16:00:22 <sgallagh> #startmeeting Server Working Group Weekly Meeting (2013-12-03)
16:00:22 <zodbot> Meeting started Tue Dec 17 16:00:22 2013 UTC.  The chair is sgallagh. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:00:22 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
16:00:27 <sgallagh> #chair sgallagh mizmo nirik davidstrauss Evolution adamw simo tuanta mitr
16:00:27 <zodbot> Current chairs: Evolution adamw davidstrauss mitr mizmo nirik sgallagh simo tuanta
16:00:30 <sgallagh> #topic roll call
16:00:40 <sgallagh> .hellomynameis sgallagh
16:00:41 <zodbot> sgallagh: sgallagh 'Stephen Gallagher' <sgallagh@redhat.com>
16:00:42 <tuanta> .hellomynameis tuanta
16:00:47 <adamw> ahoyhoy
16:00:49 <mitr> Hello all
16:00:58 <zodbot> tuanta: tuanta 'Truong Anh Tuan' <tuanta@iwayvietnam.com>
16:01:15 * nirik is here, but distracted by some software project release day.
16:01:54 <mizmo> .hellomynameis slimshady
16:01:56 <zodbot> mizmo: Sorry, but you don't exist
16:01:58 * mizmo couldnt help it
16:02:02 <mizmo> .hellomynameis duffy
16:02:03 <zodbot> mizmo: duffy 'Máirín Duffy' <fedora@linuxgrrl.com>
16:02:16 * sgallagh grins
16:02:49 <sgallagh> davidstrauss will be late. So we're just waiting on simo and Evolution.
16:03:39 <simo> sgallagh: here
16:04:00 <adamw> mizmo: i'm amazed it took that long
16:04:44 <mizmo> lol yep
16:04:55 <sgallagh> Ok, well we have quorum, so let's get started.
16:05:00 <sgallagh> #topic Final Assessment of Personas
16:05:25 <sgallagh> I'm going to naively assume that everyone who volunteered to review a Persona last week has done so?
16:05:58 <simo> sgallagh: I did, however I am not really 100% satisfied, but the #3 is "ok", I think
16:06:19 <sgallagh> They're living documents, so I'm willing to live with "ok" if everyone else i
16:06:20 <mizmo> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Server/Personas
16:06:21 <sgallagh> *is
16:06:28 <sgallagh> #link http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Server/Personas
16:06:36 <mizmo> +1 perfect is the enemy of good. the personas will get refined post-PRD with some more interviews
16:06:46 <simo> well I was all: I can do this, I know what I have to do
16:07:04 <simo> then when I was on it I realized: maybe I do not really know, but will do what I can ...
16:07:10 * sgallagh thinks that sentence got him in a lot of trouble as a teenager.
16:08:19 <sgallagh> Do we have a general sense about whether we want to accept the current crop of Personas as ready for the PRD?
16:08:26 <mizmo> ah i like what you did with #3
16:09:03 <mizmo> well as someone who would be a consumer of the personas in UX work they are at a good state now, i think
16:09:20 <mizmo> we can always state in the PRD they rae pending further development
16:09:31 <tuanta> Work Description is missing in #4, right?
16:09:44 <mizmo> i think the weakest one is jr sys admin
16:09:57 <tuanta> and #2 too
16:09:59 <mizmo> tuanta, yeh it is, same with #1 and #2
16:10:12 <mizmo> im not as concerned about the work descriptions though, we can drop them for the PRD
16:10:26 <tuanta> yes, I see. is it important to describe what each person needs?
16:10:45 <sgallagh> tuanta: Well, that's the core of the Persona, I think. Understanding what they need is key to providing it.
16:11:26 <tuanta> sgallagh: so, do you think Work Description is also a point?
16:11:29 <sgallagh> nirik: You were going to approach some of the junior infra folks for a review of #4. Did that happen?
16:11:42 <nirik> no, sorry, I didn't get to it. ;(
16:11:47 <nirik> I can try this week...
16:11:53 <sgallagh> Work description is probably less important for the PRD than goals and frustrations
16:12:00 <sgallagh> Work description will be useful for execution
16:12:16 <tuanta> ok, I got it. sgallagh
16:12:17 <mizmo> work description is useful to understand their high level workflow
16:12:44 <mizmo> sgallagh, exactly right, it's more useful for execution, goals and frustrations is much more key for PRD level discussions
16:12:49 <sgallagh> I'm personally ok with leaving work description alone until the interviews happen
16:13:38 <sgallagh> #info "Goals" and "Frustrations" sections are the most important for the PRD. "Work Description" will be useful for execution planning.
