<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:00:27
!startmeeting FESCo (2026-07-07)
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
17:00:28
Meeting started at 2026-07-07 17:00:27 UTC
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
17:00:28
The Meeting name is 'FESCo (2026-07-07)'
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:00:32
!meetingname fesco
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
17:00:33
The Meeting Name is now fesco
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:00:36
!group members fesco
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:00:38
Members of fesco: Fabio Valentini, Máirín Duffy, gotmax23 (@gotmax:matrix.org, @gotmax23:fedora.im), 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), Timothée Ravier, Simon de Vlieger, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:00:57
!info Meeting Agenda: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/AFF4NYSCZMHAPIHCDR4CPNI3ILPCHWYO/
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:01:08
!topic Init Process
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:01:18
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:01:19
Fabio Valentini 🌈: Fabio Valentini (decathorpe) - he / him / his
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:01:21
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:01:22
Simon de Vlieger: Simon de Vlieger (supakeen) - he / him / his
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:01:26
!hello
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:01:26
morning
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:01:27
gotmax23: Maxwell G (gotmax23) - he / him / his or they / them / theirs
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:01:34
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:01:38
Conan Kudo 😌: Neal Gompa (ngompa) - he / him / his
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
17:01:38
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:01:40
zbyszek: Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek (zbyszek)
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:02:13
just FYI, Michel Lind ☘ UTC+1 ⏱️ and I have something for the open floor at the end
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:02:25
(don't know if he'll be back in time for that, but at least I can bring it up then)
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:02:43
yeah I think Michel said he'd be available in the second half of the hour
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:03:36
ok, we already have quorum, but I'll give the missing two members another minute or two
<@siosm:fedora.im>
17:04:27
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:04:29
Timothée Ravier: Timothée Ravier (siosm) - he / him / his
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:04:36
hi!
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:04:46
ok let's start then
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:04:59
!topic #3623 Planning for the Forgejo distgit migration
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:05:04
!fesco 3623
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:05:05
Issue querying Forgejo: None
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:05:21
!forge issue fesco tickets 3623
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:05:22
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:05:22
● **Last Updated:** 47 seconds ago
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:05:22
● **Opened:** 2 weeks ago by gotmax23
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:05:22
● **Assignee:** Not Assigned
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:05:22
**fesco/tickets #3623** (https://forge.fedoraproject.org/fesco/tickets/issues/3623):**Planning for the Forgejo distgit migration**
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:05:32
so the shorthand isn't quite fixed yet :/
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:05:40
Is jednorozec|afk still on PTO?
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:05:46
If so, let's postpone again?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:05:50
looks like it
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:06:02
he's still got afk on there
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:06:04
There was some good discussion in the ticket since last meeting
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:06:17
notably: https://forge.fedoraproject.org/fesco/tickets/issues/3623#issuecomment-878070
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:06:28
Hum, I thought I hotfixed that. I guess not correctly.
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:06:45
It worked last week
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:07:17
it looks like we'll have trouble setting up a sync meeting with people distributed all over the world
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:07:42
Well; not everyone needs to be there, representative people from both should be enough :)
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:07:53
looks like half are in APAC?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:08:06
that makes it tricky indeed
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:08:12
If humaton is in Europe, at least this time should work if he can rep the team?
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:08:20
Not sure who from the Forge team wants/needs to be there
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:08:30
I think it'd be good to at least have one sync meeting to start off
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:08:34
do we know if Aoife Moloney is going to be mediating this effort?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:08:39
as the FOA
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:08:52
he should be back next week I think
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:09:22
I'm sure she will be involved yeah...
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:09:38
So let's wait until next week and move on?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:09:44
yeah
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:09:48
yup.
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:10:23
yap
<@siosm:fedora.im>
17:10:31
+1
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:10:36
!info FESCo wants to set up an initial synchronous meeting with the team (or at least some team members) that are responsible for the forge migration, due to scheduling issues this is postponed to next week.
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:10:51
representative for Council
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:10:51
!topic #3613 Clarify and document responsibilities of the Engineering
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:11:02
!forge issue fesco tickets 3613
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:11:03
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:11:03
● **Assignee:** Not Assigned
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:11:03
**fesco/tickets #3613** (https://forge.fedoraproject.org/fesco/tickets/issues/3613):**Clarify and document responsibilities of the Engineering representative for Council**
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:11:03
● **Last Updated:** 7 hours ago
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:11:03
● **Opened:** a month ago by decathorpe
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:11:21
Is there even a way to do this?
