16:00:35 <sgallagh> #startmeeting Server Working Group Weekly Meeting (2013-11-19)
16:00:35 <zodbot> Meeting started Tue Nov 19 16:00:35 2013 UTC.  The chair is sgallagh. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:00:35 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
16:00:38 <sgallagh> #topic roll call
16:00:42 <sgallagh> #chair sgallagh mizmo nirik davidstrauss Evolution Viking-Ice simo tuanta mitr
16:00:42 <zodbot> Current chairs: Evolution Viking-Ice davidstrauss mitr mizmo nirik sgallagh simo tuanta
16:00:52 <mizmo> .hellomynameis duffy
16:00:54 <zodbot> mizmo: duffy 'duffy' <fedora@linuxgrrl.com>
16:00:57 <sgallagh> .hellomynameis sgallagh
16:01:00 <zodbot> sgallagh: sgallagh 'Stephen Gallagher' <sgallagh@redhat.com>
16:01:04 <mizmo> huh it doesnt have my full name
16:01:04 <mitr> Hello all
16:01:16 <sgallagh> mizmo: You can fix that at admin.fedoraproject.org/accounts
16:01:49 * tflink is lurking but in the middle of something else ATM
16:01:50 <nirik> morning
16:02:02 * mizmo fixed
16:02:05 <simo> .hellomynameis simo
16:02:07 <zodbot> simo: simo 'Simo Sorce' <ssorce@redhat.com>
16:02:14 <nirik> .hellomynameis kevin
16:02:15 <zodbot> nirik: kevin 'Kevin Fenzi' <kevin@scrye.com>
16:03:49 <davidstrauss> .hellomynameis davidstrauss
16:03:50 <zodbot> davidstrauss: davidstrauss 'David Strauss' <david@davidstrauss.net>
16:04:04 <sgallagh> davidstrauss: Glad you could make it this week. Sorry the time has been so tough on you
16:04:34 <sgallagh> Evolution tells me he'll be a few minutes late
16:04:43 * jonmasters is here
16:04:44 <davidstrauss> sgallagh: The worst part isn't the 2am; it's the combination with the 7am meetings I'm also dealing with while here in Oz. :-P
16:04:45 <sgallagh> tuanta sent his regrets on the mailing list
16:05:14 <sgallagh> Viking-Ice: You around?
16:05:32 <nirik> davidstrauss: nasty. ;( you going to be in a better timezone soon?
16:05:45 <simo> davidstrauss: maybe we should try to move the meeting 3 hours earlier or 6 hours later ?
16:06:05 <simo> oh if you are changing timezone then maybe not :)
16:06:06 <davidstrauss> I'll be back in SF November 30th.
16:06:11 <simo> oh ok
16:06:24 <simo> then 8am will be easier for you
16:06:46 <davidstrauss> Maybe :-P
16:07:08 <sgallagh> Ok, let's get started
16:07:15 <sgallagh> We have a large agenda this week...
16:07:22 <sgallagh> #topic Goals for Server Role Installation
16:07:48 <sgallagh> On this topic, IIRC we were waiting a week to see if any additional thoughts came up on the proposed goals
16:07:55 <sgallagh> I haven't really seen any chatter on the mailing list.
16:08:04 <sgallagh> Are we ready to approve this and move on?
16:08:16 <davidstrauss> Is there a link to the final list?
16:08:19 <nirik> I think we should defer this until we have more stuff in place?
16:08:33 <sgallagh> #link http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Server/Proposals/Server_Roles/Installation_Goals
16:09:37 <mitr> I'm fine with approving it now
16:09:38 <nirik> I wonder: do we want to add: 'off line' installs?
16:09:39 <sgallagh> nirik: Why? Isn't the point here for us to define what stuff we want to put into place?
16:09:43 <simo> sgallagh: +1 from me
16:10:06 <davidstrauss> What are deferred goals?
16:10:06 <mitr> The implementation will be up for discussion for some time I'm afraid
16:10:08 <nirik> sgallagh: sure, but we may decide some persona is more important to us and they have a goal we want to add... butwe can always add, thats fine.
16:10:21 <mizmo> +1 nirik
16:10:22 <simo> nirik: by offline you mean produce a DVD iso that contains all the dependency for the roles we feature ?
16:10:24 <davidstrauss> Are those ones we want to do, but later?
16:10:25 <nirik> so, sure, we can approve these and revisit as needed.
16:10:30 <sgallagh> Yeah, I don't expect any of these documents to be static and unchaning
16:10:33 <sgallagh> *unchanging
16:10:39 <davidstrauss> Or is the discussion of desireablilty deferred?
