Meeting started at 2026-09-23 14:01:38 UTC

The Meeting name is 'Fedora Council Bi-Weekly Meeting'

!hi

shaunm: Shaun McCance (shaunm) - he / him / his

!hi

!hi

Petr Bokoc: Petr Bokoč (pbokoc)

Aoife Moloney: Aoife Moloney (amoloney)

!hi

!hi

Jef Spaleta: Jef Spaleta (jspaleta) - he / him / his

Jona Azizaj (she/her): Jona Azizaj (jonatoni) - she / her / hers

I'll post a link to the agenda in a few more mins

It's a pretty quiet one this week

At least from me anyway 😂

!hi

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

!hi

I am around but the puppy is constantly seeking attention

F45 beta is out 😁🎉

F45 Final freeze is starting v.sooun - October 6

F45 Final freeze is starting v.soon - October 6

Any other items needs highlighting?

DevConf US is this week, tomorrow and Friday. We will have a Fedora/CentOS booth there

Nice! Enjoy everyone who is attending ☺️

Ok, let's get into it!

So v.5 has been live just under two weeks. I think this policy has reached a ready state. If we need to amend it in the future, we can. I would like to propose this for a formal ticket vote to officially approve (or reject 🫣) this policy for Fedora

!hi

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

I don't think it will be rejected. We've done a lot of due diligence with it, and all feedback received has been either addressed or incorporated. If we are all satisfied with it's current reading, I'd like to put a due by date for the council votes to be submitted

sorry, I'm here, just lost track of time for a bit

I don't *think* it will be rejected. We've done a lot of due diligence with it, and all feedback received has been either addressed or incorporated. If we are all satisfied with it's current reading, I'd like to put a due by date for the council votes to be submitted

question... do we have runner registration docs up? following the link in the proposal doesnt seem to be the correct reference

Remind me what our full consensus model is again please?

Is it no -1 votes after a week?

Sorry, my brain is not firing on all cylinders today :(

"More significant decisions are made through a process of full consensus. In order to pass, these decisions need three positive votes (+3) and no negative votes (-1). A negative vote immediately halts the process and requires discussion. Therefore, in order to remain valid, negative votes must be supported with a specific concerns about the proposal, and suggestions for what could be changed in order to make the proposal acceptable. A vote of “0” is sometimes used to indicate a disagreement but willingness to stand aside; this should also be accompanied with an explanation."

Ok thank you, I wanted to work it into the proposal statement

do the same deadlines apply? that paragraph doesnt speak to how long the full consensus period is opne

!proposal The Council are satisfied with the latest version of the Fedora Forge Usage Policy. This policy will now go to a formal ticket vote. Council will have one week to submit their votes - due September 30, 2026. This policy will require full consensus, meaning +3 votes will be required to pass, and no -1 votes.

I've proposed it for 1 week. I think that is enough time as this policy has been under discussion for a while now

If that statement works for you all I'll add it as an agreed thing

This is for lazy consensus, but could be adapted for full: "…generally three to seven days, although the timeframe should be stated each time and should be proportionate to the impact of the action."

+1 even though shaunm has the vote that counts between us 😄

ack

+1

Ok, will add it as agreed

!agrees The Council is satisfied with the latest version of the Fedora Forge Usage Policy. This policy will now go to a formal ticket vote. Council will have one week to submit their votes - due September 30, 2026. This policy will require full consensus, meaning +3 votes will be required to pass, and no -1 votes.

Oh sorry I meant to action myself

Back to the schedule now 🤪

I was going to bring up the Conflict of Interest Policy discussion for Open Floor. It seems we don't have a single shared idea on what we're actually trying to accomplish with the new policy (or at least I still don't), which makes the discussion difficult.

hey! would a video working session help with this one? They seemed to have materially helped with the lifecycle discussion

That's a good topic to talk about more

I don't know if we need a video call on it tbh

What is currently being proposed is half already stated in existing policy and half unenforceable

understood... but if we feel _stuck_ maybe?

I think some discussion here would be a good start

we have some time left in the current meeting :)

or explaining "what are we trying to accomplish" in writing?

I would like to add a reminder that additional meetings might be fine if they come out of paid work hours but they put additional burden on volunteer contributors.

