--- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- Meeting rules at http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Development/Schedule/MeetingGuidelines -- Init process
bpeppleFESCo meeting ping -- bpepple, caillon, c4chris, dgilmore, dwmw2, f13, jeremy, jwb, notting, spot, nirik, tibbs, warren
Hi everybody; who's around?
* notting is here
tibbs here
nirik is here.
wolfy takes notes
warren meh!
poelcat here
bpeppleok, let's start slowly while folks continue to show up.
--- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCO-Meeting -- Bill Nottingham (sponsor nomination)
* dwmw2 here
bpepplenotting: you aren't a sponsor?
* jeremy doesn't know if we can trust that notting person ;-)
cailloni agree.  notting looks too much like nothing.
nottingbpepple: not afaict
bpepplejust assumed you already were.
caillon+1 for him
caillonbpepple, i'm guessing there's a lot of people who can/should be but just aren't.
* c4chris here
caillonalthough i find it hard to sponsor people who i should be sponsoring because someone always sponsors them before i do.
c4chrisnotting: +1
tibbsWe should still vote on making people sponsors less we have an appearance of favoritism.
bpeppleok, with spot's vote, that's more than half of FESCo, so notting has been made a sponsor.
jeremytibbs: what if I vote -1?
bpepplenotting: I'll update you account after the meeting.
jeremydoes that help avoid an appearance of favoritism? :)
* dgilmore is here
bpeppleok, let's move on......
--- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCO-Meeting -- gcc-4.3 Mass Rebuild - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JesseKeating/gcc43MassRebuildProposal - f13
dgilmore+1 for notting
warren"At a certain point, script rebuilding the rest" about when is this?
bpepplef13 mentioned he would probably miss the meeting due to the intern fair.
nirik+1, we should announce exact dates asap tho if possible.
bpepplewarren: I'm not sure.  anyone else from rel-eng want to field that?
dgilmore+1 also
jeremynirik: the exact dates depend on when perl 5.10 is ready to go
nirikyeah, understood... we should also note too when it's ok for maintainers to start rebuilds...
nottingwarren: 'at a certain point' would probably be 'a week or so prior to beta freeze'
c4chrisnotting: agreed
+1 for proposal
tibbsWe know we need to do this.  The only question is when.
warrenyeah, when.
c4chrisis theer any reason maintainers should not start right now ?
warrenc4chris, I dunno
nottingc4chris: if they depend on perl, they may just need to do it again l;ater
nirikIt's also unclear if gcc will get more changes before it's all ready to mass rebuild isn't it?
ie, waiting for Jakub to give the go ahead.
c4chrisis Jakub around ?
tibbsI asked and f13 told me that he's waiting on something.
Let me find my logs.
[Wed Feb 6 2008] [20:43:14] <f13> tibbs|h: you should be free to do so, although I do want to chat with jakub firs
t before sending up the bat signal for such rebuilds.
So I guess you can rebuild now if you want.
bpepple+1 to rebuild proposal.
c4chrisI think people should start right now: that will get package bugs out
then if need be, we can mass rebuild again automatically, but it should be easier
caillon_0.  i say defer to releng.
nirikmass rebuilding twice seems like something to avoid to me... but perhaps I am just lazy. ;)
c4chrisnirik: right but delaying unnecessarily because of potential gcc bugs is not great either
bpeppleok, I see five '+1', and one '0' to the rebuild proposal.
tibbsIn case it wasn't obvious from my above, comment, that's a +1 from me too.
f13ok, I'm here.
bpeppleok, that's eight '+1', and one '0', so the rebuild proposal has passed.
f13but somewhat distracted.
caillon_f13, have you talked to jakub yet?
f13not today no
* jwb is here
f13c4chris: the detection script will notice if you've already rebuilt your package and not trigger a second build.
c4chrisf13: right, but there was some question whether another rebuild migth become necessary if gcc is changed again
tibbsWill the rebuilds be backgrounded so regular access to koji isn't completely useless for two weeks?
builds will be backgrounded
c4chrisso should we still wait for jakub's GA, or do we start right now?
f13c4chris: I'd wait for jakub to OK it, but I think he just ponged me on irc, brb
bpeppleanything else? or should we move on?
nirikalso we should make clear if this is going to be after the perl landing...
c4chrisno real point waiting for non perl-related things
but yea, that should be made clear
I guess we can move on...
--- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCO-Meeting -- Decide on date for 2008 FESCo Election - all
jwbnext week
nottingjwb: we can decide on a date next week? and next week we'll decide on a date 'next week'?
c4chrisdo we want it in parallel with FAB ?
nirikwhen is it supposed to be?
jwbnotting, no i meant have the election next week
bpepplec4chris: only if we modify the election software to support multiple elections.
bpepplenirik: one month after f9 release.
warrenbpepple, +1
caillon_why aren't there defined recurring election timelines?
bpepplewhich I believe would put us about the 1st week of June.
