Meetbot Logs

LOGS

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

13:58:48

!startmeeting Fedora Council meeting - 2024-10-09

<@meetbot:fedora.im>

13:58:49

Meeting started at 2024-10-09 13:58:48 UTC

<@meetbot:fedora.im>

13:58:49

The Meeting name is 'Fedora Council meeting - 2024-10-09'

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

13:58:51

!meetingname council

<@meetbot:fedora.im>

13:58:52

The Meeting Name is now council

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

13:59:14

!topic Intros, welcomes, hellos

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

13:59:29

If this is your first time at a Council meeting, please say hello! If you have questions before we start the meeting, now is also a good time to ask.

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

13:59:30

!hi

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

13:59:32

Justin W. Flory (jflory7) - he / him / his

<@dcantrell:fedora.im>

13:59:57

!hi

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

13:59:58

David Cantrell (dcantrell) - he / him / his

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:00:29

!group members council

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

14:00:31

Members of council: Aoife Moloney, asamalik, Aleksandra Fedorova, bt0dotninja, David Cantrell, FAS Fernando F. Mancera, Jason Brooks, jflory7 (@jflory7:fedora.im, @fca:fedoraproject.org), Jona Azizaj, Matthew Miller, Robert Wright, smeragoel, Akashdeep Dhar

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:00:50

Howdy dcantrell, this good morning to you goes on the official record :)

<@dcantrell:fedora.im>

14:01:03

I wouldn't have it any other way

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:01:31

I know Matthew said he was running a few minutes behind. But I assume other folks will trickle in a bit.

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:01:33

!hi

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

14:01:35

Aoife Moloney (amoloney)

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:01:39

It is both late evening and early morning for some of our folks :)

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:01:45

Howdy hey Aoife Moloney 👋

<@asamalik:fedora.im>

14:02:19

!hi

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

14:02:20

Adam Samalik (asamalik) - he / him / his

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:02:25

I hope everyones Wednesday is going ok

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:02:55

Off to a solid start for me 🚀 Hoping the same for y'all too.

<@jbrooks:matrix.org>

14:03:02

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:03:13

Hey asamalik, hey Jason Brooks! Good `$TIME_OF_DAY` 👋

<@bookwar:fedora.im>

14:03:14

!hi

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

14:03:15

Aleksandra Fedorova (bookwar) - she / her / hers

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:03:21

And bookwar too 👋

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:03:26

We have a nice crowd today 😎

<@dcantrell:fedora.im>

14:04:05

Wednesday going ok so far, though I did fall asleep on the ferry this morning.

<@ffmancera:fedora.im>

14:04:16

!hi

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

14:04:18

FAS Fernando F. Mancera (ffmancera) - he / him / his

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:04:29

OK. So, I know our agenda today is pretty packed. I am going to cut to announcements quickly, and then we can get into the 15m block for the Flock topic. Followed by whatever Aoife tells me to put on the agenda :D

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:04:35

Hey hey ffmancera 👋

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:04:44

acl

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:05:04

ack

<@mattdm:fedora.im>

14:05:17

hi!

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:05:33

!info Present: @jflory7, @dcantrell, @amoloney, @asamalik, @bookwar, @ffmancera, @mattdm

<@farchord:fedora.im>

14:05:35

Doing okay here too. Hammering koji with builds. Y'know, the usual.

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:05:37

Hey mattdm 👋

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:05:45

Hey hey Steve Cossette [Farchord] 👋

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:05:52

!topic Team announcements & news

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:06:22

!info === Planning ticket is now open for the Council 2025 Hackfest. Please review and share feedback on topics to discuss in our agenda for February 2025 in Spain. ===

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:06:24

!link https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/505

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:06:36

You are all invited :)

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:06:51

There are absolutely other topics I could plug here

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:06:54

But we have a tight agenda

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:06:59

Any other announcements from folks?