16:14:36 <sgallagh> Ok, so the question is: are we happy with the Goals and Frustrations here, or do some of them need work?
16:15:05 * sgallagh really wants to close the book on this, because we really have only two meetings left to finish the PRD>
16:16:27 <simo> sgallagh: I think I can give a +1 to it
16:16:46 <simo> (sorry took some time to just give the personas page a quick re-review)
16:17:14 <sgallagh> Proposal: Server WG accepts the list of Personas and their current Goals and Frustrations for the PRD. These are living documents that may be revised later.
16:17:19 <mizmo> +1 to it, I'm sure if there are issues we missed people reading the PRD will bring them up
16:17:23 <mitr> +1
16:17:26 <tuanta> +1
16:17:32 <sgallagh> +1
16:17:41 <adamw> +1
16:18:24 <sgallagh> Evolution, nirik: Care to weigh in?
16:18:39 <Evolution> I'm good with it. +1 from me.
16:18:42 * nirik reads up.
16:18:51 <nirik> sure, +1
16:19:09 <sgallagh> #agreed Server WG accepts the list of Personas and their current Goals and Frustrations for the PRD. These are living documents that may be revised later. (+8, 0, -0)
16:19:20 <sgallagh> #topic PRD: Delivery Plan
16:19:35 <sgallagh> So there are two sub-topics for a delivery plan:
16:20:06 <sgallagh> 1) Physical media vs. network install vs cloud images (and whether we want some or all of these)
16:20:15 <sgallagh> 2) Release cadence
16:20:37 <simo> sgallagh: I find a DVD usesful as .iso image to spin VMs, but I do often use a network install
16:20:47 <simo> I am not sure what a "cloud image" would give me ?
16:21:01 <adamw> i believe fesco is requiring that everyone release together on an agreed schedule for f21 at least
16:21:09 <sgallagh> #topic PRD: Delivery Plan: Delivery Media
16:21:41 <adamw> okay, first QA plea: remember, every different medium you invent is another thing that can be broken
16:21:49 <nirik> I think something like the netinstall (possibly with roles packages added) would be the way to go. We could do a stripped down dvd, but not sure how useful that would be
16:21:56 <sgallagh> #info adamw QA plea: remember, every different medium you invent is another thing that can be broken
16:22:05 <mitr> Cloud images alone are obviousoly not sufficient, _something_ needs to be running on a physical HW
16:22:14 <mizmo> what about ppl in locked down network environments
16:22:15 <Viking-Ice> adamw, QA wont have anything to do with this so...
16:22:34 <mizmo> *** this is a rant free zone, check your agendas at the door ***
16:22:36 <Viking-Ice> the output from the WG's will have to be QA-ed by themselves
16:22:40 <nirik> cloud images? isn't the cloud sig doing those?
16:22:42 <simo> nirik: does it mean I need to mirror the whole repo to do local installs ?
16:22:53 <nirik> or you mean cloud server?
16:23:16 <nirik> simo: it would yeah... do you think thats a bar too high?
16:23:16 <mitr> mizmo: Even locked down network environments need a network - but the "Junior sysadmin" or the very first Server on a network should be installable without an already existing Server or similar Linux
16:23:16 <simo> Viking-Ice: what will QA end up doing then ??
16:23:17 <sgallagh> I was intentionally ambiguous so we could hash that out
16:23:49 <davidstrauss> Hi folks.
16:23:54 <simo> nirik: well I will wait until you can gift me of a 1TB SSD in order to have all that space :)
16:24:01 <mizmo> mitr, yeh but i think junior sysadmin might feel overwhelmed if he has to set up an internal mirror before he can install
16:24:08 <Viking-Ice> simo, with the exception of the baseWG help building test cases and release criteria
16:24:10 <tuanta> I think, at least, we need DVD image for offline installation
16:24:11 <adamw> simo: there's a boundary of responsibilities and a bunch of other stuff to work out there, but it seems hard to do until all the WGs have actually defined precisely what it is they're going to be building.
16:24:14 <sgallagh> So, let's start with a smaller question.
16:24:26 <mizmo> how do you set up the mirror if you don't have a dvd image :)
16:24:29 <nirik> ok, so perhaps we do a image that has all the packages required for our roles? ie, a smaller dvd?
16:24:34 <sgallagh> Can we agree that we do not expect to be shipping an "everything including the kitchen sink" DVD anymore?
16:24:36 <simo> adamw: I think that's why we are writing a PRD ?
