Meeting started at 2025-10-22 14:01:55 UTC

The Meeting name is 'Fedora Council Meeting '

!hi

!hi

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

Aoife Moloney (amoloney)

!hi

Aleksandra Fedorova (bookwar) - she / her / hers

!hi

Jona Azizaj (jonatoni) - she / her / hers

!hi

!hi

Justin Wheeler (jflory7) - he / him / his

Dave Cantrell (dcantrell) - he / him / his

Howdy, howdy folks 👋

I've been excited all week for this meeting 😄

!hi

Peter Boy (pboy)

(Excited for meetings, you ask?!?)

Ready to answer questions

I invited Peter Boy (ServerWG, Docs) to hang out for when we get to the Docs Initiative topic 🙂

!hi jasonbrooks

Jason Brooks (jasonbrooks) - he / him / his

!hi

Also, I'm a bit sad because this is our last Council meeting with Aoife Moloney for quite a while. But it is all for good reasons 🙂

Jef Spaleta (jspaleta) - he / him / his

Can we please put the Initiative topics ahead of the AI discussion?

Or at least Docs

i have a strong suspicion Aoife Moloney will make a shadow fas account just so she can lurk and eat popcorn while she's on leave

That matters a lot to me

So we're 4 weeks into the process. Council members have been voting in the ticket and a -1 has been raised with some discussion happening on that

I would rather finish the AI discussion today

Also to clarify, our docs state a 0 vote is permitted as part of the full consensus model so I rescind my request of not using the 0 vote

bookwar: But the point was not to discuss so much in the meeting. I am keenly aware folks are waiting for us on feedback on other things too

All we are doing is discussing AI, and I don't want important community work to get blocked by AI discussion

So let's finish it

Sorry, maybe a little melodramatic, but the AI discussion is making my head spin

why don't we just let AI discuss the AI policy for us?

And I agree with bookwar: , the ai thing needs to be finished

Well, I will be very upset if we do not get to discuss the Docs Initiative after I explicitly invited Peter Boy (ServerWG, Docs) here for the last two Council meetings, and we don't actually discuss it

One meaning of 0 can be: "I disagree with this decision, but I support the group."

dcantrell: do i understand it right that you have two concerns: 1) the ambiguity in the last sentence of the Accountability section and 2) the Transparency section as a whole?

OK, then let's just do it

But I will get noisy if we get stuck in discussion on AI, again

It will honestly be rude to Peter and Petr too

bookwar: yes, but I think Jason changed the Accountability section and I am reading the comments on the Transparency section

!hi

Miro Hrončok (churchyard) - he / him / his or they / them / theirs

I suggested that "fully accountable for their contributions" become "fully accountable for the entirety of these contributions." for clarity to address Dave's concern

and that's fine with me

thank you

While you're reading dcantrell: , a quick tally of the votes puts us at (+6, 0, -1) - not including Jason's vote or any initiative lead votes

thank, just give me a couple minutes here to read these comments

*thanks

So this would be the version with just the change I mentioned that Dave said he'd be 0 on: https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/542#comment-990415

I take 'full council' number to be at 8, excluding initiative leads. And we are missing the Mindshare rep vote but as they're literally only nominated in to the council since last week, I think it'd be a bit unfair to ask they vote at this time

ok, done and posted my response and vote in the ticket

Well damn!!

I thought you'd be 0 🤣

I re-voted in the ticket, to make it clear on the new draft

I'm not here to ruin everyone's fun. I just want to be heard sometimes

Good thing I didn't put any money on that as a bet 🤣

I suggest we all do that too

And move to the next topic 🙂

Thanks, David. And everyone else too. We have made some progress today :)

dcantrell: I'm glad we were able to come up with something that you feel like you can get behind 🙌 Looking at the long tail of this topic, I am happy with how we have iterated and come through with this.

Well your input has been valuable and thank you for being so patient. Yay for teamwork 😁

same, thank you everyone

With that, we come in at (7, 0, 0)

Jason Brooks++ Kudos to you for also being a thoughtful, engaged driver of this policy and making sure we take the time to take feedback into account. It is critical and important for anything we do in Fedora, especially touchy stuff like this

jflory7 has already given cookies to jasonbrooks during the F42 timeframe

So, what's next?

cocktails?

Actions now

Who wants what? This needs to be published to the policies page and a summary needs to go to discourse, mailing list and the community blog

amoloney gave a cookie to jflory7. They now have 411 cookies, 20 of which were obtained in the Fedora 42 release cycle

Jason Brooks: ++

amoloney gave a cookie to jasonbrooks. They now have 38 cookies, 3 of which were obtained in the Fedora 42 release cycle

Uhhh, soooo—

I guess I am taking on the role of Council secretary in an era without Aoife, it is my action item?