16:10:54 <nirik> simo: yeah, so use case would be a secure site that can't access the internet... they want to install a server + roles without direct net access.
16:11:06 <nirik> we may not want to support that case, but we should mention it.
16:11:14 <mizmo> davidstrauss, the ones at the top are the ones to do initially, the ones in the bottom list are potentially 'eventually'
16:11:16 <sgallagh> davidstrauss: They were ones that came up in the discussion but were not clearly needed in the immediate future
16:11:23 <simo> davidstrauss: topics that did not meet consensus but were worth discussing again later
16:11:32 <mizmo> should i add offline to the list of deferred?
16:11:39 <nirik> mizmo: sure.
16:11:39 <sgallagh> nirik: Well, as a workaround they can always have a local mirror too
16:11:44 <simo> nirik: +1 from me, but it could go in deferred
16:11:46 <sgallagh> mizmo: Sounds like a plan
16:11:49 <davidstrauss> I don't see how offline would be an issue
16:12:05 <mitr> sgallagh: ... if we support manually-managed local mirrors.  It's not a huge problem but worth keeping in mind == adding to the deferred list
16:12:06 <sgallagh> I'm fine with including it as a goal
16:12:08 <davidstrauss> As long as you can run mirrors or build custom ISOs, it's easy.
16:12:34 <mizmo> should offline be in deferred or in the top initial list
16:12:36 <nirik> davidstrauss: sure, but if we support this case we need to make sure those tools work, etc.
16:12:39 <mizmo> i have it in deferred right now
16:12:40 <simo> offline install seem a goal base should have
16:12:43 <davidstrauss> I have run into problems with mirror support, for sure.
16:12:54 <sgallagh> But since we don't seem to be in thunderous agreement, I'd leave it in deferred for now and revisit as we go forward.
16:12:57 <simo> ie prvide tools so products can just run an infrastructure helper that spits out an ISO
16:12:58 <mitr> mizmo: I'd prefer deferred for now
16:13:01 <mizmo> okay
16:13:04 <davidstrauss> Okay
16:13:18 * nirik is ok with that, we can discuss more later, just came to mind to me now.
16:13:20 <sgallagh> mitr: Do you want to add mirror management as a deferred goal as well?
16:13:42 <mitr> sgallagh: I view "mirror" as an implementation detail in this discussion => N/A
16:13:46 <sgallagh> ok
16:13:46 <simo> sgallagh: mirror management could be a product role actuall
16:13:49 <nirik> mitr: +1
16:13:52 <sgallagh> simo: True
16:14:06 <davidstrauss> mitr: +1
16:14:43 <sgallagh> OK, anything else to add on this topic? (Sorry if I'm rushing, but we have six agenda topics on the queue and usually we get through two of them)
16:14:53 <nirik> +1 move on
16:14:54 <mizmo> so we're okay with this document i think, should i mark it as approved?
16:15:00 <davidstrauss> Yes
16:15:03 <mizmo> k
16:15:11 <sgallagh> mizmo: I don't hear any dissent
16:15:22 <mitr> +1 to the document, for the record
16:15:42 <Viking-Ice> we are speaking for that install role document
16:15:45 <sgallagh> mizmo: Are you going to handle the <hash>agreed stuff today?
16:15:53 <mizmo> yep
16:16:05 <sgallagh> ok
16:16:13 <mizmo> #agreed we're accepting the server role installation goals document at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Server/Proposals/Server_Roles/Installation_Goals
16:16:15 <sgallagh> Viking-Ice: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Server/Proposals/Server_Roles/Installation_Goals is the topic
16:16:15 <Viking-Ice> with that junior statemetn
16:16:35 <sgallagh> #undo
16:16:35 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Agreed object at 0x1ae07b50>
16:16:46 <sgallagh> Viking-Ice: Would you like to suggest an alternate phrasing before we approve?
16:17:09 <Viking-Ice> drop that junior from that line
16:17:12 <mizmo> why
16:17:39 <Viking-Ice> what do you mean why
16:17:44 <mizmo> why should junior be dropped
16:17:51 <mclasen> 'inexperienced'
16:17:56 <Viking-Ice> better
16:17:58 <mizmo> fair
16:18:01 * mizmo makes the edit
16:18:05 <sgallagh> Perhaps replaced with "administrators of any experience level"?
16:18:18 <Viking-Ice> that's better as well
16:18:36 * davidstrauss wasn't under the impression that every word is immutable following approval of the page.
16:18:37 <mitr> sgallagh: I'd rather be explicit about catering to the less experienced
16:18:41 <simo> ok +1 to the nitpick, anything else ?
16:19:00 <sgallagh> mitr: I think that's still the implication of my statement.
