--- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- Meeting rules at http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Development/Schedule/MeetingGuidelines -- Init process
* nirik is here
loupgaroublond is here
bpeppleFESCo meeting ping -- bpepple, caillon, c4chris, dgilmore, dwmw2, f13, jeremy, jwb, notting, spot, nirik, tibbs, warren
Hi everybody; who's around?
jwbaround, but about to call into a real-life meeting
* notting is here
f13I'm here.
* spot is here
nirik is here still.
dgilmore is here
bpepplecaillon & dwmw2 mentioned that won't be able to make it today, though they did vote on the 2 proposals.
f13oh yeah, those proposals.
I'm going to attempt a barcamp on Fedora Maintainer Karma which has some play into the new maintainer containment
bpepplef13: cool.
ok, while we're waiting for folks we can probably start with something easy.
--- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCO-Meeting -- sponsor nominations -- caillon
bpepple+1 here also.
spotehhhhh, ok. +1
bpeppleok, that's seven votes for making caillon a sponsor.  I'll go ahead and update his account after the meeting.
moving on......
--- bpepple has changed the topic to: MISC - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JesseKeating/PackageACLOpening - f13
bpepplecaillon & dwmw2 both voted '+1' for this offline.
(yes, i've read it)
nirik+1 here.
f13I have to remember what I wrote...
jwb(bpepple, oh, and +1 for callion as a sponsor)
jwber, caillon
bpepple+1 to acl opening proposal.
* bpepple wonders if the wiki has gone down.
f13so obviously I like this idea
but there was a fair number of folks that felt this should wait until we have the new maintainer containment stuff in place
drago01bpepple: works fine
nirikso everything is marked, but maintainers can opt out
f13yeah, we'd just have to do it /again/ after we have the new maintainment.
c4chrisf13: yes, we can do it int 2 steps
bpepplef13: dwmw2 also mentioned people having to justify opting out.
f13bpepple: yeah, that's an interesting thought
c4chrisbpepple: might want for some other maintainer to challenge the fact that a package is closed before we ask for justification...
c4chriss/want/want to wait/
* knurd will close the ACLs for all his packages in protest until the CTRL+C issue is fixed if this is done without the containment stuff until
f13knurd: I honestly don't think we can fix ^c until we move off of cvs
knurdthen do containment stuff together with this
that opening ACLs IMHO is fine
(and a good idea actually)
but one without the other is IMHO just asking for trouble until the ^c problem is not fixed
bpeppleso, what are people's opinion about waiting to implement the acl opening until the containment stuff is finished?
spot0, i'm supportive of it either way.
nirikperhaps we should talk about that now and see if we want to do it, then it would make sense to do it at the same time.
bpepplenirik: agreed.
--- bpepple has changed the topic to: MISC - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JesseKeating/NewMaintainerContainment - f13
c4chrisI don't really care.  We'll have to repeat the opening/opt-out process after containment is implemented if we do not wait
bpepplecaillon +1 to the Maintainer containment proposal.
dwmw2 voted an ambivalent +0.
nirikthis is gonna be some work to implement... who is going to drive it? infrastructure folks?
dgilmore+1  but i want to know who will do the work
nirikalso, does it require FAS2? and whats the timeframe on that?
f13it may require fas2 for the karma stuff
but before that I think we can accomplish containment with just fas1
it'll just make it harder to promote people.
c4chrispersonnaly I do not really think this is needed, but since it seems to make many people more comfortable: +1
f13I plan on working on some of it,
and maybe we'll get an INfrastructure intern this summer to work on it too
bpepple+1 to the idea, though some of the details still need to be worked out.
* nirik agrees with c4chris
bpepplec4chris: I think this will help lower the barrier a bit for new contributors, since it will limit what damage they can do.
nirikso who is grandfathered into the group? everyone now? or under discussion tomorrow?
warrensorry back now
went to pharmacy
bpepplenirik: I would lean towards anyone that is currently sponsored.
c4chrisbpepple: agreed, there's that aspect too
f13basically I think what I'm looking for out of FESCo is general approval of the idea so that we can allocate some resources for it.
warren"I would lean towards anyone that is currently sponsored." is for people with access to everything open?
as opposed to the lower level where they have access only to their own package?
spoti like the idea, i'd even vote +1 if someone was willing to do the work.
warrenThere is a simpler way to draw the line...
bpepplewarren: correct.
+1. I like the idea in general also.
f13spot: "someone willing" may be an intern for the summer.
warrenSomething like: 1) Anybody who has ever reviewed a package.  or maybe 2) Anybody who owns 5 or more packages.
Or 3) Anybody who has made X number of CVS commits (these can be counted by parsing the cvs-commits list easily)
You can make a reasonably good rough line between very active and less active contributors this way.
bpepplewarren: my criteria was for who was being grandfathered in.
warrenbpepple, isn't that what I'm giving examples for where to draw the line?
nirikso this is all filtering out people who might mess up someone elses package, right? so any good guide to being a good community person/knowning what they are doing would be ok with me.
warrenWe need 1) a simple way to draw the line 2) a simple way to upgrade people we missed (which shouldn't be much if #1 was good)
It isn't a big deal if #1 is too lenient, because all sponsored people could already do damage now if they wanted.
bpepplewarren: agreed.
regardless, I think the details can be worked out later, since f13 is just looking for general approval of the proposal.
warrenWe don't have to decide "how to draw the line" now, someone should research the best simple way to draw the line.
