fesco
LOGS
15:00:13 <zbyszek> #startmeeting FESCO (2021-02-03)
15:00:13 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Feb  3 15:00:13 2021 UTC.
15:00:13 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location.
15:00:13 <zodbot> The chair is zbyszek. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:00:13 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
15:00:13 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fesco_(2021-02-03)'
15:00:13 <zbyszek> #meetingname fesco
15:00:13 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fesco'
15:00:13 <zbyszek> #chair nirik, ignatenkobrain, decathorpe, zbyszek, sgallagh, mhroncok, dcantrell, cverna, Conan_Kudo, Pharaoh_Atem, Son_Goku, King_InuYasha, Sir_Gallantmon, Eighth_Doctor
15:00:13 <zodbot> Current chairs: Conan_Kudo Eighth_Doctor King_InuYasha Pharaoh_Atem Sir_Gallantmon Son_Goku cverna dcantrell decathorpe ignatenkobrain mhroncok nirik sgallagh zbyszek
15:00:16 <zbyszek> #topic init process
15:00:18 <zbyszek> .hello2
15:00:19 <zodbot> zbyszek: zbyszek 'Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek' <zbyszek@in.waw.pl>
15:00:23 <nirik> .hello kevin
15:00:25 <zodbot> nirik: kevin 'Kevin Fenzi' <kevin@scrye.com>
15:00:31 <bcotton> .hello2
15:00:31 <zodbot> bcotton: bcotton 'Ben Cotton' <bcotton@redhat.com>
15:00:43 <decathorpe> .hello2
15:00:43 <zodbot> decathorpe: decathorpe 'Fabio Valentini' <decathorpe@gmail.com>
15:00:55 <zbyszek> nirik: no "morning"?
15:01:00 <nirik> heh. morning. ;)
15:01:47 <zbyszek> sgallagh said he's lurking, and mhroncok will be late
15:03:55 <King_InuYasha> .hello ngompa
15:03:56 <zodbot> King_InuYasha: ngompa 'Neal Gompa' <ngompa13@gmail.com>
15:03:57 * King_InuYasha waves
15:04:16 <zbyszek> So we're at 4.5, not really quorum.
15:04:26 <zbyszek> But let's chat
15:04:33 <zbyszek> #topic #2558 F34 Change: Remove Guile Support From Toolchain
15:04:33 <zbyszek> .fesco 2558
15:04:34 <zodbot> zbyszek: Issue #2558: F34 Change: Remove Guile Support From Toolchain - fesco - Pagure.io - https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2558
15:05:11 <zbyszek> King_InuYasha you're the only one who's really against this...
15:05:23 <sgallagh> I'm not sure how I feel about this. He's my favorite Street Fighter character...
15:05:27 <mhroncok> hello, sorry for being late
15:05:41 <zbyszek> Based on both debian's popcon and codesearch, this is completely unused.
15:06:06 <zbyszek> I think it should be fine to remove unused features, esp. when a significantly better alternative exitss.
15:06:17 <King_InuYasha> for make, no alternative exists
15:06:56 <King_InuYasha> and the arguments used in the Change are specious at best and disingenuous at worst
15:07:29 <nirik> would it help to make a 'make-with-guile' package people who need/want this could use instead?
15:07:34 <zbyszek> Yeah, but make already has it's own language that is turing-complete.
15:07:34 <King_InuYasha> yes
15:07:36 <decathorpe> if this is going to be removed, I guess it should be done upstream first?
15:07:52 <King_InuYasha> nirik: I would have been fine with this if we had a make-guile package being introduced like debian
15:08:22 <King_InuYasha> straight up removing something without upstream also deciding to remove it on the basis of "maintenance" when they are also the upstream developers is not a valid justification to me
15:09:02 <zbyszek> decathorpe: I don't think so. It's pretty normal to not enable some upstream features in Fedora packages.
15:09:04 * nirik has never encountered anyone or anything that used this, but I suppose someone must have for them to have added it.
15:09:22 <King_InuYasha> I have encountered a few Makefiles using it before
15:09:25 <King_InuYasha> I can't share them though
15:10:00 <King_InuYasha> it's rare for "public" projects to use it because of macOS compatibility
15:10:13 <zbyszek> I don't like telling maintainers to make an effort to create a package which has no users.
15:10:17 <King_InuYasha> Guile support was added in Make 4.0, and macOS stuck to Make 3.x
15:10:22 <nirik> so, either we ask change owners if they would be willing to make a make-guile (and get King_InuYasha on board) or we approve it over objections?
