <Viking-Ice> I think we can drop personas
16:25:20 <Viking-Ice> and target and just do the prd's for roles
16:25:31 <sgallagh> Well, roles should be targeted at personas
16:25:34 <mizmo> then how do you know how to make the decisions
16:25:38 <mizmo> if you dont know who the product is for
16:25:39 <sgallagh> Where the persona may simply be "Admin that needs to run a mail server"
16:25:43 <mizmo> which is why i'm asking questions about GUIs
16:25:47 <Viking-Ice> sgallagh, right
16:25:57 <sgallagh> Or more likely "Admin that needs to be able to manage a groupware suite"
16:26:03 <Viking-Ice> our audience are administrators
16:26:14 <Viking-Ice> and we do not care at which level or how experienced they are
16:26:19 <mizmo> before we dive into this are there any dangling threads from base + roles installation?
16:26:22 <nirik> I think it would be good to be clear about our targets.
16:26:31 <simo> sgallagh: mizmo: what kind of personas do you have in mind ?
16:26:39 <sgallagh> mizmo: For post-install, I was personally envisioning doing something like canned ansible recipes (formulas?)
16:26:44 <simo> unix-savvy admin vs clueless admin ?
16:26:52 <simo> are there any other ?
16:26:55 <mizmo> simo, let's pick that up after the install base + roles topic
16:27:00 <sgallagh> Viking-Ice: I think we should actually be aiming to target a more junior admin than we traditionally have
16:27:03 <nirik> sgallagh: again tho the problem is that they are very site specific.
16:27:04 <simo> sorry just my brain today is slow and doesn;t see the light there
16:27:05 <Viking-Ice> nirik, btw you can add an role later ( After install via yum or dnf foo )
16:27:07 <sgallagh> That's the way to increase our user base
16:27:26 <Viking-Ice> sgallagh, let's not walk into defining administrator pandora box
16:27:31 <sgallagh> Ok, deferring the persona discussion to later
16:27:35 <nirik> Viking-Ice: if they are comps groups, sure... but if they are, why not use that in the installer to install whatever the person wants? or they can write their own kickstart.
16:27:49 <simo> sgallagh: so what is that we need to decide now ?
16:27:55 <simo> how to install a role ?
16:27:59 <sgallagh> simo: Yes
16:28:01 <simo> or something else invovled here ?
16:28:05 <mitr> Can we agree on goals instead of technology first?
16:28:12 <mizmo> +1 mitr
16:28:14 <Viking-Ice> nirik, we provide vm's and best out of the box experience ( which can be read as few steps to get it going )
16:28:14 <sgallagh> mitr: Fair point
16:28:15 <simo> mitr: +1
16:28:33 <mitr> goal 1: automated ("mass") install within a larger Linux infrastructure (e.g. PXE is an option, may have LDAP/IPA)
16:28:38 <simo> I think we need to decide only if we want to make it easy to install a 'role'
16:28:42 <simo> and when
16:28:47 <mitr> goal 2: manual install without a supporting infrastructure (e.g. the very first Linux server)
16:28:48 <simo> only at anaconda time or at any time ?
16:28:49 <sgallagh> mizmo: Two meetings ago, you were going to try to work up a vision and mission statement. Did you have a chance to come up with anything?
16:28:57 <mitr> Do these make sense?  Any other important goals?
16:29:21 <simo> mitr: install role at server install time, vs install role after base install
16:29:28 <simo> I think that was part of the discussion
16:29:35 <sgallagh> simo: Yes
16:29:36 <mizmo> sgallagh, we came up with the mission statement last meeting, i put it on the wiki: "Fedora Server is a common base platform with 'featured application stacks' built on top of it. We commit to produce, test, and distribute these application stacks. "
16:29:40 <simo> and will be important once we start to support multiple roles at the same time
16:29:47 <sgallagh> Oh I missed that (probably in the first hour?)