16:24:44 <mizmo> i will agree to that sgallagh! +1
16:24:47 <adamw> simo: sure, i was just trying to punt diplomatically
16:24:55 <davidstrauss> We deploy with custom DVDs sent over DRAC (first server on a LAN) and then PXE. Both use Kickstart.
16:24:56 <nirik> sgallagh: sure, there's no benifit in the current dvd to us.
16:25:13 <adamw> the general tone of the discussions i've seen is the single 'all products' dvd image is going away, yeah.
16:25:16 <simo> sgallagh: define everything and a kitchen sink
16:25:23 <mitr> sgallagh: Makes sense.  (To be explicit, this means that installing any of the "kitchen sink" packages will require either internet access or a manually setup local mirror
16:25:24 <sgallagh> simo: The current Fedora 20 DVD
16:25:30 <simo> the current DVD image does not have all the packages already afaik
16:25:32 <nirik> simo: well, the current dvd has all the desktops. Thats hardly useful for servers.
16:25:35 <sgallagh> mitr: Yes, that's where I was leading on that
16:25:41 <simo> nirik: right
16:25:43 <sgallagh> simo: No, it has as many as we can stuff into 4GB
16:25:54 <davidstrauss> The current DVD is highly useful for servers. All you need to drop in is a KS file and alter the default boot.
16:25:55 <simo> sgallagh: sure, but we care about server related packages
16:25:58 <tuanta> yes, we need another DVD
16:26:17 <nirik> well, how about base + repoclosed packages for roles?
16:26:19 <davidstrauss> Not saying the DVD couldn't be better, but I do use it regularly for server setup.
16:26:25 <sgallagh> nirik: I was just typing exactly that
16:26:33 <sgallagh> Proposal?
16:26:38 <simo> I think a .iso image is the best medium to show that *these* are the packages we consider "server related/relevant*
16:26:41 <Evolution> nirik: if we have more roles than room, how do we determine which roles to use?
16:26:42 <nirik> I don't know that we should say "4GB" or anything...
16:26:47 <adamw> davidstrauss: how does the DVD benefit you over the network install, there?
16:26:54 <mitr> Evolution: I wouldn't worry about that right now :)
16:27:07 <sgallagh> Evolution: Right now, 80% of the DVD is desktop-specific packages
16:27:11 <sgallagh> I think we'll be okay for a while.
16:27:15 <Evolution> mitr: I'm not, simply throwing it out there.
16:27:22 <simo> Evolution: I say, defere that, gfiven we'll have very few roles in the first releases I do not think we'll have that problem very soon
16:27:24 <adamw> 4.7GB Should Be Enough For Anyone, right
16:27:30 <nirik> proposal: fedora server will produce a iso image with base packages + server role packages, similar to the existing dvd iso, but not the same package set.
16:27:33 <sgallagh> I'm willing to assume that by the time we need more space, larger media will be common
16:27:36 <simo> Evolution: esp because removing most desktop stuff we'll have tons of space
16:27:46 <rdoty__> sgallagh: bad assumption
16:27:49 <nirik> I don't think we should tie ourselves to a size right now.
16:28:01 <mizmo> nirik, +1
16:28:02 <tuanta> +1 nirik
16:28:04 <adamw> +/-0 at present. i don't see a very good and clear discussion of the merits of relevant media types and deployment strategies yet.
16:28:04 <sgallagh> nirik: +1
16:28:05 <mitr> rdoty__: Given how small server implementations typically are...
16:28:18 <rdoty__> We have stopped at DVD; BluRay hasn't gotten any traction; everything is network or USB drive
16:28:19 <adamw> this seems like one of the most important decisions to make, and i can't make a lot of sense of the discussion yet.
16:28:21 <nirik> adamw: so, dvd is better than netinstall because you don't need net...
16:28:32 <simo> guys
16:28:34 <nirik> ie, closed datacenter, offline server in lab, etc
16:28:46 <simo> there are now 16GB flash cards that I bought for 12$
16:28:49 <mitr> sgallagh. nirik: Ideally base + repoclosed roles is precisely sufficient; at least for the first few releases, it mostly won't be.  Are we signing up to maintaining some larger "server comps", or requiring the abovementioned network access for everyone?
16:28:56 <simo> we *do not* have a space problem
16:28:57 <Viking-Ice> simo, QA first and foremost responsability is to manage installer + base, now if we take the output from the baseWG ( which apparently at the time of this writing ) it covers 2000 components in total
16:29:00 <mizmo> my last 5 or 6 installs were done via USB key
16:29:22 <simo> we should just make an .iso with what is important for the server wg
16:29:22 <mizmo> we are a bit out of order right now
16:29:29 <rdoty__> CD/DVD seems to be going the way of the floppy
16:29:34 <simo> and ignore size issues for now
16:29:37 <adamw> simo: i'm not concerned about space
16:29:37 <nirik> mitr: can't quite parse that.
