17:00:19 <nirik> #startmeeting FESCO (2022-04-26)
17:00:20 <zodbot> Meeting started Tue Apr 26 17:00:19 2022 UTC.
17:00:20 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location.
17:00:20 <zodbot> The chair is nirik. Information about MeetBot at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Zodbot#Meeting_Functions.
17:00:20 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
17:00:20 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fesco_(2022-04-26)'
17:00:20 <nirik> #meetingname fesco
17:00:20 <nirik> #chair nirik, decathorpe, zbyszek, sgallagh, mhroncok, dcantrell, mboddu, tstellar, Conan_Kudo, Pharaoh_Atem, Son_Goku, King_InuYasha, Sir_Gallantmon, Eighth_Doctor
17:00:20 <nirik> #topic init process
17:00:20 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fesco'
17:00:20 <zodbot> Current chairs: Conan_Kudo Eighth_Doctor King_InuYasha Pharaoh_Atem Sir_Gallantmon Son_Goku dcantrell decathorpe mboddu mhroncok nirik sgallagh tstellar zbyszek
17:00:37 <zbyszek[m]1> .hello2
17:00:38 <zodbot> zbyszek[m]1: Sorry, but user 'zbyszek [m] 1' does not exist
17:00:39 <dustymabe> .hi
17:00:44 <zodbot> dustymabe: dustymabe 'Dusty Mabe' <dusty@dustymabe.com>
17:00:45 <Eighth_Doctor> .hello ngompa
17:00:46 <zodbot> Eighth_Doctor: ngompa 'Neal Gompa' <ngompa13@gmail.com>
17:00:55 <mhroncok> .hello churchyard
17:00:56 <zodbot> mhroncok: churchyard 'Miro Hrončok' <mhroncok@redhat.com>
17:01:24 <nirik> thats quorum I think...
17:01:24 <zbyszek> .hello2
17:01:25 <zodbot> zbyszek: zbyszek 'Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek' <zbyszek@in.waw.pl>
17:01:29 <bcotton> .hello2
17:01:30 <zodbot> bcotton: bcotton 'Ben Cotton' <bcotton@redhat.com>
17:01:38 <Eighth_Doctor> zbyszek: you should add your nicks to FAS
17:01:40 <Eighth_Doctor> hmm, I wonder
17:01:41 <Eighth_Doctor> .hello2
17:01:43 <zodbot> Eighth_Doctor: Sorry, but user 'Eighth_Doctor' does not exist
17:01:49 <Eighth_Doctor> lol
17:01:51 <Eighth_Doctor> .hi
17:01:52 <zodbot> Eighth_Doctor: Sorry, but user 'Eighth_Doctor' does not exist
17:01:56 <sgallagh> .hi
17:01:57 <zodbot> sgallagh: sgallagh 'Stephen Gallagher' <sgallagh@redhat.com>
17:02:12 <nirik> so, I hope this is a short one, but we will see. I just had one thing on the agenda:
17:02:14 <Eighth_Doctor> meh, I guess it can't read the other nicks listed in FAS yet
17:02:22 <nirik> #topic #2780 Change proposal: Deprecate Legacy BIOS
17:02:25 <decathorpe> .hi
17:02:26 <zodbot> decathorpe: decathorpe 'Fabio Valentini' <decathorpe@gmail.com>
17:02:26 <nirik> .fesco 2780
17:02:29 <zodbot> nirik: Issue #2780: Change proposal: Deprecate Legacy BIOS - fesco - Pagure.io - https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2780
17:03:16 <sgallagh> Well, this clearly cannot pass, so I propose we just declare it rejected
17:03:20 <zbyszek[m]1> Dunno, is there anything to discuss?
17:03:23 <zbyszek[m]1> Right.
17:03:36 <nirik> well... I'm still a bit confused what this will mean.
17:04:00 <zbyszek[m]1> The proposal or the rejection?