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:07:09

Exciting developments in the Fedora world? Trash fires we should be tracking? :P

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:07:14

Going once…

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:07:30

Going twice…

<@dcantrell:fedora.im>

14:07:31

The installer topic from yesterday's FESCo's meeting might be of interest to some

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:07:35

⏸️

<@dcantrell:fedora.im>

14:07:39

I can fill everyone in briefly

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:07:49

dcantrell: Write us an `!info`!

<@dcantrell:fedora.im>

14:08:06

ok, let me see if I can get this right

<@mattdm:fedora.im>

14:08:10

yes please

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:09:16

(Also, just to be timely, I will move to the next agenda section after David posts, so if you have news, let me know or I will move forward after David!)

<@bookwar:fedora.im>

14:10:19

(disclosure) Starting from Oct 1st I am a new manager for Cockpit and Anaconda teams in Red Hat

<@dcantrell:fedora.im>

14:10:23

!info there is a change proposal for the Anaconda Web UI Partitioning interface (https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3272). the discussion has been ongoing for quite some time and we voted yesterday and it was a tie, so we have decided to punt this one down the road and continue conversation with the installer team. the core issue is the installer team wants to modify the UI which would result in a loss of a lot of functionality we deem important in Fedora. but the installer team is in a difficult position having to prioritize RHEL-10 work and deal with a reduced size team. we [Fedora] have been here before and have been able to push back against RHEL planning such that we can reprioritize work on core components, but this one will be difficult

<@dcantrell:fedora.im>

14:10:54

may god have mercy on your soul.....WAIT, congratulations!

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:11:09

Congrats bookwar !!!

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:11:21

bookwar++ Big congrats!

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

14:11:25

jflory7 gave a cookie to bookwar. They now have 33 cookies, 1 of which were obtained in the Fedora 40 release cycle

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:11:32

I see some overlap between David and bookwar's updates :)

<@farchord:fedora.im>

14:11:35

bookwar: congrats! :)

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:11:37

Thanks dcantrell for this update.

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:11:42

If we have time at open floor, we can circle back.

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:11:44

Moving on!

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:11:49

!topic Ticket-driven discussion

<@mattdm:fedora.im>

14:11:49

It's good that we have a manager for the Anaconda team who understands Fedora interests!

<@ffmancera:fedora.im>

14:11:51

bookwar++

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

14:11:53

ffmancera gave a cookie to bookwar. They now have 34 cookies, 2 of which were obtained in the Fedora 40 release cycle

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:11:54

!link https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issues?status=Open&tags=Next+Meeting&close_status=

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:12:07

!topic #502: DEI policy for Event location [15m, ends at :28 after]

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:12:09

!link https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/502

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:12:22

OK, so misc has worked on this policy draft for the Council to consider.

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:12:40

!link https://fedorapeople.org/~misc/dei_policy/dei/policy/event-location-policy/

<@dcantrell:fedora.im>

14:12:45

umm, excuse me. I was anaconda mgr for 7 years back when dinosaurs roamed the halls

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:13:03

I confess that I did not read the full proposal before this meeting, but I have been connecting with misc for many months on this already, so I have a good bit of context

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:13:23

The implicit goal is to make something that has always been implicitly important to Flock into something that is explicit

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:13:45

I read it, I really like it and I have 2 pieces of feedback: 1. No shorthand (wrt is written in there) 2. Focus on geographical event-location as suggested by misc and not event facilities

<@mattdm:fedora.im>

14:13:49

dcantrell: I'm not saying that we haven't had that _before_ also :)

<@jonatoni:fedora.im>

14:14:12

hi!

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:14:14

oh and it should be with DEI team, not council, once/if we pass this

<@mattdm:fedora.im>

14:14:29

I think this is a good idea too.

<@dcantrell:fedora.im>

14:14:29

ok, just have to clarify. as you remember from Visual Basic: OPTION EXPLICIT 1. must be explicit!

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:14:35

The original plan was to make this a policy under the DEI Team, but I suggest Misc to draft this as a Council policy instead, because the DEI Team does not quite have policy-making directive for the project. This is why Jona Azizaj (she/her) is on the Council :)

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:14:37

dcantrell, mattdm: On topic please :)

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:14:37

Short-hand like what?

