Meeting started at 2025-07-08 17:11:19 UTC

The Meeting name is 'FESCO (2025-07-08-attempt2)'

The Meeting Name is now fesco

!hi

!hi

Stephen Gallagher (sgallagh) - he / him / his

Michel Lind (salimma) - he / him / his

!hi

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek (zbyszek)

!hi

David Cantrell (dcantrell) - he / him / his

!hi

Fabio Valentini (decathorpe) - he / him / his

I'll take another pass at it this week

zbyszek do you want to repeat your question for the record

> Michel, I was reading the proposal, and I think Neal has a point that the proposed procedure is slower than the procedure to completely take over the package.

> Did you consider shortening it to match?

there's also Miro's question about whether we need to do review. I think the answer to that is yes, right?

as for the time - IIRC we increased the time in a previous iteration of this draft? my memory is a bit rusty

and yeah we might want to at least take a look whether the proposed changes make sense - though I'm not sure what to do when nobody on fesco has expertise with something

hm ... I agree, the smaller hammer shouldn't have a longer procedure

if everyone is happy with it being reduced, we can drop it by one week

I think that actually this procedure being longer than the other one might be an illusion. Because the other procedure starts with "the maintainer has been noticed to be non-responsive". Here we start with a PR, and then after a week, we already go to the next step.

Yeah, I'm not sure. Maybe a bit of rephrasing would help.

maybe having a timeline comparison between the old and new method would help

but I'm also open to allowing needinfo for a week to be sufficient. note that there is still a delay until fesco votes anyway, so they get up to another week depending on whether someone brings it up to the meeting or not

well, only if the maintainer is already non-responsive, too?

> Here we start with a PR, and then after a week, we already go to the next step.

just filing a PR against a package where the maintainer *is* responsive shouldn't (really) trigger this process, right?

yeah

FYI, fedora.im doesn't seem to be federating. So only fedora.im people are going to see this meeting. ;)

At its heart, isn't the purpose of this process to have a fast-track to comaintainership?

oh oh 😬

but I guess this lightweight procedure is for "this maintainer is inactive and blocking my fix"

right

sigh

let me summon Neal

I was wondering why rooms have been so quiet ...

!hi

Neal Gompa (ngompa) - he / him / his

fedora.im is a island right now. ;) I have no idea if it will catch up once it's fixed.

so we do have two sub-quora :P

Yeah, but the other subforum cannot have quorum by definition so it's all good.

ok, so ... I think we sort of have consensus that yes, Neal's concern is valid and we should just drop one week after needinfo ?

I would be fine with a 1-week needinfo

and also for Miro's question we can clarify saying yes, FESCo will have to evaluate the PR on merit and that is what will prevent unqualified people from being added as comaintainer

we should make sure our hammers are appropriately sized :)

it's still going to be 1-week needinfo PLUS fesco deems something urgent enough

I'm fine with adjusting it now, but we should be very willing to adjust it after...

right. regular FESCo voting rules apply so e.g. you can fasttrack it, and -1 will schedule it for meeting

So I think that part of the problem is that the new procedure is described differently than the other one. And then people start wondering if the differences are meaningful. Maybe it should be updated to use the same wording for the steps that are intended to be similar…

Michel Lind UTC-5: With the expectation that FESCo is willing to say "This is too complicated, we aren't experts. Therefore: no"

Stephen Gallagher: yes, that is a good point

after re-reading, now I understand... dropping the one week after needinfo makes sense, and allowing parallelization would also speed it up

s/no/Do the full non-responsive process, please/

we can declare that we punt on this and suggest using the normal flow

(I have a window this week where I can do docs work before I get distracted by other work, so ... good, hopefully we can get the new text ready for review today and landed this week)

That'd be great.

thanks for bringing it up, and everyone who has given feedback on this

my thing is that smaller hammers should have smaller timeframes, and my reading made me think that it takes _longer_ and is thus harder to execute

every manual step with additional time baked in is effectively friction

yeah, it's slightly surprising nobody noticed before

I had a feeling but I wasn't sure if I was right so I re-read it a couple of time

I had a feeling but I wasn't sure if I was right so I re-read it a couple of times

but also, it shouldn't be too easy or it will get abused. ;)

me, I got burned by the EPEL policy this was based on initially being seen as too heavy handed and was slowed down

but we have code review, and that one does not, so that should hopefully work out

looking for that goldilocks zone

yup

other topics?

kevins fedora.im account - use nirik@matrix.scrye.com instead: I'm less worried about abuse. That's far less common in Fedora than even the most cynical FESCo member might expect :)

if it turns out that the timeline is too tight we can always adapt the policy again

Cool, let's move on to the next topic.

I did the agenda for a few weeks in a row, happy to pass the baton now.