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:11:43
I think it doesn't *really* make sense to discuss this during a meeting without having at least some amount of pre-brainstorming in the ticket
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:11:47
I guess the council could write down their expectations?
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:11:47
I'm not sure how to be more detailed here indeed.
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:12:26
Agreed
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:12:28
I think we probably need to hold off for more information
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:12:56
I think the current thing could be reworked better perhaps, but I don't think we can make a bullet list of exactly the only things required.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:13:14
I'm not sure we need to be _that_ detailed
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:13:16
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:13:16
If those are different from what is already documented we can change documentation.
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:13:16
I am open to suggestions for what *your* expectations are of *me* as the new Council rep, and also vice-versa open to suggestions from other Council members.
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:13:16
Let me put it that way:
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
17:14:12
Yeah. And as you go on, please also keep a list of things that you were doing so that we can use this as input to the docs in a few months.
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
17:14:23
(For the next person/people.)
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:14:25
good point
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:15:24
Maybe it'd be good to add a recurring FESCo meeting topic for updates from the Council rep, even if it's just "nothing notable happened"? But other than that, I think the current docs are probably fine.
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:15:36
right now I'm trying to get up to speed with what's going on in Council, <del>their</del> our ticket tracker is a mess :)
<@siosm:fedora.im>
17:15:37
Could you be responsible for bringing topics that are going to be votted on in the ucoming Council meetings here in the fesco meeetings ideally before to gather feedback?
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:16:04
yes, that's something that I was planning on doing anyway.
<@salimma:fedora.im>
17:16:11
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:16:12
Michel Lind ☘ UTC+1 ⏱️: Michel Lind (salimma) - he / him / his
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:16:13
and that too.
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:16:21
hi!
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:16:30
welcome to the "fun"
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:16:52
we punted all the crazy topics
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:16:55
so just in time :)
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:17:01
ha
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:17:51
if no, I propose that we un-tag with "meeting" and tag with "stalled" for now.
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:17:51
ok. is there anything else to discuss here (for now)?
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:17:57
ack
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:18:10
ack
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:18:10
(btw https://forge.fedoraproject.org/fesco/tickets/issues/3628 also has a procedural -1 but no meeting tag)
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:18:48
Or maybe just close the ticket with we'll add the recurring meeting topic and reopen if later if further discussion is needed?
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:19:01
eh, I already did the tagging now
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:19:02
I don't think a stalled ticket is really needed
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:19:19
... but also not a big deal to keep around :)
<@salimma:fedora.im>
17:19:35
I was not sure it's ready to be discussed yet
<@siosm:fedora.im>
17:19:42
Might be good to keep it open and record things there as we go
<@salimma:fedora.im>
17:19:49
since I also just pinged the Change Owner in discourse yesterday
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:19:54
good point
<@salimma:fedora.im>
17:20:17
I think aoife mentioned there's an issue tagging Change Owners in fesco - which gotmax23worked around - so maybe it's that, we should assume the best case for a bit
<@siosm:fedora.im>
17:20:25
Once we feel this is sufficiently fleshed out we can make a docs PR and close it
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:20:34
forgejo doesn't allow global user assignees
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:20:45
yes. moving on?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:20:59
yeah
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:21:03
forgejo doesn't allow global user assignees, atm
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:21:21
we can discuss the libxml change next week, since it's tagged
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:21:31
I expect that we will have to discuss it given how painful it will be
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:22:13
!topic #3624 Stop requiring signoff from non-existent "Fedora crypto team" for
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:22:13
new cryptography libraries
<@salimma:fedora.im>
17:22:15
if there is no comms from the owner by then I feel like it should be a -1 given it will likely break dnf if done wrong
<@salimma:fedora.im>
17:22:22
ah, spicy topic
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:22:23
in the future, it'd be good to not have FESCo tickets filed with outstanding discussion feedback
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:22:28
!forge issue fesco tickets 3624
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:22:30
● **Opened:** 2 weeks ago by decathorpe
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:22:30
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:22:30
**fesco/tickets #3624** (https://forge.fedoraproject.org/fesco/tickets/issues/3624):**Stop requiring signoff from non-existent "Fedora crypto team" for new cryptography libraries**
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:22:30
● **Last Updated:** 8 hours ago
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:22:30
● **Assignee:** Not Assigned
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:22:46
I think I'm pretty much in favor of this.
