18:00:01 <nirik> #startmeeting FESCO (2014-01-22)
18:00:01 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Jan 22 18:00:01 2014 UTC.  The chair is nirik. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
18:00:01 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
18:00:02 <nirik> #meetingname fesco
18:00:02 <nirik> #chair abadger1999 mattdm mitr mmaslano notting nirik pjones t8m sgallagh
18:00:02 <nirik> #topic init process
18:00:02 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fesco'
18:00:02 <zodbot> Current chairs: abadger1999 mattdm mitr mmaslano nirik notting pjones sgallagh t8m
18:00:22 <mitr> Hello
18:00:30 <mattdm> hi!
18:01:01 <sgallagh> I'm here for about 30 minutes
18:01:29 * nirik waits for at least one more for quorum
18:01:59 * abadger1999 is here
18:02:19 * notting is here now. sorry, network hiccup.
18:02:23 <mmaslano> hi
18:02:35 <nirik> cool. I guess lets go ahead and dive in...
18:02:48 <nirik> #topic #1197	Procedure for suggesting/approving different Products and/or WGs?
18:02:48 <nirik> .fesco 1197
18:02:48 <nirik> https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1197
18:02:49 <zodbot> nirik: #1197 (Procedure for suggesting/approving different Products and/or WGs?) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1197
18:02:57 <nirik> mattdm: you wanted to punt this another week?
18:03:15 <mattdm> nirik yes please.
18:03:23 <nirik> ok.
18:03:25 <mattdm> and, um, not next week becaues I won;t be here.
18:03:44 <mattdm> although hopefully I will have time to write something up.
18:03:56 <nirik> ok. Update the ticket as time permits. ;)
18:04:01 * mattdm nods
18:04:04 <nirik> on then to PRD approvals...
18:04:09 <nirik> #topic  #1222 PRD Approval Request: Server PRD
18:04:09 <nirik> .fesco 1222
18:04:09 <nirik> https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1222
18:04:13 <zodbot> nirik: #1222 (PRD Approval Request: Server PRD) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1222
18:04:17 <nirik> here's the server one...
18:04:44 <pjones> apologies, I am here.
18:04:46 <nirik> any questions or comments or discussion? or shall we head to votes?
18:04:57 <mattdm> do we want to have a convention for the fesco members to abstain or vote on their own?
18:05:06 <nirik> sgallagh and t8m were +1 in ticket.
18:05:08 <mmaslano> I like it, it looks good +1
18:05:13 <mmaslano> mattdm: good question :)
18:05:30 * mitr will abstain
18:05:31 <mattdm> I think that's likely to be an academic / procedural question
18:05:31 <sgallagh> mattdm: In the case of server, that eliminates three members of FESCo, FWIW
18:05:49 <pjones> I don't think there's any good reason for abstention to be honest.
18:05:54 <mattdm> I'm +1. I think this is a good approach.
18:06:18 <pjones> The reason you're abstaining is that you're in the position where you understand it best.  That's a terrible reason not to vote on it.
18:06:33 <mmaslano> sgallagh: mitr: I guess you wrote it, so you must support it
18:06:38 * pjones is +1
18:06:56 * nirik is +1 also, but disclaimer: also in the server wg.
18:07:15 <mitr> mmaslano, pjones: No, I'm abstaining because I want the concerns of the other WGs to have larger weight in this decision.
18:07:25 <pjones> mitr: fair enough then
18:07:43 <nirik> thats +6,-0,1 notting / abadger1999 ?
18:07:53 <abadger1999> +1
18:07:58 <abadger1999> and pjones+1 to your reasoning
18:09:47 <nirik> #agreed approved. ( +7, -0, 1 )
18:09:56 <nirik> #topic #1224 PRD Approval Request: Env and Stacks PRD
18:09:56 <nirik> .fesco 1224
18:09:56 <nirik> https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1224
18:09:57 <zodbot> nirik: #1224 (PRD Approval Request: Env and Stacks PRD) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1224
18:10:03 <notting> nirik: sorry, +1. had a local interrupt.
18:10:05 <nirik> any questions or comments or discussion?
18:10:15 <nirik> notting: no worries.