17:04:45 <dcantrell> .hello2
17:04:46 <zodbot> dcantrell: dcantrell 'David Cantrell' <dcantrell@redhat.com>
17:05:12 <nirik> change owners say: we don't have cycles to support this, so we are going to drop it. Here's our proposal for doing that. We say "no, rejected proposal". But we can't force them to maintain things... so they are still going to drop support and we just don't have a change about it? or they are willing to work with a sig? or ?
17:06:09 <decathorpe> The problem I see is that the overwhelming feedback has been "please don't do this yet, and do it differently once it happens eventually", but that hasn't really fallen on open ears ...
17:06:10 <nirik> I guess it's more what are the change owners intending now than anything we cna do...
17:06:41 <mhroncok> have we ever heared back from them after the feedback?
17:06:50 <nirik> I thought the BIOS sig idea was great, but I never saw change owners say 'ok, we can work with you on that'
17:07:24 <nirik> some in the megathread for sure... but not too recently
17:07:51 <zbyszek[m]1> One effect that is pretty clear is that the proposed pull request for lorax should be rejected.
17:08:01 <dustymabe> seems like it might be useful to invite the people who are proposing the change to the next FESCO meeting?
17:08:41 <Eighth_Doctor> I can say pretty concretely that davdunc and I in the context of the Fedora Cloud WG have been continuously looking at our options ever since this proposal was pushed to the list
17:08:42 <dustymabe> i.e. the change is rejected, but let's work together to consider the needs of the community versus the needs of the maintainers
17:08:47 <nirik> I cc'ed rharwood on the agenda, I noted that we were going to be talking about this today. I talked to him in the devel channel a few minutes ago.
17:08:55 <decathorpe> yeah, change owner + representative of the future BIOS boot sign would be good to talk to about the future.
17:09:26 <Eighth_Doctor> I don't think the change owners care about us
17:09:31 <davdunc> :+1 to Eighth_Doctor
17:09:33 <rharwood> .hello2
17:09:34 <zodbot> rharwood: rharwood 'Robbie Harwood' <rharwood@redhat.com>
17:09:43 <rharwood> heck of a line to walk in to
17:09:51 <nirik> I think thats unnessesarly antagonistic.
17:09:55 <dcantrell> Eighth_Doctor: could you not offer up baseless speculation like that
17:10:01 <mboddu> .hello mohanboddu
17:10:02 <zodbot> mboddu: mohanboddu 'Mohan Boddu' <mboddu@bhujji.com>
17:10:07 <mboddu> Sorry, I am late
17:10:25 <sgallagh> Conan Kudo: Please be excellent to our fellow contributors
17:10:35 <mhroncok> :D
17:11:03 <mhroncok> sorry but that was just a hilarious moment
17:11:03 <nirik> rharwood: so, basically the change looks like it's going to be rejected... my question is where do we go from here? are you willing to work with a BIOS sig group to support BIOS stuff?
17:11:06 <Eighth_Doctor> I don't think I can do that after the megathread and all the other conversations that have happened
17:11:09 <Eighth_Doctor> so I'll step the fuck out
17:11:21 <Eighth_Doctor> I'm -1 to the change and I'll let davdunc talk instead
17:11:23 <Eighth_Doctor> bye
17:11:33 <dustymabe> moving on... :)
17:12:03 <rharwood> nirik: if a SIG forms, sure, we'll work with them, with the understanding that since the core problem is our capacity, we won't have a lot of space for mentoring
17:12:31 <rharwood> (Hans is a previous contributor though so I don't expect problems in that regard)
17:13:05 <bcotton> and if a SIG doesn't form or doesn't get going?
17:14:22 <rharwood> bcotton: if you're asking whether I'm willing to form a SIG myself, I guess I would be if that's desired, but it felt kind of gauche since I wouldn't be putting any effort toward it
17:14:33 <dustymabe> bcotton: unfortunately the answer is it goes away?
17:14:50 <zbyszek[m]1> Looking at the Scope section in the proposal, if the proposal is not implemented, what happens is … nothing. The proposal was about removing support in the ISO, but not about removing support in grub2 or in other tools.
17:14:55 <nirik> So, I guess I'd like to see some kind of something from the SIG saying they will handle bios boot issues, if they have any roadmap for retiring that support, etc.
