17:01:57 <notting> #startmeeting FESCo (2014-04-16)
17:01:57 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Apr 16 17:01:57 2014 UTC.  The chair is notting. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:01:57 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
17:02:08 <notting> #meetingname fesco
17:02:08 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fesco'
17:02:08 <notting> #chair abadger1999 dgilmore mattdm mitr notting nirik pjones t8m sgallagh mmaslano jwb
17:02:08 <notting> #topic init process
17:02:08 <zodbot> Current chairs: abadger1999 dgilmore jwb mattdm mitr mmaslano nirik notting pjones sgallagh t8m
17:02:16 <t8m> hi
17:02:16 <nirik> morning
17:02:20 <pjones> hello, party people.
17:02:34 * jwb is around-ish
17:02:38 <mitr> Hello
17:04:14 <dgilmore> hola
17:04:42 <notting> sgallagh and mattdm are @ summit. abadger1999's on vacation. so i think that's it?
17:05:10 * nirik nods.
17:05:18 <pjones> I can go away too, if it'll help.
17:05:50 <notting> pjones: it will just get worse next week
17:05:55 <jwb> pjones, no.  need 2 of you to go away for lack of quorum
17:06:01 <pjones> notting: I assumed as much anyway
17:06:01 <notting> #topic #1221    Product working group activity reports
17:06:01 <notting> .fesco 1221
17:06:02 <zodbot> notting: #1221 (Product working group activity reports) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1221
17:07:04 <notting> env&stacks and workstation noted the changes they filed. adamw - want to speak for server?
17:07:07 <nirik> mostly i think groups have been working on changes...
17:07:16 <nirik> and answering questions on them, etc.
17:07:21 * jreznik will be afk for an hour, ping me if anything needed for changes (I'll will read it later)
17:08:55 <notting> ok, if there's nothing else, might as well move on
17:09:19 <notting> #topic #1244    F21 System Wide Change: cron to systemd time units - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/cron-to-systemd-time-units
17:09:19 <jwb> maybe make this an "as-needed" thing
17:09:19 <notting> .fesco 1244
17:09:23 <zodbot> notting: #1244 (F21 System Wide Change: cron to systemd time units - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/cron-to-systemd-time-units) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1244
17:09:47 <nirik> this ticket makes me sad.
17:09:48 <notting> i was to take this to fpc last week. fpc didn't have enough people to meet, so postponed until this week
17:10:08 <nirik> I see no reason for urgency...
17:10:13 <t8m> me too
17:10:13 <adamw> notting: sup?
17:10:16 <adamw> oh, missed it.
17:10:25 <dgilmore> I dont like the bullying tone of the change owner on the ticket
17:10:37 <mitr> I'm generally in favor of letting FPC revisit... but _also_ the amount of time issues stay on the FPC agenda is really worrying
17:11:16 <t8m> mitr, +1
17:11:19 <notting> is anyone *against* just doing this at the next fpc meeting?
17:11:28 * nirik is not
17:11:32 <pjones> dgilmore: well, he's sounded that way for the larger part of a decade now, so probably it's worth trying to ignore.
17:13:00 <dgilmore> pjones: yeah. which is what I am doing. just felt it was worth noting that his behaviour is bodering on unacceptable
17:13:12 <dgilmore> notting: next fpc meeting +1
17:13:13 <nirik> proposal: wait for next week, if change owner doesn't want to wait, they are free to drop the change.
17:13:24 <dgilmore> nirik: +1
17:13:31 <pjones> nirik: +1
17:13:42 <mitr> nirik: the second part is unnecessary IMHO
17:13:58 <pjones> which means it's fine and we can continue voting on it ;)
17:14:04 <notting> nirik: -1. don't need to be combative to combative-ness. (fine with waiting to next week)
17:14:16 <mitr> pjones: So, to be precise, +1 to the first part, -1 to the second one
17:14:23 <nirik> ok, we can drop that. sure.
17:14:30 <nirik> proposal: wait for next week
17:14:38 <mitr> And, regardless of this local thing, will we try to do something about FPC in general (say, after the Change flood quiets down?)
17:14:42 <notting> +1 to wait for next week
17:14:49 <mitr> +1 to wait for next week
17:14:59 <pjones> okay, so I think we've all said we're okay waiting until next week.
17:15:15 <t8m> +1
17:15:22 <nirik> mitr: they had some talk about meeting 2x/week or doing other things to help finish backlog. I think also just submitters cleaning things up more and being more clear in submissions would help.
17:15:24 <notting> #agreed wait until next week (+:all)
17:15:57 <notting> moving on to new business
17:16:07 <mitr> nirik: All I have is second-hand reports, but those say that the FPC frequently doesn't even have quorum—so I'm not sure how not having quorum twice as often would help...
17:16:08 <notting> #topic #1250    F21 Self Contained Changes
17:16:08 <notting> .fesco 1250
17:16:09 <zodbot> notting: #1250 (F21 Self Contained Changes) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1250
17:16:28 <notting> self contained changes are:
17:16:36 <notting> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ApachePig
17:16:43 <notting> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ApacheAmbari
17:16:50 <notting> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ApacheAccumulo
17:17:00 <notting> and ​https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Playground_repository
17:17:19 <dgilmore> we had a bunch of apache hadoop related changes last week, there are a bunch this week, I really think they should all be consolodated into one
17:17:50 <mitr> From the development side, this doesn't matter—the relnotes/announcements should be certainly consolidated
17:17:59 <pjones> dgilmore: if they're all self-contained, I'm not sure it really matters.