<@mattdm:fedora.im>

14:14:46

like "wrt"

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:14:54

theres an abbreviation for 'with regard to' as wrt in there

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:14:56

Oh lol.

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:15:00

Yes, agreed

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:15:04

I missed that

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:15:09

fine for msgs, not for official policy

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:15:43

!info Feedback: Do not use shorthand or abbreviations in an official policy document (e.g. "wrt")

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:15:49

Noted!

<@mattdm:fedora.im>

14:15:49

I think we do need to have a council-level policy, but perhaps that policy could leave some of the specifics to the DEI team?

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:15:59

The second point you raised Aoife Moloney, I need to skim the policy again

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:16:13

mattdm: I'm listening…

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:16:34

I think council should own bringing this policy in as official, but I think once its in, it should fall back to DEI group and empower them to make sure this happens in real-life

<@asamalik:fedora.im>

14:16:42

Maybe in a sense the DEI team would draft it, but the Council might need to formally approve it?

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:17:01

^^ this

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:17:02

In reality, here we are in this situation.

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:17:09

This is where we are right now :)

<@asamalik:fedora.im>

14:17:37

right! (OPTION EXPLICIT 1) :D

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:17:37

I think the implementation of this actually lives in the Flock organizing team

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:17:51

Well Im +1. Having this kind of policy for large events is long overdue

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:17:54

Which for now, is something I own, but in general, I want to build more of a team function around Flock in 2025

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:18:25

I reserve my right to take a deep dive with nitpicks, but I have been working with Misc on this for a few months and I am +1 to the spirit of this policy

<@bookwar:fedora.im>

14:18:26

I feel that the current proposal is too specific and to low-level.

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:18:44

bookwar: Have an example?

<@bookwar:fedora.im>

14:18:49

For example is says: "This policy does not attempt to take in account travels and/or passports/visa issues on purpose."

<@bookwar:fedora.im>

14:19:02

Are we going to have a second policy which includes that?

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:19:21

(Also, really there is not much more for us to vote on today than the spirit of this, because we have to move forward with the Policy Change Policy. But let's give misc some early feedback if we have any, before we open this very widely and publicly to the whole Fedora community for comments.)

<@bookwar:fedora.im>

14:19:26

Or are we saying visa issues should not be part of the criteria?

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:19:40

No, I don't think so.

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:20:05

This is an excellent question though, because we _did_ discuss this specific aspect quite a bit during the drafting

<@bookwar:fedora.im>

14:20:09

Same for "This policy also explicitly do not cover the event venue itself and the facilities used during the event" https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/council-docs/pull-request/234#_2__18

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:20:30

We realized that trying to consider passport privilege and visa privilege was an incredibly difficult task. Originally, this policy was targeting ALL events officially supported or organized by Fedora.

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:20:37

But we realized that this would be a very difficult and impractical thing.

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:20:44

So, the policy scope was reduced to ONLY Flock.

<@jbrooks:matrix.org>

14:20:54

+1 to the spirit, I agree that we give misc feedback

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:20:58

The proposal acknowledges that facilities and visas are important. but beyond the scope of this initial policy, and I think we should leave it that way

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:21:01

Flock is unlike any other event we do in the Fedora community, and we typically keep it in North America and Europe.

<@jbrooks:matrix.org>

14:21:02

it does mention hackfests

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:21:33

Oh huh, I forgot that. Maybe I give ambigous feedback to Misc but I actually think we should _definitely_ exclude hackfests from this

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:21:41

I don't want to geographically limit hackfests to NA and EU

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:21:49

it stipulates 'international travel' as a requirement for considering DEI location choices

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:22:11

hackfests technically can happen locally, so it wouldnt trigger the policy in those instances

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:22:12

I am going to track this feedback because I feel quite passionately about that one

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:22:16

## Time check: 5 minutes

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:22:19

hackfests can technically can happen locally, so it wouldnt trigger the policy in those instances

<@bookwar:fedora.im>

14:22:37

I feel like I would prefer to have a Events Policy with a list of criteria, which includes various things, some of them with a MUST HAVE mark, some of them with SHOULD

<@jbrooks:matrix.org>

14:22:48

So give feedback in https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/council-docs/pull-request/234# ?