16:29:49 <mizmo> sgallagh, vision statement, i think we need a solid idea of the personas before i can touch that
16:29:52 <mizmo> sgallagh, could have been
16:30:09 <mitr> simo: +1 to "during the installation/setup process" (not necessarily directly in anaconda, that's an implementation detail), and making it possible later makes sense to me (expecially in the single server / SMB case)
16:30:16 <Viking-Ice> well I think we should just drop personas
16:30:29 <mizmo> mitr, what about a goal to repeat a server?
16:30:31 <sgallagh> mizmo: For the record, +1 to the mission statement :)
16:30:39 <Viking-Ice> each roles defines which admininistrators it's intended for
16:30:47 <mizmo> mitr, eg i need another one of this server here, can i redeploy it over there?
16:30:50 <mitr> mizmo: I don't know.  Is that usually done?
16:30:59 <mizmo> mitr, i dont know if it's usually done but i'd like to do it :)
16:31:13 <sgallagh> mitr: That's something that's done a LOT in the cloud world
16:31:29 <mizmo> mitr, eg sometimes i have to set up one-off boxes for internal projects, so i take a few hours and poke around the configs and make it work. after the hours i have no clue what i did to make it work but i have to set up another one
16:31:31 * nirik notes anaconda spits out a ks from an install that you can reuse to get the same thing.
16:31:31 <sgallagh> i.e. I'm low on capacity, I need another ten identical hypervisors
16:31:32 <mitr> mizmo: I'd kind of assume that the workflow is to develop the "mass install" configuration in several iterations, and then just deploy that (and/or deploy more of this already ready configuration)
16:31:42 <mizmo> nirik, yeh but that doesn't include the magical post-install config
16:31:55 <simo> Viking-Ice: I think you miss a lot if you think a role defines the admin it is intended for
16:31:57 <nirik> mizmo: true...
16:32:23 <mizmo> mitr, but that's a lot of work right? eg you have to write a playbook or puppet whatever. i just wanna copy/paste the server. maybe it's an imaging thing. maybe out of scope. but as a really stupid sysadmin this is something i've wanted to do
16:32:24 <simo> Viking-Ice: is a "file server" intended for an experienced admin or a junior admin ?
16:32:27 <mitr> mizmo: the difficulty is that nobody really knows what all has changed in the machine by that time, it's more of an opaque disk image than a configuration.
16:32:52 <sgallagh> mizmo: That level of control is probably too site-specific to really be in scope
16:32:54 <Viking-Ice> simo, what do you mean
16:32:59 <nirik> mizmo / mitr: well, with lvm snapshots and a way to move one to antoher install you might be able to do it. ;)
16:32:59 <mitr> mizmo: Yes, it might be a lot of work - but the primary question is "is it wanted", we aren't really allocating manpower right now.  (And I have no idea whether it is wanted)
16:33:01 <simo> exactly what I asked
16:33:04 <simo> Viking-Ice: ^
16:33:06 <mizmo> mitr, there used to be a project that listened to config changes and stored them, i dont remember what its called
16:33:22 <simo> based on: <Viking-Ice> each roles defines which admininistrators it's intended for
16:33:42 <mizmo> augeas - that's what it was called
16:34:03 * walters idly notes that in the ostree model, it's always possible to run "ostree admin config-diff" and get a diff from the default /etc  ( this is possible because ostree demands /usr/etc contain the pristine defaults)
16:34:17 <sgallagh> I'd like for us to agree that a high-level goal is "Server Roles should be installable by a junior administrator with little difficulty"
16:34:22 <sgallagh> And yes, I realize how subjective that is
16:34:35 <mitr> walters: What about (gem install my-something-not-in-rpm)?
16:34:38 <simo> mizmo: I think you may be more thinking of something like etckeeper ?
16:34:44 <mizmo> sgallagh: e.g. 'mizmo should be able to use this' hehe
16:35:06 <mizmo> simo, oh ive never heard of that but im reading up on it now and it sounds really good
16:35:16 <sgallagh> mizmo: I was actually thinking "A Microsoft Admin should be able to figure it out so we can convert them to the light side", but sure.