17:18:02 <pjones> also what mitr said
17:18:08 <mitr> (... well doesn't matter as long as jreznik doesn't object to the overhead)
17:18:25 <t8m> again mitr  +1
17:18:25 <nirik> I'm +1 to all the Apache* ones...
17:18:42 <nirik> I had questions on the playground repo... it still seems in flux...
17:19:00 <dgilmore> development side it doesnt really matter, its all the same amount of work, but for tracking and release notes I feel they need some consoldation
17:19:05 <mitr> I'm +1 to all apache ones, and plan to be +1 to playground as well but will want for other's possible objections
17:19:41 <dgilmore> im +1 to the apache ones. I am 0 to the playground. I have questions I need to raise over building and delivery
17:20:08 <pjones> +1 to the apache ones
17:20:17 <pjones> vaguely +1 to the playground one.
17:20:26 <pjones> if you guys want to delay the vote on that one, that's fine by me.
17:20:52 <notting> i'm +1 to all the apache ones. for playground... where do those with concerns feel is best to discuss them? (don't see an env&stacks repo here)
17:21:08 <t8m> what about promoting playground to systemwide Change status?
17:21:15 <nirik> I'm not against the playground change in principal, but I think it needs to be more defined before the go ahead. I'd be ok delaying on it a week to answer questions on list...
17:21:23 <dgilmore> notting: probably should raise them on the list for all to see and contribute to
17:21:29 <pjones> t8m: yeah, I think that's what pretty much everybody here is actually saying
17:21:43 <nirik> there's still question for example if they are just a collection of existing copr repos, or a seperate physical repo...
17:21:43 <mitr> t8m: AFAICS iit's already filed as system-wide, only the category is different
17:22:13 <mitr> nirik: that's been answered AFAIK - a physical repo is built
17:22:23 <t8m> mitr, I mean the process should follow the systemwide change process
17:22:32 <t8m> mitr, separate ticket etc.
17:22:37 <mitr> But now that I look at Dependencies, "dnf must replace yum" ?!  That's not a F21 material
17:22:42 <nirik> well, it's been answered on the change page, but there's others who don't see it that way, like the copr developer...
17:22:50 <dgilmore> mitr: right, its a systemwide change
17:22:54 <dgilmore> and not self contained
17:22:59 <nirik> and if it's seperate, why don't they want to use mash?
17:23:13 <dgilmore> nirik: they cant as its not built in koji
17:23:14 <t8m> +1 to the Apache* changes
17:23:17 <nirik> and the repos are 'continuously rebuilt' but build once a day?
17:23:18 <dgilmore> and mash requires koji
17:23:33 <dgilmore> nirik: but I dont know the scope fo releng in the delivery of it
17:23:40 <nirik> dgilmore: ah true...
17:23:45 <dgilmore> no one has approached releng on delivery
17:23:56 <jwb> um
17:24:02 <nirik> well, I asked a bunch of questions, but haven't heard back yet. (On list)
17:24:04 <jwb> i don't think they are saying dnf has to replace yum
17:24:09 <notting> #agreed Apache Accumulo, Ambari, and Pig changes approved (+:6, -:0)
17:24:10 <dgilmore> jwb: they are
17:24:13 <jwb> i think they are saying if you want to use playground, you have to use dnf
17:24:25 <dgilmore> jwb:
17:24:26 <pjones> yeah, they're saying you need something in dnf to use it
17:24:26 <mitr> jwb: right, my bad
17:24:29 <dgilmore> jwb: dnf - plugin for Coprs must replace yum, otherwise Playground stays in Beta
17:24:33 <notting> #info suggest coalescing of Hadoop and Hadoop-related changes for relnote/doc purposes
17:24:37 <dgilmore> jwb: in dependencies
17:24:53 <jwb> dgilmore, it's poorly worded.  you have to use dnf if you want to use playground
17:24:53 <pjones> dgilmore: I think you're getting lost in translation
17:24:56 <notting> proposal: elevate Playground repo to systemwide change, defer for a week for more discussion
17:24:57 <nirik> but if it's a seperate repo, I don't see why dnf is needed.
17:25:00 <dgilmore> jwb: right
17:25:09 <nirik> notting: +1
17:25:10 <pjones> notting: +1
17:25:16 <dgilmore> jwb: and today all installs get both dnf and yum anyway
17:25:18 <jwb> dgilmore, that is different from "dnf is replacing yum systemwide"
17:25:23 <dgilmore> notting: +1
17:25:41 <mitr> notting: +1
17:25:44 <t8m> notting, +1
17:26:06 <zoglesby> notting: I added a "Big Data" section to the release notes
17:26:31 <notting> #agreed Playground Repo should be promoted to a System-Wide Change. Playground Repo change deferred for a week for more discussion
17:26:33 <notting> #undo
17:26:33 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: AGREED by notting at 17:26:31 : Playground Repo should be promoted to a System-Wide Change. Playground Repo change deferred for a week for more discussion
17:26:34 <mitr> zoglesby: great, that will be better immediately understandable than the individual project names
17:26:41 <notting> #agreed Playground Repo should be promoted to a System-Wide Change. Playground Repo change deferred for a week for more discussion (+:6, -:0)
17:26:49 <notting> zoglesby: great, thanks!