18:10:37 <mmaslano> I'd like to add your comments, as I wrote in the ticket
18:10:48 <mmaslano> I don't want to add them without consensus of the group
18:11:05 <sgallagh> mmaslano: I don't see anything from you in the ticket
18:11:26 <mitr> There's some disconnect between vision/mission and what the rest is actually focusing on ... but each individual item is OK, so +1
18:11:56 <mmaslano> sgallagh: ok, email on devel
18:12:23 <sgallagh> mmaslano: Ah, right. Sorry. I thought you meant you had additional comments that I wasn't seeing
18:13:05 <notting> i'm +1 to it in general; posted a couple of comments on devel@ that more or less match what mitr just said
18:13:24 <mattdm> +1, and +1 to everyone's comments
18:13:30 <nirik> right, +1 and ditto
18:14:01 <pjones> I'm +1 to it, with really the same caveats.
18:14:31 <abadger1999> +1 and also agreements on the comments.
18:14:57 <nirik> FYI, sgallagh and t8m were also +1 in ticket.
18:15:28 <nirik> mmaslano: you +1, or abstaining? ;)
18:15:35 <mmaslano> nirik: yeah
18:15:38 <mmaslano> nirik: 0
18:16:02 <nirik> #agreed approved (+8,0,1)
18:16:04 <nirik> #topic #1225 PRD Approval Request: Cloud PRD
18:16:05 <nirik> .fesco 1225
18:16:05 <nirik> https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1225
18:16:06 <zodbot> nirik: #1225 (PRD Approval Request: Cloud PRD) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1225
18:16:23 <nirik> FYI, sgallagh and t8m were also +1 in ticket here as well.
18:16:39 <notting> apologies. spent too much time reading advisory-board instead of this. so, abstaining.
18:16:49 <mattdm> I'm going to follow convention and abstain
18:17:03 <mattdm> unless that somehow means we don't meet quorum or something
18:17:10 <mmaslano> mattdm: I'd like to ask one thing :)
18:17:20 <mmaslano> mattdm: The Cloud SIG plan to support the major languages:
18:17:20 <mattdm> mmaslano go for it!
18:17:33 <mmaslano> mattdm: I hope cloud people will do it, not main part of my team
18:17:52 <mmaslano> noting against those languages, just we don't want to maintain strange versions...
18:18:10 <mattdm> mmaslano I hope we can get enough people involved from your team and everywhere that we can handle it.
18:18:19 <mmaslano> fine
18:18:20 <mattdm> we'll support what we have resources for, of course :)
18:18:22 <nirik> I'm +1, although some things seem very specific for a prd...
18:18:23 <pjones> Well, aside from the wildly wrong ideas about which markets are ripe for disruption...
18:18:38 <mmaslano> +1
18:18:38 <pjones> nirik: you mean all the "reading your own book" marketing copy?
18:18:46 <mitr> mattdm: "must" provide access to the "following stacks" - does that imply RPM, or would that "must" be fulfilled by using upstream packaging mechanisms?
18:19:05 <mattdm> mmaslano and if your team is working on things specifically that makes those ones easy
18:19:23 <notting> mattdm: "Developers and operators creating scale out applications on top of public and private clouds"... is it the cloud WGs intention to create tools for developers outside of tools for creating cloud environments?
18:19:36 <notting> mattdm: an initial reading of the PRD implies 'no'
18:19:40 <mmaslano> um, we don't have capacity to do more. Maybe if we could use what we have for existing branches
18:19:52 <mmaslano> mattdm: let's speak about it on devconf
18:19:55 <mattdm> mitr I think we're anticipating a mix
18:20:10 <mattdm> mmaslano yes, let's talk. :)
18:20:43 <mattdm> notting I'm not sure i understand the question...
18:21:20 <notting> mattdm: if the target market includes developers creating scale-out apps, is the cloud WG intending to work on better tools for them to do app creation and development
18:21:21 <mattdm> We probably won't create developer tools but may pick some to work on integrating
18:21:40 <mattdm> for example, docker and vagrant. maybe mesos.
18:22:04 <mattdm> I don't think we're planning on creating new things right now
18:22:20 <jwb> you're going to provide those in a cloud product?
18:22:28 <jwb> as in, the cloud images?
18:22:38 <mattdm> jwb docker and vagrant?
18:22:50 <mattdm> yes -- the intention is to have a cloud image spin featuring docker
18:23:10 <notting> mattdm: slight rephrase: so  things like openshift integration into deveassistant or Eclipse would not necessarily be something cloud wg would work on?
18:23:41 <mattdm> notting probably not directly, but I think we'd be interested.
18:23:44 <jwb> my unfamiliarity with those specific tools prevents me from knowing if that makes sense or not, but the general case of developer tools seems something that would be more likely found in workstation or server
18:24:02 <jwb> but if specific things make sense, cool
18:25:32 <nirik> we are at +4... further questions or comments or more votes?
