Meeting started at 2026-05-26 17:01:27 UTC

The Meeting name is 'FESCO (2026-05-26)'

!hi

zbyszek: Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek (zbyszek)

The Meeting Name is now fesco

!group members fesco

Members of fesco: Fabio Valentini, Máirín Duffy, Fabio Alessandro Locati, Jef Spaleta, Kevin Fenzi, ngompa (@conan_kudo:matrix.org, @ngompa:fedora.im, @pharaoh_atem:opensuse.org, @ngompa:kde.org, @ngompa:almalinux.im), salimma (@michel-slm:matrix.org, @salimma:fedora.im), Stephen Gallagher, Timothée Ravier, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek

!hi

Fale: Fabio Alessandro Locati (fale) - he / him / his

morning

!hi

Timothée Ravier: Timothée Ravier (siosm) - he / him / his

!hi

Stephen Gallagher: Stephen Gallagher (sgallagh) - he / him / his

!hi

Fabio Valentini: Fabio Valentini (decathorpe) - he / him / his

!hi

Conan Kudo 😌: Neal Gompa (ngompa) - he / him / his

7 people present, let's wait a couple of minutes to see if someone else will arrives :)

Fale: mizmo said she would be unable to make it today.

yes, and I think that at :06 we can start and eventually people will read the history

!fesco 3610

!fesco 3610

I think the two big questions are: does FESCo wants to ask for more than 1 seat on the Council? What should be the rotation period?

**fesco #3610** (https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3610):**Updates policy exception for go2rpm**

● **Assignee:** Not Assigned

● **Last Updated:** a day ago

● **Opened:** 2 weeks ago by gotmax23

**fesco #3610** (https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3610):**Updates policy exception for go2rpm**

● **Assignee:** Not Assigned

● **Last Updated:** a day ago

● **Opened:** 2 weeks ago by gotmax23

Hum I don't think we need to discuss this one as it's approved?

copy-pasted the wrong ticket number? :D

oops

!3609

!fesco 3609

**fesco #3609** (https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3609):**New FESCo representative on Council needed**

● **Opened:** a month ago by sgallagh

● **Last Updated:** 6 days ago

● **Assignee:** Not Assigned

the !topic too btw

Having more than one representative would be a change to the Council charter, so I think we need to just operate as defined today for now.

Well, I am a bit on the fence on this one. Having 2 folks would spread out the communication load and such, but would also mean 2 people have to spend time on it and 2 people would need to attend council things, etc.

How often does the Council meet?

I agree that will need to be decided with Council, bit the first point is if FESCo has interest in this. If FESCo does not want to have more than 1 person, better not to ask anything about it to Council :D

is the fesco rep on the council a voting member? I can't recall...

bi-weekly

(i.e. every 2 weeks, not twice a week)

!hi

Michel Lind ☘ UTC+1 📛: Michel Lind (salimma) - he / him / his

nirik: They are allowed to vote on any topic that touches the engineering aspects of the process, IIRC

sorry, I have to host an in-person meeting running concurrently

and grab dinner

Having two representatives would make it easier for us to rotate the position without having to rotate every 6 months ... but agree, not sure if that would be a net positive. and even then it would require council changes.

Maybe we could rotate the position quarterly?

https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Fedora_Council_Engineering_Rep/

please no

that would be way too often IMO

they are allowed to vote on anything

they are a full non-elected voting member of the Council

Well, it's a significant commitment. I was suggesting to spread the load so no single person has to own it for an extended period.

The process feels a bit dated

yeah, agree

council does a meeting in person annually right?

yep

afaik, Council conversations tend to be long, which would create a lot of overhead if the rotation period is shorter than a few times the average conversation

right after fosdem usually

so that's also travel commitment - if it's not a RH employee do they get travel budget to attend?

yes

it comes out of the fedora travel budget

whoever we appoint should probably be someone who will be around at the next one

we won't know that until after these elections right?

so it's tricky, hmm... well if we appoint someone who is up for reelection in f45 I guess it can be "hey guys reelect me or council loses context"

although...

nothing seems to say it has to be a fesco member. ;)

huh wut

In fact, David served as representative for a couple years while not also being on FESCo

yep.

so someone who ideally is in touch with both council and fesco

The position is appointed _by_ FESCo, but doesn't have to be a member.

so that takes election out of it, we should just say find someone who is willing to serve for at least a year ideally

So, we appear to actually have a process (that we haven't been following). Should we just follow the process for now? or have interested folks submit a docs pr to change the process if we want to do that?

I'm +1 to following the process first

I think the bigger question to ask is "is our position in Council meaningful?"

I don't know the answer to that

I'm +1 to following the process, though I do think it would be better to start it *after* the current elections.

but I'll start by saying I can't serve since I can't commit to traveling or to the meetings

I haven't been on Council for many years; how much of a commitment is it, do we know? I'm leaving FESCo, but if it's only a couple hours a month, I might be able to swing it...

I'd like to see more communication via it... ie, rep telling fesco whats going on and they might like to chime in on, or asking what fesco would like to vote on a particular matter...etc

these days it should probably be Council meetings plus FESCo meetings plus FRCL, right?

yeah

otherwise things will get missed

OK, in that case, no.

plus flock and the council in person meetup

I'm reluctant to put my hat in the ring if our position in Council is meaningless

oh on that note ... nothing to report from last week's Council meeting. "we" spent almost an hour on discussing the election interview questions :D

otherwise I could do it

so perhaps we wait for the elections to finish, then start the 1 week nomination process and go from there? (but then we have no rep until then)

the advantage of a person that is already in FESCo is that is would be "one more meeting" and not "two more meetings"

well I will be interim rep until we choose a new permanent one so ... I don't think "no rep until then" would be accurate)

Conan Kudo 😌: I think it's meaningful to have someone around who can say "That's a nice idea and all, but who is going to build it?"

oh right, sorry... I forgot about that. Sure. ;)

Yeah, I think we should select somebody who is a member of FESCo as the rep if possible. Having somebody external cannot really work, unless htat person really commits to the extensive extra work of following FESCo tickets and disucussions.

sure, but if nobody listens anyway, it's still not worth it...