17:27:33 <notting> on to system-wide features. doing slightly out of order due to dependencies
17:27:42 <notting> #topic #1280    F21 System Wide Change: Framework for Server Role Deployment - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/FrameworkForServerRoleDeployment
17:27:42 <notting> .fesco 1280
17:27:43 <zodbot> notting: #1280 (F21 System Wide Change: Framework for Server Role Deployment - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/FrameworkForServerRoleDeployment) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1280
17:28:24 <dgilmore> +1 from me
17:28:32 <nirik> +1
17:29:32 <t8m> +1
17:29:37 <mitr> I should abstain, with my name on it
17:30:12 <pjones> +1
17:30:33 <notting> +1
17:30:51 <notting> #agreed Framework for Server Role Deployment approved (+:5, -:0, 0:1)
17:31:11 <notting> and the followups:
17:31:18 <notting> #topic #1279    F21 System Wide Change: Database Server Role - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DatabaseServerRole
17:31:18 <notting> .fesco 1279
17:31:19 <zodbot> notting: #1279 (F21 System Wide Change: Database Server Role - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DatabaseServerRole) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1279
17:31:35 <dgilmore> +1
17:31:38 <nirik> +1
17:31:47 <pjones> +1
17:31:47 <mitr> +1
17:31:53 <t8m> +1
17:32:03 <notting> +1
17:32:20 <notting> #agreed Database Server Role approved (+:6, -:0)
17:32:22 <notting> #topic #1281    F21 System Wide Change: Domain Controller Server Role - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DomainControllerServerRole
17:32:23 <notting> .fesco 1281
17:32:24 <zodbot> notting: #1281 (F21 System Wide Change: Domain Controller Server Role - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DomainControllerServerRole) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1281
17:32:57 <nirik> +1
17:33:02 <dgilmore> +1
17:33:12 <notting> +1
17:33:12 <mitr> +1
17:33:14 <pjones> +1
17:33:31 <t8m> +1
17:34:36 <notting> #agreed Domain Controller Server Role approved (+:6, -:0)
17:34:45 <notting> #topic #1282    F21 System Wide Change: Fedora 21 Boost 1.56 Uplift - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/F21Boost156
17:34:45 <notting> .fesco 1282
17:34:46 <zodbot> notting: #1282 (F21 System Wide Change: Fedora 21 Boost 1.56 Uplift - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/F21Boost156) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1282
17:35:42 <nirik> +1
17:35:43 <t8m> +1
17:35:47 <dgilmore> +1
17:35:50 <pjones> +1
17:35:58 <mitr> +1
17:36:21 <notting> +1
17:37:02 <notting> #agreed Boost 1.56 Uplift is approved (+:6, -:0)
17:37:15 <notting> #topic #1283    F21 System Wide Change: GNOME 3.12 - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/GNOME3.12
17:37:15 <notting> .fesco 1283
17:37:18 <zodbot> notting: #1283 (F21 System Wide Change: GNOME 3.12 - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/GNOME3.12) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1283
17:37:22 <dgilmore> +1
17:37:30 <t8m> +1
17:37:37 <nirik> +1
17:38:15 <notting> +1
17:38:41 <mitr> +1 to 3.12; the "we may do 3.14 with a completely different schedule impact and contingency requirements and dependencies" part is pretty ugly
17:39:03 <pjones> +1 to 3.12 as well
17:39:15 <mitr> I suppose +1 in general, we are upgrading anyway, and the 3.14 plans will have to be discussed later...
17:39:15 <pjones> mitr's point that the other bits seem to need more discussion seems pretty clearly true.
17:39:27 <pjones> mitr: at least I took that as the point you were making
17:39:44 <mitr> or perhaps +1 with the provision that FESCo must be consulted before the decision to move to 3.14 happens?
17:39:59 <notting> i would think 3.14 would be a different feature
17:40:17 <mitr> notting: That's not what the text actually says, though
17:40:32 <drago01> well the feature is "upgrade gnome to current release that ships with f21"
17:40:41 <mitr> pjones: Looking particularly at the contingency plan, "3.12 is so soon that we'll get it in" is plausible but doesn't apply to 3.14
17:41:17 <pjones> yeah
17:41:40 <jwb> sigh
17:41:43 <mitr> So... I think I'd be fine with an #info
17:42:02 <mitr> (and I should have brought this up on the list, I apologize)
17:42:06 <jwb> common sense would suggest that 3.14 inclusion would be brought up if it seems feasible.
17:42:26 <dgilmore> jwb: indeed
17:42:39 <pjones> Proposal: ask them to do 3.14 as a separate feature that we'll evaluate at such time as it becomes necessary
17:42:55 <jwb> yeah, fine.  no problem
17:42:56 <jwb> move on
17:43:02 <notting> jwb: well, the title is 3.12, the summary is '3.12 or 3.14'. ideally they'd match
17:43:20 <drago01> mitr: this is just a theortical thing though
17:43:23 <jwb> yes, noted.  agreed.  move on
17:43:25 <notting> #agreed GNOME 3.12 is approved (+:6, -:0)
17:43:38 <drago01> mitr: 3.14 should be out in september
17:43:46 <notting> #info if 3.14 is desired in the future, please raise separately
17:43:48 <jwb> you guys really like nitpicking at the last damn second, you know that?
17:43:48 <mitr> drago01: what exactly is theoretical?
17:43:54 <drago01> mitr: and unstable release way before that and will get into rawhide
17:43:59 <pjones> jwb: yes
17:44:11 <notting> #topic #1284    F21 System Wide Change: Mono 3.4 - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Mono_3.4
17:44:11 <notting> .fesco 1284
17:44:12 <zodbot> notting: #1284 (F21 System Wide Change: Mono 3.4 - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Mono_3.4) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1284
17:44:22 <pjones> jwb: please stop derailing this meeting.
17:44:29 <jwb> apologies.
17:44:52 <mitr> jwb: As the one who brought this up,  I really would have been fine with an #info...
17:45:05 <t8m> +1
17:45:09 <pjones> +1
17:45:13 <dgilmore> +1
17:45:17 <nirik> +1
17:45:54 <notting> there was discussion on the list about whether the submitter has enough provenpackger privileges at his disposal to accomplish tis?