18:25:42 <mmaslano> mattdm: I guess plugins from cloud sig would be nice. We often don't have knowledge to create them
18:25:49 <pjones> jwb: yeah, that's about how I feel regarding those tools as well
18:25:50 <mitr> +1; echoing t8m's comment that the "must" items are quite a lot of work
18:26:04 <notting> having now finished reading it, i can be +1
18:27:01 * pjones is +1 as well
18:27:15 <nirik> abadger1999: ? mattdm: are you abstaining?
18:27:27 <mattdm> nirik yeah, I'll abstain.
18:27:32 <mattdm> I'm in favor, obviously. :)
18:27:41 * abadger1999 decided to vote +1
18:27:51 <nirik> #agreed approved (+8,0,1)
18:27:52 <abadger1999> *decides
18:28:04 <nirik> #topic #1226 Workstation PRD for approval
18:28:04 <nirik> .fesco 1226
18:28:04 <nirik> https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1226
18:28:07 <zodbot> nirik: #1226 (Workstation PRD for approval) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1226
18:28:35 * sgallagh disappears for his other meetings. My comments have been made on the mailing list
18:28:44 <nirik> t8m was +1 in ticket.
18:28:48 <nirik> there's also comments in ticket.
18:29:03 <mitr> https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1226#comment:4 , I apologize for the very late coment,
18:29:52 <mitr> The PRD may have some implications WRT WG autonomy; this has been somewhat discussed in the advisory-board thread, and may have even been resolved; I'm afraid I haven't caught up with the full discussion there yet.
18:30:55 <mattdm> mitr the point about release schedule is a good one. I read this in its many versions several times but I missed that.
18:31:53 * nirik nods.
18:32:25 <abadger1999> mitr: Yeah, that's my main issue in reading the prd.
18:32:46 <nirik> do we want to ask that be revisited by the WG? or approve conditionally? or ?
18:34:15 <mattdm> the autonomy bit is raised in the intro but it's a little unclear if the overall plans and policies are meant to specifically be "deviations from some of the traditional policies".
18:34:25 <notting> well... part of the PRD process should be WGs asking what they want to do differently. so i'm not sure it's wrong to list changes to policies/schedules. but might want to consider them separately
18:35:11 <mattdm> for example, does "Encapsulation of development environments" mean that the packaging will be under new guidelines, for example?
18:35:24 <mattdm> (for example for example; *sigh*)
18:35:50 <mitr> We could just approve, with a rider to the effect that we're not opposed to changing policies in principle, but FESCo has the authority to override WG decisions in any case (Is that correct?), and we are not giving up that right.
18:35:53 <nirik> good example. ;)
18:36:25 <mattdm> I'm also a little concerned, given previous discussion with the fedora design team, about the theming clause
18:36:37 <nirik> mitr: sure, I'm +1 to that. I think we are all open to change, but want to know why and what and see if it affects the entire distro or just some working group.
18:36:43 <jwb> mattdm, no, it doesn't mean that.  it likely means "leverage SLCs"
18:36:52 <mmaslano> mitr: yes
18:36:53 <mitr> OTOH perhaps the WG would like to know the scope in advance to avoid being disappointed by FESCo "second-guessing" (which has been mentioned in the advisory-board thread)
18:37:00 <mitr> jwb?
18:37:23 <mattdm> jwb in that case, cool.
18:37:40 <jwb> mitr, i'm not sure i follow your statement
18:37:57 <mitr> mattdm: FWIW I like the idea of having a consistent theme (not saying anything about who should design it)
18:38:11 <jwb> i think, in general, the preference would be for FESCo to ask for specific clarifications if they aren't going to approve
18:38:17 <mattdm> the theming concern is about previous controversy over Fedora branding and look-and-feel vs. upstream Gnome
18:38:34 <jwb> mattdm, bluecurve?
18:38:54 <notting> jwb: probably more logo vs no-logo
18:39:01 * jreznik_ thinks as a real product, we should really work on own theming to differentiate from upstream/word
18:39:15 <jwb> notting, oh, the foot vs. the f
18:39:18 <mitr> jwb: The concern is that the PRD seems to claiming general authority that FESCo may not want to give up.  Would the WG prefer having the areas of responsibilities estblished more precisely now, or by FESCo raising issues about any possible future WG decisions later?
