14:00:03 <mattdm> #startmeeting Council (2017-11-29) 14:00:03 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Nov 29 14:00:03 2017 UTC. The chair is mattdm. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 14:00:03 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 14:00:03 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'council_(2017-11-29)' 14:00:05 <mattdm> #meetingname council 14:00:06 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'council' 14:00:07 <mattdm> #chair mattdm jkurik jwb langdon robyduck bexelbie stefw 14:00:08 <zodbot> Current chairs: bexelbie jkurik jwb langdon mattdm robyduck stefw 14:00:21 <jwb> hi 14:00:21 <mattdm> #topic Introductions, Welcomes 14:00:25 <mattdm> Good morning everyone! 14:00:29 <mattdm> Or afternoon or whatever 14:00:34 <jkurik> .hello2 14:00:35 <zodbot> jkurik: jkurik 'Jan Kurik' <jkurik@redhat.com> 14:00:39 <mattdm> This is a special meeting to talk about Fedora Modular Server 14:00:43 <asamalik> good everything, everyone :) 14:00:48 <mattdm> and in particular 14:00:50 <mattdm> #link https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/149 14:00:57 <mattdm> #info F27 Modular Server, to ship or not to ship 14:01:09 <bexelbie> .hello bex 14:01:09 <zodbot> bexelbie: bex 'Brian (bex) Exelbierd' <bex@pobox.com> 14:01:10 <asamalik> .hello2 14:01:12 <zodbot> asamalik: asamalik 'Adam Samalik' <asamalik@redhat.com> 14:01:37 <mattdm> sgallagh, are you able to join? 14:01:43 <mattdm> also we kinda need langdon 14:01:50 <langdon> .hello2 14:01:51 <zodbot> langdon: langdon 'Langdon White' <langdon@redhat.com> 14:01:54 <mattdm> magic! 14:02:01 * langdon just didn't notice the start :) 14:02:04 <sgallagh> In another meeting 14:02:16 <mattdm> sgallagh: complete overlap? 14:02:52 <robyduck> .hello robyduck 14:02:53 <zodbot> robyduck: robyduck 'Robert Mayr' <robyduck@gmail.com> 14:02:59 <mattdm> I take that as a yes, I guess :) 14:03:16 <mattdm> #topic Agenda 14:03:21 <langdon> mattdm: sgallagh's opinions should be pretty well represented in the ticket 14:03:23 <sgallagh> mattdm: I will be here. 14:03:33 <mattdm> sgallagh: should we wait a few minutes? 14:03:43 <sgallagh> I just rescheduled the other meeting for later today. 14:03:59 <mattdm> #info This is a special meeting to consider what to do about Fedora Modular Server in light of planned architectural changes 14:04:08 <mattdm> #info see the ticket for details 14:04:13 <mattdm> I suggest: 14:04:18 <langdon> lots and lots of details :) 14:04:33 <jwb> langdon: the discussion was good! 14:04:41 <mattdm> 1. Overview of current state & summary of Server WG meeting (sgallagh, langdon) 14:04:54 <mattdm> 2. Decision making on the specific question of what to do 14:05:14 <mattdm> 3. Wider discussion on modularity as time permits 14:05:21 <mattdm> with #3 broken down further when we get there, perhaps 14:05:24 <langdon> jwb: sorta.. like the discussion is good.. but a believe a lot has been answered elsewhere.. and I would prefer to address "why modularity" as updates to the docs.. if people feel they are unclear 14:05:24 <mattdm> does this make sense? 14:05:43 <mattdm> let's put that in #3 :) 14:05:57 <jwb> langdon: agreed. doc updates with a reminder/refresher is probably needed 14:06:07 <langdon> i think #2 has multiple choices ... but maybe you meant that? 14:06:20 <langdon> do we have adamw? or is it too early? 14:06:35 <langdon> s/choices/aspects 14:06:37 <sgallagh> langdon: It's 6am his time, so probably too early 14:06:49 <mattdm> yeah, #2 will include all of the choosing 14:06:57 <mattdm> let's jump into #1 though :) 14:07:04 <mattdm> #topic Overview of current state & summary of Server WG meeting 14:07:22 * mattdm hands over the floor, waits 14:07:27 <langdon> to? 14:07:38 <mattdm> you or steve :) 14:07:45 <langdon> so.. i would point to https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/149#comment-481875 14:07:54 <langdon> for the server sig opinion 14:08:27 <langdon> i think my opinion is that