16:35:24 <Viking-Ice> simo, personally I dont want people that dont know rfc in a tent feet pole close to the internent
16:35:25 <simo> mizmo: it's useful for sure, saved my *ss a coupe of times :)
16:35:29 <walters> mitr: mmm...i have an answer for that that would not fit in the 180 characters or so allotted to me by this gtkentry in my irc client
16:35:32 <mizmo> nobody disagrees with this, right? "goal 1: automated ("mass") install within a larger Linux infrastructure (e.g. PXE is an option, may have LDAP/IPA)"
16:35:33 <mitr> sgallagh: yes; I wouldn't probably insist on doing a mass / automated installation by a junior admin
16:35:52 <Viking-Ice> simo, So I dont want us to target idiotic windows administrator that I have spent half an decate cleaning up after
16:35:59 <simo> Viking-Ice: ok can you keep a political agenda like that a bit farther from this group though ? I really thinnk that corsses the line
16:36:10 <sgallagh> mitr: Well, maybe not the initial work, but redeploy and load-balancing additions should be junior-capable
16:36:21 * mizmo wants to set some of the goals we agree with to #agreed for easier minutes-reading
16:36:23 <Viking-Ice> simo, you decided to walk this line and start defining administration to "junior" etc
16:36:24 <mitr> sgallagh: sounds reasonable
16:36:38 <simo> Viking-Ice: junior doesn;t mean stupid
16:36:48 <simo> or illiterate, or whatever
16:36:59 <simo> everybody grows from junior to senior
16:37:08 <simo> nobody is born with knowledge and experience
16:37:17 <mitr> Viking-Ice: How many RFCs do you really know by heart?  I don't think that's a reasonable line to draw; "knows RFCs" typically ends up to "likes the non-Microsoft project, without knowing how well it conforms to RFCs"
16:37:19 <sgallagh> When I say Junior Admin, I'm really saying "I want us to guide this person to become a senior admin that does things correctly instead of consistently :)"
16:37:30 <kde_tony> sgallagh: +1
16:37:40 <Viking-Ice> My point is we should not be defining administrators stage et all
16:37:42 <simo> sgallagh: what I said in other words :)
16:37:44 <sgallagh> Ok, this is getting a bit off-topic, though.
16:37:55 <simo> sgallagh: it's the personas discussion
16:37:56 <kde_tony> sgallagh: +1
16:37:56 <mizmo> just a meta-suggestion: should we maybe do an etherpad doc for listing out the goals here?
16:38:00 <mizmo> since they keep getting scrolled off hehe
16:38:02 <Viking-Ice> we target administrator periods
16:38:13 <mizmo> topic is "Installation of base + roles" not "Personas"
16:38:15 <sgallagh> mizmo: I'm not sure we have an etherpad instance to work with
16:38:16 <simo> Viking-Ice: no ?
16:38:20 <mizmo> sgallagh, piratepad :)
16:38:22 <mitr> Viking-Ice: OK, let's not talk about stages, but about required knowledge: "reading 500-page Introduction to Linux Shell Scripting not required".  Does that make more sense?
16:38:24 <sgallagh> ah
16:38:25 <Viking-Ice> and our purpose is to provide the best out of the box experience for them regardless if they are junior or advanced
16:38:34 * nirik notes there is a gobby tho if people want to use that
16:38:39 <sgallagh> mizmo: If you could start one, I'll certainly sign in
16:38:50 <mizmo> http://piratepad.net/serverwg-install-goals
16:38:51 <simo> Viking-Ice: with this I can agree
16:38:57 <sgallagh> Viking-Ice: Yes, that I agree with
16:39:04 <simo> however sometimes best *does* depend on the level of knowldege
16:39:10 <simo> it's not a black and white thing
16:39:29 <sgallagh> In my mind, it's fine to offer hand-holding that the more senior admin can just opt to skip.