18:39:55 <mmaslano> jreznik_: good point
18:40:03 <jwb> mitr, i would prefer you to highlight where you think it is claiming general authority and discuss that specifically
18:40:14 <mitr> jwb: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1226#comment:4
18:41:13 <mattdm> Fedora Design is one of Fedora's nicely functional subprojects, and I want to make sure this isn't readable as cutting them out.
18:41:16 <jwb> mitr, ok.  if fesco would like to postpone voting until those are clarified, i can take them back to the WG
18:41:31 <jwb> mattdm, we have a member of FD on the WG...
18:41:35 <nirik> mattdm: which section are you noting about the design?
18:41:53 <nirik> applications style?
18:42:07 <nirik> ah, I see it now.
18:43:31 <nirik> so, votes? defer a week? vote now?
18:43:39 <abadger1999> Related questoin -- are we going to continue to have the Fedora Change Process?
18:43:47 <jwb> jesus
18:43:58 <jwb> yes, let's add random ass questions on top of this specific PRD
18:44:06 <notting> jwb: example might be the discussion going on on f-a-b; that's a change to policies, and i'm not comfortable with a "general +1 to the PRD" implicitly approving that as a change to policy
18:44:08 <jreznik_> abadger1999: it's prepared to work for sub groups
18:44:10 <abadger1999> Some of the things mentioned in the workstation PRD are things that typically go through the Change process.
18:44:23 <jwb> notting, fair.  so vote -1 or defer
18:44:34 * nirik is ok to defer a week.
18:44:38 <mattdm> this may be reading too strongly, but I know there was some desktop team / design team friction before.
18:44:45 <mattdm> I'm for deferring.
18:44:52 <abadger1999> But it's unclear to me if the PRD is saying that the equivalent changes are going to now be approved by the workstation WG or continue through the current Change Process.
18:44:58 <nirik> abadger1999: I was thinking it would, but delegate things to working groups if they are in their area... or fesco if it's not in any working group area.
18:45:02 <jreznik_> abadger1999: just approval for changes in specific area would be delegated to WGs
18:45:22 <mattdm> (that's how I saw it working, too.)
18:45:25 <nirik> mattdm: can you also add a comment asking for clarification of that specific entry ?
18:45:26 <jreznik_> abadger1999: as I said - for example self contained changes approval could be delegated to WGs
18:45:33 <mattdm> nirik I can.
18:45:35 <jreznik_> or from specific area
18:45:37 <mitr> abadger1999: This would work somewhat better if the WGs weren't separated into their own mailing lists...
18:45:41 <jwb> if you defer (which is again fine), please list specific things you'd like answered in the ticket
18:45:42 <abadger1999> Okay -- so ; change submitted to fesco.  Fesco decides whether it should be delegated to a specific WG to decide upon?
18:46:03 <pjones> abadger1999: or just fesco asks WG for input?
18:46:32 <nirik> 2 votes to defer so far, 0 votes to approve, 0 votes to reject, 0 abstentions. ;)
18:46:34 <abadger1999> pjones: that works too... It does make fesco the approver which is slightly different than delegating.
18:46:36 <pjones> I think there's some value in keeping "who approves changes" at one place, even if that place winds up rubber stamping those WGs agree on.
18:46:47 <mitr> Do we actually need the extra layer?  Let's just discuss them on -devel as we have.  Even the current self-contained changes (which are much smaller than some "WG-specific changes") are dicussed there.
18:47:06 <jreznik_> abadger1999: some changes could be directly approved by WG without FESCO involvement
18:47:25 <jreznik_> but we should be still able to track it, escalate to fesco in case of interWGs disputes, used for marketing
18:47:46 <jreznik_> as I said - it's pretty much designed this way, only minor changes would be needed
18:48:06 <jreznik_> unless someone would like to overhaul it again :)
18:48:16 <jwb> can you get back to discussing this important topic after you decide what you're doing with the PRD?  it's above any specific PRD
18:48:45 <nirik> votes? more prd comments/feedback?
18:49:13 <pjones> it does sound like several people would like more feedback about questions
18:49:37 <notting> Proposal: defer PRD approval for one week. Request clarification on WG re: 1) schedule autonomy 2) "deviation from some of the traditional rules or policies that Fedora has followed". FESCo has concerns about blanket approval of these statements.