17:15:01 <bcotton> rharwood: no, more of a "would you be willing to keep the support for another release or two if a sig doesn't form?"
17:15:01 <dcantrell> I think for a SIG to legacy BIOS SIG to work (with non bootloader team members taking on the work), it needs other people initially
17:16:11 <rharwood> bcotton: as I understand it, voting down the change means support for the legacy use case has to stay
17:16:29 <zbyszek[m]1> It seems to be me that we don't need a SIG, but just some folks to look into bugs specific to BIOS. And the grub2 maintainers need to be accept those outside contributions.
17:16:51 <rharwood> I don't plan to stop building subpackages suddenly or anything without a transition plan
17:17:26 <nirik> rharwood: thats good to hear... it wasn't really clear (to me at least)
17:17:28 <dustymabe> is there anyone from the community that we could identify as a leader for the SIG (if a SIG is needed)?
17:17:46 <dcantrell> hans offered on the mailing list thread
17:17:51 <dustymabe> that person (or persons) could then work with rharwood to form a plan
17:18:39 <nirik> yeah, I can mail hans and ask about putting together a change on it? (I do think we need something written so everyone knows what to expect from others)
17:18:48 <bcotton> rharwood++
17:18:48 <zodbot> bcotton: Karma for rharwood changed to 1 (for the current release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
17:19:26 <rharwood> admit I'm a bit unclear on process, but a SIG doesn't require a full Change, right?  Just a mailing list post?
17:19:49 <nirik> rharwood: yeah, SIG Is completely informal. Declare you exist.
17:19:56 <rharwood> cool, thanks
17:20:02 <davdunc> wasn't there someone on one of the derivative threads (the one about a video call mattdm started, iirc) who offered to start a SIG here?
17:20:09 <mhroncok> no need for a change to create a sig, but might need a change if something is goign to change
17:20:11 <nirik> but in this case I think it would be better if we knew it was promising to handle BIOS boot issues...
17:20:23 <dcantrell> davdunc: hans offered
17:20:32 <davdunc> okay. super.
17:21:03 <mhroncok> on a related note, if we are ever removing the legacy bios support from media, could you please name the change accordingly?
17:21:10 <dcantrell> (hans de goede, since I realize I wasn't saying his full name)
17:21:45 <mhroncok> (from media + new installations)
17:21:56 <nirik> ok then, I feel better somewhat... everyone ok with me mailing hans to put in a change on the BIOS sig and what they will do and rejected this proposal (it already can't pass in the ticket votes)
17:22:10 <zbyszek[m]1> rharwood: is there some way to filter bugs by BIOS? I'm looking at bugzilla, and most bugs seem, to my uninformed eyes, to be either about efi and/or secure boot, or generic (like menu parsing or such). It'd be easier to know what the proposed SIG is up against.
17:23:07 <mhroncok> nirik: I am ok with that. shoud be reject the proposal here now?
17:23:10 <dcantrell> the SIG could add a keyword to BIOS-specific bugs for easier searching
17:23:12 <decathorpe> changing bug assignee to the bios-boot-sig should be easy enough during bug triage
17:23:22 <rharwood> zbyszek[m]1: not at the moment.  One of the things that has suffered due to capacity is triage.  I suggested a contact address for SIG bugs so that they could be assigned there by folks doing triage
17:23:37 <nirik> mhroncok: I guess so?
17:23:54 <mboddu> So we are rejecting the change, but the legacy bios would be taken care by sig (hans) + rharwood(up to his capacity) ?
17:24:07 <nirik> proposal: reject change, ask BIOS sig to submit a new change with plan/responsibilities
17:24:17 <rharwood> mboddu: they/them, please, and with my co-maintainers (pjones/javierm)
17:24:19 <nirik> mboddu: yes, ideally.
17:24:51 <mboddu> rharwood: Yes :)
17:24:53 <decathorpe> nirik: +1, sounds good to me
17:25:01 <sgallagh> nirik: +1
17:25:01 <mboddu> nirik: Okay, in that case +1
17:25:08 <dcantrell> nirik: +1
17:25:28 <nirik> +1 my own proposal
17:25:51 <mhroncok> +1
17:26:03 <dustymabe> +1 - I feel like bringing people together like this helps. Sometimes mail list threads are hard..