16:19:01 <mizmo> sgallagh, i think that goes without saying. i dont think dropping the inexperienced helps i think it hurts
16:19:03 <simo> mitr: what part of 'any' does not include less expirienced ones ?
16:19:20 <sgallagh> I suspect htat Viking-Ice's concern is that as it was previously written, it sounded like we didn't intend to cater to the experienced admins
16:19:21 <mitr> simo: it treats all extremes equally, in my mind
16:19:36 <mitr> Viking-Ice: what is your specific concern?
16:19:43 <simo> mitr: I think that is right indeed, it also means experienced ones can skip bullshit wizard or such things
16:19:48 <mizmo> simo, because when you're reading a document and read 'any' you're not thinking specifically of the inexperienced and those are the ones who need more consideration ... without specification i think you default to a more experienced admin you may know personally
16:19:55 <Viking-Ice> or rather the definition of "junior" inexperience or administrator of every level is better phrase
16:19:58 <Viking-Ice> d
16:20:17 <mizmo> i think this nitpick discussion is waste of time
16:20:27 <mizmo> we have 5 more items on the agenda
16:20:28 <simo> right
16:20:37 <mizmo> let's take nitpicks to the list
16:20:40 <nirik> mizmo: +1
16:20:42 <sgallagh> mizmo: +1
16:20:45 * simo ok with any language there, pick one and move on
16:20:47 <davidstrauss> mizmo: +1
16:21:08 <sgallagh> I think we all understand what we're trying to say there.
16:21:16 <sgallagh> So back to "agreed"?
16:21:22 <mizmo> +1 plz
16:21:22 <simo> +2
16:21:41 <Viking-Ice> the change has been made so +1
16:21:44 <Viking-Ice> let's move on
16:21:46 <mizmo> thank you
16:21:59 <mizmo> #topic Personas
16:22:39 <sgallagh> mizmo: This one's your baby. Please describe what you need from us?
16:22:42 <mizmo> this is the (rather bare) personas document we have https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Server/Personas
16:22:59 <Viking-Ice> ?
16:23:15 <sgallagh> I think we need to be describing personas in the "Actor/Goal" approach.
16:23:17 <mizmo> this is what i sent out last month about it: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/server/2013-October/000333.html
16:23:18 <nirik> so, we should brainstorm personas? or should we do that outside the meeting?
16:23:29 <Viking-Ice> outside the meeting
16:23:30 <sgallagh> i.e. A user wants a solution to the following problem.
16:23:34 <davidstrauss> We should brainstorm on the list.
16:23:37 <tflink> I realize that I'm new to the discussion, not on the lists etc. but is there potential confusion between this and fedora infra's planned implementation of persona support for FAS?
16:23:39 <mizmo> well i sent out that email and didn't get replies so i was concerned
16:23:43 <davidstrauss> -1 on the current wiki page
16:23:49 <sgallagh> Let's decide here how we want them to appear first and then take the brainstorming to the list
16:23:50 <Viking-Ice> -1
16:23:51 <simo> tflink: no
16:24:16 <nirik> sgallagh: +1
16:24:20 <simo> I think we just need to discuss the logistics of this goal
16:24:24 <simo> how many personas ?
16:24:30 <mizmo> right so i dont think a persona is, 'person who wants to install a directory server'
16:24:30 <nirik> tflink: different things, so I would think not... but yeah, overloading terms
16:24:31 <simo> do we want a hard limit so they are manageable ?
16:24:37 <Viking-Ice> I do believe personas should be defined in the "defined server role"
16:24:46 <simo> do we need to restrict the type of actor/goals ?
16:24:46 <sgallagh> And should we be deciding on Personas for the Server Platform or for the Roles (I'd say defer the latter)
16:24:48 <mizmo> simo, i think 4-6 is reasonable, better to have less
16:25:03 <mizmo> sgallagh, i think they should be much more broad than roles so it'd be for the platform
16:25:10 <simo> I think we need first generic personas
16:25:12 <davidstrauss> I'm not a huge fan of using personas here unless they express something beyond the laundry list of other requirements we've been drafting.
16:25:15 <mitr> I'm ambivalent on personas - it's a convenient way to describe the span of the user base but we need to be careful to avoid unwanted correlations ("installation is only done by inexperienced people" and the like)
16:25:23 <simo> to investigate the interaction with our basic product
16:25:26 <sgallagh> davidstrauss: I think they're meant to be the litmus test for those requirements
16:25:28 <nirik> so, for example: "application developer" could be one right? someone who wants to build server applications?