15:10:28 <King_InuYasha> pretty much
15:10:37 <dcantrell> .hello2
15:10:38 <zodbot> dcantrell: dcantrell 'David Cantrell' <dcantrell@redhat.com>
15:10:39 <King_InuYasha> I'm comfortable with being alone in my objection
15:10:50 <King_InuYasha> if nobody else cares about make users, then at least it's known
15:10:50 <nirik> zbyszek: right, and then the 'less maint' is not as compelling, since they again have to maintain it.
15:11:30 <King_InuYasha> and the buildroot thing is *also* not compelling since we just removed Make from the default buildroot
15:12:31 <zbyszek> King_InuYasha: read that as not "default buildroot", just "buildroot"...
15:12:52 <zbyszek> OK, should we vote?
15:13:00 <King_InuYasha> if we want a make-minimal without guile for buildroot, fine
15:13:16 <King_InuYasha> if we want a make-guile and make default make not have guile, fine
15:13:37 <King_InuYasha> but I don't want guile support removed from make entirely
15:13:56 <King_InuYasha> not unless make upstream wants to remove it and deal with that wart
15:14:49 <mhroncok> King_InuYasha: I suppose a volunteer an package make-guile separately if they are interested, tight?
15:14:54 <mhroncok> *right?
15:14:56 <King_InuYasha> mhroncok: probably not
15:15:04 <mhroncok> King_InuYasha: why not?
15:15:19 <King_InuYasha> most likely the maintainers would pitch a fit
15:15:27 <King_InuYasha> same reason why we don't have alternative kernels
15:15:31 <King_InuYasha> or alternative bootloaders
15:17:24 <King_InuYasha> IMO, this is a pointless minimization
15:17:27 <nirik> we have some alternative bootloaders. ;) uboot/zipul/yaboot/syslinux. ;)
15:17:35 <King_InuYasha> nirik: they are not alternative
15:17:43 <King_InuYasha> with the exception of syslinux, I guess
15:17:54 <King_InuYasha> all of those have to be used in conjunction with grub2
15:18:06 <King_InuYasha> we can't have refind, for example
15:18:10 <zbyszek> King_InuYasha: sd-boot
15:18:16 <nirik> anyhow, this seems drifting off topic
15:18:25 <King_InuYasha> zbyszek: doesn't practically work, not signed efi binary
15:18:37 <zbyszek> King_InuYasha: my laptop begs to differ ;)
15:18:38 <dcantrell> King_InuYasha: you don't need yaboot
15:19:01 <King_InuYasha> dcantrell: you do for ppc systems pre POWER9
15:19:34 <nirik> anyhow, should we vote? or punt back to change owners to adjust anything?
15:19:41 <mhroncok> King_InuYasha: I don't see why this would be a problem: maintainers of make don't want to maintain this, fine. other maintainers might want to do that, fine as well. what am I not getting?
15:19:42 * King_InuYasha shrugs
15:20:00 <zbyszek> my vote: +1
15:20:05 <zbyszek> ignatenkobrain: +1 in the ticket
15:20:09 <dcantrell> King_InuYasha: that's also not true (grub2 for POWER7 and above). but that doesn't matter. yaboot is a leftover now from really old ppc systems
15:20:10 * nirik is +1
15:20:20 <King_InuYasha> -1
15:20:22 <mhroncok> I vote 0
15:20:44 <dcantrell> +1 (also posted in the ticket)
15:20:59 <decathorpe> I will abstain. I think if this is going to be removed, it should happen upstream first. All else are hollow arguments.
15:21:07 <mhroncok> I don't feel this benefits Fedora much, but I won't block the maintainers to make a decision that doe snot affect other packages
15:21:33 <King_InuYasha> I wouldn't care so much about this if upstream (which *they are*) were *also* removing Guile support
15:21:47 <King_InuYasha> the fact that this is a Fedora-specific choice is not acceptable to me
15:22:05 <mhroncok> upstream first :)
15:22:24 <decathorpe> King_InuYasha: and if this is really about ELN / RHEL, this should not be a change in Fedora at all
15:22:27 <zbyszek> That gives us +4, 1, -1, 1 abstain
15:22:31 <King_InuYasha> decathorpe: bingo
15:22:38 <King_InuYasha> the particularly galling thing about this is that they are the upstream developers and they didn't even bother doing anything upstream first
15:22:44 <nirik> clearly they should make guile support dlopenable and just support it if you have guile installed. (not it for implementing that :)
15:23:17 <King_InuYasha> the Python team is an excellent example of how they handle these things
15:23:26 * mhroncok blushes
15:23:46 <King_InuYasha> I've generally been disappointed by the Toolchain team in how they handle Changes and interface with Fedora, and this is yet another example of it
15:24:23 <nirik> ƒ💛🐍
15:24:42 <King_InuYasha> there's only one other that I've had a worse experience with, and I'm sad neither team has improved
15:25:07 <nirik> zbyszek: so, not passed... ask them to retry ?
