17:00:10 <mattdm> #startmeeting Council (2015-04-27)
17:00:10 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon Apr 27 17:00:10 2015 UTC.  The chair is mattdm. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:00:10 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
17:00:14 <mattdm> #chair mattdm jreznik jwb cwickert rdieter langdon sgallagh decause
17:00:14 <zodbot> Current chairs: cwickert decause jreznik jwb langdon mattdm rdieter sgallagh
17:00:17 <mattdm> #topic introductions, welcome
17:00:21 <mattdm> hello!
17:00:26 <sgallagh> .hello sgallagh
17:00:26 <jwb> i am present
17:00:30 <zodbot> sgallagh: sgallagh 'Stephen Gallagher' <sgallagh@redhat.com>
17:00:39 <jwb> however, i will be afk for 30 seconds.  brb
17:00:54 <mattdm> heh.
17:01:09 <mattdm> jreznik mentioned being a few minutes late
17:01:32 <jwb> ok, back
17:01:33 <decause> .fasinfo decuase
17:01:34 <zodbot> decause: User "decuase" doesn't exist
17:01:37 <decause> .fasinfo decause
17:01:38 <zodbot> decause: User: decause, Name: None, email: decause@redhat.com, Creation: 2008-10-01, IRC Nick: None, Timezone: None, Locale: None, GPG key ID: None, Status: active
17:01:41 <zodbot> decause: Approved Groups: fi-apprentice gitcivx cla_done freemedia cla_fedora gitmoksha @gitopenvideochat gitfortune_hunter @gitgamesforscience @gitfossrit ambassadors cla_fpca
17:01:42 <rdieter> .hello rdieter
17:01:45 <decause> lol
17:01:46 <zodbot> rdieter: rdieter 'Rex Dieter' <rdieter@math.unl.edu>
17:02:42 <mattdm> cool. missing cwickert and langdon still...
17:02:45 * gholms takes a seat in the bleachers
17:03:55 * roshi joins gholms
17:04:26 <mattdm> imma go ahead and get started. others can join in when they show up :)
17:04:31 <mattdm> #topic agenda
17:04:35 <decause> http://etherpad.osuosl.org/fedora-council-042715
17:04:40 <mattdm> 1. Objective proposals
17:04:41 <decause> ehterpad with agenda is here
17:04:41 <mattdm> - overview of current candidates
17:04:43 <mattdm> - what we need council-level to move on them
17:04:45 <mattdm> 2. Status of FOSCo proposal
17:04:47 <mattdm> 3. Metrics and stuff
17:04:49 <mattdm> whoooo decause
17:04:57 <decause> :)
17:05:28 <mattdm> let's make sure stuff gets marked as #info here too so that people can find it all in one place int he future if need be though
17:05:37 <mattdm> #topic objective proposals
17:05:48 <mattdm> Okay, so, we've got several of these brewing, I think
17:06:07 <mattdm> sgallagh, decause -- any more on the university one?
17:06:13 <decause> mattdm: I've got some updates
17:06:53 <mattdm> i see some notes in the etherpad. I guess we can start by pasting that in here? :)
17:06:55 <decause> OSAS unversity relations team has created a doc that includes existing involvment with universities
17:07:06 <decause> mattdm: yes
17:07:20 <langdon> .hello langdon
17:07:21 <zodbot> langdon: langdon 'Langdon White' <langdon@fishjump.com>
17:07:41 <decause> Working with EDU Outreach team in OSAS, we now have generated an internal list that matches up Universities with existing sales/recruiting relationships, as well as a list of "light house" universities that would be ideal for trend-setting for FOSS campus involvement.
17:07:43 <jwb> there is... a lot in the etherpad
17:08:41 <mattdm> decause, is that list strategic/confidential to osas or is it something we can use in Fedora?
17:09:13 <decause> mattdm: /me is figuring out where those boundaries are, but I will def redact whatever is sensitive for us to use as best as we can
17:09:44 <decause> #action decause get light-house list posted to council-discuss
17:10:11 <mattdm> oh, also, should probably include this for reference
17:10:14 <mattdm> #link https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/22
17:10:38 <decause> mattdm++
17:11:22 <mattdm> so, actually, without going too much more into the details, what do other council members think of this as a Fedora Objective?