17:46:05 <mitr> notting: "not yet a packager", even
17:47:29 <pjones> hrm.
17:47:38 <mitr> I haven't seen anyone on the "mono" ACL weigh in on the list, though...
17:47:46 * nirik is for it, if they cannot coordinate with package owners it may just not get done
17:47:53 <mitr> So I'm +1 "please do try"
17:48:07 <notting> proposal: defer waiting on ack from laxathom, chkr, or other mono comaintainers
17:48:13 <pjones> notting: fair, +1
17:48:34 <nirik> sure, I suppose thats fine.
17:48:43 <mitr> jreznik: have you pinged any of them already by any chance?
17:51:41 <notting> he may not be back yet.
17:51:52 <pjones> It would appear that way.
17:51:53 <mitr> notting: +1 (assuming you  don't mean to _block_ for an ack)
17:53:03 <notting> although i guess th feature itself passed
17:53:22 <dgilmore> notting: right
17:53:41 <mitr> I suppose the Change owner will have to talk with these people anyway...
17:53:44 <t8m> +1
17:53:55 <notting> #agreed Mono 3.4 feature approved (+:5, -:0, 0:0)
17:54:09 <notting> #info please talk to existing mono maintainers (laxathom, chkr)
17:55:22 <notting> #topic #1285    F21 System Wide Change: PHP 5.6 - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Php56
17:55:22 <notting> .fesco 1285
17:55:23 <zodbot> notting: #1285 (F21 System Wide Change: PHP 5.6 - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Php56) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1285
17:55:46 <nirik> +1
17:55:58 <dgilmore> +1
17:56:02 <t8m> +1
17:56:11 <mitr> +1
17:56:38 <pjones> +1
17:56:59 <notting> +1
17:57:10 <notting> #agreed PHP 5.6 approved (+:6, -:0)
17:58:44 <notting> and finally
17:58:46 <notting> #topic #1273    Policy interpretation on proprietary products in gnome-software, gnome overview search results
17:58:46 <notting> .fesco 1273
17:58:48 <zodbot> notting: #1273 (Policy interpretation on proprietary products in gnome-software, gnome overview search results) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1273
17:58:55 <pjones> abadger1999: off by an hour ;)
17:58:56 <notting> this was pushed to the board. the board made a ruling
17:59:19 <abadger1999> pjones: Yeah -- I need to be an hour later ;-)
18:00:04 <nirik> don't we all. ;)
18:00:44 <nirik> so, upstream already made some changes here...
18:00:58 <nirik> I'm unsure if they meet our/theboarads desires.
18:01:39 <nirik> well, I guess it meets the statement in the fesco ticket... but I've not had time to read the board meeting minutes for context.
18:01:52 <abadger1999> from the comments on the fesco ticket, it seems to be split on webapp vs native app rather than free vs proprietary.
18:02:17 <nirik> but the board didn't split on those either.
18:02:23 <mitr> Won't the board continue to disucss it?  If so, they can review the current wording themselves without us playing a middleman
18:02:33 <nirik> "Software not included in the Fedora repositories must be clearly differentiated when presented to the user (+1:6 -1:1)"
18:02:35 <pjones> abadger1999: seems like the board required that
18:02:42 <nirik> so, 'included vs not included'
18:03:14 <pjones> not actually the same, but in the context it doesn't present much difference
18:03:29 <notting> and the proposed change is "Internet Only Application - This application can only be used when there is an active internet connection."
18:03:48 <notting> which i don't think quite fits 'clearly differentiated as not being included in the fedora  repos'
18:04:11 <abadger1999> pjones: <nod>  the wording makes me wonder if that;s in addition to the philosophy that non-official-fedora-software needs a click-through approval from the user.
18:04:12 <mitr> Do We Actually Need to Spend Time on This Today?
18:04:40 <abadger1999> as per the copr ticket.
18:06:33 <jwb> yes, you need to spend time on this today
18:06:35 <notting> mitr: as opposed to later, or as opposed to at all?
18:06:59 <mitr> notting: as opposed to at all - Isn't the Board meeting again?  So they can discuss exactly what they want or don't want
18:06:59 <jwb> the current changes upstream weren't pointed out as a solution to the statement from the board
18:07:18 <jwb> mitr, meeting for what purpose?
18:07:23 <nirik> so, can anyone suggest better wording?
18:07:31 <jwb> look, 95% of the board meeting was spent discussing UI issues
18:07:39 <jwb> the board isn't responsible for low-level details like that
18:07:53 <mitr> jwb: " As to the remaining issues, further discussion is still needed."; I read that as implying there will be further discussion
18:08:08 <nirik> "Non Fedora application - This application is a internet application and not included directly in Fedora" ?
18:08:13 <pjones> So, I think the question is: is there action FESCo needs to take on this, or do the people implementing the features have enough information to proceed reasonably now?
18:08:35 <jwb> mitr, yes, well there are numerous board tickets that remain open because of "further discussion"
18:08:48 <jwb> if you don't see discussion on-going on advisory-board, there isn't any discussion on-going
18:08:56 <jwb> (at least in this case)
18:09:06 <jwb> so.  prod.
18:09:24 <jwb> also, discuss with the developers/designers
18:09:37 <pjones> (my question could also be extended to the board as well as fesco, but it's not clear to me what we would be asking them at this point.)
18:09:56 <notting> pjones: well, "make a determination whether the proposed change (which was indirectly fedora-prompted) fits the board's mandate" is one fesco action
18:10:28 <jwb> notting, i guess you could do that.  you could also say "i see you're making changes.  fedora would like to make XXX suggestion"
18:10:35 <pjones> notting: it seems to be that in broad strokes the board has declared it is, modulo some implementation requirements they've imposed.