16:29:59 <nirik> mitr: we would need to maintain a ks file that produces the image...
16:29:59 <sgallagh> rdoty__: Just to comment: we're talking about an ISO that fits on a DVD, not necessarily a literal piece of plastic.
16:30:08 <sgallagh> Any DVD ISO can be stuck on a USB key
16:30:10 <rdoty__> Correct
16:30:12 <nirik> sgallagh: lets just call it an image. ;)
16:30:21 <rdoty__> But USB keys are hard to reproduce
16:30:26 <rdoty__> and expensive
16:30:33 <mitr> nirik: when we have 1-2 roles, most people will want to install something else => will need to use both DVD and net with that proposal; would we add extra packages to the DVD to mnimize the net requirement?
16:30:34 <simo> sgallagh: let's just say we need to produce an .iso image
16:30:39 <rdoty__> Going forward we can expect a lot more network installs
16:30:44 <sgallagh> mitr: I'd be against that
16:30:45 <nirik> mitr: ah, I see.
16:30:46 <simo> sgallagh: will discuss later what is its size
16:30:50 <mizmo> we have base server and we have roles. if we have too much data to fit on one DVD, couldn't we do a base server DVD + a roles DVD?
16:30:53 <sgallagh> simo: ack
16:30:55 <tuanta> yes, that image could be written to a DVD or a USB key
16:31:04 <simo> rdoty__: expensive ?
16:31:09 <simo> in what sense ?
16:31:16 <mizmo> (for conference handout purposes - i agree with rdoty__ than USB keys are much more expensive than DVD for physical handouts)
16:31:17 <sgallagh> mizmo: I think I agree with simo here. Let's ignore size discussions as an implementation detail right now
16:31:22 <mitr> sgallagh: yeah, sounds like a rat hole
16:31:25 <nirik> I guess I would want to be very careful with that.
16:31:32 <mizmo> simo, an imaged USB key is typically $5/piece, DVDs more like $0.10/piece
16:31:40 <rdoty__> DVD ~$0.10 in volume, USB key much more expensive and more expensive to reproduce.
16:31:42 <mitr> mizmo: we won't have a size problem, really
16:31:44 <simo> mizmo: ahh for give-aways
16:31:52 <mizmo> yep for giveaways, conferences, that's all.
16:32:02 <Evolution> dvd at conventions is out-moded. dvd for office install is still reasonably normal/common
16:32:04 <mizmo> but i dont think that's a major issue. like i suggested earlier, it could be split across two DVDs.
16:32:04 <simo> mitr: ok let's add a small comma: "if possible make it in a size that will fit inexpensive media"
16:32:09 <adamw> why the hell are we talking about duplicating usb keys?
16:32:09 <simo> err mizmo ^^
16:32:14 <nirik> I would say if we have just a few roles, it's going to be similar to the netinstall iso size
16:32:32 <mizmo> adamw, f2f handout logistics is all
16:32:42 <nirik> adamw: beats me.
16:32:50 * mizmo thinks a better f2f handout would be a biz card with a qr code that takes you to cloud image or something
16:32:52 <Evolution> at least one role will still have a gui, for the junior admin style folks, correct?
16:33:12 <sgallagh> Evolution: As I mentioned in my agenda email, let's leave that topic off the PRD
16:33:19 <Evolution> ah, fair.
16:33:19 <simo> yup
16:33:23 <nirik> proposal: Fedora server will produce an image from a ks that they maintain with base packages + server role packages. This image will be installable off line for roles and able to use net for other installs.
16:33:45 <tuanta> +1 nirik
16:33:47 <adamw> it seems like we haven't even considered other possibilities
16:33:49 <simo> I agree we need .iso image for install that include a full install as opposed to netinstall which includes only bootstrapping bits
16:33:54 <nirik> adamw: fire them out there. ;)
16:33:55 <adamw> has anyone said anything about deploying as a filesystem image, for instance>
16:33:56 <sgallagh> adamw: Please suggest them
16:33:58 <simo> I would leave any other detail aside
16:33:59 * nirik has been thinking about this.