17:12:06 <sgallagh> /me is obviously broadly in favor.
17:12:19 <sgallagh> I'm glad to see that decause has got the gears turning here.
17:12:20 <decause> +N (decause is horribly biased)
17:12:24 * rdieter likes a lot.  probably biased though being at .edu institution myself
17:12:33 <mattdm> Or, to put it another way: is anyone _opposed_ to using one of our current Objective slots for this?
17:12:33 * jreznik is here
17:12:46 <sgallagh> mattdm: Do we have other candidate Objectives?
17:12:52 <jwb> not opposed.  hook 'em while they're young, etc
17:13:00 <decause> #agree
17:13:06 <sgallagh> We've previously stated that we planned to keep the high-level Objectives limited.
17:13:20 <mattdm> sgallagh: langdon is working on one. but we're not exactly bursting at the seams with them right now
17:13:58 <sgallagh> mattdm: Yeah, from what I know about that one, it might actually supplant my existing Three-Product one anyway.
17:14:11 <sgallagh> Which is sailing along mostly on its own at this point.
17:14:34 <mattdm> sgallagh: making sure that sails along was basically the point :)
17:14:42 <sgallagh> (I'd actually planned to suggest that it might not need to occupy a full Objective slot after F22 release)
17:15:00 <langdon> +1 on edu objective, however, I still want "named owners" on objectives... so I would also move that we sucker decause in to be "named" with regular updates to council..
17:15:02 <sgallagh> Maybe just keep someone assigned to make sure it doesn't fall off the rails and turn our focus elsewhere.
17:15:10 <decause> langdon: :)
17:15:12 <jwb> sgallagh, maybe you could give us an update on it before we go and decide that :)
17:15:16 <rdieter> sgallagh: makes sense, sounds largely feature complete by f22
17:15:36 <decause> Hackademics++
17:15:37 <sgallagh> jwb: Reasonable. I can throw something together for the next meeting
17:16:05 <mattdm> #action sgallagh to put together update on Fedora Editions, Phase 2 objective for next meeting
17:16:32 <mattdm> And, since there seems to be broad support for University Involvement objective...
17:16:48 <decause> #action decause assign #22 to decause
17:16:52 * langdon network particularly flaky today so, if I lag.. you will know why
17:16:54 <mattdm> #agreed University Involvement objective accepted as one of our current high-level objectives
17:17:21 <mattdm> decause, I take it you're volunteering (or accept having been volunteered) as the Objective Lead for that slot?
17:17:32 <decause> mattdm: yes
17:17:46 <mattdm> anyone opposed to that?
17:17:50 <jwb> no
17:17:52 <mattdm> note that you don't get double votes. :)
17:17:56 <langdon> nope
17:17:57 <decause> :P
17:17:58 <rdieter> no, sounds lovely
17:18:24 <mattdm> #agreed Remy DeCausemaker to be Objective Lead for University Involvement
17:18:42 <mattdm> #action mattdm to update objectives wiki
17:18:59 <mattdm> okay, so, langdon, do you want to talk about what you're working on?
17:19:14 * jreznik is ofcourse yes for decause leading (I don't want to say no :D)
17:19:16 <langdon> sure.. i have a draft.. let me put it up...
17:20:31 <langdon> sorry c/p is looking terrible.. one sec
17:21:10 <langdon> ok, incomplete draft (should have specified :) ) http://piratepad.net/FedoraNextWhatsNext
17:21:27 <mattdm> #link http://piratepad.net/FedoraNextWhatsNext
17:21:40 <mattdm> (I don't think zodbot links urls not at the start of a line, does it?)
17:22:19 * mattdm reads
17:22:19 <sgallagh> mattdm: I think it got smarter in the recent past, but nothing wrong with doubling-up
17:23:20 <mattdm> langdon: so, quick summary here is "let's make some focus groups"?
17:23:35 <langdon> so.. basically.. proposing that we start some "focus groups" to really try to understand the requirements of the various constituencies in fedora for delivering content..
17:23:56 <mattdm> #info langdon is proposing that we start some "focus groups" to really try to understand the requirements of the various constituencies in fedora for delivering content
17:23:58 * langdon mutters "cause someone took working-group"
17:24:05 <mattdm> langdon lol
17:24:08 <decause> :P
17:24:29 <mattdm> how *do* these groups differ from the working groups?