18:11:18 <abadger1999> I think that We could do something similar to what's on the third part repository policy: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Third_Party_Repository_Policy ... say that nonfree software services are not allowed to be presented to the user via an application installer at this time.  If the Board wants to change policy around the Freedom Foundation then we (fesco) would revisit the issue.
18:12:04 <jwb> please be sure to remove the google search integration from firefox when you make that statement
18:12:17 <nirik> and a number of other places...
18:12:20 <pjones> abadger1999: it seems as if the board has implicitly said that's /not/ a requirement.
18:12:24 <mitr> abadger1999: -1; exactly this has been referred to the board so I can't see why we would now decide to answer precisely the same question ourselves now
18:12:26 <drago01_> that's pointless bikesheed
18:12:30 <drago01_> people will use web apps
18:12:35 <abadger1999> pjones: then they should change the freedom foundation to clarify.
18:12:38 <drago01_> hiding them wont make them go away
18:12:49 <abadger1999> pjones: I would say the "pending further discussion" means they haven't made that determination.
18:12:50 <drago01_> abadger1999: we don't ship the apps
18:13:01 <drago01_> abadger1999: only an interpreter that can run code (javascript)
18:13:07 <jwb> abadger1999, there was no determination from the Board on whether non-FOSS web services undermind the Freedom foundation
18:13:12 <drago01_> abadger1999: the app is elsewhere
18:13:16 <jwb> abadger1999, you're ascribing your interpretation on that
18:13:18 <abadger1999> jwb: correct.
18:13:22 <abadger1999> jwb: no --
18:13:35 <mitr> jwb: Note that the ticket contents are not public
18:13:48 <abadger1999> I'm saying that the board needs to actively make a determination for me to feel that we can allow this pointing to non-free software.
18:13:49 <jwb> mitr, note that for this ticket advisory-board is CC so they are
18:14:11 <abadger1999> if they did that, then it would be easy for us to work out how to point to it.
18:14:15 <abadger1999> (relatively :-)
18:14:22 <mjg59> abadger1999: The board was asked a question. The board answered.
18:14:32 <mjg59> If fesco would like to ask the same question again then I'm sure we can answer it again
18:14:39 <jwb> abadger1999, that's not what you're accomplishing with your proposal.  if FESCo makes a _decision_ then it needs to act on that
18:14:46 <jwb> if FESCo has a _question_ then just ask it
18:14:56 <mjg59> But it seems like a tedious way to spend time
18:15:18 <abadger1999> mjg59: What was the asked question?
18:15:24 <abadger1999> I haven't been around for the past 10 days.
18:15:29 <jwb> mjg59, tbf, sgallagh_afk made a proposal that would have addressed the non-FOSS web services vs. freedom question.  the Board deferred from voting on it
18:15:41 <mitr> jwb: All I can see there is a thread that doesn't actually take place on the ticket (might be just me though)
18:16:16 <jwb> mitr, just so i'm clear, which specific ticket are you referring to?
18:16:24 <mitr> jwb: 182
18:17:31 <nirik> so instead of going into the weeds, could we try and answer the question the board asked us? or do we need more info? if so what?
18:18:19 <mitr> nirik: What question did the board ask us, and where?
18:18:22 <jwb> mitr, ok, good.  we're talking about the same ticket.  the contets of it, in their entirety were sent to advisory-board
18:18:24 <nirik> "Software not included in the Fedora repositories must be clearly differentiated when presented to the user (+1:6 -1:1)"
18:18:24 <nirik> Please work with the developers on making this distinction in the software-installer and gnome-shell.
18:18:34 <jwb> mitr, there have been no further comments on the ticket.
18:18:39 <nirik> a) does the change made meet this desire.
18:18:56 <nirik> https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1273#comment:56
18:19:46 <mitr> jwb: OK, that must be me then.  I can see the mails in the archives.  Sorry.
18:21:08 <nirik> personally, I think the wording needs to be more clear that the app is not only needing internet to work, but not included in fedora. I don't know how best to do that, but I can ask if they would be open to wording changes.
18:21:41 <jwb> nirik, "they"?
18:21:54 <jreznik> mitr: for that question regarding mono - I talked to change owner, he tried to reach maintainers, so far with no luck... but I agree - it's up to them to talk to each other or even start non-responsive process
18:21:57 <nirik> gnome designers?
18:22:10 <abadger1999> I think no.  But it could wiht a better message.  However, I think that on the technical details side we need (also?  Or is it already there for these apps?) to have click-through agreement from the user to show these.  Since we require that of non-fedora software repositories " This application search software can search for applications in these specific third party repositories as long as the user is explicitly asked
18:22:11 <abadger1999> to enable the repository before installing packages from them. "
18:22:15 <jwb> nirik, ah, thank you.  was unclear if you meant wording changes in the app or wording changes in the Board statement
18:22:27 <nirik> sorry, yeah, I meant in the app.
18:23:18 <pjones> abadger1999: oh god that's terrible.
18:24:30 <abadger1999> pjones: UI-wise?  Perhaps -- I was thinking, maybe they could be lumped into the same click through?
18:24:47 <abadger1999> Or does each repo have to have a separate click-through
18:24:52 <pjones> I don't see how to make that distinction for these without also needing it for google search in firefox
18:24:58 <nirik> abadger1999: part of the problem is that that policy seems very focused on 'installing' and rpms... so that might be part of the confusion
18:25:15 <abadger1999> pjones: Well... so thinking about mattdm's questions...