16:39:37 * mitr notes he'll probably have to leave in 21 minutes
16:39:44 <simo> sgallagh: exactly
16:40:13 <Viking-Ice> simo, and that where the "Missing Infrastructure and or website Tool*" I mention there on the page comes in to guide newcomers to the right application or solution within the server role
16:40:47 <simo> Viking-Ice: ok let's finish the role thing than we can discuss about the personas thing
16:41:00 <simo> mizmo: do we have a vote on the installation of roles ?
16:41:16 <sgallagh> Are we all roughly on the same page WRT junior admins? I.e. we're not targeting them exclusively but *should* target them?
16:41:18 <mizmo> simo, so i put the three proposed roles up on the piratepad http://piratepad.net/serverwg-install-goals
16:41:25 <mizmo> maybe the best way to proceed seeing as we have 20 minutes left
16:41:33 <mizmo> is i'll convert this to a doc on the wiki and we can hash it out on the list?
16:41:36 <mizmo> since we've got a good start?
16:41:42 * sgallagh nods
16:41:46 <simo> mizmo: I get an empty pad ?
16:41:51 * nirik waits for the priatepad to load
16:41:53 <mizmo> simo, weird
16:41:57 <nirik> it's not loading here at all.
16:42:06 <Viking-Ice> I think you will atleast need to rephrase goal 3 as you put
16:42:10 <simo> mizmo: ah as usual, javascript blocked, my faulkt
16:42:24 <mizmo> simo, sorrys :( gobby might have been better but i didnt know if everyone had the client installed
16:42:27 <Viking-Ice> and I dont see why we need "installation roles to begin with"
16:42:28 <sgallagh> Viking-Ice: Feel free to suggest a better phrasing
16:42:41 <sgallagh> Viking-Ice: What do you mean?
16:42:50 <Viking-Ice> I think this covers itFedoraOS Server Platform ( FOSSP ) is made available with or without an predefined server role,ready to use ks for traditional method of installation,directly into an isolated or OS container or as an whole-disk images to be used in private/public cloud as instance-store image or standalone server in the cloud itself.
16:42:58 <simo> mizmo: are the goal listed in order of importance ? or just an arbitrary ordefr ?
16:43:00 <sgallagh> Viking-Ice: In my mind, it just means that you can write a kickstart that will include one or more roles.
16:43:15 <sgallagh> As opposed to doing an installation of just the platform and adding a role later
16:43:23 <Viking-Ice> sgallagh, we provide the ks file with predefined role
16:43:25 <sgallagh> (to be clear, I think we must support both cases)
16:43:28 <mizmo> simo, order they were brought up in IRC :)
16:43:30 <Viking-Ice> sgallagh, and test it
16:43:42 <sgallagh> Viking-Ice: Implementation detail, but I think we're addressing the same need.
16:44:01 <simo> mizmo: ok I +1 on 1,2,3 -1 on 4 at least for now
16:44:11 <sgallagh> Which is what we're trying to provide here.
16:44:12 <nirik> mizmo: I don't think replication should be an initial goal. I think it might be something to figure out once we are running.
16:44:21 <mizmo> nirik, simo: fair
16:44:24 <Viking-Ice> -1 on the entire concept of "installation roles"
16:44:24 <mitr> mizmo: +1 on 1,2,3, 0 on 4 (I have no knowledge)
16:44:42 <simo> I know it is hard enough we do not want to have it as a goal for now
16:44:42 <nirik> Viking-Ice: roles? goals.
16:44:47 <sgallagh> mizmo: +1 on 1, 2 and 3. -1 on 4: it's too big a can of worms to have as a goal
16:44:51 <sgallagh> (At this time)
16:45:00 <mitr> Viking-Ice: the goal of this is to first decide what we want to support, _then_ we can sensibly talk about what technology is suitable.
16:45:06 <mizmo> so i'm +1 to 1-3 and -1 to 4 as well
16:45:20 <sgallagh> Viking-Ice: It's just a terminology thing. It literally means: after the installer completes, this role is installed on the target system
16:45:28 <sgallagh> I think we're talking past each other.