15:25:16 <zbyszek> nirik: waiting for sgallagh
15:25:18 <sgallagh> I'm going to go with -1 as well.
15:25:30 <nirik> ok
15:25:34 <sgallagh> I'll ask them whether they intend this for ELN instead
15:25:36 <decathorpe> zbyszek: my "abstain" was meant to be a 0 vote :)
15:25:55 <zbyszek> #agree REJECTED (+4, 2, -2)
15:26:08 <sgallagh> Err, that's not really rejected.
15:26:18 <mhroncok> heh
15:26:27 <mhroncok> not APPROVED is not REJECTED?
15:26:30 <King_InuYasha> it's a tie, though we default to reject in that scenario
15:26:39 <sgallagh> Right, I suppose that is true.
15:26:40 <zbyszek> >  A majority of the committee (that is, five out of nine) is required to pass a proposal in a meeting.
15:26:46 <zbyszek> ?
15:26:52 <King_InuYasha> zbyszek: you're correct
15:26:59 <sgallagh> Right, default to rejected. Never mind.
15:27:37 <zbyszek> #topic Next week's chair
15:27:42 <zbyszek> volunteers?
15:27:56 <sgallagh> This is another case to support my belief that "0 votes should have a more clear impact", though
15:28:15 <sgallagh> Or else we should disallow them at all.
15:28:23 <King_InuYasha> sgallagh: yeah, IMO, that should mean we should send them back for refinement
15:28:27 <sgallagh> Sorry, I'll save that for Open Floor
15:28:27 <zbyszek> sgallagh: True. They are like -1 effectively.
15:28:36 * mhroncok can chair next week if bcotton is ready to cover
15:29:11 <zbyszek> #action mhroncok will chair the next meeting.
15:29:16 <zbyszek> I'll cover if bcotton can't.
15:29:37 <bcotton> i can if needed
15:29:48 <zbyszek> Or actually, I can cover either way. I expect to be there.
15:29:56 <zbyszek> #topic Open Floor
15:30:06 <zbyszek> sgallagh, go
15:30:21 <sgallagh> Proposal: When voting on a proposal, a 0 vote is equivalent to "I am disqualifying myself from this vote, thereby reducing the number required to reach a majority".
15:30:29 <zbyszek> +1
15:30:31 <King_InuYasha> -1
15:30:44 <King_InuYasha> I don't think it should have the consequence of reducing majority
15:30:52 <sgallagh> Erego, if two people voted 0, a +4 would be required to pass instead of +5
15:30:55 <mhroncok> -1
15:31:05 <decathorpe> Question: We need +5 for APPROVE, how many -1s do we need for REJECT?
15:31:26 <zbyszek> decathorpe: 0
15:31:36 <mhroncok> decathorpe: technically, one in the ticket
15:31:36 <King_InuYasha> decathorpe: it needs to be < +5 and > -1
15:31:50 <zbyszek> decathorpe: ... because 5 people voting +0 mean that the proposal cannot pass
15:32:00 <mhroncok> it can pass via ticket
15:32:07 <dcantrell> I think +5 for approve is appropriate.  Either way the 0 or -1 votes are doesn't matter, if it's not +5 or more it's not approve.
15:32:08 * decathorpe is confused why rules that are different depending on where votes are counted
15:32:22 <mhroncok> async vs sync
15:32:30 <King_InuYasha> more or less, ^
15:32:34 <mhroncok> tickets get approved if there is +3/+1 and no -s
15:32:54 <mhroncok> but we do meetings when there is at least one -1 in he ticket
15:33:00 <mhroncok> *in the
15:33:01 <zbyszek> decathorpe: yes, I think that is ugly. By not voting int he ticket we are effectively abstaining.
15:33:13 <decathorpe> have we actually needed that rule (pass with less than +5) even once in the past year?