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:23:04

!info Feedback: Hackfests should be omitted from this policy because it may have the unintended impact of forcing or appearing to force hackfest organizers to organize their hackfest in North America and Europe, which could be unintentionally exclusive.

<@asamalik:fedora.im>

14:23:24

so do we want to vote separately on having *a* policy written by the DEI team, and then provide feedback to the specific one linked there?

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:23:41

Jason Brooks: I am tracking the feedback in the meeting discussion, but folks are welcome to go to the PR and comment directly. Actually, that would help me a lot because this week is unexpectedly jam-packed full for me with personal health challenges :/

<@bookwar:fedora.im>

14:23:52

LGBT people not being arrested on site would be - MUST. People from more countries can get visa to enter will be SHOULD. Or something like that

<@mattdm:fedora.im>

14:24:27

!proposal "Fedora events must be open and welcoming to all. The Fedora Council asks the DEI team to develop specific policies for selection of locations for our conferences and major gatherings, for Council approval. You can find the current approved policy at [link]."

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:24:27

There is a substantial amount of feedback around visas and I think this feedback shows it needs some more thought

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:25:05

mattdm: I am -1 because I am firmly resolved that this policy should only cover Flock. Anything more than Flock is casting too wide of a net.

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:25:14

Let's try this with Flock first, see how it goes, and extend later if it is successful.

<@mattdm:fedora.im>

14:25:22

okay, edit:

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:26:20

!info Feedback: The focus on visas and passport privilege needs more clarity. There is a wide range of opinions expressed during the Council meeting. misc and Jona Azizaj (she/her) are encouraged to connect this feedback into the policy draft and reach out if there are clarifications needed on Council input.

<@mattdm:fedora.im>

14:26:24

!proposed "Fedora events must be open and welcoming to all. The Fedora Council asks the DEI team to develop specific policies for the location of Flock, our annual contributor conference. You can find the current approved policy at [link]."

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:26:34

mattdm: +1

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:26:40

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:26:40

## Time check 1m 30s

<@asamalik:fedora.im>

14:26:45

<@jonatoni:fedora.im>

14:27:04

<@bookwar:fedora.im>

14:27:07

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:27:20

Going once…

<@mattdm:fedora.im>

14:27:34

!action mattdm submit the above (or some slightly-reworded variant) as a Policy Change as per The Process.

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:27:35

Going twice…

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:27:43

mattdm: ❤️

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:27:46

Going thrice…

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:27:52

!agreed Fedora events must be open and welcoming to all. The Fedora Council asks the DEI team to develop specific policies for the location of Flock, our annual contributor conference. You can find the current approved policy at [link].

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:27:54

OK!

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:27:57

Finished!

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:27:59

Thanks folks.

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:28:01

Right on time.

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:28:05

Aoife Moloney, what is next up? :)

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:28:07

Git forge?

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:28:27

And uh… _which_ git forge ticket? There are two.

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:28:38

yeah, its git forge

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:28:48

(Assuming there is not something else to cover before git forge, git forge is probably going to be everything else today)

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:28:50

OK, here we go.

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:28:55

Feedback noted!

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:29:16

!topic #473: Git Forge Evaluation 2024

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:29:25

I figure the big ticket is a catch-all for anything we need to discuss now.

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:29:34

!link https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/473

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:29:35

lets just have a general discussion about it

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:29:43

Aoife Moloney: I'll let you set the table for us on this discussion.

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:29:51

How do you want to guide this conversation today?

<@humaton:fedora.im>

14:29:52

!hi

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

14:29:54

Tomáš Hrčka (humaton) - he / him / his

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:29:59

Is there a specific angle you want to guide us toward?

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:30:09

Hey jednorozec, welcome! 👋 Nice to have you here :)

<@mattdm:fedora.im>

14:30:19

I would really benefit from a _high-level_ summary of CPE/ARC findings.