16:45:50 <Viking-Ice> mitr, we need to support all of them ks ( mass install ) bare metal, vm containers
16:46:11 <sgallagh> Viking-Ice: I agree, though not necessarily all in the first pass
16:46:15 <simo> mizmo: slighlty changed 3
16:46:15 <Viking-Ice> regardless if they are juniors or not
16:46:20 <simo> do you agree we mean the same thing ?
16:46:29 <mizmo> simo, seems like a reasonable change to me
16:46:37 <sgallagh> simo: +1
16:46:50 <Viking-Ice> sgallagh, does that not make the inital goals to support all of thiese
16:46:52 <Viking-Ice> mean these
16:47:14 <sgallagh> Viking-Ice: Sorry, I didn't quite parse that.
16:47:39 <sgallagh> What I mean is that I think we're discussing goals of the project, not necessarily of the first release.
16:47:44 <simo> note that we need to just make sure ti can be automated
16:47:53 <simo> we are not proposing to provide the automation right ?
16:47:55 <Viking-Ice> sgallagh, I 'm not discussing the first release
16:48:03 <simo> (unless we make that a role as a server )
16:48:04 <sgallagh> So if we decide only to do kickstart and VM images in the first pass, we can still get the others later
16:48:08 <mizmo> could a goal be compatibility with deployment systems or do we not want to go there?
16:48:16 <sgallagh> Viking-Ice: I was trying to clarify, not disagree :)
16:48:16 <nirik> so these are goals for the 'server working group' ? or goals for installing the server roles? or ?
16:48:28 <mizmo> nirik, goals for installing the server roles
16:48:40 <mizmo> nirik, as an alternative to discussing specific technology
16:49:01 <mitr> mizmo: I'd defer that for later - I can well imagine that we end up with a much better system that is incompatible with kicstarts but worth it
16:49:10 <sgallagh> mizmo: goals for compatibility with deployment systems would be a great idea, though I'm not sure it fits into this specific discussion.
16:49:11 <nirik> how about: existing servers and installed roles should be upgradable to new releases?
16:49:12 <simo> aren;t these the WG goals about what installations method we want to officially support ?
16:49:17 <Viking-Ice> sgallagh, as I see it we need to support bare metal install ( single/plural ) we need to support vm's install ( single/plural ) we need to support container install whole OS or single application ( both single pluraal )
16:49:30 <mitr> nirik: yes please
16:49:37 <mizmo> sgallagh, well if, say im using (biased example) Satellite server to manage my unix deployment, i would like to be able to install roles from the admin console in Satellite
16:49:37 <sgallagh> Viking-Ice: I agree.
16:49:51 <simo> nirik: I'd like that, but how to we live up to the goal if upstream does not ?
16:50:04 <sgallagh> mizmo: yes, I follow you
16:50:05 <mitr> mizmo: Modifying Satellite to do that should be an option as well
16:50:29 <simo> anyway +1 to 4, at least as a stretch goal
16:50:32 <mizmo> sgallagh, mitr: yeh. i don't know if satellite is the right target. whatever is most popular with our target admins should probably be a target.
16:50:34 <nirik> simo: well, partly that depends on implementation...
16:50:38 <mitr> simo: We modify, or, in the worst case, replace the upstream.  (Is upgrading so valuable that it would be worth it?  I think so but I don't know)
16:50:40 <simo> mizmo: can we add "where possile" ?
16:50:44 <simo> *possible
16:50:49 <mizmo> simo, to goal 4?
16:50:52 <simo> yes
16:50:54 <mizmo> sure
16:50:59 <sgallagh> simo: I'd suggest we'd tend to select the projects we build roles around at least in part based on their past upgrade performance
16:51:00 <simo> we can't promise it for all roles
16:51:18 <simo> sgallagh: bind had very good performance up until they decided to go for 10
16:51:34 <simo> sgallagh: as in the financial services: past perf. are not indication fo future ...blahblahblah
16:51:35 <simo> :)
16:51:41 <sgallagh> simo: Last I heard, bind9 was going to continue indefinitely
16:51:53 <sgallagh> They're effectively separate projecrts
16:51:56 <simo> sgallagh: yeah but if you want to go bind10 there is no possible upgrade path
16:52:10 * sgallagh nods
16:52:12 <nirik> there are going to be cases that are difficult.