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:22:58
Re. this topic, it seems that allowing aws-lc was agreed on?
<@salimma:fedora.im>
17:23:21
I'm happy to make it explicit and vote specifically on aws-lc just in case
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:23:44
This all seems so... handwavy. I understand they want to protect fedora from bad stuff, but the process isn't at all clear and in some cases like aws-lc, it's... problematic.
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:23:46
And also, if we want to keep this policy, at least, the team has to have a contact method listed that actually works
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:23:46
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:23:46
I still don't see a public "yes" for that, unless you count
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:23:46
> Aws-lc should be confined to those rust packages that are welded to it.
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:23:46
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:23:46
as tacit approval.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:24:05
I don't count that as approval, unfortunately
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:24:11
yeah me neither.
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:24:21
I would like to know if that issue + devel@ thread was the proverbial kick under the butt. It at least found some deficiencies in process so perhaps the process can now at least be /tried/ to be followed?
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:24:23
> Yes if the choice is between ring and aws-lc, aws-lc is orders of magnitudes more desirable and I would support an exception to get rid f ring
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:24:39
I didn't really see that come across either.
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:24:44
(for context: the way the aws-lc Rust bindings are set up would result in aws-lc getting statically linked into applications that use them, and not make it available for generic use.)
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:25:09
can we... not do that?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:25:20
statically linking a crypto library is scary
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:25:24
not sure. that's how it's set up.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:25:37
well, I think this 'process' would need things like: who all is in the team, how do they discuss things, who votes, how long should it take, etc
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:26:14
they would also need to exist on our side of the wall
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:26:19
Yes, but that starts with an actual functioning mailinglist and some awareness so a warning of 'fix it' might still be warranted unless I've missed previous things surrounding this.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:26:46
perhaps we could make it more advisory? ie, check with the crypto team, if they say it's a bad idea and you still want to do it, take it to fesco?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:27:14
that only makes sense if there's something to "remediate" with
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:27:16
s/mailinglist/point of contact/ can also be a forge org of course.
<@salimma:fedora.im>
17:27:27
yeah, I wonder if until we have a fully agreed on team to do crypto vetting, we just assume responsibility for it? it makes sense that it's for FESCo to delegate
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:27:51
I don't know about everyone else here, but I do not claim to be any kind of crypto expert.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:27:52
it might just be easier to just pull that back to us for the time being and figure out what to do next
<@siosm:fedora.im>
17:28:35
We still need our crypto libraries to follow the policies and the ca store so we need some review step to make sure this is happening for new crypto libraries
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:28:55
and _that_ doesn't necessarily require special expertise
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:29:02
or we could even: all newly added to fedora crypto libraries must be a change
<@salimma:fedora.im>
17:29:07
nirikI also do not claim to be a security expert, but I hope fesco collectively knows when something needs to be consulted with a crypto person :)
<@siosm:fedora.im>
17:29:11
Maybe asking FESCo should be a required step and then we ask the crypto team to look at things
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:29:27
what we should do is codify actual requirements for crypto libraries, right now that doesn't actually exist I think?
<@salimma:fedora.im>
17:29:29
and some sort of gating is better than letting reviewers go wild approving anything (we've seen a few of those I think)
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:29:38
if we made a change a MUST, it would be discussed as part of the change process.
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:30:05
What about "Lacking an actual documented process, the 'Crypto team' signoff requirement is dropped, with FESCo stepping in as gatekeeper for the time being. Once a new public review process has been established, a signoff requirement in some form could be reintroduced."
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:30:11
I'd actually rather not force the Changes process for crypto libraries, especially if the only thing that actually matters is having it use our global certs store and such
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
17:30:15
nirik: I don't think the Change process fits very well here. New packages are generally not tied to Fedora release.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:30:36
new crypto libraries should be a pretty rare add on...
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:30:50
+1 to Fabio Valentini 🌈's proposal
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:30:58
FESco can subsume the task (temporarily) and then work with the crypto team to set up a good process after which (if that happens) it can be delegated again? :)
<@siosm:fedora.im>
17:31:00
I'm also leaning on not requiring a change request but onloy a fesco ticket
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:31:10
So what Fabio says sorry.