15:33:15 <sgallagh> Well, if voting 0 doesn't change the required +1 count, what effect does it have? Should we then just disallow it?
15:33:19 <King_InuYasha> decathorpe: yes
15:33:21 <sgallagh> decathorpe: Yes
15:33:28 <King_InuYasha> we've used it for a lot of in-ticket voting
15:33:41 <King_InuYasha> where not enough votes occur
15:33:42 <decathorpe> would those tickets have reached +5 after a few more days anyway?
15:33:48 <King_InuYasha> a lot of them were +4,0,0
15:33:58 * decathorpe wants receipts :)
15:34:08 <sgallagh> decathorpe: Experience has shown us that it's the best way to get more tickets processed without wasting meeting time
15:34:44 * mhroncok is happy with the current setup
15:34:45 <nirik> not sure how you can disallow voting 0... I mean, if you just never vote at all isn't it the same? (if it doesn't change the number needed to pass something)
15:34:51 <decathorpe> well, at the expense of making voting rules really complicated in corner cases
15:34:55 <zbyszek> sgallagh: it was a great idea. I was sceptical, but it really helps process non-controversial changes without two-hour meetings.
15:35:05 <sgallagh> zbyszek: Thanks :)
15:35:05 <nirik> mhroncok++
15:35:05 <zodbot> nirik: Karma for churchyard changed to 10 (for the current release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
15:35:31 <mhroncok> cookies :)
15:35:36 <sgallagh> Right, we cannot disallow 0/not-voting, so we should at least decide what it actually means.
15:35:42 <Conan_Kudo> mhroncok++
15:35:42 <zodbot> Conan_Kudo: Karma for churchyard changed to 11 (for the current release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
15:35:52 <decathorpe> I would argue that if it's not clear if the result of a vote is approved or rejected, then the rules are ... not good
15:36:07 <mhroncok> it is clear to me
15:36:24 <mhroncok> to approve on a meeting, you need +5
15:36:32 * nirik nods.
15:36:39 <sgallagh> At which point, a 0 vote is exactly equivalent to a -1 vote
15:36:50 <mhroncok> there could technically be a problem if one of the fesco members resigns and we don't yet have a new one, but... that's rare
15:36:51 <decathorpe> net +5 (sum of votes) or just 5 x +1 votes?
15:37:10 <mhroncok> at least 5 +1 votes
15:37:33 <sgallagh> net +5 would be functionally equivalent to my proposal above, I think
15:37:49 <decathorpe> in the former case, whether people vote 0 or -1 actually makes a difference. not in the second case.
15:37:50 <sgallagh> Well, maybe not quite
15:38:06 <mhroncok> net +5 means that if you have +5,3,-1, it won't be approved, correct?
15:38:13 <decathorpe> yes
15:38:19 <mhroncok> that's bad
15:38:20 <decathorpe> wait, no, that would be approved.
15:38:28 * nirik doesn
15:38:30 <sgallagh> no, because that would have a net +4
15:38:35 <nirik> t understand the problem we are trying to solve.
15:38:47 <mhroncok> how do you count it? 5*+1 + 3*0 + 1*-1 == +4
15:39:09 <decathorpe> wait. (5 * +1) + (3*0) + (1 * -1) = +4 so not approved
15:39:16 <nirik> I think that should pass.
15:39:21 <mhroncok> and it does
15:39:31 <sgallagh> Right
15:39:34 <mhroncok> becasue we don't require net +5, we require at least 5 +1s
15:39:40 <King_InuYasha> right
15:40:01 <sgallagh> Or in my proposal above, that would pass because the three 0's would make the passing requirement only +3.
15:40:02 <decathorpe> but then there's no difference between 0 and -1?
15:40:17 <King_InuYasha> the idea is to have majority approval, not sliding windows for majorities
15:40:21 <sgallagh> decathorpe: That's why I'm asking if we should address that.
15:40:29 <mhroncok> net +5 would mean that 3 -1 votes would mean a veto
15:40:31 <sgallagh> Specifically: what does it mean if I vote 0?
15:40:41 <decathorpe> if you only count +1 votes then there's no difference between 1) not voting, 2) abstaining, 3) voting 0, 4) voting -1
15:40:45 <mhroncok> so I've just voted 0
15:40:50 <King_InuYasha> I'm not sure why we even have the 0 vote
15:40:58 <sgallagh> Should it mean that I am effectively voting -1 (as now) or that I don't have an opinion and I am accepting the remaining majority opiniojn?