18:50:12 <mitr> alternate proposal: Approve conditionally with FESCo commenting that it retains the ultimate authority over Fedora policies and specifically authority over the schedule; if the WG wants more authority delegated upfront, it can (re?)ask for that
18:50:12 <mmaslano> notting: +1
18:50:18 <nirik> notting: I think we already had 2 votes for that (+mattdms design question)
18:50:24 <mattdm> notting +1
18:50:27 <mitr> I'm +1 to notting, wanted to put the "alternate" here just to have a comparison
18:50:44 <nirik> notting: +1
18:50:53 <abadger1999> notting: +1
18:51:12 <pjones> notting: +1
18:51:44 <nirik> #agreed defer PRD approval for one week. Request clarification on WG re: 1) schedule autonomy 2) "deviation from some of the traditional rules or policies that Fedora has followed". FESCo has concerns about blanket approval of these statements. (+7,0,0)
18:51:52 <nirik> (assuming notting was +1 to his own proposal)
18:51:55 <notting> yeah
18:52:00 <jwb> thanks.  please read through it again, and list all the specific questions in the ticket.  i'll grab them all and address them with the WG.  say... have them in the ticket by friday?
18:52:13 <nirik> jwb: thank you.
18:52:18 <mattdm> jwb friday seems fair
18:52:23 <notting> as an addendum: are FESCo members comfortable with the 3rd-party software discussion happening in the place where it's happening now?
18:52:38 <jwb> notting, it's where fesco said to take it...
18:53:10 <pjones> notting: you mean, on the board list?
18:53:17 <notting> jwb: that is true
18:53:50 <mitr> notting: A heads-up to -devel might be desirable (... it would definitely lead to more noise, but we probably do have contributors that find this issue important but aren't currently on f-a-b)
18:53:55 <nirik> shall we move on? I think our views on the 3rd party non free stuff are pretty clear from our last ticket on it?
18:54:15 <sgallagh> mitr: It made it to LWN, I think most people have heard by now
18:54:30 <mitr> sgallagh: true
18:54:32 <abadger1999> notting: I'm comfortable with the discussion as it relates to fedora's philosophy on non-libre software happening there.
18:54:37 <pjones> sgallagh: lwn and f-d-l don't overlap as much as you might hope
18:55:04 <notting> "the plans have been available in the local planning office for the last nine months..."
18:55:05 <abadger1999> notting: once that's decided creating policy regarding approving repositories should come back to us.
18:55:26 <jwb> i see no decisions in the a-b thread :)
18:55:46 <jwb> need at least 200 more emails before we get there
18:55:47 <mattdm> I don't think a fedora-devel pointer would be a bad thing.
18:55:52 <nirik> jwb: if even then
18:56:05 <abadger1999> jwb: Hire a few monkeys, rent a few typewriters ;-)
18:56:07 <jwb> nirik, i suspect i'll have to just call a vote on the board ticket next week
18:56:20 <notting> i question the practicality of attempting to make a protracted mailing list discussion better by pointing more people at it
18:56:24 <nirik> I'm ok with a fedora-devel pointer, but if discussion starts happening there I may close the thread.
18:56:33 <nirik> jwb: yep
18:56:33 <jwb> notting, agreed
18:56:49 <sgallagh> nirik: is "closing the thread" a real thing that can actually happen?
18:56:53 <jwb> yes
18:57:00 <nirik> fight fire with fire! but you end up with just a bunch of hot air.
18:57:13 <mattdm> notting I don't think it will make the discussion better. It very likely will make it worse. But I think it's a community-wide issue that deserves wide visibility
18:57:15 <nirik> sgallagh: sure. You set mailman to filter that subject/messageidreferece
18:57:30 <nirik> anyhow, shall we move on?
18:57:36 <mitr> notting: at the same time, this is a core question for the identity of the project and the reasons people have joined; whiel the Board is elected and has the authority, I don't think the boardmembers' opinions in this area are all well-known and have been a basis for them being elected in the past.
18:57:40 <jwb> mattdm, in that case, you need to send it to test@ too
18:57:50 <jwb> because the overlap between devel and test is minimal
18:57:59 <mattdm> jwb what we need is some sort of cohesive online presence.
18:58:02 <pjones> mitr: yeah, I think that's a very important distinction
18:58:15 <pjones> it hasn't been an election issue, really.
18:58:16 <sgallagh> jwb: At this point, perhaps just announce@ ?
18:58:22 <jwb> (which is ironic, given that you'd think devel and test would be tightly connected...)
18:58:50 <jwb> sgallagh, *shrug*
18:58:50 <sgallagh> And given that elections are going on right now, perhaps that should be on the questionnaire...
18:58:57 <pjones> jwb: is it (resonably) possible to do a post to announce@ with reply-to set to f-a-b and in-reply-to set to some post on the thread that's already there?