I think zbyszeks last comment (or one of them) hits on what I'd like to see happen

well, that restated the previous draft in somewhat cleaner language, but had the same inherent problems imo

that's why I kind of suggested a step back

is this a new !topic now or

What would your step back look like?

I meant taking a step back to figure out what we are ultimately trying to accomplish here

instead of exchanging policy blurb drafts back and forth

I feel like this is really about proven packagers, TBH. It seems to be the only realistic case for this. In CoC Committee, we practice this implicitly even without it being written in policy, so I am wondering if a project-wide policy is the target, or if we are trying to discuss what consent for non-package owner commits from proven packagers looks like.

I will speak for myself, but what I would like to see come of this is an awareness that council oversight on complex matters exist, and can be used, by other leadership groups

I did not know that piece of text even existed in council docs 😅 but its also not referenced as even an option to the other groups, and maybe it should be

I mean, I think part of the problem is that there's not a clear way for these groups to request Council input

I agree totally

This has historically been used by various people to complain to Council about FESCo decisions they disagreed with for one reason or another

but how does FESCo ask Council for input when we believe it's warranted?

So maybe thats what the fix looks like? A reference to the existing text in council docs from FESCo & Mindshare, and a way to request that oversight

and how do we make sure things don't get lost or that they don't rely on a single Council member being available to mediate

So maybe thats what the fix looks like? A reference to the existing text in council docs from FESCo & Mindshare docs, and a way to request that oversight

not for other packagers or different groups? just provenpackagers?

and how do we make sure things don't get lost or that they don't entirely rely on a single Council member being available to mediate

lets please not go down the packager rabbit hole

we might get farther talking from the group leadership perspective

I would expect both FESCo and Mindshare to instruct their Council rep to use either the public or private council communication channels.. depending on the nature of the requested feedback

in the past, I've seen Council members have been pinged on FESCo tickets to provide input, but then FPL/FCA/FOA is sick, on leave, unavailable, busy, nonresponsive, suddenly laid off, etc., and then things get stuck, or keep going without Council oversight (and then get re-evaluated by Council after the fact), or there is hesitancy to involve Council in the future because of this perceived lack of response. maybe we can just say requests for Council mediation should be filed via the Council tracker (as private tickets if necessary) and leave it at that?

Jef Spaleta: BTW you seem to expect a lot from the Council rep. I think that either we need to get some funding for that role, or lower the expectations.

I like that, nice and simple :)

agreed, I don't think it matters much which FESCo member files that request

can Council then develop its own process to assign and prioritize those tickets based on availability?

i think what Justin is saying is the precipitating event was provenpackager related authority. We can choose to build policy narrowly built on a real world example.. or we can build a policy broadly that try to anticipates situations we havent seen yet.

so it falls on someone who is available and properly equipped to step in?

yeah I dont think so either. The important part is that FESCo, or Mindshare, knows they can, and how to, request support from Council on things

I also do not think that "how to ask fro council help" is the main issue. I belive the main issue is "how to recognize that it should be done"

I also do not think that "how to ask for council help" is the main issue. I belive the main issue is "how to recognize that it should be done"

I think it was just suggested that it must be someone who is paid?

So, FPL/FCA/FOA?

Can't have it both ways 🙂

sure, so it could be assigned to one of those people based on whose appropriate and available

sure, so it could be assigned to one of those people based on who's appropriate and available

I agree with this too, but it goes back to gotmax23 point of that part being unenforceable really :-/

I wouldn't say "it must", but if no other council member volunteers, than a paid member must

I wouldn't say "it must", but if no other council member volunteers, then a paid member must

So I think the best we could shoot for is to submit a PR to FESCo and Mindshare docs refrencing the council oversight text, and a recommendation to open a council ticket, private or public, depending on the nature of the request, for council support

well, if it's documented, then the impacted person can say "look here, you should have followed that instead of taking away my ACLs"

for things that can be discussed in public.. i agree. But the precipating event that led to a conflict of policy request... seems to have involved private discussion by multiple leadership bodies. And in that case... the fesco rep is sort of critical..because they are in both private comms channels.