we ship "something" to gather feedback.. but.. i can see that not being the "server edition" 14:08:36 <langdon> which is really more of a #2 question 14:09:07 <sgallagh> If needed, I can summarize the reasoning why Server SIG came to those decisions 14:09:18 <mattdm> sgallagh: yeah that'd be helpful real quick 14:09:25 <mattdm> also I'm going to #info the stuff from the ticket 14:09:28 <mattdm> #info Server SIG does not want to ship a formal GA of Fedora 27 Modular Server 14:09:36 <mattdm> #info Since the GA RC compose passed the Server tests, Server WG would like to just release the Server Edition content from that compose as the official Fedora 27 Server Edition 14:09:42 <sgallagh> Our biggest concerns are: 14:09:44 <mattdm> #info Recommendation: The Server WG recommendation is not to bother with a Boltron 2 release, but this is ultimately up to the Council and the Modularity WG to decide. 14:10:51 <sgallagh> 1) Negative public response to the limited content set. We hadn't realized previously just how few modules we'd end up having. The lack of access to the complete Fedora Package Collection is a pain point. 14:12:20 <sgallagh> 2) The technical complexity of managing the modules is excessive and is highly unlikely to be supplemented by community packagers. 14:12:49 <sgallagh> Thus remaining a draw on the resources of the modularity members that could otherwise be used towards getting to the F28/"hybrid compose" approach. 14:12:54 <mattdm> yeah those are pretty big 14:13:20 <mattdm> So, as I understand it, there's a Modularity.revised plan which will address _both_ of these? 14:13:32 <langdon> to add to 2) particularly in terms of maintainence 14:14:10 <sgallagh> It will address 1) by having access to the complete package collection. It will mitigate 2) by eliminating many of the interdependencies that have plagued the modules thus fa. 14:14:12 <sgallagh> *far 14:14:17 <langdon> basically from the outset.. we have wanted to have an "everything else" module that would solve 1) .. and maybe 2) .. but the overhead of doing it as a "real" module turned out to be very high 14:14:34 <sgallagh> s/very high/insurmountable/ 14:14:56 <sgallagh> There has simply never been a moment where all of Fedroa built successfully at the same time. 14:15:00 <langdon> our proposal is to "cheat" a bit and use traditional rpms as a "pseudo module" and allow the "everything repo" to act as an "everything module" ... for anything not modularized yet 14:15:04 <mattdm> Would it be fair to say "we thought it would be hard, but it turned out to be impossible when we actually got to it" 14:15:33 <mattdm> How much work is this change? Like, in terms of human-hours? 14:15:36 <langdon> yeah.. one of those .. on paper it seemed reasonable.. the intricacies of all the rpms and their packaging made it a non-starter 14:16:03 <langdon> well.. the hybrid compose is a bunch of effort ... but the modular part is actually lower once the hybrid works 14:16:17 <langdon> pungi doesn't really like the idea of mixing traditional rpms and modules 14:16:20 <sgallagh> mattdm: I don't like the word "impossible", but as in this case we're likely talking about timeframes referencing the average lifespan of *planets*, I'll settle for it :) 14:16:26 <mattdm> ha 14:16:36 <langdon> sgallagh: unpossible then?!? 14:16:58 <langdon> i don't want to speak for rcm.. but i have heard numbers like 1 man month for hyrid compsoe 14:17:02 <langdon> *compose even 14:17:21 <mattdm> I'm going to put a pin in "a bunch of effort" for later in the meeting 14:17:29 <sgallagh> Yeah, we're definitely talking timescales for hybrid compose that are better aligned with the 28 schedule. 14:17:33 <mattdm> For now, does everyone on the council understand the state of things and the server WG recommendations? 14:18:19 <robyduck> yes 14:18:21 <jkurik> mattdm: I believe I do 14:18:43 <robyduck> may I add a thought? 