18:01:57 <langdon> #startmeeting fedora_council
18:01:57 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon Jun  6 18:01:57 2016 UTC.  The chair is langdon. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
18:01:57 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
18:01:57 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fedora_council'
18:02:18 * langdon knows the meeting logs won't work right if i don't get "-" vs "_" right
18:02:34 <langdon> #topic roll call
18:02:55 <jkurik> .hello jkurik
18:02:58 <zodbot> jkurik: jkurik 'Jan Kurik' <jkurik@redhat.com>
18:03:19 <langdon> #chairs langdon jkurik cwickert1 jwb
18:03:40 <langdon> ^^ i think that is everybody attached..
18:03:45 <jwb> should be
18:03:45 <langdon> please correct if not
18:03:48 <langdon> .hello langdon
18:03:49 <zodbot> langdon: langdon 'Langdon White' <langdon@fishjump.com>
18:04:10 * langdon gets a bit of water
18:04:37 <langdon> ok.. moving on
18:04:42 <langdon> #topic open floor
18:04:54 <langdon> ok.. we don't have many council members here today.. for various..
18:05:13 <langdon> but.. jwb, jkurik and I are here if anyone has any open floor type questions/thoughts
18:05:43 <langdon> cwickert1, are you here in actual? or just spirit? (ether?)
18:05:56 <langdon> collection-of-tubes?
18:06:15 <jkurik> if there is not anything else, I might have a question
18:06:23 <langdon> #info not really a quorum today so just taking open floor
18:06:30 <langdon> jkurik, i would say "shoot"
18:06:51 <jkurik> I was thinking of some formal way how to synchronize fedora-atomic and general Fedora releases
18:07:38 <jkurik> is it a topic for Council, or FESCo ?
18:07:50 <langdon> jkurik, what sync problem are you having?
18:07:51 <jwb> probably fesco, but i'm curious as to what you mean
18:07:54 <langdon> context?
18:07:58 <jwb> right
18:08:01 <langdon> jwb, +1
18:08:51 <jkurik> there were some complains when general Fedora slipped from fedora-atomic people about not having the current content in fedora-atomic release then
18:09:37 <jkurik> I do not have any exact idea at the moment in my head, but there should be probably something formaly statet how this should work
18:09:56 <langdon> fedora-atomic is now == fedora cloud?
18:09:58 <jkurik> and I need someone to discuss this with
18:10:11 <jkurik> langdon: more-less yes
18:10:42 <langdon> i guess from a council perspective, i think we believe that editions can have their own schedules.. but we hadn't established how to formalize that
18:10:51 <langdon> like i think we have stated that in the past
18:11:04 <langdon> but i could be looney and reflecting my own opinion ;)
18:11:10 <jwb> we have
18:11:27 <jwb> actual implementation of different release schedules is left to fesco and rel-eng
18:11:49 <jwb> outside of atomic (which is now what Cloud is focusing on), nothing has actually been done towards that
18:11:52 <langdon> any which way, i think they (the edition) should be making a "formal request" to change their schedule.. and it should come to council with us saying "ok.. all fedora sub teams need to sign off" or something
18:12:18 <langdon> jwb, but it should be like a "change" or something right?
18:12:35 <langdon> to make sure all the peeps can weigh in? and get visibility?
18:12:44 <jwb> langdon: i suppose so?
18:12:51 <jwb> langdon: the cloud images aren't going away though
18:12:57 <jwb> they continue to be produced
18:13:18 <jwb> it's simply that the WG is focusing efforts around atomic going forward.  marketing, positioning, etc
18:13:21 <langdon> jwb, but is this a lifecycle question? or a "number of versions" question?
18:13:26 <jwb> at least as best i understand it
18:13:43 <langdon> number of versions was a bad way to state it
18:14:03 <langdon> like ... number of drops coming out.. or.. perhaps i don't entirely understand jkurik's original q
18:14:12 <jwb> langdon: as i understand it, there will be a 2 week release of fedora cloud-atomic using the content of the larger Fedora release
18:14:32 <langdon> jwb, do those instantly EOL the prior two-week-release?
18:14:43 <jwb> langdon: so it's more like... fedora cloud-atomic gets updates every 2 weeks.  the rest of the editions get them daily or whatever
18:15:06 <jwb> i have no idea what the support cycle is for each atomic update
18:15:21 <langdon> jwb, ahh i see.. so .. the problem is regular updates.. not the lifespan of a particular cut?
18:15:27 <jwb> maybe?
18:15:33 * langdon would be worried about the latter ;)
18:15:51 <jkurik> jwb: as I understand it, atomic just gets a snapshot of the latest Fedora updates and builds the image on top of it
18:16:07 <jwb> more or less, yes.  but they only do that every 2 weeks
18:16:16 <jkurik> so all the latest updates are includes in atomic images
18:16:23 <jkurik> righ
18:16:27 <langdon> so why is this a problem?