16:52:23 <mizmo> do we want to squeeze another topic into the last ~10 minutes and push this one to the list, or keep going on this one?
16:52:28 <sgallagh> Goals are not the same as mandates, either.
16:52:33 <nirik> we could provide compat packages for some time to let people migrate, or docs, or tools to help, or whatever
16:52:34 <sgallagh> We can do as much of this as is possible
16:52:56 <simo> sorry for going slightly technical but should we prompt in the install if we know we can't upgrade an installed role
16:53:07 <simo> and tell the admin we can't install unless he removes the role first ?
16:53:14 <simo> would it make sense ?
16:53:20 <mizmo> simo, "notify the user if not possible" is not so technical
16:53:24 <sgallagh> I added a suffix to Goal 4; opinions?
16:53:32 <simo> mizmo: well not just notify, prevent upgrade
16:53:35 <mizmo> sgallagh +1 to edit
16:53:40 <mitr> simo: "before modifying anything by the update process"
16:53:47 <sgallagh> simo: I'm going to suggest that's an implemenation detail
16:53:51 <simo> sgallagh: ok
16:53:55 <sgallagh> might not work with kickstarts, etc.
16:54:04 <mizmo> simo, are we letting the user know the thing isn't upgradeable before they install it, or let them know it's not upgradeable when they go to upgrade it later?
16:54:06 <simo> well that's why I would like to prevent
16:54:20 <nirik> mizmo: we may not know at install time.
16:54:22 <sgallagh> mizmo: When they go to upgrade it
16:54:30 <simo> nirik: sure we know
16:54:32 <mitr> nirik: we should be able to know
16:54:37 <nirik> oh?
16:54:45 <mizmo> i think that touches on some things sgallagh has said earlier about 'preferred' things, maybe roles that are upgradeable are 'preferred'
16:54:49 * mizmo tries not to use dirty s-word
16:54:52 <nirik> is httpd 'upgradable' in f23?
16:54:53 <mitr> nirik: "a small matter of programming" :)
16:54:54 <simo> nirik: if install says bind10 and installed is bind9 anbd we have a DNS role we should block
16:55:11 <nirik> thats upgrade time.
16:55:33 <simo> nirik: oh I see what you mean
16:55:35 <sgallagh> simo: That doesn't address "I install apache 2.4". In Fedora 23, Apache moves to incompatible 3.0
16:55:42 <sgallagh> We don't know at install time that this is going to be an issue.
16:55:51 <nirik> we have no crystal balls. ;)
16:55:57 <simo> sorry I thought about 'install time' as 'installing to upgrade a system'
16:56:07 <sgallagh> I had one, but TSA confiscated it on my way to Flock
16:56:09 <simo> not as installing now and having a crystalball to predict the future :)
16:56:16 <mizmo> what do sysadmins do today when that kind of thing happens?
16:56:23 <mizmo> (eg apache 2.x to 3.x?)
16:56:27 <simo> mizmo: they swear a lot :)
16:56:28 <mizmo> handwringing and moaning?
16:56:30 <mizmo> lol
16:56:31 <sgallagh> mizmo: Most of them cry
16:56:41 <mizmo> if we want them to be happy maybe there is something we can do to make it less painful
16:56:43 <mitr> mizmo: read hundred-page release notes and notice, in the best case
16:56:49 <simo> mizmo: not really
16:57:02 <simo> our duty though is to make sure all components play fair
16:57:15 <sgallagh> There are entire businesses (eg augeas) built around failing to solve that problem
16:57:22 <mizmo> ah okay
16:57:35 <mizmo> well
16:57:41 <mizmo> maybe in the least case we can notify them better about it?