15:40:59 <mhroncok> it means that the effect on the result is the same as if I voted -1
15:41:07 <sgallagh> King_InuYasha: Because not voting at all == 0
15:41:15 <King_InuYasha> no, that I get
15:41:22 <King_InuYasha> I mean why do we let people declare 0
15:41:32 <mhroncok> King_InuYasha: in the ticket, it makes a difference
15:41:39 <nirik> I think it might be useful for people voting for fesco members later?
15:41:40 <mhroncok> on the meeting, not so much
15:41:49 <King_InuYasha> I see
15:42:00 <nirik> 0 -> I didn't bock this, but didn't approve either, -1 -> I didn't want this at all/was against ?
15:42:03 <zbyszek> King_InuYasha: because sometimes you really don't have an opinion. Even because of lack of time or because the arguments for and against are too close.
15:42:11 <King_InuYasha> fair
15:42:11 <mhroncok> I tend to do the following on the meeting: I disagree with the change fundamentally: -1
15:42:27 <bcotton> a 0 vote makes it clear that you're intentionally not voting. so if a vote is +8,1,-1 it's clear that everyone voted and the decision can be processed immediately
15:42:38 <King_InuYasha> makes sense
15:42:47 <King_InuYasha> my rubric is similar to nirik's actually
15:42:51 <decathorpe> so 0 == abstain?
15:42:53 <King_InuYasha> it's just rare that I don't have an opinion :)
15:43:03 <sgallagh> heh
15:43:10 <sgallagh> decathorpe: yes
15:43:19 <nirik> King_InuYasha: there's things you don't have an opinion on? :)
15:43:20 * nirik runs
15:43:27 * King_InuYasha shrugs
15:43:28 <sgallagh> And that's why I was suggesting that abstaining should have a real meaning.
15:43:30 <King_InuYasha> there are a few :P
15:43:49 <sgallagh> My proposal above is roughly equivalent to "My vote goes with the majority"
15:44:11 <sgallagh> It's just a mathematical description of how that works.
15:44:35 <zbyszek> Anyway, it seems there's no support for changing the rules. If y'all agree, I think we should end the discussion. Maybe we can return to it during some devconf meeting.
15:44:42 <mhroncok> I am also not a fan of inventing procedural changes during a meeting and voting about them at that very meeting. happy to discuss, but please don't do proposals like this to be voted about immediatelly
15:44:49 <decathorpe> sgallagh: now I understand. though I don't think reducing the number of required votes is good. if 4 people abstain then one +1 vote would be enough?
15:44:51 <sgallagh> sure
15:45:05 <sgallagh> decathorpe: No, that would still require +3
15:45:27 * decathorpe 's brain checks out
15:45:28 <sgallagh> A majority of the non-abstaining voters
15:45:43 <sgallagh> 3 being more than half of the remaining five votes.
15:46:24 <zbyszek> Any other subjects for Open Floor?
15:47:06 <sgallagh> Flipping it around, it would be the same as 0 == I vote the same as whatever side has the most votes. So a vote of (3, 4, -2) would be equivalent to (7, -2)
15:47:11 <nirik> devconf meeting?
15:47:36 <zbyszek> nirik: *flock
15:48:22 <nirik> ah, ok. Wondering if I missed a devconf session being scheduled. ;)
15:48:41 <zbyszek> sgallagh: I think it'd be fairer to divide the votes in half, ie. (3,4,2)→(5,-,4)
15:48:43 <sgallagh> Is Flock a thing this year? Do we have info on that?
15:48:58 <nirik> too early to tell I think
15:49:37 <sgallagh> zbyszek: That could work
15:49:49 * sgallagh will take that to a ticket
15:49:57 <nirik> what if I vote -½ and +¼ and abstain with the last ¼? :)
15:50:09 <bcotton> .fire nirik
15:50:09 <zodbot> adamw fires nirik
15:50:12 <zbyszek> sgallagh++
15:50:14 <zodbot> zbyszek: Karma for sgallagh changed to 8 (for the current release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
15:50:17 <King_InuYasha> .fire nirik
15:50:17 <zodbot> adamw fires nirik
15:50:33 <nirik> double fired! hurray. my day is off to a great start!
15:50:48 <zbyszek> I'll close in a minute
15:51:18 <zbyszek> See you next week.
15:51:18 <zbyszek> #endmeeting