I mean we do have a policy that says what packagers and provenpackagers are expected to do with their privs

if they don't objectively don't follow that policy, we have enforcement mechanisms

I think both questions ("when?" and "how?") are valid here

I would equally like council to commit to responding to that request in a pretty timely manner, eg within 48 hrs for 'big' stuff, or whatever. Open to suggestions here

in the past, I have seen non-responsiveness from Council being a problem, which is why I'm also focusing on "how?"

We cant dictate/document every scenario either. Im ok with letting best judgement happen

if they objectively don't follow that policy, we have enforcement mechanisms

I don't believe there is an issue with counciol not responding, there is an issue of people not talking to each other

--- which we're actively trying to improve here. just because this broke last time doesn't mean it will break again

Council members have been pinged in private FESCo tickets and not responded. there were mitigating factors, but that's why I'm suggesting a better way to invoke Council

but that's not the *only* issue

And I also feel like we spend too much time on a thing which essentially should state - when you are in doubt, expect a conflict, etc,.. please talk and ask for help

the crux of the conflict of interest policy for me really comes down to accountability in the private spaces that leadership uses. Its why conflict of interest is VITAL for CoC because that work is so sensitive that it has to be primarily private. But the same applies to any group that has a private invite only discussion channel.

I mean, that's what I'm kind of getting at. we're saying we want a general COI policy, and then creating a Council escalation policy for FESCo instead

which policy do we actually want here?

that's probably too broad - I mean, most SIGs have a private mailing list (just because that's required for bugzilla)

I somewhat agree. I think that's what I already understand the current policy to be. But maybe not everyone does

to me this just somewhat boils down to "don't make decisions in private channels unless required by law or embargoes etc."

i dont see why its too broad. a conflict of interest in that context has the same fundamental concerns as a conflict of interest in the council or fesco private discussions... its just smaller blast radius.

!proposed To resolve the Conflict of Interest policy request, the Council has decided to open a PR to both FESCo and Mindshare docs under their 'making decisions' (or whichever section is appropriate) that links to this text in Council docs '[Fedora council members …] are responsible for final arbitration of complaints related to project policies and for settling disputes escalated from other committees or subgroups. They may handle sensitive legal or personnel issues which require research and discussion to protect the interests of the Fedora Project or its sponsors.'. There will also be instructions on how to request this oversight - we expect this to be a ticket, either public or private, depending on circumstance of request. Council will respond to the ticket accordingly, ie within 48 hours for serious matters, or within one week for lesser ones.

wdyt?

well who does the Council escalate to in a COI case then?

We have less than 2 mins left. Can we reject the above proposal if its not getting us to a desired state?

I don't agree with that. I think that decisions which involve personal matters might need to be discussed in private. Because personal matters are more complicated than just whether or not some policy is followed. There should be a concept of "sensitive" topic. It is not well defined, but that's exactly the point - when you are not sure if the topic is sensitive - ask first.

48 hours feels like a tall order without a clear owner. There might need to be a primary and secondary "ombudsman" in Council to make sure there is assigned responsibility for these requests

Can the thing about tickets and SLA be added directly to Council docs instead?

I don't think that's something FESCo should maintain in its own policy

yeah that makes sense

Otherwise, I see what gotmax23 described happening, that things could go without answers. Like, if Aoife is out for a period of 72 hours 😛

not when the question is about someones access being removed. I think a timely response is necessary

We have had other scenarios where timely responses were necessary, but we did not respond in a timely way

good question... because governance in this project is constructed as delegated authority from council with the FPL as the ultimately accountable role... under that construction.. ultimate escalation invovles a Council deadlock agreement to use a FPL determination.

times up

we got nowhere

I see a risk of a repeating pattern without assigning the responsibility

is this a solution looking for a problem? :D

I'm starting to think so

i thought we were having a discussion. not trying to drive to a solution.

its nice to feel like it wasnt circles

this feels like....a square

sorry if that comment sounded harsh. that was not my intention

IMHO this is close, but someone in Council needs to own this responsibility to triage and coordinate

anyway Ill end the meeting and we can continue discussion on discourse thread

If it ends this, this can be me :D

Oh, and this is my last official Council meeting 🙂

It's been fun.

👋

Take care Justin! Im sure we will see you around anyway :)

Y'all aren't rid of me yet 😛