16:25:37 <simo> when we go into each role we may need additional personas depending on the role
16:25:47 <sgallagh> If a requirement doesn't solve a problem for a persona, we're either missing a persona or the solution is out of scope
16:25:48 <simo> those personas will need to be investigated at that time
16:25:50 <davidstrauss> sgallagh: Fair enough.
16:25:59 <nirik> or "home/small business" where they are constrained to one server/limited resources.
16:26:10 <mizmo> davidstrauss, i would like to use the list of personas to go out and do actual user research, build relationships with a cross-section of the user base we'd like that we can then go back to for feedback on ideas etc
16:26:19 <nirik> or "enterprise datacenter" where they want to roll out many server instances and automate.
16:26:28 <mizmo> so i'm not talking about personas as a 1:1 with a use case
16:26:46 <mizmo> i'm talking more about personas as the kinds of people who would use or be affected by this product
16:26:48 <davidstrauss> I guess I'm partly less into them because I'm basically in this group as a persona. :-)
16:27:01 <sgallagh> davidstrauss: That was intentional :)
16:27:09 <simo> davidstrauss: then clearly define your own persona
16:27:14 <mizmo> davidstrauss, if i wrote up a persona template would you be willing to fill it in with your details :)?
16:27:15 <simo> and add it to the list :)
16:27:25 <mizmo> davidstrauss, and be one of the people i interview?
16:27:31 <simo> +1
16:27:32 <sgallagh> Let's not start discussing individual proposed personas here, though
16:27:36 <davidstrauss> mizmo: I'd be happy to do that. :-0
16:27:38 <davidstrauss> :-)
16:27:49 <sgallagh> mizmo: Are you taking an action item to produce a template?
16:28:03 <sgallagh> If so, why don't we defer this discussion until that template is available
16:28:07 <mizmo> #action mizmo to create persona template
16:28:11 <mizmo> sgallagh, i already have one :)
16:28:12 <nirik> that sounds good.
16:28:15 <mizmo> i just have to take the red hat logo off of it
16:28:17 <mizmo> :-p
16:28:39 <mizmo> okay so just to kind of summarize here
16:28:56 <mizmo> we're going to have a set of 4-6 personas representing the types of users who would use or would be affected by the Fedora Server Platform
16:28:57 <sgallagh> Ok, so proposal: mizmo will send out a template, we will all respond on the list by filling it out with our views on what they should be.
16:29:09 <sgallagh> We'll then try to condense them down to 4-6 commonalities.
16:29:19 <iThinkDev> helo everyone.
16:29:31 <nirik> mizmo: then the idea is that we look at those moving forward to decide things? how it will affect them or the ones we care about more?
16:29:59 <Viking-Ice> where do you want to place those personas in the definiton of server roles or in the prd for the applications or...
16:30:03 <sgallagh> nirik: As I said above, I think this should become the litmus test for anything we put as a formal requirement on Fedora Server
16:30:09 <mizmo> once we have the set of personas i can start finding folks who roughly fit the roles and interviewing them to get more information about their workflow, etc. and get their feedback on our ideas
16:30:20 <sgallagh> If it does not address the needs of a defined persona, it's probably not a proper requirement
16:30:31 <mizmo> nirik, exactly. e.g., this feature is great for persona A, but will it negatively impact persona B's workflow?
16:30:36 <nirik> mizmo: my one concern is that do we have time to do that? with our jan deadline?
16:30:54 <sgallagh> Viking-Ice: We're not discussing role personas. We've agreed that those are a separate topic.
16:31:02 <simo> Viking-Ice: personas are part of the discovery phase to come up with requirements so it belongs to the discovery phase
16:31:07 <sgallagh> These are personas for the needs of the platform itself, not the specific services it offers.
16:31:08 <simo> before PRD, before Roles
16:31:16 <mizmo> nirik, we have time to write up the initial set of personas i think. to refine them based on the research will take longer but not needed by jan i think
16:31:29 <nirik> fair enough.
16:31:32 <Viking-Ice> simo, sgallagh which means they belong in the stage gate process ( first part )
16:31:44 <mizmo> Viking-Ice, the personas are for the platform
16:31:44 * nirik is +1 to sgallagh's proposal fwiw
16:31:45 <mitr> Viking-Ice: doesn't really matter, e.g. we can keep them on the wiki and use them for the PRD but not include them in the final PRD
16:32:03 <mizmo> a lot of PRDs do have personas listed though
16:32:04 <Viking-Ice> yes and the personas for the platforms are administrators
16:32:12 <sgallagh> Viking-Ice: Yes, absolutely.