bpeppleok, could I get a quick show of hands on general idea of f13's proposal.
nirikright. so, everyone voted?
dgilmore+1 on the idea
bpepplecaillon +1
spot+1 on the idea
warrenDid we already vote on caillon?
spotyes, we denied the request.
bpepplewarren: yeah, at the beginning of the meeting.
spot(no, we didn't. he passed)
bpeppleok, I see eight '+1', so FESCo approves the general idea of f13's proposal.  now we just need to work out the details and implement it.
jwband vote again?
f13yeah, FESCO should get to review it before it goes live
Don't really need to vote on it again. How about we vote only if anybody objects to the details?
save some time
bpepplewarren: I'm fine with that.
f13whatever's clever
warrenBTW, I have a potential topic for FESCO discussion
I can wait until the end
bpeppleok, now that we've approved the new maintainer proposal, do we want to hold off the opening of the acl's until the maintainer proposal is implemented?
c4chrismight as well
less confusing
bpepplec4chris: I'm inclined to agree as well.
spotNow that we've voted out tibbs, lets move on.
f13me too
spotI mean, uhhh
f13tibbs: welcome
c4christibbs: do we look awesone, or were you just happy to get connected?
bpeppleok, is there anything else people want to discuss regarding f13 proposal's, or should we move on?
tibbsActually I'm sitting in the same room with three other fesco members and I did not realize there was a meeting.
f13tibbs: cute.
bpeppletibbs: D'oh!
tibbsI have focus.
bpeppledo folks want to approve some features this week, or should we push them to next week?
c4chrisis poelcat around?
spothas anyone seen amanda huggenkiss?
* loupgaroublond would like his feature approved this week :)
spotWhy can't I find amanda huggenkiss?
* c4chris wonders too
warrenI have a topic for discussion if we're just going to sit here.
bpepplewarren: go ahead.
c4chrisloupgaroublond: url?
Package name documentation-devel is controversial.
Objections against:
1) Presumptuous to have such a generic name to cloud the namespace.
2) *-devel for a tools package seems wrong.
Arguments to keep it:
buggbotBug 427481: medium, medium, ---, Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it, NEW , Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain
warren1) Red Hat has been using this name for years internally. (emotional?)
2) 179 modules * 23 languages must be updated to contain the new name. (Concern that the non-technical users that are translators will screw this up.)
Should FESCo make a recommendation, mandate or just stay out of this?
loupgaroublondc4chris: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/GoodHaskellSupport
warrenMy personal opinion is that the argument against #2 is really not such a huge burden, and #1 isn't valid either.  The objection #2 makes it important enough for them to rename.
nottingwarren: 4117 instances? niiiiice.
dgilmorebpepple: next week
spotit seems like it should be "fedora-documentation", with a provides for "documentation-devel"
warrennotting, really, the update could be scripted.
spot, wont that make it be "multilib" and be removed if someone does "yum remove *-devel"?
nottingof course
spotwon't it also be multilib if left as is?
warrenspot, we *do* have a policy against runtime and tools being in or requiring *-devel right?
spot, which is wrong.
rdieterfwiw, it's documentation-devel is noarch.
warrenok, maybe multilib isn't a concern
*-devel in the name seems wrong.
--- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- Free discussion around Fedora
warrenShould FESCo stay out of this, make a recommendation, or mandate?
loupgaroublondno features this week?
warrenloupgaroublond, no poelcat
warrenAny opinions at all?
spoti think the name should be changed
with a provides to the old name
f13I think we should make it known in our guidelines that packages/subpackages with a -devel tail is treated differently
spotsince multlib is a non-issue
f13just like with -libs
we have a few Fedora standard naming schemes, -devel, -libs, etc..
warrenspoleeba, can -devel be spelled out explicitly in guidelines?
spotI suppose it could be.
warrenSo we're making this a mandate that the name be changed?
jwbi hate that word
warrenjwb, what else do we call it?
f13a suggestion
spotI don't think we're making anything. I'd recommend it be changed.
f13a strong suggestion.
f13 fcrippa fab
bpepplef13: +1
jwb"a recommendation"
or what f13 said
warren"FESCo discussed this during the meeting, and strongly suggests changing the name.  Packaging guidelines will soon more explicitly spell out the rules regarding -devel."
bpepplewarren: sounds good.
warrenshould we vote on this?
anybody else?
nirik+1 I guess.
bpepplejwb, tibbs, notting, dgilmore?
warrenIs that a majority?
f13looks like it
warrenOK, great.
I'll post it
bpepplewarren: cool, thanks.
anything else, or should we wrap up for this week?
f13just calling it documentation-development would be fine
warrennames discussed were:
documentation-development I guess
f13DocumentationKit!  Rock
warrenOh, and "warrensucks"
bpepplef13: yeah, we need another Kit!
warrenwhich is totally fine with me, because it has no -devel.
dgilmoreno more -o-matic
warrenYeah,  no -o-matic
OK I'm done here. gotta owrk
anything else?
c4chriswrap sounds fine
bpeppleok, if there's nothing else let's wrap it up, and let the FUDCon folks go back to hacking.
* bpepple will end the meeting in 60
nottingno feature-fu this week?
c4chrisno feature-master...
bpepplenot to mention we're short on time anyhow.
nirikhe just walked into the room
* bpepple waits a moment before starting to count again.
nirikand left.
* bpepple will end the meeting in 30
* bpepple will end the meeting in 15
bpepple-- MARK -- Meeting End

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.5 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!