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:30:20

Sure. Let me type furiously for some context, and thank you jednorozec for being her for additional questions :)

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:30:22

!info Present: +@jonatoni +@humaton

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:30:35

OK, type away :)

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:30:46

so where were at - ARC team are rounding out validating user stories they have collected for each git forge option

<@mattdm:fedora.im>

14:31:21

I think that most of the user stories can be covered one way or another. I'd like to know if there are any major ones where one option has a blocking limitation.

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:31:24

Weve hit a snag as QA dont have time to validate theirs before F41 release in such a way that they are confident

<@humaton:fedora.im>

14:31:44

We have 3 groups of stories, General forge users, Package maintainer, Quality engineer

<@humaton:fedora.im>

14:32:06

QA ones

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:32:26

Some ppl from the council are confused/unaware of what is happening, and now that we need to give the ARC team what we need to get a report to help us make a decision, were panicking a little

<@mattdm:fedora.im>

14:32:40

How so?

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:32:45

I raise my hand as one of the blissfully unaware

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:32:56

But happy to help here

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:32:59

If I can

<@humaton:fedora.im>

14:33:05

Quality workflows are the most complex and least documented in the project team docs.

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:33:10

so lets all just get ourselves on the same page, and figure out what we need to keep and maybe change before its waaay to late

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:33:18

we still have time to negociate timelines

<@mattdm:fedora.im>

14:33:31

I like that there are test instances, but at some point we're going to need to pick one and do the work. I don't think we should _do all the work twice_ to see which works better.

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:33:35

Aoife Moloney: What do you see as the top priorities for the Council to discuss and/or decide on today?

<@humaton:fedora.im>

14:34:01

We al;ready did some of that

<@humaton:fedora.im>

14:34:02

https://fedora-arc.readthedocs.io/en/latest/dist-git-comparison/index.html

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:34:30

I would like us to tell the ARC team explicitly what we need to read about in the report to make a. confident and informed decsion

<@humaton:fedora.im>

14:34:45

The team took the documented stories and tested them on both of the solutions.

<@mattdm:fedora.im>

14:34:55

Okay, but do we have reason to believe that Forgejo won't be able to handle some QE workflow that Gitlab CE could, or vice versa?

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:34:58

I would also like us to agree to an extension for the report to accomodate QA

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:35:00

# Time check: 20 minutes to open floor

<@mattdm:fedora.im>

14:35:26

_And is that workflow currently handled by Pagure?_ Because that's really the benchmark.

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:35:37

AND I would like us to talk about whether we should allow scope creep in the form of validating a replacement for bugzilla as well for this investigation or not

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:35:43

This makes sense, but I confess that I don't have enough context of the challenges to know what to ask. But I think there are others here who do.

<@jbrooks:matrix.org>

14:35:50

I want to know what ARC recommends

<@humaton:fedora.im>

14:35:58

Yes and this ties into the discussions with QA. About tracking package bugs in tracker in the new forge and there forgejo is clear winner because it allows us do some magic that gitlab only allows in EE version

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:36:02

+1 Jason Brooks

<@mattdm:fedora.im>

14:36:18

I definitely want to make sure QA needs are taken into account. It's just that when we asked for this in February, I expected we'd have a report in, like... June?

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:36:19

This is an excellent example

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:36:28

doesnt have to be super complicated

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:36:36

I too would follow their recommendation

<@humaton:fedora.im>

14:36:41

Uf but we started working on this in june

<@humaton:fedora.im>

14:36:44

actually july

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:37:03

I think the QA use case is huge and there are a lot of things that actually are working very well today from a community engagement and participation perspective in QA. I don't want to burn our valuable and important QA contributors out with a lot of demands and changes at once. I am agreeable to an extension, but I would look to others on how much extension makes sense.

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:37:18

and I also want to know if one option is harder to maintain or troubleshoot for issues than the other. Does the current user stories capture this jednorozec ?

<@jbrooks:matrix.org>

14:37:19

I also want to know to what extent it matters that RHEL / CentOS Stream uses gitlab ee, is there crossover value in that?