16:34:01 <adamw> the way cloud and ARM are currently done
16:34:02 <mitr> nirik: s/from a ks//
16:34:09 <sgallagh> adamw: I raised "cloud image" at the beginning
16:34:22 <adamw> sgallagh: i wasn't clear on what that meant :)
16:34:26 <nirik> adamw: inflexable? does it install all roles? or an image per role?
16:34:37 <adamw> those are all choices!
16:34:39 <sgallagh> From my perspective, that would basically mean a base image
16:35:06 <mizmo> base server as a filesystem image, roles on top as installable repos??
16:35:11 <adamw> say you have a base image, and some kind of role deployment tool
16:35:12 <sgallagh> I don't think we can easily ship pre-created roles
16:35:12 <simo> yeah I think ARM and all that should be deferred to base wg
16:35:19 <sgallagh> Since many (most) will require configuration.
16:35:21 <mitr> adamw: I think we can word the PRD as an "iso-like" image without saying that it installs using RPMs or from an image.
16:35:24 <simo> we'll just then find a way to install roles on the base image
16:35:47 <simo> which again confirms the choice of making roles installable *after* initial install a winning decision
16:35:49 <tuanta> that image should contain some "popular" roles, others could be installed from the net
16:36:08 <simo> confining them to kickstart would make fsimage based installs "difficult"
16:36:16 <sgallagh> tuanta: It can be tricky selecting those "popular" roles (and political)
16:36:19 <adamw> the deployment method seems pretty tied to the way in which the 'roles' are actually going to be implemented, as well
16:36:22 <nirik> well, then we have to support any combo of roles? or are we already saying we are?
16:36:31 <simo> tuanta: I would rather have no roles and install them from .iso/network
16:36:48 <sgallagh> nirik: In earlier discussions, we agreed that initially we plan to only "support" one role at a time
16:37:01 <sgallagh> With efforts made as we go forward to validate certain combinations as well
16:37:04 <adamw> i mean, you've got to consider the consequences of choices: if we're assuming a 'current DVD-style' deployment scenario, it sort of implies either the roles are comps groups, or you need to work with anaconda team to implement role delivery in the installer
16:37:07 <nirik> also image means no fs choice, no parititioning choices, etc, but then that might be good if we want everyone to setup as we like. ;)
16:37:08 <adamw> or you have to write a new installer
16:37:10 <simo> there is a distinction between installing bits and configuring them
16:37:22 <simo> but I am not ready to assume roles will actually*not* have conflicts
16:37:25 <nirik> adamw: -amillion. ;)
16:37:32 <adamw> nirik: yes, that is the kind of trade-off that needs to be considered somehow
16:37:33 <mitr> Proposal: Fedora Server will produce an .iso image that allows installing Server Base and featured roles off-line, and installing more Fedora packages from the network.
16:37:33 <simo> so I would not assume bits can be all installed either
16:37:47 <mitr> (explicitly leaving out anaconda/image/whatever)
16:37:57 <sgallagh> mitr: +1 (I think we need this at the very least)
16:38:01 <adamw> mitr: is that intended to a comprehensive proposal, or an 'at least'?
16:38:02 <nirik> mitr: well, we need to decide this sometime no?
16:38:05 <mizmo> NO NEW INSTALLER
16:38:08 <sgallagh> adamw: "at least"
16:38:11 <Evolution> mizmo: haha
16:38:14 <adamw> mizmo: that one was especially for you =)
16:38:28 <tuanta> lol
16:38:28 <mitr> adamw: "at least" (we do need some kind of net install e.g.)
16:38:36 <davidstrauss> adamw: Sorry, missed your question until just now. We alter the DVD and then do remote media installs with DRAC to bootstrap the first remote machine.
16:38:36 <mizmo> adamw, meanie
16:38:51 <simo> adamw: I think we need to spell out what we *must*, additioanl stuff is not forbidden just because it is not spelled out now
16:39:26 <sgallagh> simo: Well, I'd be in favor of prohibiting that we deliver on a 5.25" floppy :)
16:39:28 <adamw> +1 to the vague, anyhow =)
16:39:48 <mizmo> did we agree earlier that we would enable role installation post base install?
16:39:52 <mizmo> in another meeting?
16:39:57 <sgallagh> mizmo: Yes
16:40:11 <nirik> I hope we did... we need a way to do that.
16:40:26 <simo> mizmo: we did
16:40:56 <sgallagh> Can we get some more votes on mitr's rewording?
16:41:11 <sgallagh> It was "Proposal: Fedora Server will produce an .iso image that allows installing Server Base and featured roles off-line, and installing more Fedora packages from the network."
16:41:12 <mizmo> okay i thought so, i wasn't sure from the wording of mitr's proposal
16:41:15 <simo> sgallagh: it leaves off netinstall ?