<@siosm:fedora.im>
17:31:12
+1 to Fabio's
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:31:15
+1 to Fabio also
<@salimma:fedora.im>
17:31:17
+1 to Fabio
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:31:20
+1 to Fabio
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:31:26
+1 to Fabio
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
17:31:43
+1
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:31:44
I would amend to indicate the lack of the crypto team existence entirely too
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:31:48
the fedora crypto team doesn't exist
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:32:11
yeah this was basically implicit in my proposal.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:32:23
please make it explicit in the final one for the notes
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:32:27
well, it does? https://src.fedoraproject.org/group/crypto-team ?
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:32:28
also, presumably any new public approval process would address who is considered part of that team
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:32:29
just so people understand why we're doing this
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:32:53
but yes, I guess it's unclear.
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:33:01
oh is this supposed to be the group? in that case that should be made explict.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:33:21
the fas group exists, the team does not
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:33:21
and does that group actually have a process to formally approve things?
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:33:23
well, the pointer was to the (private) packaging list for that packaging group, so I assume so
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:33:23
there's a difference
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:33:36
it's like how we have an rpm-software-management fas group but no rpm team in fedora
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:33:53
eh ... doubtful. but hard to tell since they've been incommunicado for 2+ years.
<@salimma:fedora.im>
17:34:00
I wonder if we need to do the Debian model that delegations have to be periodically rechecked and renewed
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:34:08
depends on what you mean by 'team' I suppose.
<@salimma:fedora.im>
17:34:10
so teams that stop being functional get reformed or shut
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:34:12
10 years by my last check?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:34:24
last time I heard anything formally was back when they gave up on making everything use NSS
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:34:39
proposed !agreed Lacking an actual documented process, the 'Crypto team' signoff requirement is dropped, with FESCo stepping in as gatekeeper for the time being. Once a new public review process has been established, a signoff requirement in some form could be reintroduced. (7, 1, -0)
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:34:47
ack
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:34:51
ack
<@salimma:fedora.im>
17:34:54
ack
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:34:55
ack
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:34:58
ack
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:35:37
The "0" vote is mine, for the record - abstaining due to potential conflict of interest in this case.
<@siosm:fedora.im>
17:35:38
ack
<@salimma:fedora.im>
17:35:38
yeah, I think 'lacking a documented process' is accurate enough. the team might or might not be functional but we clearly don't know how they process things
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:36:00
Also, can someone file a separate ticket for us to (not) approve aws-lc under this process?
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:36:13
Since that was the motivation for this whole thing (I think)
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:36:23
yeah.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:36:24
there is a process listed, but its... disfunctional. ;)
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:36:31
!agreed Lacking an actual documented process, the 'Crypto team' signoff requirement is dropped, with FESCo stepping in as gatekeeper for the time being. Once a new public review process has been established, a signoff requirement in some form could be reintroduced. (7, 1, -0)
<@siosm:fedora.im>
17:36:52
I thought I had understood that we were going to approve them?
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:36:52
!action decathorpe to file a pull request against the Packaging Guidelines to update the documentation accordingly.
<@siosm:fedora.im>
17:37:00
what did I miss :/
<@siosm:fedora.im>
17:37:07
anyway, another discussion
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:37:15
well, we still need to actually approve it?
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:37:18
well *vote* on them, at least. I wouldn't say "rubber stamp everything"
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:37:21
I think that was the consensus, but I didn't want to imply a forgone conclusion
<@siosm:fedora.im>
17:37:27
ok
<@siosm:fedora.im>
17:37:35
makes sense, sorry
<@siosm:fedora.im>
17:37:43
confused by the syntax then
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:37:45
no worries
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:37:53
next topic then?
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:37:56
ack
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:38:15
!topic Council Goings-on
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:38:50
there's a bunch of things that are currently being discussed, at least a few of which look potentially relevant to FESCo
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
17:39:07
Nice new topic.