18:25:17 <nirik> these are not installed or are packages
18:25:17 <jwb> abadger1999, there are no repos for twitter
18:25:26 <pjones> unless we're just completely okay with hypocrisy.
18:25:42 <mitr> Well, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a ducks, does it matter whether it is constructed like a duck?
18:25:51 <abadger1999> with google seach, we have a piece of opensource code that runs on the user's computer and submits data to a proprietary web service.
18:26:13 <abadger1999> with gmail, we download a proprietary application onto the user's computer and execute it.
18:26:15 <nirik> mitr: it does if you want to take a duck policy and apply it to all flying creatures. ;) It might need adjustement or you had weird duckisms
18:27:22 <mitr> pjones: My takeaway so far is that we have essentially run into contradictions within the general philosophy ("we don't care or support running any proprietary software but don't even think about breaking JavaScript on the web!"), this philosophy is strictly a board-level matter, and no amount of wording tinkering with individual details by FESCo is going to resolve it
18:27:24 <nirik> abadger1999: the same could be said of lots of web pages.
18:27:45 <nirik> "Do you want to load this web page? It's not included in Fedora and may not be free"
18:27:46 <notting> are people comfortable with merely changing the gnome-software UI, and comfortable with the proposed change there?
18:27:54 <notting> (i am yes and no, respectively)
18:28:22 <abadger1999> nirik: <nod>  But I think we have been okay with drawing a line between the software installer and the web browser before.
18:28:29 <mitr> notting: "not a FESCo matter, "not a FESCo matter", and "no" to an unasked question "does the proposed change implement what the Board asked for"
18:28:38 <nirik> notting: for right now, I am yes and no. But I agree it's something we and the board should still be figuring out
18:28:40 <abadger1999> a user can search for proprietary software, rpmfusion, etc in their web browser.
18:28:52 <abadger1999> but we do not point them at it in the software installer.
18:29:01 <pjones> abadger1999: not without using a proprietary dataset in a proprietary search engine, they can't.
18:29:21 <pjones> or at least at the moment we strongly encourage that.
18:29:29 <notting> mitr: my understanding of https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1273#comment:56 is that the 'please work with...' was deferred to fesco, so it is a fesco matter
18:29:54 <t8m> I basically agree with mitr's position, especially on the third (unasked) question
18:30:24 * nirik is with notting on that.
18:30:30 <abadger1999> notting: currently I'm no, no.  But my first no could be yes if the board would rule that it was okay to point to the web apps.
18:30:36 <mitr> notting: That's probably just me being pedantic about the question wording :)  I don't need to be personally comfortable with the proposal when I'm tasked with implementing a specific requirement
18:30:41 <jwb> the Board doesn't dictate or implement technical details
18:30:50 <jwb> it's a fesco matter if it's a UI implementation problem
18:30:56 <nirik> abadger1999: I assume they did, since they wanted us to make sure they were distinguished?
18:31:03 <jwb> and if you choose to do nothing about it, then you choose to do nothing about it
18:31:49 <abadger1999> nirik: I assume they didn't as per jwb's summary and statements here.
18:31:52 <abadger1999> [11:15:28] <jwb> mjg59, tbf, sgallagh_afk made a proposal that would have addressed the non-FOSS web services vs. freedom question.  the Board deferred from voting on it
18:32:30 * nirik is now confused. more so than usual.
18:33:00 <mjg59> The situation is that we ship software that depends on proprietary web services
18:33:08 <pjones> correct.
18:33:20 <pjones> And nobody has ever had a problem with that, or, say, enabling javascript by default.
18:33:21 <mjg59> The board felt that the only distinction between what gnome-software was doing and what Firefox has always done was in presentation
18:33:28 <nirik> If the board asks us to determine how best to differentiate not included in fedora software, but they haven't decided that we can point to not included in fedora software, whats there for us to do here?
18:33:49 <mitr> notting: so, to simplify, I fully agree with your concern in https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1273#comment:62
18:34:02 <mjg59> And so the board said that non-free webapps should be clearly differentiated from normal software in any UI
18:34:07 <jwb> nirik, work with the upstream developers to make it clear that webapps are not included in fedora repositories
18:34:34 <jwb> mjg59, correction: the Board said that software not included in Fedora repositories.
18:34:42 <jwb> it made no determination based on licensing
18:34:45 <mjg59> jwb: Sorry, yes
18:34:47 <pjones> nirik: implicitly, they have said we're allowed to link to web pages that /are/ non-included proprietary software (but not that just let you possibly illegally download such)
18:34:56 <mjg59> Going beyond that would involve the board getting involved in UI design
18:35:03 <mjg59> The board is not qualified to be involved in UI design
18:35:29 <notting> mjg59: well, you could argue that fesco as members aren't either, but fesco as a body is concerned with it
18:35:51 <mjg59> notting: Yeah, and there may be an argument that any proposed design should be bounced back to the board to verify that it meets their desires
18:36:13 <mjg59> (I'd certainly have no objection to that)
18:36:24 <mjg59> But I think the fundamental philosophical issue has been answered
18:36:33 <mjg59> And it's now a more technical problem
18:36:56 <nirik> so where are we then?
18:37:31 <jwb> nirik, work with the upstream developers to make it clear that webapps are not included in fedora repositories
18:37:42 <notting> well, if we're going to do the 'work with upstream' that the board has requested, we can 1) reject the changes out of hand 2) suggest new changes 3) delegate someone to represent what changes we want (which sort of requires deciding that) 4) ...?