17:24:43 <mattdm> are we setting up Yet More Fedora Organizational Chaos?
17:24:56 <mattdm>17:25:04 <sgallagh> mattdm: I was reading this as more survey groups of *users*
17:25:21 <langdon> mattdm, i was struggling with that a bit myself at first.. 1) short lived (~6 months) 2) actually sub-strata of the "real" WGs
17:25:40 <jwb> i'd suggest we just ask the chairs of the existing WGs to actually get together and meet
17:25:44 <langdon> really just to get a list together ... that we can all agree on
17:25:45 <rdieter> bunch-of-peoples-working-toward-a-common-goal group
17:26:08 <jwb> because the entire idea behind the existing WGs was to work together from the start.  and they kind of didn't do that
17:26:38 <mattdm> jwb: yeah -- idea was for FESCo meeting to be the touchpoint but that didn't work
17:27:05 <mattdm> possibly this goes into sgallagh's current objective :)
17:27:05 <rdieter> that's a good place to seed membership
17:27:23 <sgallagh> mattdm: Yeah, I suppose it does at that
17:27:57 <mattdm> sgallagh: maybe a meeting of wg representatives for f23 planning is a good idea?
17:27:59 <sgallagh> jwb: Well, they worked together up to a point. They agreed on their particular fiefdoms and then tried to avoid breaking each other
17:28:07 <sgallagh> Which was a major improvement in and of itself
17:28:09 <mattdm> actually, unquestionmark that. I think it *is* a good idea.
17:28:28 <langdon> well.. i think what i was really trying to get at was "we need a list of requirements" .. and I think envs&stacks is too broad to get a unified one easily...
17:28:33 <jreznik> I'd not say WGs do not work together, I'd say last few months everyone works pretty well together
17:28:35 <sgallagh> mattdm: I'm wondering if we might want to put "update PRDs" as a major planning item for F23
17:28:41 <sgallagh> I know the Cloud one is rotting a bit
17:28:43 <mattdm> sgallagh yes, definitely.
17:28:44 <jwb> sgallagh, that's not working together to improve fedora overall.
17:28:47 <jreznik> sgallagh: yep
17:29:28 <sgallagh> jwb: Yeah, I agree. But not actively interfering with each other was a big step in the right direction.
17:29:44 <langdon> do the working groups properly represent all the "factions" (best word i could think of, ignore neg connotation)
17:29:46 <langdon> ?
17:29:50 <jreznik> jwb: or maybe we improve fedora overall if groups do what they think is the best for them... that was a goal of groups
17:30:11 <sgallagh> langdon: Do you mean factions as represented by your focus groups?
17:30:17 <mattdm> langdon -- so, on the _user_ group question. The WG members are by definition contributors. Should your proposed groups consist of _actual representative users_ instead?
17:30:23 <sgallagh> If so, I'd say "no"
17:30:33 <rdieter> langdon: a good start at some of the biggest factions
17:31:25 <langdon> so.. do the WGs represent all the factions? are contributors to WGs sufficient "user" representation?
17:32:05 * langdon said "user" meaning both contribs and users assuming that contribs are users as well but not specifically "just users"
17:32:29 <mattdm> k
17:32:37 <sgallagh> langdon: I'd like to say that the ideal case is for that user representation to be engaging with the WGs
17:33:00 <sgallagh> In reality, we're not there yet. I think that's something that we need to be working on with more contributor outreach
17:33:52 <jreznik> langdon: WGs + SIGs are good representatives of our user base
17:34:31 <langdon> sgallagh, perhaps we need some more documentation on the expectations of the WGs... like "a WG will have a user targeted meeting once a month which will be completely open floor" or "user survey at least once every 3 months" or what not?
17:35:13 * decause is interested with helping on user surveys
17:35:20 <sgallagh> langdon: Maybe we should arrange a monthly Reddit mini-AMA for our users?
17:35:31 <sgallagh> (or something like it hosted on free software, etc.)
17:35:37 <langdon> sgallagh, not sure if you are kidding, but that would be awesome
17:35:47 <sgallagh> I wasn't kidding.