I can do it

Thx.

(I'll be busy with conference travel / moving prep soon so might as well bank some meeting chairing)

Where are you moving to?

Ireland, hopefully late August

Oh, rainy ;)

rainy, but less hot / cold at the extremes than Chicago :)

oh look an fesco meeting. Question am I suppose to replace mattdm now as ex-officio member of Fesco?

I don't recall matt attending FESCo meetings that often :)

I don't think FPL is a member of FESCo.

Jef Spaleta: You should probably be on the fesco@ mailing list and possibly our ticket tracker auto-notifications.

Matthew always has been

well, if there were interesting topics on the agenda, he did

matt is listed above at start of meeing as a member

But no, FPL is not a FESCo member

FAS group member, yes

council member: no

Right, that too

committee member: no

Jef Spaleta: you're obviously welcome to attend. This applies to any interested party.

and FAS group membership we can (and should) fix :)

documentation says there is a private mailing list as well

yes, that's the fesco list we just mentioned above

yeah. we can sort that out too. do you want to file a ticket to track this? Aoife might know more about what's involved ...

I suppose the steps are similar to what happens for newly elected fesco members

FPL change happens even less often then FESCo membership changes. I doubt anyone knows what to do.

following the same process does seem to make sense

it's basically the same things except FPL does not get a vote, right?

Yeah, the new FESCo member process would be the right one

I can do those things. Or leave them to others... etc. Should just be list membership I think.

He gets the Puerto Rico vote in Congress.

my one topic is related: do we have a preference for when Change Proposals get posted for voting?

Michel Lind UTC-5: What options for that do you see?

seems like they're mostly posted on Monday, but this week they are posted on Tuesday which means... short notice for FESCo meeting

Michel Lind UTC-5: in what sense? They are supposed to be posted after a week of discussion, more or less.

ill file a ticket sed mattdm with jspaleta in all the fesco things

true. but they tend to be batched-published both for discussion and for voting anyway since one person does it

so maybe making it aligned with the meeting might make sense

might, I'm holding this opinion very weakly :)

AFAICT it currently happens "when Aoife has time for it", not sure if there's more schedule than that

Yeah. I think that as long as the cadence is somewhat regular, the specific days of the week don't matter that much.

yeah, I think it's fine as it is, just curious

(nothign in the queue now is controversial fwiw)

well the two controversial ones were yeeted already

Fabio Valentini: one was your i686 proposal, and the other one?

x11libre

Ah, that. I forgot already.

Anyway, do we have anything else?

hmm, I don't see that in the list of closed / rejected issues

(also sigh pagure does not show close status by default)

it never made it to fesco

It was withdrawn before being submitted for voting, yeah.

Both were.

both i686 and x11libre were withdrawn due to negative feedback

ahh

I'm sure more controversial ones will be along. ;)

I have one coming. Stay tuned ;)

oh no

If they weren't, we'd have nothing to argue about in these meetings :)

new systemd feature by default? ;)

want to switch to the Mach kernel?

ReactOS kernel?

zbyszek: Snippet extermination? 😁

PowerShell by default

ReactOS, but with Btrfs

Since Aofie was mentioned by name, we're gonna all need to help out keeping things on schedule when she's on leave in the F44 cycle, and other people( undoubtly thats partly me) are trying to cover her work

yes!

That too, but that's not controversial, I think.

yes!

if it helps I'm planning to not do anything crazy for F44 :)

I guess the controversial one will be if we say "for Server we will use ReactOS + XFS + LVM"

oooh

plus fvwm!

OK, I think we're getting off track.

there is an mdadm port for Windows :P

never!

not sure it works as well as the btrfs one does though

Neal Gompa (Fedora): just because it compiles doesn't mean it's useful on the platform

Jef Spaleta: does this mean that fesco members need to take over part of the process for Aiofee?

from scratch reimplementation it looks like: https://github.com/maharmstone/winmd

you kid but someone reently asked me why we can't have fluxbox in EPEL 9+

I think we can do most things, maybe except filing the discourse stuff properly? not sure if I can pretend to create a topic as someone else ...

oh gosh it's Mark again

yup

man's a masochistic genius

well, with wayback or Xweston, maybe?

yeah I think Jef or whoever else is a Discourse admin should probably handle that

maybe mattdm has more free time these days? I know he loves Discourse :)

the "rewrite author of post" thing is not something I think most of us can do

yeah I probably don't want to have that sort of "sudo" rights

I think we're gonna need to be flexible. But most importantly everyone but me will need to watch out for undocumented bits that Aofie's brain and attention to detail has papered over.

Ack.

OK, any other topics?

If not, I'll close shortly.

we'll figure it out

I see another "is typing" prompt that seems stuck.