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:39:37
!forge issue council ticket 564
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:39:37
Issue querying Forgejo: None
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:39:53
gah
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:39:58
!forge issue council tickets 564
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:39:59
● **Opened:** 3 months ago by jspaleta
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:39:59
● **Last Updated:** 4 hours ago
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:39:59
● **Assignee:** jspaleta
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:39:59
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:39:59
**council/tickets #564** (https://forge.fedoraproject.org/council/tickets/issues/564):**Adopt Fedora Innovation Lifecycle as Council Policy**
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:40:21
This is the "Sandbox" / Innovation Lifecycle thing, it will likely be discussed soon. The discussion post is still open for feedback
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:40:31
I tried to summarize last week's meeting discussions in https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/draft-council-proposal-for-the-fedora-innovation-lifecycle/190996/16
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:41:01
so, is this just for awareness / pointer to provide feedback? or was there something specifically fesco to discuss here?
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:41:12
I'm having a hard time understanding the council processes so I'll read up on the discussion thread and council ticket.
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:41:26
just wanted to note that this will likely be discussed / voted on soon as far as I can tell.
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:42:29
there is also this one, which is (somewhat) related to FESCo:
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:42:35
!forge issue council tickets 513
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:42:36
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:42:36
● **Opened:** a year ago by pbrobinson
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:42:36
● **Last Updated:** 4 hours ago
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:42:36
● **Assignee:** jspaleta
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:42:36
**council/tickets #513** (https://forge.fedoraproject.org/council/tickets/issues/513):**Conflict of Interest guidelines**
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:43:20
I should be able to see the current policy draft but currently can't, I need to poke somebody to give me Google drive access or something.
<@siosm:fedora.im>
17:44:15
I don't have access either
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:44:17
me either
<@siosm:fedora.im>
17:44:28
This should be a hackmd or similar
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:44:34
hmm, if a committee member authors a Change Proposal, I think it's natural that they'd vote for it?
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:44:49
I don't think that in itself constitutes a significant CoI
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:44:55
I think we explicitly said thats ok in the past.
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:44:59
apparently this is slightly controversial. but let's see what the actual draft says.
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:45:30
Yep, otherwise it's not bad to have a conflict of interest policy.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:45:42
well, unless it winds up invalidating all of us
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:45:45
then it's a problem
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:46:10
again, we'll see once there's an actual public draft / proposal. just wanted to mention that it's coming.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:46:24
I see what drove this, and I can think of two scenarios offhand that would trigger a full governance deadlock
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:46:40
but we'll see
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:47:00
ah, yes, clicking "Watch" on this repo might be a good idea :)
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:47:03
!forge issue council tickets 569
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:47:05
● **Closed** 6 days ago
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:47:05
● **Assignee:** amoloney
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:47:05
● **Last Updated:** 6 days ago
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:47:05
**council/tickets #569** (https://forge.fedoraproject.org/council/tickets/issues/569):**Use "Fedora Atomic" as name for bootable container base images**
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:47:05
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:47:05
● **Opened:** a month ago by siosm
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:47:16
this was discussed and lazy-approved last week. might as well mention it
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:47:22
ehhh
<@siosm:fedora.im>
17:48:05
Previous topic (sorry): I think FESCo members should be able to vote on their change proposal
<@salimma:fedora.im>
17:48:37
I tend to vote last if I'm one of the change owners, if I don't feel I need to abstain
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:48:59
ok, I think that was all the interesting stuff from Council ...
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:49:03
anything else?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:49:15
are we at open floor now?
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:49:22
not quite.
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:49:33
!topic #3628 Change: libxml215
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:49:43
this one should have been tagged "meeting" due to a -1 vote.
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:50:13
but I'm not actually sure we can discuss anything here today, other than "lack of responses to questions in the discussion thread / to mailing list posts"
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:50:28
Yea and the ping was only sent yesterday :)
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:50:29
I think we should give them until next week... unless there's some particular rush here?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:50:36
let's wait until next week on this
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:50:49
I assumed we were going to wait since it was tagged mid-meeting
<@salimma:fedora.im>
17:50:57
is there a real -1 ? I said 'if there is no respons I'd do a procedural -1'
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:51:11
that's a real enough -1
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:51:14
there was no response so ... -1 it is? :)
<@salimma:fedora.im>
17:51:27
" I'll ping him on Discourse and give him a few days to respond"
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:51:28
that's how I read it, sorry if you meant it differently
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:51:35
it looks like there was just a response on Discourse
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:51:41
proposed !info We will wait until next week to get responses from the Change owner on the outstanding questions raised on discussion / mailing list.
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:51:44
so yeah, let's postpone and continue discussion async?