17:36:14 <mattdm> sgallagh: how do you see Fedora Server users fitting into the Fedora user groups in the draft?
17:36:28 <mattdm> quote:
17:36:30 <mattdm> A proposed list of focus groups are, Fedora users who:
17:36:32 <mattdm> Wish to primarily run Fedora approved applications for the full lifecycle of a given release (or longer)
17:36:34 <mattdm> Develop applications based on frameworks provided by Fedora but will ultimately be deployed to a server (i.e. web apps)
17:36:36 <mattdm> Develop applications based on frameworks provided by Fedora which will be deployed on desktops (e.g. gnome-boxes)
17:36:38 <mattdm> Develop components of Fedora itself or the frameworks Fedora provides (e.g. kernel, apache, python)
17:36:40 <sgallagh> mattdm: Line 18 and 21
17:36:40 <mattdm> endquote
17:36:55 <mattdm> (eg the first and last of those)
17:36:58 <sgallagh> Yes
17:37:03 <sgallagh> More the first than the last
17:37:20 <mattdm> (pedantic to myself ie not eg)
17:38:14 <mattdm> What about "wish to run applications other than Fedora-approved ones"?
17:38:22 <langdon> mattdm, disagree... first should be i.e because it is "in other words" ... e.g. is examples :)
17:38:53 <mattdm> Is that a missing group, or an intentional omission?
17:39:13 <langdon> mattdm, re: wish: which one are you "editing" or do you think that is missing?
17:39:29 <langdon> ohh ic
17:39:47 <mattdm> well, there's "wish to run fedora approved applications". Is there a "wish to run third-party applications"?
17:39:57 <langdon> i think bullets 2&3 are the output = what you mean.. but i didn't capture the "users" of those apps
17:40:22 <langdon> by accident.. or at least "not intentionally"
17:40:35 <mattdm> langdon: *nod* got it.
17:40:37 <jwb> i'm lost
17:40:42 <mattdm> okay not trying to get too much in the weeds on this. :)
17:41:09 <sgallagh> jwb: It reads like this list is only interested in the development and deployment of Fedora-blessed applications
17:41:18 <mattdm> It seems like a fundamental decision is whether to form all new groups here or to ask the wgs to provide the feedback.
17:41:37 <sgallagh> Where mattdm was asking for clarification on where third-party applications belong.
17:41:45 <sgallagh> (Am I translating that properly?)
17:41:52 <langdon> jwb, so.. i captured "people who make 3rd party" and "people who make fedora approved" but not people who want to *use* "3rd party" (maybe)
17:42:06 <sgallagh> Guess not...
17:42:20 <jwb> mattdm, why wouldn't you ask the existing groups to provide feedback?  not doing so seems really silly, given that thsoe groups are the groups actually _producing_ fedora.
17:42:31 <mattdm> sgallagh I think that was proper
17:42:42 <sgallagh> ok
17:42:46 <jreznik> jwb: +1
17:42:47 <jwb> it seems we're circling around an elephant
17:42:58 <langdon> line 19?
17:43:09 <jwb> which is: does Fedora wish to condone, and to a degree, support 3rd party applications and development.
17:43:11 <mattdm> jwb: I think I agree but this proposal as exists seems to be about making new groups
17:44:02 <mattdm> historical note: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ISV_Special_Interest_Group
17:44:16 <mattdm> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_for_ISVs
17:44:25 <langdon> mattdm, jwb i don't think the two things are exclusive... we can ask the WGs to develop requirements for the fedora.next (in whatever method they deem appropriate but recommend a focus group) that cover the users of types lines 18-22
17:44:25 <decause> however these focus groups pan out, it would be great to keep a general list of Fedora users/contributors who like to provide feedback/input on questions and surveys, and would be willing to participate in future discussions.