14:18:47 <mattdm> robyduck: please do! 14:18:56 <robyduck> We have a Modular Server Beta release, so we cannot just ship something. If we ship Modular Server, it needs to be final. If not, and the Server WG wants to ship what we have *now* to get feedback, let's call it a Beta-2 stadium. This way we keep a GA release (trad Server F26) and a testing release. 14:19:08 <jwb> yes 14:19:27 <jwb> er 14:19:31 <robyduck> would that be far away from what the Server WG wants? 14:19:37 <bexelbie> yes, but ... I want the docs updated to better 14:19:41 <jwb> my yes was to the "does the council understand" question 14:19:41 <langdon> robyduck: modularity-wg wants the feedback more than server sig ;) 14:19:43 <bexelbie> help others understand why we are doing this 14:19:50 <sgallagh> robyduck: Yes, we're talkinga bout abandoning the Modular Server GA for 27 14:19:51 <bexelbie> we have to get that story clearer 14:20:08 <bexelbie> especially because of the statement that the goals haven't changed but the architecture does sound very different in construction 14:20:13 <bexelbie> even if the end state is the same 14:20:22 <mattdm> robyduck: Yeah. :) They're asking to not ship the Modular Server GA at all, and release the traditional Server F27 bits on getfedora (they're already on the mirrors anyway) 14:20:39 <langdon> s/asking/planning 14:20:53 <sgallagh> robyduck: Server SIG and Modularity WG are not in complete agreement. 14:21:08 <langdon> well.. neither is modularity-wg :) 14:21:09 <robyduck> sure, but should we keep the Mdular Beta state? 14:21:18 <sgallagh> Server SIG doesn't want to ship the Modular Server as it stands today because it is underpowered and we're going to redesign it for F28. 14:21:24 <robyduck> I guess that would help to get more feedback 14:21:31 <sgallagh> It seems wasteful to burn goodwill on testing a dead pathway. 14:21:43 <langdon> robyduck: the concern is that keeping that (f27 m beta) useful would be a lot of work that could be spent on f28 M 14:21:53 <mattdm> Yeah, the problem is: if the feedback is on something we know we aren't going to do, it's not so useful 14:21:59 <sgallagh> robyduck: ^^ what langdon said 14:22:12 <robyduck> langdon: ok got it, the throw this away ;) 14:22:17 <langdon> if we are moving to #2 .. i like the idea that we discussed of "boltron-2" == "f28 very very very early alpha" 14:22:21 <sgallagh> Now, to be fair, feedback on the user experience of dealing with modules *is* useful. That experience shouldn't change. 14:22:27 <mattdm> hmmm, I think maybe we are getting into the decision making part of the meeting :) 14:22:35 <mattdm> #topic In which we make a decision 14:22:37 <asamalik> A simplified viz of the difference between the current and new approaches: https://asamalik.fedorapeople.org/modularity-hybrid.png 14:22:42 <sgallagh> However, we already have a LOT of feedback on that, thanks to the UX sessions at FLock 14:22:45 <mattdm> #link https://asamalik.fedorapeople.org/modularity-hybrid.png 14:23:04 * langdon grumbles not that all of it was adopted 14:23:56 <langdon> we would like to do more feedback sessions and i have talks proposed.. so i would like "something" to present.. 14:23:57 <mattdm> langdon: do you want to put the open questions in the form of questions? 14:24:05 <langdon> hence boltron-2 is important to me 14:24:07 <bexelbie> I am uncomfortable with this being called a preview of F28 14:24:19 <langdon> bexelbie: hence.. it is called boltron-2 14:24:24 <mattdm> or should I just make a proposal? 