16:57:44 <simo> if foogsbuz 1.2.3 does not work with the new barcrapz 3.4.5 we should make sure a role that depends on both keep working by keep one of the 2 back or by contributing changes to make the 2 work together idf possible
16:57:57 <sgallagh> mizmo: That's probably achievable
16:57:59 <mizmo> like, could we make a requirement that fedora release notes for the server product put this kind of updates of an application front and center?
16:58:06 <nirik> the good thing is when those only happen on new release boundries... then admins can upgrade when they have time/energy
16:58:18 <sgallagh> mizmo: +1
16:58:37 <simo> I'd like to go one step further and have an upgradability matrix
16:58:44 <simo> if your system does not match it
16:58:45 <sgallagh> nirik: You're getting dangerously close to talking about lifecycle now :)
16:58:56 <simo> we prevent the install unless you expicitly override the decision
16:59:01 <simo> and then you get to keep the pieces
16:59:04 <mitr> mizmo: Yes, but that's not really enough; the software should answer the "can you update" question without the admin having to spedn an hour reading documentation
16:59:15 <simo> sgallagh: inevitable
16:59:17 <sgallagh> We're almost past our hour; who can stay if we want to continue?
16:59:22 <simo> this is strictly tied to lifecycles
16:59:33 <mizmo> i can't stay, these meetings are eating up too much of my time. we need better order it hink
16:59:34 <sgallagh> simo: I realize that; I was segueing into that discussion :)
16:59:35 <mitr> sgallagh: I can be around but not necessarily paying attention
16:59:35 <simo> sgallagh: only 15 more minutes as a stretch for me
16:59:58 <sgallagh> ok, we'll take things to the list, then
17:00:05 <simo> so can we have a goal of producing an upgrade compatibilty matrix at least for the role we say we support ?
17:00:12 <mizmo> +1 simo
17:00:14 <simo> *roies
17:00:16 <nirik> yeah, more list/out of meeting discussion and clearer agenda
17:00:21 <sgallagh> simo: I'd be in favor of that.
17:00:28 <simo> ok
17:00:36 <sgallagh> nirik: That was my fault. I forgot to create one in advance.
17:00:36 <mitr> simo: +1
17:00:37 <simo> I +1 the current content of the pad
17:00:40 <mizmo> oh you used the dirty s-word though, s/support/?/g?
17:00:52 <simo> mizmo: supper
17:00:55 <mizmo> hehe
17:00:59 <simo> that's a much better word apt for the time
17:01:05 <mizmo> we eat roles, nomnomnoms
17:01:05 <mitr> mizmo: "who cares everyone knows what we mean"
17:01:13 <sgallagh> s/support/feature/ on the etherpad
17:01:16 <sgallagh> If that's okay
17:01:24 <simo> ok
17:01:29 <sgallagh> mitr: We've already proven that we ourselves can't be sure what we mean by "support"
17:01:43 <sgallagh> +1 to the current contents of the etherpad
17:01:43 <simo> sgallagh: I feature you on this change of words
17:01:50 <simo> :)
17:01:57 <sgallagh> Does that mean I get my picture on the cover?
17:02:19 <simo> nah only on the backside ... sorry :)
17:02:28 <sgallagh> Ok, anyone have urgent business before we close the meeting?
17:02:47 <simo> sound like we made progress
17:02:51 <simo> +1 to today meeting
17:03:40 <mizmo> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Server/Proposals/Server_Roles/Installation_Goals
17:03:41 <sgallagh> Thanks everyone for participating (and mizmo yet again for taking notes)
17:03:48 <sgallagh> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Server/Proposals/Server_Roles/Installation_Goals
17:04:56 <tuanta> nice discussions today. I just try to follow you all :)
17:04:59 <sgallagh> Closing the meeting in 1 minute unless anyone raises an argument.
17:05:16 <sgallagh> tuanta: As a voting member of the WG, please make sure to involve yourself in the discussion
17:05:26 <sgallagh> If you're having trouble following along at any point, please say so
17:05:37 <tuanta> sure, sgallagh
17:06:28 <sgallagh> #endmeeting