17:46:17 <decause> /win 46
17:46:42 <langdon> or.. perhaps to bring all these things together... should we change the WG guidelines to add some "things you must do" 1) have user feedback on X basis 2) provide feedback on requirmeents for packaging on Y basis 3) provide lists of responsive contribs/users on Z basis .. or some such
17:46:49 <jwb> mattdm, so i don't think those historical artifacts are irrelevant, but comparing old-school ISV approaches to what is happening today seems... wrong
17:47:53 <jreznik> I'm still not sure how we want to get feedback from users... or if we even can get that feedback (except ditch systemd from Fedora)
17:48:03 <jwb> jreznik, i'm skeptical as well
17:48:23 <jreznik> or better that would be meaningful
17:48:34 <jwb> all our past attempts have literally been rants or negative things from a relatively small set of people, and then we wave that away with "happy silent majority"
17:48:48 <mattdm> jwb I agree (re historical ISV stance). I think that part of the goal of this objective is to articulate clearly _how_ what is happening today is different
17:48:54 <jreznik> jwb: exactly
17:48:57 <jwb> mattdm, fair!
17:50:00 <decause> Just a quick timecheck: we're at 10 mins remaining in the meeting FYI
17:50:00 <jreznik> mattdm: but that's different thing than users feedback and I can agree with this part
17:50:10 <langdon> ok.. so .. not to beat a dead horse, but I think we all want to see faster/more progress on what the next step of fedora.next looks like.. what should we do?
17:50:16 <mattdm> The historical answer to your elephant is: We support third-party development by encouraging it to stop being third party.
17:50:41 * mattdm looks at clock
17:50:55 <sgallagh> Perhaps we can tie this into the University Engagement project? As part of our install-fests and follow-up work, try to get surveys from a reasonable variety of end-users?
17:51:18 <mattdm> okay, so, I think immediately: do we think this info-gathering idea is _in general_ a constructive move in the right direction?
17:51:40 * decause has pipe dreams of using fedmsg to get real-time feedback on particular questions
17:51:41 <sgallagh> mattdm: Getting information: Good. Process of getting information: indeterminate
17:51:45 <jwb> mattdm, which is at odds with a lot of today's trends.
17:51:54 <sgallagh> decause: Maybe we can leverage twitter instead?
17:52:13 <sgallagh> jwb: Sorry, can you clarify "today's trends"?
17:52:16 <mattdm> we're definitely not going to solve the info problem in the next 8 minutes :)
17:52:21 <decause> :)
17:52:36 <sgallagh> Man, if only that super-spy hadn't destroyed my telepathy lab...
17:52:40 <jwb> sgallagh, read mattdm's presentations on how the distro isn't cool anymore.  encouraging 3rd party to no longer be 3rd party isn't working.
17:52:52 <langdon> jwb, +1
17:53:05 * decause is interested in info gathering and metrics, and would be happy to dive deeper into the how off-meeting
17:53:06 <sgallagh> jwb: OK, I think I read that as responding to something else mattdm said and got confused.
17:53:09 <mattdm> I'm basically asking: while this draft isn't done, is it going in the right direction, or should langdon not waste his time and try something else?
17:53:14 <langdon> general q, does marketing monitor "the social medias" for impressions?
17:53:16 <jwb> sgallagh, sorry, i was late on that reply
17:53:28 <mattdm> langdon: to some degree.
17:53:30 <decause> langdon: ish
17:53:41 * decause is new here, so trying to figure that out too
17:54:01 <sgallagh> langdon: If they do, they aren't sharing their findings well.
17:54:05 * mattdm pings decause about that bitergia thing
17:54:12 <sgallagh> Which is something concrete we could improve upon
17:54:20 <jreznik> interesting post from media are forwarded to marketing list
17:54:30 <langdon> mattdm, i have the impression that the consensus is that the WGs should be gathering this information.. so, (to all) should I rewrite it in those terms?
17:54:37 <sgallagh> jreznik: Rarely for Fedora and only internal to Red Hat.
17:54:47 <mattdm> langdon I think so.
17:54:51 <sgallagh> jreznik: For Fedora, it's usually only Alpha/Beta/Final release feedback
17:55:02 <mattdm> Can everyone else answer the "is langdon wasting his time" question? :)
17:55:18 * langdon notes: in this particular case :)
17:55:18 <jreznik> sgallagh: yep it is and often after first paragraph you know, they even didn't boot it
17:55:25 <sgallagh> langdon: I think there's rough edges that should be smoothed, but you're on the right track.