16:32:36 <sgallagh> But as we discussed yesterday, that's not a homogeneous group. We want to define the different types of administrators
16:32:36 <Viking-Ice> so what's more to discuss there ( rest is defined in server or application role requirements )
16:33:06 <davidstrauss> +1 to sgallagh's proposal
16:33:06 <sgallagh> Anyway, can we take this to the list and move on? I'm hopeful it will become more clear as the first few persona proposals start drifting in
16:33:07 <Viking-Ice> again which is done in the server or application role requirement
16:33:13 <mizmo> sgallagh, yes i'll take care of that
16:33:16 <mizmo> we can move on
16:33:24 <Viking-Ice> web administrator != database administrator
16:33:49 <simo> +1 current proposal, and +1 move to the list, and +1 move on
16:33:59 <nirik> +1 simo
16:34:01 <mizmo> fresh out of school administrator in a windows shop with less than a dozen linux boxes != experience admin for a global corporation with 50,000 linux servers
16:34:01 <davidstrauss> +1 to simo
16:34:03 <nirik> :)
16:34:07 <mizmo> +1
16:34:16 <mizmo> #topic Server Lifecycle Proposal
16:34:35 <mizmo> sgallagh, that's this right? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Server/Proposals/Server_Lifecycle
16:34:54 <nirik> so, I'll note fesco has a ticket on release and lifecycles
16:35:06 <mizmo> nirik, do you happen to know the ticket #?
16:35:14 <simo> ok I would like to defer discussion on this for 3 reasons
16:35:16 <sgallagh> Yeah, I'm going to suggest we defer lifecycle discussions for a week
16:35:22 <Viking-Ice> I asked the fesco liason to put it on their agenda
16:35:26 <mizmo> okay move on to next topic sgallagh?
16:35:31 <nirik> https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1202
16:35:31 <simo> 1. we do not agree with each other on how the platfrom is composed
16:35:46 <simo> 2. we do not have any idea if baseWG plans will allows us to go with this plan
16:35:47 <Viking-Ice> but for the record has anyone actually spoken with any maintainer about extended release cycle?
16:36:08 <simo> 3. we have yet no idea if all the stars and planets align that we will actually be able to keep a live the moinster for 2 years
16:36:24 <Viking-Ice> because I have been approach with concern from few maintainers that we are signing them up for work they are not willing to do
16:36:25 * nirik has his own views on this, but we can just move on.
16:36:49 <nirik> Viking-Ice: I think it's very premature at this point... but feedback is always good I suppose.
16:36:58 * simo nods
16:37:22 <sgallagh> Yeah, I probably jumped the gun with the lifecycle discussion. We need to figure out what we're delivering first
16:37:43 <davidstrauss> For one, I'd prefer to stick to the base release numbers, as in "Fedora Server 21" being based on Fedora 21. It may not be released simultaneously with Fedora 21 and may have a longer support cycle, but it helps with community support.
16:37:44 <mitr> Viking-Ice: That would be interesting to discuss on the mailing list (is it longer lifecycle specifically, any kind of lifecycle change, any kind of more work, any kind of different work?)
16:37:46 <Viking-Ice> nirik, right ( I responded with we just have to wait and see what actually comes out of this WG if anything )
16:38:05 <mizmo> okay let's just move on to the next agenda item folks
16:38:11 <nirik> mizmo: +1
16:38:12 <Viking-Ice> mitr, right
16:38:16 <mizmo> #agenda Updates and Testing Proposal
16:38:19 <mizmo> er
16:38:21 <mizmo> #topic Updates and Testing Proposal
16:38:36 <mizmo> which is this?
16:38:39 * mizmo not sure
16:38:44 <nirik> this also might be premature. ;) I'm ok defering it until we know what we are shipping/doing
16:38:48 <mizmo> okay
16:38:51 <nirik> this was mine...
16:38:58 <mizmo> #topic Server Role List Proposal
16:39:20 <mizmo> where is this one? i dont see it on the wiki
16:39:26 <mizmo> i see the role acceptance https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Server/Proposals/Server_Roles
16:39:42 <mizmo> ohh there are 4 at the bottom there
16:39:44 <mizmo> is that the list?
16:40:04 <Viking-Ice> ?
16:40:15 <sgallagh> mizmo: I think this was about Viking-Ice's detailed list
16:40:26 <sgallagh> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Johannbg/FOSSP#Server_Roles.2C_Technologies_and_Features_in_FedoraOS_Server_Platform_.28_FOSSP_.29
16:40:30 <sgallagh> err #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Johannbg/FOSSP#Server_Roles.2C_Technologies_and_Features_in_FedoraOS_Server_Platform_.28_FOSSP_.29
16:40:40 <mizmo> okay
16:40:43 <Viking-Ice> I thought so to
16:40:46 * nirik notes you don't need to use #link. ;)
16:40:47 <mizmo> Viking-Ice, is it okay if i copy that into the main document?
