Meeting started at 2025-02-12 18:00:23 UTC

The Meeting name is 'fedora-server'

I'll post the agenda in 2-3 minutes.

As usual, let's wait a moment for everybody to show up.

!hi

John Himpel (jwhimpel)

!hello

Emmanuel Seyman (eseyman) - he / him / his

Emmanuel Seyman: I updated the ansible roles for nfs in the fedora-server repository. It may have some leftover gradu from discovering that uid & gid must match, but it works fine if that is the case. It also has some hardcoded variables in the "defaults" and "vars" directories pointing to my environment. I will attempt to genericize those and improve docs in the next two weeks.

Welcome John and Emmanuel. We have our quorum and should start.

And I suppose nirik , you are lurking as always while working on various issues?

Got it. I will take a look this weekend

info Proposal: Fedora Server Edition - homelab spin-off

info FLOCK 2025

I think, we are full. But, nevertheless, any additions?

Let's start

Regarding the action, nothing new. See

We need to prepare that at one of the next meetings.

We have the opportunity to be guests at a Fedora podcast session on March 11.

Anything to add here?

I don't think so

OK, next

about 15 mins max

We should prepare our evaluation goals. I have prepared a brainstorming document on hackmd.io.

The page is currently empty. for write permission you have to login to hackmd.

Any idea?

I think the first step is seeing how much of the survey people filled in

which question was the most answered ? least answered ? ...

Yes, that relates to the issue of reliability.

We have to heck, if we need to set a minimal number of question anwered to include an item into the data body.

We have to check, if we need to set a minimal number of questions answered to include an item into the data body.

Any further ideas how we should proceed?

We both have access to the raw data, right ?

Yes, and Mowest. And we can export the data, so anyone of us can work on it. I think, that is the most appropriate solution (in the interest of Fedora to handle the survey area with all its data carefully and confidentially

We have a kind of development server (sisyphos) where John does some of the NFS testing. And we can set up a data area and every WG member can have a login.

Does the data contain identifiable information? I'm trying to understand the confidentiality concerns.

Welcome Paul!

Hi :)

Ok, I would rather we restrict access to the data as much as possibled

Ok, I would rather we restrict access to the data as much as possible

Paul Maconi (Aggraxis): Justin is very carefully. Some raw data may be sensible. And the Fedora community is very privacy protective sensitive.

Okay, I'm in too much pain right now to think too much about this.

I will think on it and put my thoughts on the hackmd document before next meeting

The problem is that anyone who has access to the survey server has access to all surveys.

I understand.

Ok yeah I get it now. Sorry :)

Ah, you want to export the data so that only we have access to it

Yes. We can export data into various formats, Excel, R, comma separated. And we can restrict, what we export, e.g. no IP addresses, and we can each id replace by a random number. That way we can identiy, that several answeres are from the same person, but we have no longer any connection to the persons id properties. That makes handling the data much easier without loosing any important information.

And any WG member can download those data and explore them.

OK, as soon as we close the survey, I'll do several download formats.

I'ld ask which WG members want to work on this and restrict to them but otherwise, I approve

Another question, eseyman, could you do some further advocating? Or can you tomorow?

Yes, I just sent to the devel list. I'll sent to the user list sometime tonight

OK thanks!!!!!!

Paul Maconi (Aggraxis): do you want to remind r/homelab that the survey time is almost over ?

Hm, the seems to be thinking. Let' go on in he meantime.

about 10 mins MAX

No tracking issue yet

Proposal draft see

We had discusses that last meeting and there was no objection.

Necverthjeless, we have to decide about the further procedure.

And to be clear again: I would like to keep the focus of Server and Server WG on professional use. Creating a homelab spin-off creates a separate area for this and facilitates the former focus. And at the same time, we can better meet the needs and demands of the obviously large number of home server users. Additionally, I would also like to strive to achieve cooperation with ARM sig and CoreOS WG.

But to get it all started, we need to make a fundamental decision without delay.

Therefore: proposed: !agreed Server WG decides to start work on a honelab / homeserver spin-off.

Therefore: proposed: !agreed Server WG decides to start work on a homelab / homeserver spin-off.

I'm worried this will get 80% of our users but ok...

I'm not entirely convinced homelabbers are looking for a tailored product.

Emmanuel Seyman: Maybe, bug I hope there are enough professional uses left. And the data say so.

Many of us just enjoy tinkering with... stuff.

I question whether or not we have enough human resources to support both WG. Our current server WG is currently hanging on by a thread (IMO). I agree with the sentiment, just wondering about resources.