17:55:26 <mattdm> lol
17:55:39 <decause> mattdm: I'm for focus-groups, pariticularly if they can be pinged again for non-WG related questions later
17:55:45 <jreznik> so it's questionable how useful source it is - there are some good but many reviews are just trash :)
17:55:54 <mattdm> okay cool. let's move on to a couple of other things then real quick?
17:56:18 <decause> I mean, not all will, but those who ar ewilling, we should start keeping track of who wants to contribute opions that are outside of "burn systemd with fire"
17:57:06 <mattdm> jwb, we talked a little bit about making an rpm-ostree-based demo system for base+cloud/server/workstation. do you think that in itself might be an objective?
17:57:35 * randomuser thinks focus groups would be a great thing for marketing to drive
17:57:50 * rdieter has hard-stop, another meeting at 1
17:57:56 * rdieter waves bye
17:58:02 <mattdm> rdieter bye!
17:58:24 <sgallagh> mattdm: That seems more like a smaller project feeding into a bigger objective to me.
17:58:31 <jwb> mattdm, maybe.... i'd like to follow up on that some more before we dive in official.
17:58:46 <mattdm> sgallagh, jwb okay :)
17:58:51 <sgallagh> (Related: I'd like to see about having an OSTree server role to allow users to manage and distribute their own A/B setups).
17:59:00 <jwb> sgallagh, the idea wasn't "do this for fun."  it was "change the entire way we deliver fedora"
17:59:06 <mattdm> jwb++
17:59:06 <zodbot> mattdm: You have already given 1 karma to jwboyer
17:59:11 <mattdm> lol zodbot
17:59:15 <jwb> sgallagh, which... is pretty big.
17:59:36 <sgallagh> jwb: OK, I guess I didn't get that from the summary line.
17:59:43 <jwb> yeah, hence more follow up :)
17:59:51 <mattdm> decause you have a bunch of other stuff in the etherpad which I think is partly related to the fosco proposal, yeah?
18:00:27 <decause> I do
18:00:40 <mattdm> can you bring that to the mailing list?
18:00:51 <decause> mattdm: council-discuss?
18:01:03 <mattdm> decause: yeah, at least in high level
18:01:07 <decause> kk
18:01:09 <mattdm> plus wherever else.
18:01:26 <decause> #action decause post FOSCO proposal to council-discuss
18:01:38 <mattdm> and I guess "metrics and stuff" kind of collided with our discussion about objectives (in a not-bad way)
18:01:51 <mattdm> #topic quick open floor
18:01:57 <decause> I know we're late, but we built a couple of cool things since the last council meeting :)
18:02:09 <mattdm> decause quick, share. :)
18:02:15 <mattdm> Anyone else have anything urgent?
18:02:26 <decause> http://decause.github.io/cardsite
18:02:43 <decause> this is a prototype visualization, inspired by http://emojitracker.com
18:02:59 <decause> it is a real-time separated grid of fedmsg traffic
18:03:14 <sgallagh> General reminder: Flock CFP closes this week.
18:03:19 <decause> it is a bit crude, but proves the websockets work, and querying datagrepper for assets works
18:03:54 <decause> there is more to come from this, but for now, not a bad PoC
18:04:05 <mattdm> #info General reminder: Flock CFP closes this week.
18:04:29 <decause> #info https://github.com/decause/fedora-stats-tools is trying to gather "long-tail" metrics on fedmsg activity
18:04:50 <decause> blogpost (high-level-ish) here: http://decausemaker.org/posts/grokkingfedmsg.html
18:05:53 <decause> #info https://github.com/decause/word_cloud - library for creating dataviz based on text corpus
18:06:14 <decause> https://github.com/decause/word_cloud/blob/master/examples/pycon.png
18:06:32 <decause> ^^^ good example of result of putting word-cloud into an image mask
18:06:47 <decause> got stack running locally, can use to build more dataviz/metrics in Fedora-Specific contexts
18:07:10 <decause> one of the FUDCon shirts had a word-cloud in the shape of the fedora logo on the back a few years ago for example
18:08:15 <mattdm> decause: want to start running that automatically on, say, all the mailing lists every month? (possibly with some automated messages filtered out)
18:08:23 <decause> mattdm: yes def :)
18:08:39 <mattdm> anyway we are about 10 minutes over. time to end meeting. thanks everyone!
18:08:42 <mattdm> #endmeeting