18:59:05 <jwb> sgallagh, there will be no townhall for the board
18:59:08 * mattdm misses fedora weekly news
18:59:12 <jwb> there's only 2 seats and 2 candidates
18:59:18 <nirik> pjones: not sure.
18:59:38 <jwb> pjones, i think nirik has to answer that
18:59:41 <jwb> good idea though
18:59:56 <pjones> nirik: I mean, I'm reasonably sure we're not doing anything weird to in-reply-to headers that come from the sender, but I don't know if announce@ will filter reply-to and re-write it or what.
19:00:06 <sgallagh> jwb: Isn't that forbidden?
19:00:12 <nirik> pjones: I don't know either off hand. It might depend on the settings.
19:00:26 <jwb> sgallagh, not that i'm aware of
19:00:29 <sgallagh> I thought the policy was that nomination had to be extended until there was at least 150% candidacy
19:00:38 <jwb> maybe for fesco?
19:00:39 <nirik> IMHO, people should tell those they think should be involved about it if they feel like it. I don't think an announce post is needed/advised personally.
19:00:51 <abadger1999> sgallagh: that's for fesco... not sure that board has that same clause.
19:00:59 <jwb> i don't believe we do
19:01:09 <pjones> sgallagh: I don't know of any such rule, but if it exists and the number is 150% then we've certainly accidentally violated it in the past
19:01:16 <jwb> also, i don't believe it would be feasible to have that
19:01:17 <nirik> it's fesco only.
19:01:27 <sgallagh> Hmm, looks like the Board clause is just that if it's less than 100% nominations, the FPL gets to appoint the remainder
19:01:29 <nirik> from a time when election rules were different per body
19:01:56 <sgallagh> Sorry for sidetracking
19:01:56 <pjones> nevermind that the lack of candidates isn't even the largest problem with our elections
19:02:35 <nirik> if someone feels a group should be advised to weigh in on the advisory board discussion, please feel free to tell them.
19:02:52 <nirik> #topic #1221 Product working group activity reports
19:02:53 <nirik> .fesco 1221
19:02:53 <nirik> https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1221
19:02:54 <zodbot> nirik: #1221 (Product working group activity reports) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1221
19:03:07 <nirik> we had updates in ticket... anything further we wanted to discuss or bring up?
19:03:15 <mattdm> The report for this week is basically "PRDs all around!"
19:03:26 <sgallagh> We probably need to set a deadline for scoping
19:03:39 <abadger1999> and the note of the f-a-b discussion.  Thanks jwb!
19:03:42 <sgallagh> Or at least a deadline for asking to extend the schedule.
19:03:58 <jwb> sure
19:04:39 <pjones> sgallagh: or at least a deadline for setting those deadlines!
19:04:54 <jreznik_> deadlines? /me is listening :)
19:05:05 <sgallagh> pjones: Why don't you form a committee to see if forming a committee is a reasonable approach...
19:05:07 <nirik> There's really insufficent data right now, IMHO.
19:05:17 <nirik> we need the next deliverable from wg's
19:05:30 <jreznik_> yep
19:05:38 <sgallagh> nirik: Right, but since ostensibly the next deliverable is "execution plan", I would hope that would come with an appropriate (approximate) time estimate.
19:05:55 <nirik> "The second deliverable should be a list of necessary changes from existing Fedora procedures needed to release the product. This should be ordered to show what things depend on other changes and at which point the changes will mean that we can no longer produce the current type of Fedora. This will allow us to identify the resources needed by what teams in order to implement the plan and at what p
19:05:56 <nirik> oint we may need to have a longer than normal release cycle to do tooling work."
19:06:24 <nirik> right, but you are correct we don't want to wait many months for that...
19:06:41 <sgallagh> nirik: I think we're agreeing with different words
19:06:49 <nirik> yep
19:06:56 <mattdm> probably... after devconf, but not much after?
19:07:02 <nirik> when is that?
19:07:05 <sgallagh> mattdm: I was thinking exactly that
19:07:13 <sgallagh> DevConf is in two weeks.
19:07:23 <sgallagh> 2.5, really
19:07:27 <mattdm> preceded by fosdem
19:07:41 <mattdm> i am travelling next week and won't be home until after both
19:07:56 <nirik> how about feb 12th
19:08:03 <sgallagh> I think we probably need a minimum of a week post-DevConf to gather thoughts together.
19:08:20 <mattdm> maybe the 17th?