14:24:25 <langdon> or something funnier for mattdm 14:24:37 <langdon> mattdm: i didn't understand what you were asking me for 14:24:57 <mattdm> It's true, I will not be happy if it doesn't have a funny sequel name. 14:25:14 <mattdm> So, I think it's already decided that: 14:25:26 <mattdm> a) we won't ship the F27 modular stuff any further -- it's getting dropped 14:25:53 <mattdm> b) assuming no last-minute gotchas, we'll declare F27 Server bits (traditional) as official after all 14:26:04 <sgallagh> mattdm: a) is what Langdon is still arguing 14:26:32 <mattdm> and there's an open question about what to do to get Langdon something to demo in presentations and talks (like FOSDEM) 14:26:41 <mattdm> not to mention to get further user involvement and feedback 14:26:47 <sgallagh> I had a proposal for that yesterday 14:26:50 <sgallagh> May I? 14:26:56 <mattdm> sgallagh: go 14:27:12 <langdon> sgallagh: actually.. i am way more concerned about mattdm's characterization.. not so much shipping f27-m 14:27:30 <sgallagh> To the best of my knowledge, the Bodhi updates system for modules works with the F27 Modular Server Beta. 14:27:50 <sgallagh> So if we REALLY need some updated packages for demoing, we can install from the beta and use Bodhi to provide updates to it. 14:28:10 <sgallagh> This doesn't require any new composes/RCM work or to make another installable release. 14:28:49 <sgallagh> It does put resources on maintaining things in the 27 path that could be used elsewhere, but that decision would be confined to the people doing the work 14:29:06 <sgallagh> EOF 14:29:08 <jwb> would that extend to adding NEW modules to f27? 14:29:34 <sgallagh> jwb: I haven't personally tested that, but I *think* so? 14:30:05 <jwb> i think that'd be important. the modules for f27 are rather limited even for demoing? 14:30:33 <mattdm> and then presumably we would drop that as soon as rel-eng (is this threebean? mboddu? someone else?) has an F28-modular-thing-based-on-the-new-arch? 14:30:39 <bexelbie> Does this need to be able to be used by anyone other than the demo-er? If not, they could do manual spins right? 14:30:45 <bexelbie> since we are really demoing concept and UI? 14:31:36 <langdon> bexelbie: would prefer something more "official" .. else we are back to original boltron 14:31:58 <bexelbie> but it seems a big request to put resources on an architectural dead-end 14:32:11 <langdon> however.. i am as concerned as sgallagh about effort in to a dead end.. so I would much prefer to see "very early alpha" as the demo platform 14:32:12 <bexelbie> we are redoing it so if the work doesn't contribute to that we should minimize 14:32:33 <asamalik> I would say it *should* be easy to handcraft a demoable container, using the new hybrid approach, before DevConf/FOSDEM. 14:32:51 <sgallagh> langdon: Well, nightly builds will be started as soon as possible 14:33:03 <sgallagh> Those are probably "official-enough" 14:33:20 <mattdm> sgallagh: nightly builds of the F28 thing? 14:33:30 <sgallagh> mattdm: yes 14:33:40 <mattdm> and is "as soon as possible" after the "month of human-hours" langdon mentioned earlier? 14:33:54 <sgallagh> mattdm: To clarify, the nightly builds I'm talking about will be the standard Fedora builds. 14:33:59 <mattdm> and do we have one or ten people digging this particular post-hole? 14:34:08 <sgallagh> One of the benefits of moving to this approach is that we won't need a separate set of composes for Modular. 14:34:18 <langdon> at present, we do have one.. we may be able to get more people focused on it 14:34:21 <sgallagh> It will just be added onto the traditional ones as supplementary 14:34:32 <langdon> and... in the interim.. we can just use two repos 14:34:42 <langdon> one w/ traditional and one w/ modules 14:35:00 <langdon> i have actually prototyped this and it works.. but we have some open questions on the build side 14:35:18 <sgallagh> I think we need to have an internal discussion about getting access to resources in order to have a demoable hybrid compose in time for DevConf.cz/FOSFEM 14:35:21 <sgallagh> *FOSDEM 14:35:31 <mattdm> I'm feeling *more* confused rather than less 14:35:33 <sgallagh> But I think that's achievable 14:35:52 <sgallagh> mattdm: I'll try to explain 14:35:54 <mattdm> sgallagh: "internal" = red hat? 14:35:54 <jwb> mattdm: same 14:36:04 <sgallagh> Yes, RHT 14:36:33 <sgallagh> With the current approach, anything represented as a module has to be built from the Module Build Service as a unit. 14:36:58 <mattdm> so far so good :) 14:36:59 <sgallagh> With the new approach, we will take existing RPMs and add metadata to "group" them into modules 14:37:19 * langdon calls ^^ pseudo-modules 14:37:26 <sgallagh> So we can add this metadata atop a traditional compose, rather than rebuilding the packages 14:38:00 <sgallagh> These pseudo-modules can then be consumed by MBS to build what we call App-Stream modules, which are the things we want to be swappable 14:38:09 <mattdm> and as I understand it, there will be a pseudo-module which consists of "every package in the fedora general collection"? 