16:41:15 <mizmo> how about
16:41:18 <mitr> Proposal 2 (another "at least"): Fedora Server will provide a way to install in an automated manner over the network (possibly requiring manual preparation similar to writing a kickstart file) without requiring inserting physical media into each machine
16:41:22 <mitr> simo: ^ :)
16:41:37 <nirik> eh...
16:41:40 <sgallagh> simo: It was "at least", not "exclusive"
16:41:44 <Evolution> is there consideration for a boot.fedora ipxe image as well?
16:41:51 <simo> I do not like the wordings sorry
16:42:13 <nirik> so, whats our discussion here? some high level thing? or are we trying to hash out what we actually intend to produce? :)
16:42:23 <sgallagh> High-level.
16:42:37 <simo> Counter-proposal: Fedora Server will produce 2 main installation resources, a netinstall image and an offline install iso image that includes all packets needed to install and configure featured roles
16:42:48 <mizmo> Re mitr's proposal #1: installing more fedora packages from the network <= during anaconda? or post anaconda?
16:43:10 <sgallagh> mizmo: inclusive or.
16:43:20 <nirik> simo: why couldn't they be the same?
16:43:37 <simo> nirik: usually size is the reason why they differ
16:43:49 <mizmo> sgallagh, okay thanks
16:43:50 <sgallagh> simo: I'd be fine with boot.fp.o and offline iso, actually
16:43:51 <mitr> mizmo: Hm.  "when does the package selection UI appear"?  Actually post-anaconda would make more sense to me
16:43:52 <simo> I am not against combining them in the future if it turns out that will work
16:44:00 <nirik> well, at first at least I suspect roles will be very small.
16:44:09 <mizmo> mitr, post-anaconda makes the most sense for per-package yeh. anaconda is comps groups only now
16:44:10 <simo> sgallagh: we can define "netinstall" as appropriate
16:44:15 <sgallagh> mitr: Anaconda allows you to add extra repos in the UI as well
16:44:19 <rdoty__> How can we provide a method for off-line installation of packages after the base system install?
16:44:38 <mitr> sgallagh: I was going for eventually offering _only_ the featured roles there
16:44:43 <davidstrauss> rdoty__: You can always make media mountable as repos.
16:44:46 <simo> rdoty__: you mean a repo on a DVD ?
16:44:46 <mitr> (... which might live in extra repos, sure :) )
16:44:47 <sgallagh> mitr: Ah
16:44:52 <mizmo> i think this proposal is getting kind of long, im going to set up a pirate pad - http://piratepad.net/serverwg-delivery-plan-proposal
16:45:37 <nirik> just out of curiosity, what do folks have against comps? (I know some issues, but want to hear why people don't think it would work for us)
16:45:38 <simo> mizmo: I really believe the counter-proposal above is all we want to have written on paper
16:45:49 <simo> I haven't seen as critical to discuss the details now
16:45:50 <rdoty__> Mounting the DVD as a repo is.... Not as obvious as I would like.
16:46:00 <mitr> simo: is your proposal intended to be exclusive?  (i.e. "no cloud images"?)
16:46:02 <sgallagh> Can I take a quick time out? I notice we've got 15 minutes left of scheduled time. Can we continue past the hour or possibly schedule another meeting this week?
16:46:11 <sgallagh> We're not getting as far as I'd hoped and we have limited time left.
16:46:25 <simo> mitr: yes
16:46:26 * adamw has nothing much to do today
16:46:43 * nirik is still watching release, so today is pretty bad for getting my full attention.
16:46:55 <simo> sgallagh: unfortunately I have a very hard stop today, as I will need to commute
16:46:59 <simo> but you can continue w/o me
16:47:21 <mizmo> i can continue today past 12
16:47:45 <mitr> I don't have a hard stop but I do need to leave soon after the hour
16:47:50 * adamw brb, call of nature
16:48:14 <tuanta> sorry, I need to leave in time today
16:48:50 <tuanta> I will have an appointment tomorrow morning
16:49:23 <sgallagh> I'll send out a whenisgood request immediately following the meeting and I'll schedule the highest convergence later in the week
16:49:51 <sgallagh> If we have quorum still after the hour, we'll continue here as well
16:50:51 <davidstrauss> I can take another meeting another day, but I have to leave in 10.
16:51:26 <sgallagh> http://whenisgood.net/3fws2b9
16:52:15 <adamw> okay, so, to throw another spanner in the works: what happens if I want to install an ARM server?