18:37:59 <nirik> thats where I started, about 20min ago before we wandered down another path
18:38:16 <jwb> well i'm glad we've wandered back then
18:38:24 <abadger1999> Proposal: ask the Board to update the Freedom foundation to make clear that that the display and linking to non-FOSS web services  is not a violation.
18:39:05 <abadger1999> Proposal2: ask the gnome designers to include web applications in the click through that enables non-vendor repositories
18:39:08 <mjg59> abadger1999: Why? We've done that in every single Fedora release.
18:39:40 <abadger1999> mjg59: you asked that we send back to the board the questions that we need answered.
18:39:51 <abadger1999> mjg59: That's the question we need answered.
18:39:57 <mitr> abadger1999: You can do these things as a person, I wouldn't +1 these as a FESCo matter (I have explicitly promised to defer these questions to the board)
18:40:04 <mjg59> abadger1999: The status quo is that it's acceptable
18:40:05 <randomuser> counter proposal from the bleachers: ask the gnome developers to deploy web apps the same way they do with extensions via extensions.gnome.org
18:40:10 <abadger1999> mjg59: I don't think so.
18:40:36 <notting> randomuser: is that the same mechanism that's already included in ff's web store, chromium's whatever-they-call-it?
18:40:58 <randomuser> notting, I'm not aware of that :/
18:41:09 <notting> abadger1999: by repo click-through, you mean https://raw.githubusercontent.com/gnome-design-team/gnome-mockups/master/software/version2/software-standalone-repo.png ?
18:41:14 <mjg59> abadger1999: If it were a violation, every single Fedora release we've ever made was violating in the default configuration
18:41:33 <abadger1999> So without the board taking active action, I'd have to vote -1.  If it's the status quo then it shouldn't be hard for the Board to approve a clarification of the foundation to make everyone happy.
18:41:36 <notting> randomuser: https://marketplace.firefox.com/ . "included" in fedora, to some extent
18:42:17 <randomuser> I really don't understand the value in equating the software installer with a browser, but whatever
18:42:46 <abadger1999> notting: Something like that seems right.
18:43:05 <notting> randomuser: now you've confused me more, as extensions.gnome.org (as you suggested) is a browser-driven software installer
18:43:37 <notting> abadger1999: i don't see how your proposals help us implement what the board tasked us with, as it's operating on a different axis
18:43:48 <pjones> abadger1999: we've included undisclaimed links to proprietary web services in every release since Fedora Core 3.  Can we please stop pretending we haven't?
18:43:55 <jwb> abadger1999, to be clear, you're looking for a statement that non-free web services are not against the Freedom foundation, correct?
18:44:13 <randomuser> notting, i looked at the mozilla one now, same thing there. You're visiting an external site to install functionality in both though, not using the system software installer
18:44:25 <abadger1999> notting: I think that we were tasked with that via the policy decisions around third party software repositories.
18:45:26 * nirik thinks we need to revise the third party software repos guidelines if we intend to use them for non installed, not package things.
18:45:33 <mitr> randomuser: neither of them would actually work without a "system"-placed component
18:45:35 <abadger1999> notting: perhaps, as jwb says, the board shouldn't have asked for specific ui and we should just adapt the third-party software policy to evaluating the ui.
18:45:39 <jwb> nirik, agreed
18:45:46 <notting> nirik: like x3270 sessions?
18:45:47 <jwb> abadger1999, i never said that
18:46:01 <jwb> abadger1999, and i disagree with that entirely
18:46:03 <randomuser> mitr, agreed, I'm not against providing the functionality for such things to exist
18:46:04 <mitr> nirik: we might need to, yes.  Not in this ticket.
18:46:36 <jwb> nirik, or you could not use it for things it wasn't intended for.
18:46:40 <jwb> which might be saner
18:47:26 <notting> proposal: cc kalev (upstream committer/implementer) on ticket, point him at comment 56, and note that we don't think the proposed language fits what was requested there. work in ticket.
18:47:27 <nirik> well, abadger1999 is trying to. :) I see the appeal, because there's a lot of similarity there and it could cover the cases...
18:48:03 <mitr> notting: +1
18:48:39 <abadger1999> jwb: Sorry, that's what I interpreted from "the Board doesn't dictate or implement technical details it's a fesco matter if it's a UI implementation problem"
18:49:20 <jwb> np.  your interpretation was incorrect
18:49:32 <abadger1999> jwb: <nod>
18:50:02 <nirik> notting: +1 (I do think there are lots of questions around this, but we can do this now and continue to discuss with board/others to try and figure things out over the next week)
18:50:21 <dgilmore> notting: +1
18:50:44 <pjones> notting: +1
18:51:36 <nirik> FWIW, I agree with abadger1999's question for the board, but we can bring that up to the board, not here.
18:51:52 <abadger1999> jwb: Re: "looking for a statement that non-free web services are not against the Freedom foundation,"  yes, please.  In particular, that having something installed whose main (sole?) purpose is to download the web service's proprietary client portion and run it is okay.
18:52:53 <notting> #agreed Add kalev to ticket, point him at board request., note FESCo does not generally think current proposal implements that request. Work issue in ticket.
18:52:54 <abadger1999> If the board does that, then I think that answers all of the non-technical portions of the question.
18:52:56 <notting> #undo
18:52:56 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: AGREED by notting at 18:52:53 : Add kalev to ticket, point him at board request., note FESCo does not generally think current proposal implements that request. Work issue in ticket.
18:53:08 <notting> #agreed Add kalev to ticket, point him at board request., note FESCo does not generally think current proposal implements that request. Work issue in ticket. (+:5, -:0)
18:53:29 <notting> this obviously doens't move the ticket to fixed/closed. leave open for next week?
18:53:34 <jwb> abadger1999, your phrasing would include firefox.