17:26:09 <zbyszek[m]1> I think a tracker ticket would be better. If a bug needs to be assigned to the group to track it, it is impossible to assign it to a person. And folks can subscribe to a tracker bug, etc.
17:26:26 <zbyszek[m]1> +1 too
17:26:39 <decathorpe> zbyszek: but groups *can* be assignees in bugzilla? like all our rust-sig bugs? ...
17:26:41 <nirik> #agree change rejected, will ask BIOS sig to submit a new change with plans/responsibilities (+8, 0, -0)
17:26:47 <nirik> #topic Next week's chair
17:26:59 <nirik> you can do groups... yeah.
17:27:04 <nirik> who wants it next week?
17:27:11 <Eighth_Doctor> Fabio Valentini: we have an alias for btrfs bugs
17:27:15 <Eighth_Doctor> can do the same for bios ones
17:27:20 <Eighth_Doctor> we should do the same for uefi too
17:27:33 <Eighth_Doctor> either that or activate subcomponents and use that
17:27:40 <rharwood> please not subcomponents
17:27:43 <zbyszek[m]1> I know you can do that. It just doesn't seem very convenient.
17:27:50 <mhroncok> decathorpe: yes but when people actually want to "take" it, you loose the infromation
17:27:52 * nirik thinks thats a detail, the sig/maintainers can decide how best they want to work
17:28:05 <mhroncok> alright
17:28:15 <zbyszek[m]1> Ack.
17:28:22 <Eighth_Doctor> meh
17:28:31 <mhroncok> nirik: there is one more ticket
17:28:38 <mhroncok> I forgot to check if it's on agenda
17:28:38 <nirik> oh? which one?
17:28:43 <mhroncok> the rpm one
17:28:46 <nirik> I didn't see any meeting marked ones.
17:29:04 <mhroncok> Fabio Valentini -1'ed it on the last possible moment "out of spite"
17:29:16 <mhroncok> Fabio Valentini: coudl you reconsider?
17:29:17 <bcotton> .fesco 2781
17:29:18 <zodbot> bcotton: Issue #2781: Change proposal: RPM 4.18 - fesco - Pagure.io - https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2781
17:29:31 <nirik> oh, this morning. didn't see that because I have been in meetings
17:29:50 <mhroncok> s/coudl/could/
17:29:58 <decathorpe> I will vote +1
17:30:01 <mhroncok> ok
17:30:06 <mhroncok> no need to discuss that here
17:30:07 <dcantrell> looks like panu thought all of the +1's meant it was good to go
17:30:18 <dcantrell> he apologized
17:30:24 <mhroncok> for the record this is not the first time people said they thought that
17:30:30 <nirik> did the autobuildrequires thing get fixed?
17:30:31 <decathorpe> but can we talk about the whole "I'll submit a change proposal to Fedora so it's there on paper, but I don't actually care about the process" issue?
17:30:44 <mhroncok> mayeb the change process needs to be more clear about that? wink-wink at Ben Cotton (he/him)
17:30:59 <dcantrell> yeah, I think that could be clarified in the change process
17:31:02 <mhroncok> nirik: eventually, after 3rd build
17:31:52 <bcotton> #action bcotton to update proposal template with "don't do this until you're explicitly told it's approved"
17:32:12 <mhroncok> it seems to me that this fotne happens with Red Hat people, who are quite senior-ish
17:32:15 <nirik> perhaps we could add to the fesco ticket template a 'note to change owners: please do not consider your change approved until this ticket is actually marked approved"
17:32:19 <nirik> yeah
17:32:20 <mhroncok> s/fotne/often/
17:32:29 <dustymabe> nirik: +1
17:32:31 <dcantrell> nirik: +1
17:32:35 <mboddu> nirik: +1
17:32:41 <decathorpe> nirik: +1
17:32:44 <Eighth_Doctor> nirik: +1
17:32:44 <dustymabe> copy cats
17:32:49 <bcotton> aw, nirik is getting all of my +1s :-(
17:32:54 <nirik> anyhow, who would like the lovely comfortable nicely appolstered chair next week?