16:41:08 <Viking-Ice> mizmo, yeah
16:41:08 <sgallagh> Note that we do not have to attempt to solve all such roles at once.
16:41:15 <nirik> so, what are we discussing exactly? the entire document? or just the roles part?
16:41:38 <mizmo> i guess we should figure out
16:41:43 <mizmo> 1) how many roles will we support initially
16:41:43 <Viking-Ice> technically with the stage gate process we need to *first* identify the requirement for a role which purpose it serves etc
16:41:50 <mitr> That's a fairly comprehensive list of possible items.  I'm not sure that all of them are actually roles (e.g. backup, containers may be part of the shared server infrastructure)
16:41:53 <mizmo> 2) identify which of those roles will be in the initial supported group
16:41:56 <davidstrauss> "Failover Clustering Services Server Role" isn't a role. It's something particular to specific other roles. Failover is very role-specific.
16:42:30 <Viking-Ice> davidstrauss, not really + other OS has those defined as roles
16:42:33 <nirik> right, and some have multiple options/application solutions... which we may want to decide on one.
16:42:38 <mitr> Anyway, we really only need to choose the roles for the first release (and more importantly, a list of non-role-specific functionality each role is supposed to have)
16:42:44 <davidstrauss> For example, failover for MariaDB is completely different than for Kerberos or Samba.
16:42:48 <sgallagh> As I've stated before as well, I'd rather see a "Domain Controller" role than necessarily an LDAP role
16:42:50 <simo> some of these roles look a bit too generic to me
16:43:20 <davidstrauss> Throwing in a bunch of cluster/HA utilities isn't a useful fulfillment for HA needs.
16:43:29 <sgallagh> simo: Yeah, the "Network Services" role is wrong, I'd say
16:43:42 <simo> it's not wrong per se
16:43:45 <mizmo> okay if you shift-reload i integrated all of the suggestions we had for roles in one list: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Server/Proposals/Server_Roles#Proposed_Server_Roles
16:43:48 <sgallagh> Let's not be too harsh all at once, though. This is a good place to start.
16:43:52 <Viking-Ice> as I said before we really should push the roles through the "Server Role Process Agreement " if the intent is to use the stage gate approach
16:44:19 <Viking-Ice> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Johannbg/FOSSP#Server_Role_Process_Agreement
16:44:21 <sgallagh> Viking-Ice: Well, that's a major piece of what we need to do for the platform
16:44:24 <simo> Viking-Ice: what is the "Server Role Process Agreement" ?
16:44:26 <simo> ah thanks
16:44:33 <sgallagh> Define that process and the technical requirements to accomplish it
16:44:34 <Viking-Ice> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Johannbg/FOSSP#Server_Role_Process_Agreement
16:44:39 <mizmo> oh hey guys
16:44:47 <mizmo> we already decided for initial release to pick 1 to 3 roles to support
16:44:49 <mizmo> "We will pick somewhere between one and three initial roles to focus on for F21. That's achievable and allows us to direct our energies. ([3]) "
16:45:11 * nirik nods.
16:45:13 <sgallagh> mizmo: Yes
16:45:13 <Viking-Ice> then dont copy my stuff to the page
16:45:27 <mizmo> Viking-Ice, um?
16:45:32 <nirik> I think perhaps 3 to start with and then if we get them all happy we can look at adding more depending.
16:45:33 <Viking-Ice> and I'll drop the stage gate work in progress proposal
16:45:48 <sgallagh> Viking-Ice: I don't think that's necessary
16:45:56 <Viking-Ice> mizmo, you said you where going to copy that to the server page
16:46:00 <sgallagh> We might still want to use it to select the few we start with
16:46:09 <mizmo> Viking-Ice, I copied the roles list you made to the server roles proposal page, yes
16:46:11 <sgallagh> And use them as a prototype to see if the process meets our needs
16:46:12 <mizmo> Viking-Ice, is that a problem?
16:46:41 <Viking-Ice> mizmo, you just pointed out we would only chose three
16:46:46 <mitr> Proposal: 1) let's review the list of all proposed roles on the list, to have some kind of rooadmap (anyone to drive this?); and 2) let's choose the 1-3 roles (perhaps by preferring roles with package owners interested in going the extra mile?)
16:47:02 <mizmo> Viking-Ice, well right but we need a list to choose from. kind of like the install goals document - there was the list of ones for initial usage, and a deferred list at the bottom
16:47:15 <mizmo> Viking-Ice, so we'll just split the roles into two lists, one for initially supported and one for deferred. does that make sense?
16:47:18 <davidstrauss> Certainly, we should only choose a shortlist of roles *after* defining personas, right?