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:51:49
ack
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:51:50
ack
<@siosm:fedora.im>
17:52:10
ack
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:52:27
!info We will wait until next week to get responses from the Change owner on the outstanding questions raised on discussion / mailing list.
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:52:35
!topic Next Week's Chair
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:53:46
I can try :)
<@siosm:fedora.im>
17:54:17
FYI, I'll out the next 2 weeks, back one week, then out all of August
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:54:30
great. the process is documented here:
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:54:30
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FESCo_meeting_process
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:54:30
just ask anyone of us if you have any questions
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:54:32
euro summers are starting :)
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:54:36
Thanks Fabio.
<@salimma:fedora.im>
17:54:50
I'll be out next week, I should be back the week after
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:55:03
!action supakeen to chair next week's FESCo meeting (2026-07-14)
<@siosm:fedora.im>
17:55:08
I'll try voting in the tickets but I'll likely not be able to do meetings
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:55:20
oh it's Julliet Quatorze or however you spell that
<@siosm:fedora.im>
17:55:56
quatorze juillet :)
<@salimma:fedora.im>
17:55:57
not a holiday in Ireland but we're celebrating a birthday the same week so..
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:56:05
almost close enough :)
<@siosm:fedora.im>
17:56:09
French national day
<@salimma:fedora.im>
17:56:11
I'll try to get French food on the day
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:56:16
!topic Open Floor
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:56:21
I'll find a baguette
<@salimma:fedora.im>
17:56:27
it's the day we rebel against the aristocrats!
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:56:29
Step 1 of https://forge.fedoraproject.org/fesco/tickets/issues/3631#issuecomment-1058172 needs to be processed
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:56:42
I'll look for some chocolatine
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:57:00
gotmax23: yeah, I marked it to process, hopefully today.
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:57:12
thanks!
<@salimma:fedora.im>
17:57:19
I need to update some of those tickets with links to the announcements -- did not get round to it this morning, sorry
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:57:21
vastly prefer this word over pain au chocolat :)
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:57:35
Just don't say it anywhere north of the south.
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:57:52
Conan Kudo 😌: Michel Lind ☘ UTC+1 ⏱️: you had something?
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
17:57:54
Fabio Valentini 🌈: thanks for chairing
<@salimma:fedora.im>
17:57:56
yeah, pain au chocolat is the more standard term
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:58:18
it's apparently a big fight which one you use. ;)
<@salimma:fedora.im>
17:58:24
I think Conan Kudo 😌wants to bring it up?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:58:32
yeah... so...
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:59:13
!forge issue fesco tickets 3633
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:59:14
● **Assignee:** Not Assigned
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:59:14
● **Last Updated:** 58 minutes ago
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:59:14
● **Opened:** 3 days ago by leigh123linux
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:59:14
● **Closed** 58 minutes ago
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:59:14
**fesco/tickets #3633** (https://forge.fedoraproject.org/fesco/tickets/issues/3633):**waybar: I tried nice but it didn't work.**
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:59:14
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:59:50
ah. I forgot about this already 🙃
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:00:37
I see zbyszek closed it, but it doesn't actually resolve the problem I had, which is I don't know what we should do about this sort of issue
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
18:01:00
What aspect do you have in mind?
<@siosm:fedora.im>
18:01:07
I agree with how you handled it
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:01:23
mostly the conduct aspect
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:01:24
I see several issues here - a) needless escalation to FESCo, b) err... rude saying having to communicate with a maintainer is a waste of their time but apparently this needless discussion is not a waste of our time
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:01:30
it sounds like a way forward was figured out in the end? although there's no feedback yet from the orig person.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:01:43
yes this, you did a better job phrasing this :)
<@siosm:fedora.im>
18:02:17
I have repeatedly seen the report say rude comments or use rude language
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:02:17
this wound up being very difficult to handle because of this
<@siosm:fedora.im>
18:02:28
reporter*
<@siosm:fedora.im>
18:03:10
He has been warned about his conduct on the discussion forums
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:03:11
yes, same, I've seen this across multiple discussion avenues
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:03:12
the reporter has also said other things in other fedora venues that indicates they do not want to change/improve
<@siosm:fedora.im>
18:03:34
But that would be for the CoC Commitee to discuss?
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:03:43
perhaps a referral to the CoC folks is in order?