14:38:18 <sgallagh> Like Node.js, Ruby/Rails, etc. 14:38:35 <sgallagh> mattdm: well, more like "every package not in another named module", but close enough 14:38:48 <langdon> mattdm: correct.. i think i proposed "host", "platform", and "everything else" 14:38:50 <mattdm> sgallagh: every package with an f28 branch? 14:38:56 <sgallagh> mattdm: yes 14:38:56 <asamalik> mattdm: the shadow square in my picture basically 14:39:43 <sgallagh> mattdm: Whereas most modules will use arbitrary branching to indicate their upstream version 14:40:04 <mattdm> Okay. I understand all this. 14:40:05 <sgallagh> (modules meaning real modules, not pseudo-modules in that sentence) 14:40:18 <mattdm> I guess what I don't understand is the timeframe. 14:40:41 <langdon> so.. to add to that ... we can model this scenario with two repos.. one traditional w/ or w/o module metadata and one modular buitl with mbs.. until we can build one "hybrid repo" 14:41:22 <mattdm> is building a hybrid repo even desirable? why not _keep_ it split like that? 14:41:42 <langdon> because.. at some point.. we will want a module directly in the "main repo" ... 14:41:49 <sgallagh> mattdm: simplicity of composing only one "Fedora" 14:41:56 <langdon> so that we can swap it with some other module 14:41:57 <asamalik> and we can already build modules against non-modular content - the bootstrap module pointing to the f27-trad package set - we actually mostly use this to build existing modules... the "new" thing is doing the compose 14:42:51 <mattdm> sgallagh: I'm not "fedora = one repo" is desirable. can we keep that in mind but not answer it here? :) 14:42:52 <langdon> i think the point is valid though.. we don't *need* the hybrid repo .. but it is definitely desirable 14:42:54 <sgallagh> asamalik: That's more of a hack taking advantage of an implementation detail of Koji than an intended feature :) 14:43:36 <sgallagh> mattdm: Whether the output is a single repo, I think we want it all to be one *compose process* 14:43:41 <asamalik> sgallagh: yes, a hack that became a common practise and the future :P 14:43:47 <mattdm> Okay, so, is the open question: can something from this be put together to a) demo from and b) collect feedback on by the same timeframe we expected F27 Modular Server? 14:43:56 <sgallagh> Which generates the psuedo-modules appropriately for each output repo 14:43:58 <mattdm> sgallagh: maybe? 14:44:08 * mattdm is not an adherent of the religion of the one true compose 14:44:26 <mattdm> because it's 9:45 and I have another meeting in 15 minutes 14:44:32 <langdon> ha 14:44:48 <langdon> suffice to say.. we can do without it.. but i think we will want it soon'ish 14:44:49 <sgallagh> mattdm: I'm not prepared to commit to the same timeframe, no 14:45:05 <sgallagh> I'd consider the DevConf/FOSDEM timeframe more realistic. 14:45:37 <mattdm> Okay, so, that means the question is 14:46:20 <bexelbie> From a planning question we need to answer this - but at a council level it seems we just need to approve messaging about what we are expecting to have happen so that people undrestand why we are releasing F27 14:46:54 * dgilmore perks his ears at hacks and koji 14:46:56 <mattdm> which of a) release an f27 updated modular server for demoing b) make langdon take the beta f27 and demo it with updates until f28 version is available, or c) focus everything on the f28 modular server? 