16:52:20 <mitr> simo: s/includes all packages needed to install/allows to install ... offline/ and your wording works for me.  (We might need to record that extra RPMs are possible post-install with the iso)
16:52:54 <mitr> adamw: Why is ARM different?  Because the current non-server weak ARMs are?
16:53:49 <nirik> IMHo, we should make arm behave the same as x86
16:53:51 <mitr> (I don't know all that much about the server ARM I'm afraid)
16:54:03 <sgallagh> mitr: Update the piratepad?
16:54:05 <simo> mitr: usually they also use flash as storage (not SSDs) so it would be a strain on the flash to do a regular install
16:54:24 <simo> oh not sure about *server* ARM though
16:54:28 <Evolution> simo: depends on what we're looking at. the calxeda arm stuff, moonshot etc. is fine
16:54:38 <simo> I was thinking about regular ARM platfroms available today
16:55:03 <nirik> the ones in fedora infra we install via pxe + ks... in anaconda text mode. Works great.
16:55:05 <Evolution> simo: http://www.calxeda.com/
16:55:14 <simo> Evolution: tx
16:55:16 <mitr> simo, (sgallagh): do you want to update the piratepad with the above s//, or should I add that as an extra alternative?
16:55:17 <Evolution> simo: these guys are *very* keen to get servers going.
16:55:41 <simo> mitr: feel free, becaus eI have to go
16:55:43 <sgallagh> mitr: I'm good with it.
16:55:43 <Evolution> they've got it working with fedora currently, but it takes some work.
16:55:49 <simo> do we want to have a vote now before I flee ?
16:56:28 <davidstrauss> Is there a current motion?
16:57:23 <sgallagh> Proposal: Fedora Server will produce 2 main installation resources, a netinstall image and an offline install iso image that allows to install and configure featured roles offline.
16:57:37 <sgallagh> (from the piratepad)
16:57:52 <sgallagh> I *think* that proposal covers the content of the other two listed there as well
16:58:10 <mitr> +1
16:58:11 <tuanta> +1 sgallagh. I think that's enough
16:58:13 <simo> +!
16:58:15 <simo> +1
16:58:16 <Evolution> +1
16:58:18 <simo> heh
16:58:32 <sgallagh> +1
16:59:27 <adamw> +/-0 at this point, i'm worried this was a bit of a rushed and not-very-well-grounded discussion, feels like something that should have been methodically researched. but it's not a terrible wording.
16:59:44 <sgallagh> mizmo, davidstrauss?
16:59:46 <mizmo> +1
17:00:52 <simo> ok time to go for me
17:00:59 <simo> tty next time
17:01:01 <sgallagh> #agreed Fedora Server will produce 2 main installation resources, a netinstall image and an offline install iso image that allows to install and configure featured roles offline. (+6, 1, -0)
17:01:12 <sgallagh> #topic Quorum Check
17:01:19 <tuanta> I have to leave now.
17:01:24 <tuanta> see you later
17:01:27 <mitr> present for ~15 minutes
17:01:28 <sgallagh> +1 if you can continue?
17:01:30 <sgallagh> +1
17:01:32 <Evolution> +1
17:01:36 <adamw> +1
17:01:55 <tuanta> +1 for 15 minutes
17:02:11 <sgallagh> (let's assume that 15 minutes is a -1)
17:02:29 <tuanta> ok :)
17:02:30 <tuanta> see you later
17:03:17 <sgallagh> I'm not seeing quorum.
17:03:24 <mizmo> +1
17:03:42 <davidstrauss> sgallagh: +1
17:03:48 <sgallagh> Ok
17:03:58 <sgallagh> #info Quorum retained, continuing to next topic.
17:03:58 * davidstrauss is distracted by a production issue.
17:04:20 <sgallagh> Do we want to discuss release cadence or move to Use Cases?
17:05:07 <mizmo> cadence i guess?
17:05:20 <sgallagh> #topic Delivery Plan: Release Cadence
17:05:33 <mitr> I don't have strong opinions on release cadence; "providing stable application runtime interfaces" is the elephant in the room IMHO
17:05:45 <mitr> So far it seems none of the WGs want to touch it :(
17:05:48 <sgallagh> #info FESCo has requested that all WGs should have their first release together. Release cadence after that is up for discussion.
17:07:06 <mizmo> how often do these guys (the persona people) want a new release?
17:07:25 <sgallagh> mizmo: I think mitr has the right of it.