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:03:46
often the trigger point is because... ah, the other project they're involved on is now slowly getting subsumed by Fedora proper and they might feel ... territorial?
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:04:13
yes, I guess what triggered this discussion is we have heard from someone else that this is potentially CoC comittee territory, and I guess we wanted a sanity check
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:04:20
yeah
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
18:04:42
If there are multiple instances that’d be the path to pursue.
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
18:05:29
ok. anybody want to !action themselves to file a CoC ticket?
<@siosm:fedora.im>
18:05:55
I don't think we should write that in public in a meeting log
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
18:06:08
ah. good point 🙃
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:06:10
yeah this is sort of a thing we probably don't want to declare
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:06:13
I think folks who feel that way should do so
<@siosm:fedora.im>
18:06:16
we can agree that there is a problem and that it should be brought to the CoC Comitee
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
18:06:30
🤫 forget I said anything then.
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
18:06:34
on another note, I'm working on a summary/takeaways post about the Changes process feedback thread
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
18:06:53
I have it on my TODO list to read it but it's .... long :(
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
18:06:54
I think we should revisit the Discourse discussion, but I'm kinda avoiding it...
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
18:07:07
I think we should revisit the Discourse decision at some point, but I'm kinda avoiding it...
<@siosm:fedora.im>
18:07:15
I am writing a proposal for an adapted change process
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:07:22
yeah, I didn't hear anyone defending using Discourse by default
<@siosm:fedora.im>
18:07:23
but I haven't had the time to read everything yet
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
18:07:24
But this split brain discussion thing is not good
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:07:41
I'd like us to end posting to Discourse
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
18:07:54
I liked the read-only posting to Discourse compromise
<@siosm:fedora.im>
18:07:55
An I would like the reverse :)
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:07:59
Aoife thought having automated summary of recent changes posted to Discourse is good enough, right, with links to where teh discussion is happening (mailing list)
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:07:59
I'd not like us to do that
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:08:15
I actively try to avoid discourse now because the discussions are significantly worse there
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:08:18
nirikah to clarify, which 'that'?
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
18:08:20
I don't think having discussions in two places is workable, and I don't see us moving devel to discourse anytime soon
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:08:22
but are we going to disuss this now?
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
18:08:39
we probably shouldn't :)
<@siosm:fedora.im>
18:08:45
:)
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:08:55
yeah, not now, but someone wants to take point on this I suppose?
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
18:09:08
yeah, probably don't want to open the floodgates here and now
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:09:16
I think devel list is all the same people who have been around forever, and thats great and valuable, but I think discourse is new folks who are just learning about things and/or drive by folks who aren't in our community yet, and the feedback there is just as valuable.
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
18:09:35
but if most people on FESCo are completely against what I'm proposing, I probably won't
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:09:38
but sorry for continuing. I'll stop
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
18:09:46
it *can* be, but the way it's been handled until now, it 99% of the time was not ...
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:09:56
I sense fesco is split on this
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:10:12
but most people probably agree the status quo is the worst option
<@siosm:fedora.im>
18:10:23
I would like us to default to Discourse, but still allow for mailing list discussions for now
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:10:36
I don't want to visit discourse at all if I can help it
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:10:45
that is how much I don't like the quality of discussions there
<@siosm:fedora.im>
18:10:51
(hopefully I'll finish my draft proposal before I go on leave)
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
18:10:58
that basically is what we're doing now
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
18:11:03
ok. anybody want to open a discussion post / ticket / mailing list thread for this? 🤭
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:11:09
I interact with it via email mostly...
<@siosm:fedora.im>
18:11:14
[gotmax23](https://matrix.to/#/@gotmax23:fedora.im) not quite
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
18:11:25
I guess I can
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:11:28
right, and it's a pain especially when you're chairing a meeting and have to check if discussions are done across... on busy times, a dozen or so changes a week
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:11:42
no ticket please. It needs discussion. until there is a concrete proposal to vote on
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
18:11:56
definitely
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
18:12:17
thanks. with that I think we're at the end of !topic Open Floor unless there's another topic?
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
18:12:19
Michel Lind ☘ UTC+1 ⏱️: do you want to do the post-meeting processing or should I do that?
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:12:44
I want to try out my new tool so I can do that, thanks for taking over on short notice :)
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
18:13:06
okelidokely
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
18:14:00
:gavel:
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
18:14:08
!endmeeting