18:53:37 <nirik> abadger1999: that something you describe is a web browser. ;)
18:53:45 <jwb> nirik, indeed
18:54:00 <jwb> abadger1999, have you read the log of the Board meeting?
18:54:04 <nirik> notting: yep.
18:54:05 <jwb> the full irc log
18:54:21 <mitr> notting: dropping the meeting keyword perhaps
18:54:37 <abadger1999> nirik, jwb: I don't believe so (but if the board does, then they can make a decision based on that belief ;-)  I don't think that firefox's main or sole purpose is to download proprietary clients and run it.
18:54:57 <jwb> abadger1999, have you read the log of the Board meeting?
18:55:07 <mitr> abadger1999: A week running with noscript and no exceptions might persuade you otherwise
18:55:07 <abadger1999> jwb: I've only been able to read a small bit (for instance, the voting on sgallagh_afk's proposal).
18:55:21 <abadger1999> jwb: Like I say, I've been gone for the past 10 days.
18:55:29 <abadger1999> (and will be gone for the next 10 as well).
18:55:33 <notting> are people ok with moving on for now?
18:55:33 <jwb> abadger1999, or lack thereof.  anyway, i suggest reading it in the entirety before proposing further questions
18:55:41 <nirik> moveon++
18:55:41 <pjones> notting: yes
18:55:49 <mitr> notting: yes
18:56:12 <t8m> notting, definitely
18:56:15 <notting> ok
18:56:21 <notting> #topic Next week's chair
18:56:22 <jwb> abadger1999, imo, sgallagh's question is possibly the best phrasing for what you're asking
18:56:38 <notting> any volunteers?
18:56:53 <abadger1999> jwb: <nod>  I based mine on his -- I felt I wanted a little bit more clarity than his question.
18:57:09 <abadger1999> jwb: possibly that's just me or possibly you are looking at it differently than me.
18:57:36 <nirik> notting: I guess I can.
18:57:44 <notting> #info nirik will chair next week's meeting
18:57:58 <jwb> abadger1999, your question ignores the complexities discussed in the board meteing
18:58:01 <jwb> meeting
18:58:07 <notting> #topic Open Floor
18:58:28 <notting> anything for open floor?
18:58:33 <jwb> i have something
18:58:41 <nirik> Just one quick thing I wanted to toss into the wind... I can wait until after jwb
18:59:02 <jwb> so my apologies for my earlier ranting during the Change review.  however.
18:59:49 <abadger1999> jwb: So how about asking the Board to approve sgallagh_afk's proposal and adding "and will update the wording of the Freedom Foundation to make that clear".
19:00:02 <jwb> the purpose of the Change process is to get things reviewed and iterated as quickly as possible.  FESCo not commenting until the meeting is hindering the goal behind it, and is extremely frustrating to people proposing Changes.  it's an unnecessarily delay
19:00:13 <jwb> please work on reviewing and asking questions well before the meeting
19:00:22 <mitr> jwb: I know I should have, and I can think of no good reason I haven't.  All I can is apologize.
19:00:36 <nirik> jwb: +1 (we try, and sometimes I fail... but we should all try harder)
19:00:46 <pjones> yeah, what they said.
19:00:51 <abadger1999> Really I jsut wanted to add the need for making that decision explicit in the foundation to what sgallagh wrote.
19:00:52 <jwb> abadger1999, the latter part seems pointless.  we don't mention non-free firmware exceptions in the Foundation text
19:00:54 <notting> jwb: yup, apologies. i had assumed that it was standard gnome release X boilerplate.
19:01:46 <jwb> ok, that's all i had for open floor.  thanks for listening
19:01:58 <notting> #info please make sure to review and comment on change proposals before they reach FESCo
19:02:04 <notting> nirik: you're next for open floor?
19:02:18 <abadger1999> jwb: people interpreting the foundation in different and incompatible ways is the point.  If you can make that clear without mentioning the specific example of proprietary download-on-demand clients, that's fine with me.
19:02:32 <nirik> My query: Does anyone have objections to disallowing delete on bodhi updates? (ie, change delete into 'unpush'). Deleting updates often causes releng problems and removes history... I can't think of a valid use case off hand for it.
19:03:02 <notting> nirik: maybe 'only before it's actually been pushed anywhere', if that's doable
19:03:03 <jwb> nirik, that's one way to solve the problems i guess
19:03:16 <jwb> the other would be to implement push locking
19:03:20 <jwb> and fix bodhi
19:03:48 <nirik> well, there's a number of problems... yeah, but I think disallowing delete will work around a few of them, and I can't see much reason to have it.
19:03:53 <mitr> nirik: I have only a purely theoretical concern about the ability to actually delete copyright- or patent-infringing software, but we can live without having that functionality built-in the application, we can always just delete data from the underlying systems
19:04:14 <t8m> nirik, no objection, there might be legal reasons why we would need to delete something but this would have to be probably handled manually anyway
19:04:30 <nirik> yeah, we can still delete packages, I am just talking about UPDATES.
19:04:51 <abadger1999> nirik: no objections here.
19:05:02 <notting> nirik: seems reasonable
19:05:08 <nirik> you can unpush an update and remake a new one with whatever you want in it.
19:05:29 <nirik> but the unpushed one still exists, so you can see what was done
19:05:53 <pjones> I have no objection.
19:06:23 <nirik> thanks. thats all I had
19:06:25 <notting> #info releng plans to disallow deletion of bodhi updates (packages in updates can still be removed)
19:07:04 <notting> anything else? if not, will close meeting in two minutes
19:09:27 <notting> thanks all.
19:09:29 <notting> #endmeeting