16:47:26 <simo> How specific do we want roles to be ?
16:47:40 <mizmo> davidstrauss, that's ideal :)
16:47:44 <davidstrauss> If we're going to the trouble of defining target users, shouldn't we use that work here as a tool?
16:48:07 <iThinkDev> where i can find link for list of all proposed roles.?
16:48:13 <simo> for example 'Lightweight Directory Services Server Role' seem to be quite specific to a task (although I do not consider samba4 lightweight), while "Network Services Server Role" seem quite broad
16:48:18 <Viking-Ice> davidstrauss, each roles has to go through the Server_Role_Process_Agreement which we define it's purpose what it's trying to solve etc
16:48:20 <mizmo> iThinkDev, https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Server/Proposals/Server_Roles#Proposed_Server_Roles
16:48:28 <simo> and in my view would contain the lightweight services from a semantic pov
16:48:40 <nirik> simo: I think the first ones we should do should be somewhat generic... to cover as many folks as we can...
16:48:59 <simo> nirik: I guess I need an example to understand what that means
16:49:01 <sgallagh> nirik: I think we really need to talk about personas
16:49:08 <nirik> yeah
16:49:09 <simo> sgallagh: not really
16:49:10 <mizmo> we could try to cover as many of the personas' desires as we can, or we could focus on one of the personas and try to make them super happy and over time reach out to the others
16:49:11 <iThinkDev> mizmo: yeahh
16:49:15 <sgallagh> We might want to focus first on "Things people already want to use Fedora for".
16:49:24 <sgallagh> So that we can improve their experience and use them to expand our influence.
16:49:29 <simo> sgallagh: +1
16:49:40 <simo> that's independent from the personas to a degree
16:49:44 <Viking-Ice> as I said I dont think we need stage gate approach
16:49:51 <Viking-Ice> based on the remarks here
16:50:01 <simo> Viking-Ice: your statement is obscure to me
16:50:07 <sgallagh> simo: Not if we select "People currently using Fedora as a server" as one of our targets :)
16:50:08 <mitr> sgallagh: Many aspects of the roles can be decided/established even without personas.
16:50:10 <davidstrauss> (1) What is the "stage gate approach"? (2) What is a PRD?
16:50:15 <simo> sgallagh: ok
16:50:19 <nirik> we could also focus on 'building blocks'... ie, 'apache web server' could be used by many other higher level roles?
16:50:31 <mizmo> sgallagh, yeh ppl currently using fedora as a server could end up being a persona depending on what attributes got them there
16:50:31 <simo> nirik: indeed
16:50:54 <simo> some components can be used by many roles, possibily conflicting roles
16:51:05 <mizmo> so we got 10 minutes and one more agenda item
16:51:18 <simo> so having a "Web Directory Services Server Role" makes little sense to me
16:51:30 <simo> we can have a specific web stack role
16:51:34 <sgallagh> Shall we take discussion of individual role needs and clarifications to the list?
16:51:41 <mitr> Please
16:51:43 <Viking-Ice> simo, that's how M$ calls IIS
16:51:45 <davidstrauss> Please +1
16:51:47 <simo> sgallagh: I'd like to give a direction to the discussion
16:52:05 <simo> Viking-Ice: sure that doesn't mean it necessarily makes sense for us
16:52:27 <mitr> simo: would you we willing to initiate the mail thread, then?
16:52:29 <sgallagh> simo: Want to start a new thread with your thoughts, then?
16:52:42 <simo> my thoughts are well confused
16:52:52 <sgallagh> Good, I'm not the only one :-P
16:52:54 <Viking-Ice> simo, well people seem to be fixating on the M$ admin so I defined the roles based in theirs and trust there are few more there that dont make absolutly no sense ;)
16:53:23 <Viking-Ice> I just picked the one that might be
16:53:24 <sgallagh> Viking-Ice: Well, I've mentioned a couple times that our path to wider adoption involves getting people to leave their MS comfort zone.
16:53:28 <simo> I think I just have 1 main question  before going to the list
16:53:35 <sgallagh> But that doesn't need to be our only goal, or even in the first set of them
16:53:43 <sgallagh> simo: Shoot
16:53:47 <simo> do we define roles based on very generic use cases, or do we want to base them on well defined uses cases ?
16:54:06 <Viking-Ice> I want well defined well targeted use cases
16:54:08 <simo> it looks like the list is a mix currently
16:54:13 <simo> Viking-Ice: I agree
16:54:17 <mizmo> simo, i guess it depends how many roles we want to end up with
16:54:22 <sgallagh> Yeah, I'd want to describe roles as solutions to a specific problem
16:54:33 <simo> mizmo: it will be a selection process I guess
16:54:35 <sgallagh> mizmo: I think that's the wrong question
16:54:38 <davidstrauss> Personas should be abstract and focused on end goals. Roles should be well-defined, supportable ways of achieving those goals.