18:16:42 * langdon can guess but would like to understand the "formal complaint"
18:17:51 <jkurik> the problem is that if atomic and Fedora are planned to be released in the same date
18:18:23 <langdon> jkurik, ahh... but i would say "fedora does not have a release date" .. "an edition has a release date"
18:18:32 <langdon> and a lifespan/cycle
18:18:39 <jkurik> and Fedora slips, than ... ok, you got it :)
18:18:51 * jkurik is typing quite slow today
18:18:56 <langdon> jkurik, :)
18:19:30 <Southern_Gentlem> ?
18:19:49 <jkurik> ok, so I will check with Atomic people what are their expectation and I will bring this to FESCo if there is something what will need any formalization
18:20:21 <jkurik> that is what I needed to hear :)
18:20:24 <jkurik> s/hear/read/
18:20:24 <langdon> so i would think the editions might need to propose a lifecycle/release schedule.. and submit it for approval to council/fesco/others? and then update their "wg page" with their schedule
18:20:31 <Southern_Gentlem> so does the f23 atomic stop getting updates when f24 is released or will there be 2 release thats getting updates
18:21:07 <langdon> jkurik, well.. my only caveat is.. it isn't just "engineering" who cares about release dates.. marketing (for example) does too.. so .. i think the council should approve as well.. or coordinate approval
18:21:34 <jkurik> langdon: ok, I keep it on my mind
18:21:38 <langdon> Southern_Gentlem, that is *exactly* my point.. i think the edition needs to declare both release schedule *and* lifecycle
18:22:20 <Southern_Gentlem> langdon,  i thought this was part of when we went to the product that all would be on the same schedule
18:23:22 <langdon> Southern_Gentlem, struggling with terms in your last.. in my mind a "fedora edition" sets their lifecycle and release schedule.. however, they should coordinate with fedora as a whole because of the shared resources involved in doing a "release"
18:23:42 <langdon> "fedora edition" == cloud, wkstn, server
18:24:18 <Southern_Gentlem> right cloud  which i consider atomic a member of
18:25:06 <langdon> Southern_Gentlem, cloud and atomic i think are getting pretty synonymous.. which i am not in love with.. but will live with :/
18:26:18 <langdon> more thoughts?
18:26:33 <jwb> not on this particular topic
18:26:50 <langdon> jkurik, you good for now?
18:26:57 <jkurik> I am fine with the discussion, it gets me an idea how to move on - thanks
18:27:20 <langdon> jkurik, cool! i feel like i helped accomplish something today ... it was iffy so far :)
18:27:26 <jkurik> :)
18:27:28 <langdon> ok.. other topics?
18:27:34 <jwb> langdon: heh, felt the same
18:27:41 <jwb> langdon: i have a quick question for you specifically
18:28:01 <langdon> #info jkurik to follow up on formalizing release and lifecycle changes for editions
18:28:03 <jwb> for a while, you were doing modularity blog posts that were showing up on fedora magazine or whatever.  did those stop or have i missed them?
18:28:12 <langdon> jwb, i am a slacker
18:28:20 <langdon> i even have one WRITTEN and just not published
18:28:25 <jwb> ok.  i know a ton of work is going on, but it mostly seems behind the scense
18:28:26 <jwb> er
18:28:28 <jwb> scenes
18:29:06 <langdon> jwb, need to also be doing a better job of status reporting..
18:29:24 <langdon> but yeah.. the best info is coming out of the WG meetings.. which is not enough.. but something
18:29:38 <jwb> did that meeting move?
18:29:58 <langdon> yes.. now tuesdays, 15h UTC
18:30:03 <langdon> but just starting this week
18:30:29 <jwb> that's a permanent change though, correct?
18:30:38 <langdon> jwb, until it is changed again ;)
18:30:42 <jwb> heh
18:31:05 <jwb> i guess i missed the meeting last week, which is why i wondered.  it wasn't on my calendar, but i am going to blame myself
18:31:50 <langdon> jwb, you can blame me if you want... i can take it
18:32:07 <jwb> nah, that doesn't seem fair
18:32:16 <langdon> #info the modularity working group meeting has changed to be tuesdays 15h utc in fedora-meeting-3
18:32:44 <langdon> ok.. any more stuff?
18:33:32 * jkurik has nothing more for today
18:33:43 <langdon> ok.. i have 14:33 here.. ill give it to 14:36 and then call it
18:34:21 * langdon is always very excited by the fact that he changed to 24h time many years ago.. so actually prefers it :)
18:34:37 <langdon> and considering switching to utc for everything
18:35:56 <jwb> 24hr time is the best
18:36:03 <langdon> :)
18:36:06 <langdon> ok.. going once
18:36:13 <langdon> going twice
18:36:22 <langdon> three times a pony..
18:36:30 <langdon> #endmeeting