<@mattdm:fedora.im>

14:37:25

If we know that already, what will more time give us?

<@humaton:fedora.im>

14:37:57

Yes sysadmins are exploring both and also talking to internal people managign gitlab instances

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:38:37

Oof. Bugzilla is such a… one-of-a-kind tool 🙂 I am confident that we should really look to this as an opportunity to break free from old ways of the past and open ourselves up to trying something new. Trying to rebuild a Bugzilla workflow in a git forge is an anti-pattern. I am already intimidated by Bugzilla and even having a decade in the project, I am overwhelmed about where to file a bug about these obnoxious GNOME crashes I get in the middle of a Google Meet.

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:38:57

So, why copy from something that was built for the 1990s, not 2020s? :)

<@mattdm:fedora.im>

14:39:11

I've had conversations with RH folks about this, and I think I've generally convinced people that we _need_ to have our workflow insulated from a specific forge technology. More important to align around Konflux than the forge itself.

<@humaton:fedora.im>

14:39:26

Well I would like to have the data in gitlab and validate its not possible to reflect the QA workflow without the feature..

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:39:28

This is an interesting point, and one I hadnt included in the initial requirements list I put in the ticket. I think this is important to understand, but I worry if we stick to the initial End of October timeline the team might not be able to look at this properly

<@bookwar:fedora.im>

14:39:38

The crossover where it may matter is not Git Forge, it is CI engine. I think the big part of the problem is that we are mixing GitForge conversation with the CI? pipelines organization and Gating conversations.

<@bookwar:fedora.im>

14:39:50

The crossover where it may matter is not Git Forge, it is CI engine. I think the big part of the problem is that we are mixing GitForge conversation with the CI, Pipelines organization and Gating conversations.

<@jbrooks:matrix.org>

14:39:53

We'll be attached to whichever one we choose, no insulating from that

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:40:00

# Time check: 15 minutes to open floor

<@humaton:fedora.im>

14:40:02

By the data I mean there is org in both instances with package repo mirroing and some BZ tickets pumped to them.

<@humaton:fedora.im>

14:40:39

I didnt get to it because I am sick after last week office visit

<@mattdm:fedora.im>

14:40:41

So this is basically "prove the case for Forgejo"? :)

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:41:00

I have always had the _assumption_ that Forgejo is probably an easier thing to maintain than GitLab with less open vs. proprietary pieces, but this is rooted in intuition and no facts at all :)

<@humaton:fedora.im>

14:41:00

Yes

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:41:33

What does sharing the same tool mean for us practically from a collaboration POV? What does sharing the same toolset unlock for us today that we don't have today?

<@humaton:fedora.im>

14:41:43

The thing here is there is internal source of knowledge that is the team maintaining internal gitlab instances

<@jbrooks:matrix.org>

14:42:10

Personally I feel additional load for each new forge I interact with

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:42:11

There are definitely two parallel conversations going on right now, and I am still pretty far in the scrollback just trying to understand what I am reading from everyone

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:42:17

It is hard for me to keep up with this discussion

<@humaton:fedora.im>

14:42:30

What I am saying is its not that easy to say what will be cheaper to maintain but its easier to say what is useful.

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:42:51

This is sensible to me though actually

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:43:05

that is excellent feedback on our report requirements. lets change that one to reflect this point

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:43:25

+100

<@jbrooks:matrix.org>

14:43:32

If we have a champion for each, they might write a succinct case for each

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:44:07

I hope you feel better soon jednorozec. 🫶

<@mattdm:fedora.im>

14:44:52

This is a nice idea. I'd love to find these champions _in the Fedora Infrastructure team_, if possible.

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:45:43

Well, being able to lean on an external to Fedora community / internal to Red Hat team is an advantage. Fedora is a community project, but Red Hat is undeniably our largest and most significant enabler and sponsor. Being able to lean into common resources from Red Hat enables us to cast a wider net from a maintenance perspective. It also provides a larger pool of talent that can actually jump in and help us out.