19:08:31 <sgallagh> nirik: Why don't we say the 14th or 17th and review it at the meeting on the 19th?
19:08:40 <mattdm> the monday-before-fesco-meetin worked out very well this time i thought
19:09:30 <nirik> that seems like a lot of time. almost another month of limbo on scheduling.
19:09:57 <sgallagh> nirik: Well, at the same time, many of the people doing this planning will be traveling for the conferences at this time
19:10:18 <nirik> sure, true.
19:10:54 <nirik> any other thoughts? anyone still around? ;)
19:11:12 <mmaslano> yeah. So 17th?
19:11:19 <mmaslano> I'm no travelling, it's fine with me
19:12:13 <jwb> please ping me when we get to open floor
19:12:20 <mattdm> I'm for that thing I said.
19:12:56 <nirik> I guess 17th is ok, but I would urge working groups to try and identify things that affect qa/releng/infrastructure/docs/etc as soon as they can so there won't be a gigantic dump of things no one from those groups knows about on that day.
19:13:23 <nirik> jwb: can do
19:13:27 <mattdm> nirik +1
19:13:29 <sgallagh> nirik: Agreed
19:13:59 <jreznik_> btw for scoping, I've already started pinging guys, updating f21 schedule ticket - of course it depends on what WG would like to see - so it's based on current knowledge
19:13:59 <mmaslano> #info urge working groups to try and identify things that affect qa/releng/infrastructure/docs/etc as soon as they can
19:14:05 <mmaslano> it's note for me ;-)
19:14:13 <notting> nirik: sure, +1
19:14:20 <mmaslano> +1 to 17th
19:14:31 <abadger1999> I don't think we'll be able to look at the scoping docs and make final decisions that week.  But if we even want to attempt to we probably need to alert those communities to look at those docs on the 17th and attend the fesco meeting that week.
19:14:57 <nirik> abadger1999: well, the idea was that was the deadline for the working groups to deliver to us...
19:15:12 <nirik> it may indeed take a while after that to decide what we can and can't do and over what timeframe.
19:15:33 <abadger1999> nirik: <nod>  Yeah -- so if we already accept that we're not going to make a decision until (earliest) the week after, that does give us some breathing room.
19:16:15 <abadger1999> Just saying if we want to really dig in that week, we'll need to get the other groups that are affected involved asap.
19:16:36 <nirik> sure. I'd prefer we try and involve them as much as possible before then too...
19:17:05 <nirik> so, thats +5 for a tenative feb 17th deadline... any other votes or counterproposals?
19:17:16 <jreznik_> abadger1999: as I said - I already started that pinging for scoping, now with PRDs available, it's going to be easier
19:17:30 <abadger1999> +1 from me
19:17:43 <mitr> I'm not sure it's feasible, but under the theory that the sooner the deadline is, the sooner work gets done, +1
19:17:52 <sgallagh> +5 Feb 17
19:18:02 * pjones +1 on that
19:18:05 <sgallagh> err +1
19:18:27 <nirik> #agreed Tenative deadline of Feb 17th for next working group deliverables. Please try and engage other groups with plans as soon as you can. (+7,0,0)
19:18:38 <nirik> #topic Next week's chair
19:18:45 <nirik> who wants the hot potatoe? :)
19:19:01 <mattdm> I will be in traveling
19:19:46 <sgallagh> I'll take it next week
19:19:57 <abadger1999> thanks sgallagh
19:20:29 <nirik> thanks
19:20:35 <nirik> #info sgallagh to chair next week
19:20:43 <nirik> #topic Open Floor
19:20:47 <nirik> jwb: you had something?
19:21:00 <jwb> just curious who from FESCo will NOT be at devconf
19:21:30 * pjones will not
19:21:35 * nirik will not
19:21:40 <pjones> was planning to, but turns out funding was tighter than we'd hoped.
19:22:00 * abadger1999 will not
19:22:47 <jwb> ok.  thanks
19:23:34 <nirik> any other items for open floor from anyone?
19:24:03 * nirik will close out the meeting in a minute if nothing else comes up
19:24:22 <jwb> oh, one other thing
19:24:56 <jwb> the initial liasons were assigned by FESCo.  did you decide if it's entirely up to the WGs to figure out when those will be switched out or retained?
19:25:15 <jwb> i thought there was a desire to at least keep them in place until the PRD was approved, but i forget what we said beyond that
19:25:15 <nirik> I don't know that we decided... can't recall.