17:32:57 <mhroncok> Ben Cotton (he/him): +1
17:32:59 <zbyszek[m]1> bcotton: +1
17:33:01 <mhroncok> nirik: +1
17:33:08 <bcotton> :-D
17:33:10 <mboddu> bcotton: +1 :)
17:33:25 <mhroncok> nirik: I can do it I guess
17:33:32 <nirik> mhroncok: thanks!
17:33:46 <nirik> #action mhroncok  will chair next meeting
17:33:52 <nirik> #topic Open Floor
17:33:57 <nirik> anything for open floor?
17:34:18 <zbyszek[m]1> I need to drop.
17:34:28 <bcotton> if anyone sees places where the changes policy can be made more clear, file them at https://pagure.io/fedora-pgm/pgm_docs
17:34:28 <zbyszek[m]1> See you next week.
17:34:28 <mhroncok> o the floor?
17:34:28 <tstellar> Sorry, I'm late.  I had a conflict.
17:34:30 <mhroncok> *to
17:34:33 <bcotton> (apart from the aforementioned change to the pagure template)
17:35:03 <mhroncok> Ben Cotton (he/him): any news on the Jira thing?
17:35:06 <nirik> will close out in a min if nothing more. ;)
17:35:13 <mhroncok> as an open floor question
17:35:27 <bcotton> mhroncok: what about jira?
17:35:41 <mhroncok> about Fedora migrating smewhere becasue of RH migrating to jira
17:36:01 <mhroncok> there was supposed to eb a questionare, how do we use bugzilla for Fedora?
17:36:15 <bcotton> yes, that's coming post-release
17:36:22 <mhroncok> (I assume this is fesco-relevant, so please do stop me if it isn't)
17:36:28 <mhroncok> ack
17:36:51 <decathorpe> eh, we'll just use GitLab issues once pagure is humanely sent to a farm upstate ;)
17:36:55 <mhroncok> f36 relase I suppose? you haven't said explicitly :D
17:37:05 <bcotton> it's coming after a release ;-)
17:37:14 <nirik> decathorpe: that seems most likely yeah.
17:37:23 <nirik> (to me anyhow)
17:37:30 <bcotton> but yeah, i'll do an F36 retrospective survey shortly after the F36 release and then the bug tracking survey after that
17:37:43 <mhroncok> any rumors about pagure replacements?
17:37:55 <bcotton> none that i've heard
17:38:14 <mhroncok> it seems that after the unfortunate communication about it, there is now no communication about it
17:38:33 <mhroncok> but people seem to expect it will happen anyway
17:38:44 <bcotton> i concur with your observations
17:38:56 <nirik> well, there was a lot of discussion with gitlab, and some things they didn't support that we wanted... and then it kind of stopped being driven much
17:39:33 <nirik> it's gonna be a pretty massive undertaking, we have so much tooling against pagure. ;(
17:40:06 <bcotton> and even more against Bugzilla :-)
17:40:39 <bcotton> if we reach a "time to migrate off Bugzilla" point, that seems like the sort of thing we'd have to skip a release just to rewrite the universe
17:40:42 <dustymabe> let's just skip fedora 38 and work on tech debt
17:40:45 <dustymabe> :)
17:40:56 <dustymabe> wow bcotton
17:40:57 <mboddu> bcotton: both bz and pagure
17:41:04 <mboddu> Or each one takes one release skip?
17:41:06 <mhroncok> no more releases until tech debt is solved
17:41:11 <dustymabe> we were both thinking the same thing
17:41:12 <nirik> ha
17:41:39 <bcotton> i've got some real Thought Leadership™ going on in this meeting
17:41:43 <dustymabe> we can call 38 "Bruno"
17:41:44 <mhroncok> :D
17:41:54 <nirik> ok then... thanks everyone!
17:41:58 <nirik> #endmeeting