14:46:56 <bexelbie> and language like "continuing releases to show UI, demos and functionality" covers it 14:47:53 <langdon> dgilmore: discussing a hybrid compose of modules and traditional rpms.. and the effort that might be required 14:48:00 <sgallagh> mattdm: I'm not sure b) or c) are really Council decisions. 14:48:12 <sgallagh> I think the Council mostly just needs to decide what official releases we're doing. 14:48:23 <dgilmore> langdon: okay, so not likely a hack, but a useful change 14:48:36 <sgallagh> b) and c) are really just "if someone does it, then it gets done" 14:49:07 <sgallagh> dgilmore: We were talking about the current "bootstrap" module, which is basically hacked up by us doing manually tagging because the module isn't actually buildable properly. 14:49:13 <mattdm> sgallagh: Okay, so, back from way before, I think we're okay with 14:49:16 <mattdm> Server SIG does not want to ship a formal GA of Fedora 27 Modular Server 14:49:17 <mattdm> Since the GA RC compose passed the Server tests, Server WG would like to just release the Server Edition content from that compose as the official Fedora 27 Server Edition 14:49:25 <sgallagh> The fact that it worked was not so much "designed" as a "happy accident" 14:49:39 <langdon> sgallagh: yes and no.. i am representing fedora a bit in these "positions" so i would like the "plan" validated by "fedora" 14:49:40 <sgallagh> From our perspective; it's proper Koji behavior from RCM's side 14:49:41 <mattdm> Is everyon on the council good on those two points? 14:49:48 <bexelbie> yes 14:50:07 <robyduck> +1 14:50:09 <mattdm> Okay, then... 14:50:14 <langdon> +1 14:50:18 <jkurik> yes, +1 14:50:26 <bexelbie> Proposal: Release the GA sping of F27 server mentioned above as the F27 server release; give modularity WG permissoin to continue to release boltron derivatives for dmeo/testing as needed 14:50:41 <mattdm> bexelbie: +1 14:50:44 <bexelbie> that seems to cover it from our perspective .. and makes no commitments about f28 14:50:48 <mattdm> I was just typing sommething similar 14:50:57 <bexelbie> type it better :D 14:51:07 <langdon> Proposal: Release the GA spin of F27 server mentioned above as the F27 server release; give modularity WG permission to continue to release boltron derivatives for demo/testing as needed 14:51:09 <bexelbie> and fix the spelling of permission 14:51:24 <jwb> +1 14:51:26 <mattdm> +1 14:51:30 <bexelbie> +1 14:51:31 <jkurik> +1 14:51:34 <robyduck> +1 14:52:00 <sgallagh> Addendum: Announce that F27 Modular Server GA will not be forthcoming. 14:52:01 <mattdm> okay, so I will write a Fedora Magazine post. I guess robyduck to update the website 14:52:04 <bexelbie> I would encourage Modularity or Server to come back to the Council if there are resource concerns we can help advise about 14:52:24 <mattdm> do we want to plan this for next tuesday? 14:52:28 <mattdm> #topic Timing 14:52:34 <jkurik> and what about Go/No-Go for the already delivered F27 Server bits (traditional) ? Are we comfortable to wave it as it is, or do we want to have the Go/No-Go for it ? 14:52:39 <sgallagh> mattdm: I think we should have a formal Go/No-Go decision (tomorrow?) 14:52:51 <mattdm> sgallagh, jkurik sounds good to me 14:52:59 <mattdm> robyduck: what do you need from a websites perspective? 14:53:02 <robyduck> +1 for formal decision and release date 14:53:17 <mattdm> jkurik: can you schedule that meeting? 14:53:17 <robyduck> not much, it is less work than Modular Server GA 14:53:21 <jkurik> I will not be able to run the Go/No-Go this week due to many meetings 14:53:34 <mattdm> robyduck: so, yay? :) 14:53:35 <sgallagh> With the caveat that a No-Go tomorrow probably means no F27 Server, because Server SIG does not want to attempt to build a new release candidate. 