And I do love me some Fedora Docs 😛

Jason Brooks: Could I action you to help me make sure I get the exact text of the policy right? Then I can AsciiDoc-ify it away

I can take the summary postings

Who wants to add it to the policies page?

And then I could take the action to do the PR. But I'll just merge it without PR approvals, because I feel like the approval is done here

WDYM?

Matrix lagged

This is what I mean, I guess this can be as the temporary Council secretary until May 2026

This is what I mean, I guess this can be me, as the temporary Council secretary until May 2026

Theres a lot of conversation about this. We need to post a summary/outcome so ppl know the results. I can take that action

Ah, yeah

Happy for you to take that on

I can do the logistics of Pagure PRs and Council docs

You write your `!action`, I write mine 🙂

Go!

Ah, oh well, there it is 🙂

WFM!

! action @amoloney to follow up on discussion threads providing a summary of the outcome of the vote so folks know what has happened with the topic

Sorry my matrix is very slow

Peter Boy (ServerWG, Docs), Petr Bokoc apologies for dropping the ball on this one :(

Yay!

Sorry, just rewriting that so it goes into the minutes

So, I don't want to be too chatty on this proposal

I have been working closely with Peter Boy (ServerWG, Docs) and Petr Bokoc on this for some time

And I agreed to sign on as the Executive Sponsor

I really want to know what y'all think

Because Docs contributor pipeline needs some love, and this is a workable plan, I feel!

The Fedora Discussion topic had a _lot_ of metrics discussion. Some of which was useful for the Initiative, some of which was not

So, I would like to encourage us not going too narrow and deep on the metrics part, when the Initiative already has some clear actionables and outputs that could be considered success metrics

What might help is the template I finally got around to creating for initiatives being proposed to council to vote on

It fits well as a logical step after the first requirement of opening a discussion ticket with the proposed idea

I am mindful that work has been going on this proposal since mid-2025, so I would like to suggest we grandfather this Initiative proposal into the previous process and not create much more work for Peter and Petr on formatting

During a council meeting *sometime* ago (think Sept?), a lot of us felt we needed a simpler way to review an initiaitve request, so we came up with a template/form similar to a change proposal

Its a ticket template, its not too much work at all 😅

Link?

https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/new_issue

you'll see the initiative_proposal under types

This is the heart of the proposal, and the Initiative also has some clear milestones mapped out, so I would really love for Council to have input on this today, if possible, so Peter and Petr can set off in the right path before the Initiative begins in November

I see

# Initiative Details

* Summary Overview:

* Target Release: Please select all Fedora releases that apply

* Dependancies: Other teams, packages, etc impacted or involved

* Requires Change Proposal(s): Y/N - Please indicate and if Yes, please add a link to the change proposals as comments to this ticket once filed

# Benefit to Fedora

Please describe how this initiative will benefit Fedora.

# Expected Outcomes

What do you hope to achieve from this initiative? What are your goals?

# Success Criteria

How will folks know if this initative has been successful?

```

* Link to Discussion post:

```

# Name of Initiative

# Initiative Team Details

* Name:

* Email:

* Team space: Matrix room/discussion workspace, etc

Just so it is all in front of us

https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/543

Peter Boy (ServerWG, Docs), Petr Bokoc: Do you think could edit the Council Pagure ticket to use this template? I think most of these questions are already answered, it will be just putting them into the template

I don't see much new

Benefit to Fedora: Vision/Mission of the Initiative

Expected Outcomes: See Outcomes column of the logic model

Success Criteria: See Outputs column of the logic model

theres very little new, it seemed just an easier way to do a ticket vote on an initiative proposal for council once we were past the 2-week feedback period

Also relevant for outcomes/success criteria: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Initiatives/Fedora_Docs_2025#Milestones

btw, the wiki page is great that this initiative has

Yep, the ticket template makes sense. It was my bad for not sharing this earlier with Peter Boy (ServerWG, Docs) and Petr Bokoc, but my leave was a part of that. So we can just write it off as poor timing of things

no no, not your bad at all. I only did it this week so its actually on me

When I am looking at the list of work items in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Initiatives/Fedora_Docs_2025#Milestones I see that one way Council can help is to ensure we create the place for Docs conversation at the events. Is there anything else from that list which requires some elevated level of permissions/budget or any other type of help from the Council level to enable Fedora Docs SIG to do the work?

we dont have to use it for this one, the wiki is great, but we should use it for formal ticket voting on initiatives going forward

Also, for anyone that wants a deeper look at the context for this Initiative, @jzb did a nice write-up on LWN after Flock this year. Not relevant to discuss now, but leaving here for folks who want to piece together the puzzle of why this Initiative and why now

ACK. As the temporary Council secretary, I will make sure we use this and also adopt it when we eventually move to Forgejo

Question, what's the statusing expectation? I know success metrics are difficult at present... but i would like to stay on top of progress..or blockers that come up.