I am not either sure a tailored one is needed, is there someone wanting one ?

Regarding tailored: There was some discussion about the difficulty to get it started. So yes, there is some demand for an easy beginning by a tailored, or partly tailored instance.

And everything has to be perfectly customizhable. That is the difference to the commercial NAS devices. And there tinkering will start.

And regarding resourcen: I would like to test Participatory Development, a methodology I used in my university project for some years. It will - hopefully if successful - let more people participate.

and contribute

And regarding resourcen: I would like to use Participatory Development, a methodology I used in my university project for some years. It will - hopefully if successful - let more people participate.

Any additional ideas?

Otherwise, do we agree to start it? Of course, if we find out it does not work or nobody else is interested, we will stop it.

The technical side - creating the image - es quite easy with the arm SBCs as target.

That is not much work to get a first workable alpha version.

Let's give it a shot

Thanks, John?

OK, no objection.

I would like to jump to 6 because the time is urgent.

#

No tracking issue yet

about 10 mins max

We discusses several possible WG contributions to Flock 2025

Emmanuel: Talk worktitle: "What do our users do and what do they wish? A regular survey series for each edition to optimize further development."

pboy: Talk worktitle: "Participatory software development – Creating a Fedora Server Edition homelab spin-off"

Mowest & eseyman/pboy: Talk, worktitle: "How we use Fedora Server Edition - Expected, unexpected and lessons learned for future developments"

pboy & eseyman & mowest & et.al.: Working group, worktitle: "Fedora Server Edition homelab spin-off"

pboy & eseyman & mowest & et.al.: Talk, worktitle "Fedora Server Edition next – Where are we heading"

Question is: Are there additional ideas aroung?

proposed !agreed Eseyman, Mowest and Pboy will finalize suitable contributions to Flock 2025 on the basis of the current collection of ideas and submit the application(s).

therwise:

OK, I see no objections and no additional ideas. May Paul Maconi (Aggraxis) would you like to participate at and contribute to Flock (in June at Prague, Europe)?

Dates noted, I have planned to be there

I will not be able to attend Flock this year

My best advice is to think about topics in scope of the Fedora contributor community and less about users. DevConf CZ is the week after Flock. That is the best place for user and dev content. Flock should be all about the contributors!

I like some of what I see here, though :)

Also, interactive sessions might score a little higher this year than traditional talks/presentations, but we will definitely still have both.

JWW (@jflory7): Agreed :-) I want to get an agreement how we as WG will act. Seeing the time frame we need an active group to do it and decide it.

OK, no objections, therefore:

Let's start with who plans to be there

I think, currently it is the two of us, maybe mowest can make it, too.

I will not be at Flock 2025

Yes, John, I didn't want to exclude you. But I rembered, you said a long tine ago that you can't participate.

I'm going to watch as many of the session recordings that I can, that's for sure. :)

I did not feel excluded. Just added my comment to insure clarity. Like Paul, I will watch as many recordings as I can. Recordings from Flock 2024 worked pretty well for me.

OK, thanks!

Let's return to

Eseyman reviewed the article proposing 2 minor modifications.

We descussed it last meeting, we now should decide.

proposed !agreed We create a supported web service following the current description of a basic setup in the server docs. This is also the basis for developing an Ansible playbook.

I hate to bring up an old topic, but I thought a long time ago, we agreed on NGINX instead of Apache. This was due to a smaller footprint along with better reverse proxy support. This input may be too late for this proposal or maybe we need to support/document both.

I would really like another week to mock up its use

I think Peter feels this is for hosting websites, not being a reverse proxy for psgi/wsgi/whatever...

@John Apache is the "official" Fedora approved web server. So we should document and support it. Nginx is a often used algternative, so we should document and support it, too.

Emmanuel Seyman: OK, let's postpone it.

We should not rush into anything and think carefully about everything.

And achieve the greatest possible consensus.

We're out of time and I need to be elsewhere. Leaving now. Sorry!

John Himpel: Perfectly OK! our last topic is NFS. We postpone it, too. And start with this next meeting!!

John Himpel: I will take a look at your changes and review!

The f42 fork makes this hard to test right now

FTR, I have started a spec file for rdebock's users ansible role.

Hopefully, once that package exists, others will be trivial to do

We are out of time. Nevertheless, anything else to talk about?

that's all for me

Paul?

sorry I'm g ood

sorry I'm good

OK. I close. Bye Bye