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:45:43

For example, Red Hat has an Internal Gigs program where anyone in the company can post a "gig" for volunteering somewhere in the company to try out new skills with the support of their manager.

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:45:43

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:45:51

Using the same tooling means we could explore things like this.

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:46:20

Yes, this is my perpetual challenge with Fedora communications since 2019.

<@humaton:fedora.im>

14:46:30

Yes but that bring us to Matthews point the processes should be forge agnostic

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:46:56

I think its kinda clear that we need more discussion on what the council needs from this investigation. I would love us to leave this meeting with a +1 on extending the report deadline by 6 weeks for QA to have time to look into both forge options for their use cases and a dedicated meeting with jednorozec and other members of the ARC team next week to walk through this report in more detail

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:46:58

Aoife Moloney: I am still deep in the backlog and not keeping up, feel free to drop some `!info` statements in as we go to capture meaningful feedback!

<@bookwar:fedora.im>

14:47:28

Given how much interest codeberg gets from the community right now, I would argue getting community support for it might be easier than getting Red Hat support for GitLab. Especially since GitLab itself doesn't want external contributions to override enterprise features

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:48:03

# Time check: 7 minutes to open floor

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:48:34

Can we agree the report requirements need more refinement?

<@mattdm:fedora.im>

14:48:45

Six weeks feels like _a lot_.

<@bookwar:fedora.im>

14:49:12

Honestly speaking at this point I would rather see the investigation not in the direction what is _preferred_ by users, but rather are there any real _blockers_ to use Forgejo.

<@asamalik:fedora.im>

14:49:20

Agree! But I'd say this is the kind of discussion we'll have *after* the investigation is over, and we know we can even use one or the other.

<@humaton:fedora.im>

14:49:26

Its about the release Quality is under load until the final

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:49:32

+1 to this, this is a vote I feel informed enough to take

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:49:32

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:49:32

This is on me, but I have not kept up with the git forge conversation and I still have a challenge in understanding what is most challenging to Fedora Infra / Red Hat CPE in the context of what makes these test cases difficult to test other than lots of people are busy from now until F41

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:49:55

we (council) could really benefit from a level-setting with the ARC team

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:50:13

I think if we can organise this next week, we would be in a better position to give them report requirements

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:50:32

Maybe, but community support is not free either. We sometimes make this mistake when we choose to forge our own path. I have receipts for some of these things and they are surprisingly very big bills. :P

<@humaton:fedora.im>

14:50:49

Both of us will be here next week

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:51:00

QA is telling us they are under pressure with f41. 6 weeks may seem like a lot to us, but I personally think we stand to benefit from allowing them this space as ot allows US to get our sh*t together with the ARC team too :)

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:51:17

IMHO, not to me, but I don't have a wide perspective on this, I am thinking from the perspective of teams I work with in Mindshare and various other workflows that as of now are living in GitLab and not Pagure anymore

<@asamalik:fedora.im>

14:52:27

+1 on extending the report deadline by 6 weeks for QA to have time to look into both forge options

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:52:28

I am +1 to a 6-week extension because I recognize the social and emotional burdens that are on a lot of the folks in QA, and I want them to be a primary stakeholder in this decision. Not landing this right could be detrimental to the community-building that happens in QA, and I value getting it right with our stakeholders versus meeting the original deadline. not sure if this is a #HotTake or not :)

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:52:43

Agreed

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:52:51

Count me in

<@mattdm:fedora.im>

14:52:52

I'm feeling some amount of "we should just pick one and get on with it"

<@bookwar:fedora.im>

14:52:57

They bring bills, but they contribute to the world. While whatever closed platfrom we are using brings as many bills but with zero contribution to the world. I rather do the former. Anyways, that's my personal view, but the important part i want to highlight is still this: I think we should stop choosing what we _like_ more, we should choose what we can possibly use as a start and move forward.

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:53:06

# OMG 2 minutes to open floor!!

<@mattdm:fedora.im>

14:53:27

I'm not -1 to 6 weeks, _if_ we can commit to making _our_ decision in, like, no more than two weeks after that.