17:07:38 <sgallagh> They're going to be more concerned with how long the APIs are stable
17:07:47 <mitr> If we allow non-disruptive role (re)deployment, frequent-ish releases should not be that much an issue
17:08:03 <mitr> mizmo: AFAICT most servers are deployed for a "project" and then not modified if possible
17:08:27 <mitr> but my knowledge in this area is really thin.  davidstrauss?
17:08:40 <mizmo> what if the new systemd like thing came out
17:08:44 <sgallagh> Right, and generally if they need to be replaced, they usually take the nuclear option, not piecemeal.
17:08:44 * nirik is strongly against seperate releases. I think we will have a big enough pile of things to do without adding that burden. ;)
17:08:57 <sgallagh> nirik: Noted.
17:09:21 <sgallagh> My original proposal implied simultaneous releases, just with different "support" levels.
17:09:54 <mitr> I'd love to have only a single supported release _if we can get updates working with a respectable quality_.  That's a big if though.
17:10:07 <nirik> I'm not against a different than 6 month cycle, but that should be everyone, not just us.
17:10:16 <sgallagh> mitr: Well, by restricting the package set significantly, I think that becomes more achievable
17:10:23 <davidstrauss> mitr: We're in the "livestock" deployment camp.
17:10:34 <mitr> sgallagh: still, systemd :)
17:10:35 <davidstrauss> But I do have to duck out. I can check scrollback later.
17:10:37 <sgallagh> Also, requiring packages involved in roles to be tested in the context of the roles (as opposed to individually)
17:11:51 <mitr> sgallagh: yes, if we explicitly document which parts are promised to be stable, and restrict that, it gets easier.  Even documenting it is some work :)
17:11:59 <sgallagh> mitr: Ack
17:12:10 <sgallagh> That's valuable work in general, though.
17:12:24 <mitr> Anyway... I don't really have a strong opinion.  Defaulting with "whatever the other roles do" works for me.
17:12:27 <adamw> mitr: what do you mean by 'have only a signle supported release'?
17:12:28 <sgallagh> And the sort of thing that our corporate sponsors might be willing to resource, since it would benefit them down the road too
17:13:08 <sgallagh> adamw: I think he means like my proposal, where we have one unsupported development pre-release branch and one long-term stable branch.
17:13:13 <mitr> adamw: have a very minimal overlap (~ month) between Server N and Server N+1, expecting everyone to upgrade (and making it practical for them to do so)
17:13:55 <sgallagh> adamw: https://fedoraserver-wgblog.rhcloud.com/proposal-announcement-fedora-server-lifecycle-stable-and-development/
17:14:01 <mitr> #action mitr to open inter-WG conversation on providing stable application runtime interfaces
17:14:25 <sgallagh> Thank you mitr
17:14:26 <adamw> mitr: roger.
17:14:47 <mitr> (... "whatever the other WGs do" above, to avoid confusion)
17:15:44 <sgallagh> Motion to defer this topic?
17:16:23 <mizmo> go4it
17:16:26 <mitr> sgallagh: I'd be equally fine with Proposal: server wg is currently not requesting a different lifecycle
17:16:39 <adamw> sure. i'm finding it generally difficult to make reasonable judgements while details are still vague. defer or mitr's proposal are fine.
17:16:55 <mitr> But perhaps the runtime discussion will change my mind?
17:17:10 <sgallagh> mitr: I'd like to see us with a single "supported" release. But I'm not sure we have enough information to make that decision right now.
17:17:27 <mitr> sgallagh: ok, let's defer
17:17:52 <sgallagh> #info Deferring release cadence discussion until more information is gathered
17:18:32 <sgallagh> Ok, we lost davidstrauss, we're losing mitr as well. I think we're under quorum now.
17:19:06 <sgallagh> #topic Open Floor
17:19:25 <sgallagh> #info Server WG members please respond promptly to WhenIsGood
17:19:28 <mizmo> how are we doing with usecases?
17:20:25 <sgallagh> mizmo: There has been little discussion of them since I originally posted them
17:20:39 <sgallagh> Shall I revive that thread or start a new one?
17:20:56 <mizmo> i'd revive it!
17:21:07 <sgallagh> #action mizmo to revive the use case thread
17:21:08 <sgallagh> ;-)
17:21:16 <sgallagh> #undo
17:21:16 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Action object at 0x118cbe10>
17:21:20 <sgallagh> #action sgallagh to revive the use case thread
17:21:43 <sgallagh> Ok, anything urgent before I close out the meeting?
17:22:35 * mizmo doesnt think so
17:22:48 <sgallagh> Thanks for participating, everyone. We're in the home stretch now...
17:22:52 <sgallagh> #endmeeting