16:54:47 <sgallagh> davidstrauss: +1
16:54:48 <mizmo> davidstrauss, +1
16:55:06 <nirik> yeah
16:55:29 <simo> I agree 90% to what davidstrauss said :)
16:55:38 <davidstrauss> A persona might want an office network server that does DHCP. A role might be a network services server with ISC DHCP, etc.
16:55:39 <simo> is that +0.9 ? :-)
16:55:47 <iThinkDev> davidstrauss: +1
16:55:48 <mizmo> davidstrauss, i think that persona is too specific
16:56:01 <sgallagh> mizmo: I was about to say the same
16:56:02 <simo> yeah that's the 105 I did not agree with :)
16:56:09 <simo> 10%
16:56:13 <mitr> davidstrauss: I find the idea that a person has "goals" unnatural - we want, I guess, fewer personas than roles
16:56:16 <davidstrauss> mizmo: I'm flexible. I'm just trying to get some definition.
16:56:34 <simo> I think personas really should roughly match skill sets
16:56:36 <Viking-Ice> in anycase we define which purpose roles are supposed to solve in it's requirement documentation in the "Server Roles Agreement"
16:57:00 <simo> A developer that needs to install his infrastructure to work at home
16:57:02 <sgallagh> I'm not really sure anyone is disagreeing on anything in particular here, except for scope
16:57:12 <simo> An administrator that needs a server for his company
16:57:19 <mizmo> simo, skill sets, environments, technology, demographics, etc
16:57:20 <mizmo> :)
16:57:24 <Viking-Ice> I think we are jumping the gun firs
16:57:29 <Viking-Ice> t
16:57:34 <mizmo> sgallagh, +1
16:57:36 <simo> A junior admin that needs to integrate a basic service into a big datacenter
16:57:38 <simo> etc...
16:57:47 <mizmo> simo +1
16:57:50 <Viking-Ice> I'm going to ask people to read "link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Johannbg/FOSSP#Stage_Gate.27s_Process
16:58:02 <Viking-Ice> ( which I wrote more or less last night )
16:58:19 <sgallagh> Viking-Ice: Yeah, I'm going to read it today. Didn't get a chance prior to the meeting, unfortunately
16:58:20 <mizmo> okay the last item is Installation Roles vs. Post-installation Role Assignment
16:58:28 <mizmo> defer to list / next meeting?
16:58:34 <sgallagh> mizmo: That was a stretch item and I don't think we need to talk about it today
16:58:36 <simo> mizmo: what does that mean ?
16:58:36 <Viking-Ice> this is the transition process from "package we ship" to an application in a defined server roles as well as how we go about defining that server role
16:58:38 <mizmo> okay
16:58:41 <mizmo> simo, i'm not quite sure :)
16:59:09 <sgallagh> mizmo, simo: It's about whether installing roles at installer time and on a running system should use the same interface.
16:59:17 <mizmo> sgallagh, ahh okay
16:59:18 <Viking-Ice> sgallagh, that page has no pictures yet ;)
16:59:38 <simo> sgallagh: I think it should as it saves time
16:59:44 <mizmo> we good in the 'hood yo? 11:59 here
16:59:45 <Viking-Ice> but it's a start defining the continues work of the serverWG
16:59:45 <simo> the more variations the more costly it is
16:59:50 <simo> but that's just my opinion
16:59:56 <sgallagh> simo: I agree, that's my stance as well. See the list :)
17:00:03 <Viking-Ice> mizmo, we can leak over no problem
17:00:06 <simo> ie imo role configuration is a post-install thing anyway
17:00:11 <mizmo> Viking-Ice, problem for me :)
17:00:14 <davidstrauss> simo: +1
17:00:20 <mizmo> Viking-Ice, my babysitter is ready to leave
17:00:22 * nirik also has fires to go put out
17:00:25 <simo> I have to go too
17:00:36 <simo> 12h00 is hard limit
17:00:42 <simo> so now
17:00:43 <sgallagh> Ok, I think we have plenty to discuss on the list.
17:00:48 <simo> agreed
17:00:50 <sgallagh> Thanks everyone for a productive meeting!
17:00:51 <simo> please wrap up
17:00:58 <iThinkDev> agreed
17:00:58 <mizmo> u do the honors sgallagh
17:01:03 <nirik> also, folks can discuss in #fedora-server. ;)
17:01:06 <sgallagh> #endmeeting