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:53:34

💯 💯 💯 💯 💯

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:53:36

Pressure that may or may not be coming from upper and internal management about the length of time this is taking will have to be dealt with by us who are responsible for this. This is a community we work in and there is always competing work. And I really think if we fudge this just because we want it 'done already' will ruin our credibility :-/

<@jbrooks:matrix.org>

14:54:07

I'm +1 to more time to ARC, and ask that they bottom line it for us from their perspective

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:54:16

This sounds like something we need to discuss in that level-setting call with the ARC team

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:54:35

OK, I made it to the bottom :)

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:54:37

All caught up :)

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:54:51

I am hearing that we want a 6-week extension, but also, hey we really don't want to extend again if we extend this time!

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:54:57

And I _do_ think that seems reasonable

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:55:04

If we keep extending, nobody will take this seriously

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:55:08

And that is also a risk

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:55:14

!proposal The Fedora Council will meet with CPE ARC team during the week of October 14th to walk through the work to date and get a better understanding of whats been covered, and left to do. The council will also agree to a 6 week extention for the report to accomodate Fedora QA as they are unable to verify their use cases during F41 release time

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:55:15

We have been having a git forge conversation for two years or more

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:55:19

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:55:42

(with the subtle implication that I really want this extension to be… firm)

<@asamalik:fedora.im>

14:55:44

I sympathize... even though I'm for the extension. One extension.

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:55:56

!group members council

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

14:55:58

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:56:08

Please drop a +1/0/-1 vote for Aoife's proposal.

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:56:14

+1 (for posterity)

<@mattdm:fedora.im>

14:56:26

<@bookwar:fedora.im>

14:56:26

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:56:31

!proposal pt.2 : The council will be able to give clear report requirements to the ARC team after the walkthrough

<@mattdm:fedora.im>

14:56:36

sorry aoife :)

<@jbrooks:matrix.org>

14:56:37

<@dcantrell:fedora.im>

14:56:39

<@mattdm:fedora.im>

14:56:44

+1 to part 2

<@asamalik:fedora.im>

14:56:50

+1 (but I'm not here next week)

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:56:51

I'll say after the level-setting call, let's chat on this :)

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:56:56

assume you are +1-ing to them both

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:57:01

# Vote, going once…

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:57:15

# Vote, going twice…

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:57:30

#Vote, going thrice…

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:57:33

# Vote, going thrice…

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:57:45

💥

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:57:57

!agreed The Fedora Council will meet with CPE ARC team during the week of October 14th to walk through the work to date and get a better understanding of whats been covered, and left to do. The council will also agree to a 6 week extention for the report to accomodate Fedora QA as they are unable to verify their use cases during F41 release time.

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:57:58

crap. ok we will record the call anyway and I can grep your feedback from the ticket to bring to the conversation to make sure theyre addressed

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:58:20

We can navigate this, we have been dealing with time zones and different schedules for 21-ish years :)

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:58:26

This challenge, we can solve 💯

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:58:53

!agreed Recorded vote: +5/1/-0

<@asamalik:fedora.im>

14:58:53

I'm not here for the next 3 weeks, don't block on me please :D

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:58:57

!topic Open floor

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:58:59

Phew!

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:59:02

Y'all, we did it.

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:59:11

That was a packed meeting discussion, but I feel like it was good.

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:59:17

And… mildly less chaotic than our usual :)

<@mattdm:fedora.im>

14:59:18

Yes.

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:59:26

We're even going to finish on time!

<@mattdm:fedora.im>

14:59:26

Thank you for the timeboxing -- that really helps

<@amoloney:fedora.im>

14:59:33

Ill book a slot with CPE ARC next week for us

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:59:35

We have 30 seconds left, so really, this open floor is not so open.

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:59:41

But of course, #council:fedoraproject.org is always open!

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:59:52

Thanks folks for your attention and engagement.

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:59:56

Have a great rest of your week!

<@jflory7:fedora.im>

14:59:58

!endmeeting