14:53:35 <jkurik> I can schedule it, but I will not be present 14:53:44 <robyduck> yay 14:53:51 <robyduck> :) 14:53:58 <jwb> sgallagh: where would you like that announcement to be and from whom? 14:54:09 <mattdm> sgallagh: we'll cross that bridge if there happens to be a river there 14:54:20 <sgallagh> mattdm: Sure, but I figured I'd mention it 14:54:26 <mattdm> *nod* 14:54:47 <mattdm> I'll do the announcement -- many people have already volunteered to help :) 14:54:53 <jkurik> sgallagh: may I ask you to run the Go/No-Go tomorrow ? 14:54:54 <sgallagh> jwb: I'll volunteer to co-author the announcement mattdm is writing as the Server Edition representative. 14:55:06 <jwb> ok 14:55:09 <sgallagh> jkurik: Can you email me a link to the SOP doc? 14:55:17 <sgallagh> Or the template or whatever you use normally? 14:55:23 <sgallagh> If so, yes 14:55:25 <jkurik> sgallagh: will do, thanks 14:55:32 <mattdm> #topic last things 14:56:08 <mattdm> asamalik, langdon -- I think it would be very, very helpful if https://docs.pagure.org/modularity/docs.html would get a section on "what this solves" 14:56:15 <mattdm> with some user stories 14:56:45 <bexelbie> And that messaging needs to get more broadcast than just that page 14:56:47 <mattdm> possibly the things I wrote at https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/149#comment-481780 14:56:52 <mattdm> rephrased into user stories 14:57:22 <mattdm> and I think it needs a prominent "why not just containers?" FAQ 14:57:26 <langdon> The problem is "channel" more than content.. We have tons of content.. We just can't market it well 14:57:42 <mattdm> because whenever I talk about this to the press, I spend most of my time going in circles over that 14:58:21 <langdon> Did u get my last? Connection is wonky 14:58:25 <mkolman> +1 from my personally for a list of actual benefits 14:58:46 <mattdm> langdon: channel? yes. communication is hard :) 14:58:57 <mattdm> but I think there *is* a problem with conent 14:58:59 <mattdm> content 14:59:04 <mkolman> so that people know all the necessary effort/overhead is done for good reasons 14:59:06 <bexelbie> I have struggled with this messaging at booths too 14:59:32 <mattdm> also I want to throw in that this new plan looks more and more like 14:59:36 <mattdm> #link https://mattdm.org/fedora/2015rings/ 14:59:37 <langdon> Perhaps.. Of course w/o feedback on the content we don't know what is missing :/ 14:59:51 <langdon> Mattdm pfft 15:00:01 <asamalik> mattdm: yeah 15:00:08 <mattdm> langdon: ^ the things I said above are definitely missing 15:00:52 <jwb> langdon: one of the questions i keep seeing is whether or not modularity aims to provide parallel availability AND installability 15:01:19 <langdon> I am not sure I agree.. They may be missing from where you are looking but that doesn't mean missing.. We literally have a hundred pages of content and videos and talks etc 15:01:24 <mattdm> jwb yeah that also need to go in the FAQ 15:01:34 <mattdm> langdon: they're missing from the thing that says "modularity docs" 15:01:57 <mattdm> "go find the overview -- it's in these hundreds of pages of content and videos, some of which is dead ends and stuff" does not help 15:01:59 <bexelbie> langdon, that much content is not addressable 15:02:11 <langdon> Right 15:02:14 <mattdm> I know some of it is in https://docs.pagure.org/modularity/ 15:02:24 <mattdm> in asamalik's pretty pictures 15:02:41 <mattdm> but I think we also need simple textual explanations in https://docs.pagure.org/modularity/docs.html 15:02:57 <mattdm> (those two links look similar but are very different) 15:03:02 <mattdm> and anyway need to end meeting 15:03:04 <mattdm> thanks everyone 15:03:13 <mattdm> bexelbie: can I ask you to close the ticket with the thing we decided? 15:03:35 <bexelbie> yes 15:03:36 <asamalik> I'll definitely look into that 15:03:41 <bexelbie> did we get a #agreed on it? 15:03:56 <bexelbie> #agreed Release the GA spin of F27 server mentioned above as the F27 server release; give modularity WG permission to continue to release boltron derivatives for demo/testing as needed 15:04:15 <mattdm> bexelbie: thanks 15:04:29 <mattdm> bexelbie: yes. although no # happened, there were enough yesses and no nos 15:04:32 <mattdm> #endmeeting