(Not a joke; I think it's important to remind people that ideas are easy and implementations take time)

the last few things coming out of Council seem to indicate that our voice isn't heavily factored in

for how long should those people be willing to commit?

"so perhaps we wait for the elections to finish, then start the 1 week nomination process and go from there?" — +1

https://forge.fedoraproject.org/council/docs/pulls/288

zbyszek: +1 too

I'd say at least 2 election cycles

Fale: The current policy says until they want to step down, or one of the bodies wants to replace them

I agree with you.

Fale: At present, it's loosely defined as "Until they step down or FESCo chooses someone else"

but we understand if they lose or step down from fesco the next cycle and they want to no longer serve

I think providing a "fixed" (at least minimum) timeframe would help people deciding if they are willing or not to put their name in

well, the logical one then is 'one term'

we can follow policy for now but have a consensus that ideally we nominate someone willing to serve a year?

Fale: OK. "At least fifteen minutes" 😛

"6-12 months"?

or even "6 xor 12 months"?

Yeah

the term will necessarily be misaligned with the fesco term if we elect someone from the spring election cycle

exactly

ah right

Is that even practical, though?

There will always be the possibility of life events that prevent serving the full term.

The best we can hope for is "I'll serve for a year as long as I don't get sick or fired from my day job".

Yeah, no need to overplan this.

(e.g. if we choose somebody as rep for 12 months after the Summer elections and they are up for fesco reelection in the Winter elections and lose)

well, we can leave all the 'if they decide to step down or bodies want to replace them'

would it make sense to add this role in the list of things newly appointed FESCos discuss (like the "should we keep the same day/time" conversation every six months) like: "do you want to continue or not?

it's not really worth worrying about it

At which point, what's the purpose of asking for a minimum commitment?

the minimum commitment is a couple of hours a month since it's twice a month meetings afaik

I think it's just common sense really - if you don't want to commit to that much you should not accept being nominated

We could just agree on having an "informal" agreement that the representative steps down after 6 or 12 months, whichever suits them better :)

but then they are not serving for one term... one term to me would imply choosing someone who just was elected so they could serve their term, but sure... ok

and in theory once a quarter is a video call, but I don't know if anyone does that anymore

folks do we really want to bikeshed this for... looks at clock... half an hour?

and reading all the tickets. And following discussions on iniatives. And following discussions in their meeting room.

nope

Proposal: Revisit this topic after the elections

+1

+1

sure, +1...

+1

+1

+1

Stephen Gallagher: wdyt?

0

!agreen Revisit this topic after the elections (+7, 1, -0)

Typo in the bot command there

sgallagh gave a cookie to fale. They now have 49 cookies, 1 of which were obtained in the Fedora 44 release cycle

any takers?

I'll be travelling next week, might miss the meeting.

I can do it

fale gave a cookie to decathorpe. They now have 167 cookies, 5 of which were obtained in the Fedora 44 release cycle

anyone has open floor topics?

one

so if anybody else has been wondering why it's been suspiciously quiet on the fesco front, it looks like no change wrangling has been happening in the last ~3 weeks?

well Aoife Moloney is back now

probibly trying to catch up on the flood. ;(

Oh.

Aoife did send out the election questions

June 24 is the first submission deadline for the F45 cycle, so I guess there's still time

whih are due in two daysFYI

Another follow up on https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3595, sorry. All the user's packages were orphaned as part of the nonresponsive maintainer process, but I'm still getting bounces when sending the orphaned packages report to the kde-sig members

and they're a provenpackager

Can we remove them from one or both groups?

that would be something for kde-sig group managers to do?

remove him from both

I can drop him from kde-sig easily enough

I think thats whats being asked for?

Yeah, Conan Kudo 😌 could do the kde-sig membership as a sponsor

I just did it

Not sure if we care that there are nonresponsive provenpackagers but that would require a separate process

does this need dist-git db hackery to apply to src.fp.o?

imho would make sense to remove PP preiveleges

there's a process now to sync that periodically...

I think there's a toddler that removes people who have been removed from `packager` from distgit groups

this should happen eventually

But not sure about removal from a different packaging sig

we have a every cycle removal of inactive pp's

I don't remember the specifics

Has that happened already for f44 or will it be another six months?

yeah, if they aren't in packager it removes them from any other src.fp.o group

sure, but might make sense to reduce that window in non responsive cases

Not 6 months, in a few months I think. it's pretty early in the cycle.

Okay, I guess it can wait

https://forge.fedoraproject.org/infra/tickets/issues/13158 was the f44 one. so, 3 more months?

The backlog does not look horrible: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:ChangeReadyForWrangler

I was just concerned about still getting email bounces which the kde-sig removal solves

there's also announced and discussed but not filed-for-fesco changes

And it's not great when people have to wait several weeks for feedback on their Changes

ah, I guess I account for 2 out of 5 in both categories.

I will be quiet

any other topics to discuss? if not, I'll close the meeting in 2 minutes