19:25:49 <notting> thought we decided liason selection was up to WGs, fesco can NAK if needed. would have to check archives.
19:26:02 <sgallagh> notting: Correct
19:26:04 <jreznik_> that's a good question - we are going to work on KDE SIG transistion to KDE WG and there was that question if FESCo is going to force us to accept your liason or we can select him
19:26:14 <mitr> AGREED: WGs can decide how the FESCo liason is selected, including
19:26:15 <sgallagh> We also allowed them to request a liason *from* us if they didn't want to pick one themselves
19:26:16 <mitr> the possibility of asking FESCo to select. (As FESCo is above the
19:26:18 <mitr> WGs, FESCo could ask WGs to re-choose.)
19:26:20 <mitr> (2013-10-30)
19:26:35 <nirik> there you have it.
19:26:48 <jwb> excellent!  thank you
19:27:04 <sgallagh> Hmm, according to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Elections, election voting starts tomorrow.
19:27:22 <sgallagh> Is that still accurate?
19:27:43 <jwb> afaik
19:27:50 * sgallagh notes that the questionnaire never went out
19:27:54 <nirik> yep. I think so.
19:27:54 <mitr> There weren't any townhalls either
19:27:54 <jreznik_> sgallagh: cwickert is running it this time
19:28:05 <jwb> afaik they canceled the townhalls
19:28:28 <jreznik_> yep, that's my understaning too
19:28:29 <sgallagh> So we're back to pure name-recognition voting again, then?
19:28:38 <jwb> essentially
19:28:38 <abadger1999> sgallagh: I just caught the tail end of a conversation somewhere else... I think the gist was that no questions were submitted.
19:29:17 <jwb> this is not surprising
19:29:37 <nirik> #info election voting starts tomorrow. Please remember to vote.
19:29:48 <sgallagh> Vote early (and often!)
19:29:53 <mattdm> i posted some questions to the fesco one.
19:30:11 <pjones> sgallagh: and again, *still* not the biggest problem with our elections.
19:30:39 <abadger1999> sgallagh: You are only allowed to do that if you live in Chicago.
19:30:39 <nirik> ok, any further items?
19:30:47 <nirik> abadger1999: ...and are also dead. ;)
19:31:03 <jreznik_> pjones: what are that bigger issues? /me is interested in
19:31:16 * abadger1999 codes a pulse monitor into the new elections app ;-)
19:31:27 <pjones> jreznik_: voter turn out is so low we may as well just let the candidates vote for themselves.
19:31:56 <sgallagh> Maybe we can tie voting to FAS account
19:32:02 <mattdm> pjones and that's self-reinforcing when there are no candidates
19:32:04 <jwb> turnover rate in all committees is practically nil
19:32:07 <sgallagh> If you don't vote in three straight elections, your account is disabled? ;-)
19:32:18 <mattdm> I'd rather not force people to vote at random
19:32:32 <sgallagh> mattdm: It *would* solve the turnover problem...
19:32:35 <pjones> jreznik_: that and our lack of any real formal, repeatable processes for any announcements about the elections have, in the past, resulted in large swaths of people not knowing when to vote even if they did attend to,
19:33:10 <pjones> and once three incumbents failed to say they were running again because our announcements are so random, and as a result we had to walk it back and let them in after the deadline because we couldn't fill the seats without doing so.
19:33:39 <jwb> i think the phrase you are looking for is "nobody actually cares anymore"
19:33:53 <jreznik_> pjones: this time it was more complicated as we needed new elections wrangler and then we had to rush it to make January timeframe as agreed by Board
19:33:56 <abadger1999> Ugh -- Is "voting starts tomorrow" UTC tomorrow?
19:34:12 <nirik> ok, can we continue this on #fedora-devel or lists?
19:34:15 * abadger1999 doesn't see that the elections have been entered into the voting application yet.
19:34:33 <pjones> jreznik_: so you see, that's not a reason a repeatable standardized process would be more complicated.
19:34:39 <nirik> abadger1999: I assume utc, yes.
19:34:42 <nirik> * January 23 - 30: Voting Period
19:34:42 <nirik> (closes promptly at 23:59:59 UTC on January 30)
19:34:47 <abadger1999> *sigh*
19:34:54 <pjones> nirik: we're clearly done with the meeting, sure ;)
19:34:58 <jreznik_> pjones: I'm not saying it's not what I'd like to see
19:35:14 <nirik> ok, thanks for coming everyone!
19:35:21 <abadger1999> Thanks nirik!
19:35:26 <nirik> #endmeeting