A little bit on budget. (And also, before the end of the year, I hope to present on 2026 budget to the Council generally. But in due time.) For this Initiative, Peter has mapped out some outreach plans for events. For now, this means CentOS Connect/FOSDEM (submitting a docs workshop for Connect, bridging with CentOS folks) and Flock, of course

This is a good question, and perhaps something we have never truly standardized. Ben Cotton built a repo for this back in the day, but it had its own challenges. The moment is ripe to think of something new, something different

Peter Boy (ServerWG, Docs), Petr Bokoc: WDYT?

(at least)monthly report, probably?

Does the format matter? An update at the Council meeting?

I think monthly updates in our meeting is a nice idea, but maybe there are better ways?

Regarding support: Budget wise it is support for the meetings (travel costs). Much more important is support regarding the importancs of docs and the urgency not just to talk, but to take actions. Most important to change routines and to establish communication betwwen the technical side and docs.

Regarding statusing,: Of course, I keep track of the goals and the degree to which they have been achieved. That's standard project management.

it's more so that, if you run into a blocker we can support you. That's my primary concern.

A monthly summary of what has been achieved and the next steps is also part of team interaction.

For me any format will work, as long as it happens at least monthly, so that we don't just leave Peter and others alone with their effort.

Some of my ideas of supporting this involve the CentOS Connect workshop (hands-on, bridging together shared collaborators in Fedora and CentOS), and hands-on workshops at Flock 2026

So, from a budget POV, it utilizes existing presence and event space that we will already have conveniently available for Fedora and Fedora-adjacent people

It is not actually a requirement on the docs working group, it is requirement on the _Council_ group to dedicate some time and to pay attention at least monthly on what is happening in the initiative :)

Jef Spaleta: thanks, I expect some issues to soften and change familiar Fedora routines that hinder exchange between “tech” and “docs.”

Count on me as Executive Sponsor to help with this

I see this as my duty to the Council as well, to be the voice of the Initiative back to the Council

In tandem with Peter and Petr, of course

Could we take a vote? Are we feeling prepared for that?

The proposed work begins in November, so I want Peter and Petr to feel empowered to begin going down this path, and also, Council Hackfest 2026 planning will be impacted by off-boarding and on-boarding of new Initiatives too!

So the sooner we know, the better for budget planning for Hackfest too 🙂

I'm ready to vote, but of course, I am super biased 😄

I wont be here if it goes to the next meeting, so Im +1 to this initiative. I cant see any reason to not support this work

Let's rally a vote! I think we can do it! And of course, future feedback does not mean we cannot revise and adapt. Every Initiative does this 🙂

Let's vote on the principle of what is laid out today, and our view on the strategic impact of the proposed work?

Aoife Moloney: Is this OK to rally the vote now? In our last five minutes? 😄

yeah, go for it!

want it in the ticket or here?

!group members council

Members of council: Aoife Moloney, Aleksandra Fedorova, Miro Hrončok, Dave Cantrell, Jason Brooks, jflory7 (@jflory7:fedora.im, @fca:fedoraproject.org), Jona Azizaj, Jef Spaleta, Ryan Lerch

Please vote on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Initiatives/Fedora_Docs_2025

+1

+1

+1

+1

I am so sorry, I got distracted :(

No worries, it happens

You can vote in the ticket if you don't want to rush it?

bookwar, dcantrell: Ping, what about y'all?

I will vote in the ticket

60 seconds left, we might have to do some async wrangling, but I think Peter and Petr have the context now to assume that there are not any major blockers for the Initiative, and can likely anticipate starting work in November as scheduled

As the Exec Sponsor, I will take on the vote rallying for this ticket

I'm really happy we had the time to discuss this today

I'm very excited about this Initiative 🎉

I like the initiative. I think there are couple of items I would change a little bit, for example more clearly highlighting one-shot tasks vs tasks to setup a process.

Aoife Moloney: Back over to you 🙂

For our final goodbye for 2025 🥲

Thanks for the discussion. I see that Docs isn't as lost in Fedora as it sometimes seems.

ok, time to end it here then :D

actually do you want an agreed statement?

Happy journey for what comes next for you, Aoife Moloney 🙂 We'll miss you loads!

My big concern would be so that we do not spend most of the time on setting up elaborate processes while we have only a small team to use them. Because processes should grow together with the team.

Yes, a tentative one

But this is not really a blocker concern in any way

So I am +1 on the general approach and vision

beautifu :)