* nirik was meaning to look for and package some election software. It's on my list... :)
f13nirik: yeah, timing is /after/ perl, as stated in the proposal.
warrenelection is after perl?
f13warren: mass rebuild.
c4chriswarren: nah, mass rebuild
f13speaking of, jakub gave the go ahead for doing builds manually.
bpepplecaillon: do you mean for FESCo or Fedora as a whole?
f13so I'll work on getting the list posted.
bpepplef13: great, thanks.
warrenSo we encourage people to build using gcc-4.3 as long the package doesn't depend on perl?
caillon_bpepple, specifically FESCo, but fedora as a whole would be good too
f13warren: basically
nirikf13: cool. So builds by maintainer anytime starting now (as long as no perl depends), and mass build is by date XXXX? done by date YYYY?
bpepplecaillon: we sorta do, but it's tied into our release date.
f13nirik: yeah, those start/end dates should be in the proposal.
caillonbpepple, there should be some consistency and expectability
tibbsI have to head out for a few minutes.
caillonwhich is fine.  "elections open 3 tuesdays after a release and run until the next monday"
or something
c4chriscaillon: you mean one month after F9 is not good enough ?  You'd like a calendar date ?
f13caillon: that seems reasonable to me.
jwbc4chris, releases slip.  calendar dates are impossible
caillonc4chris, I'd like precision, and not have to choose every time.
f13caillon: especially as we try to be more predictable as to /when/ those releases happen.
warrensuper tuesday!
c4chrisjwb: that's my impression too
bpepplecaillon: in general we've done that.  last election got delayed since we didn't have enough candidates, and then we got bumped due to the Board election.
dgilmorebpepple: which is why i broughtit up
dgilmorestart getting the word out there and make sure we have intrested candidates
jwbwhen is the Board election?
dgilmorejwb: about the same time
f13everybody wants to elect at the same time :/
bpeppledgilmore: how soon before the election do you want to announce candidate nominations? one month?
dgilmorethere will be 3 seats for the board
dgilmorebpepple: 4-6 weeks
bpepple: possibly even 8 weeks
c4chrisjwb: why do you think it's bad to have both elections at the same time ?
f13c4chris: at the moment, we only have one voting app
dgilmoreIt would be nice to open up nominations before F-9 is baked
f13only one vote at a time
bpeppleok, so assuming we have our election the 1st week of June, we would announce the candidate noms around mid-to-late april.
caillonmove elections to before the release then.  since we start looking forward to the new release a little before the release is out.
f13but second, somebody may want to run for the board, and failing that, run for FESCo, but not both
dgilmorec4chris: the voting app only allows for one at a time
caillonand we don't run afoul of the board elections
jwbc4chris, i don't necessarily
cailloni just don't want to have to discuss this every release cycle :)
bpepplecaillon: agreed.
jwbcaillon, i don't like before release so much
dgilmorecaillon: :)  yes
f13I kind of do
jwblots of potential candidates are uber busy right up until release
f13at some point, before the release is public, there isn't much we can do to direct the release.
jwbf13, you are crazy.  i'm talking about rel-eng specifically
tibbsI'm back now.
dgilmorei have been wondering if we should split up FESCo and have elections each release  for half  the people
f13jwb: nah, I just don't sleep during that time so I have some extra cycles to burn
dgilmorerather than all people once per year
f13jwb: but yes, I'm crazy
warrendgilmore, not a bad idea
jwbdgilmore, i think we should
we've talked about that a lot in the past and never done it though
bpeppledgilmore: I dunno, running the election and all the work before hand in a pita.
that should be fixed.
notting'hand in a pita'?
* jwb thinks bpepple is hungry
dgilmoreso this time we either delegate some seats as 6 month.  or we pick half the people and extend there seats by 6 months
bpepplecaillon: we've always had problems getting enough people to have the election, and practically had to plead to get enough candidates.
caillonso maybe 13 is too many?
bpepplecaillon: possibly.
jwbit is
f13yes, 13 is too manhy
f13I'd be far happier with 7
f13and interested parties can listen in and comment whenever they want
and really, there shouldn't be any silly things about only 1/2 @redhat
nirikyeah, reducing the number was talked about in the past, but we never got around to it. ;)
* notting would say 9, but definitely < 13
warrenThe reason for 13 is because everyone can't always attend meetings
bpepplef13: true, though I do worry a little that FESCo could look just like the board with only 7 members.  as is we have quite a bit of overlap.
f13I plan on running for the board so I'd give up my seat next time
dgilmoref13: there is no such things as 1/2 @redhat
caillonwarren, no matter how small your group is, you'll always have that
c4chrisI was told the round tuits are always hard to come by... :)
f13*shrug* 9 is OK too
warrenwhy not 11?
11 is better than 13
tibbsI am happy to serve again although as usual the time I have for contributions varies significantly over time.
caillonwarren, it's too prime.  9 is better.
f13warren: because 11 is blue and I like red.
so lets paint this bikeshed.
nottingf13: purple!
dgilmoref13: FESCo is made up entirely from people voted by the community.  If no RH people put their hand up there would be no @RH people
nottingok, so, proposal #1: FESCo , as of the next election, will be 9 people. yay/nay?
nirikhey, doesn't FESCo report to the board? so can't we punt to them how many people we should have? ;)
bpepplenotting: +1
caillonnotting, yay!
dgilmorenotting: +1
warrenAnd 4.5 of the seats will be up for election? =)
notting, +1
c4chrisnotting: +1
niriknotting: +1, fine with me... I'm happy to go or stay. ;)
dgilmorewarren: i say 5 seats will be up
* notting is +1 , of course
dgilmorefesco can decide who stays
jwbone thing at a time
bpeppleok, so proposal #2: Next election 5 seats will be up for election.
warrenwho do you decide which seats?
caillonnext election: all 9 seats are up.  the bottom 4 vote getters have to run again in 6 months.
nirikwhy not just do them all? then no decision about who needs to be made.
dgilmorecaillon: thats fine
caillonbottom 4 out of the top 9 that is.
c4chriscaillon: yea, I'd prefer that
bpepplecaillon: I'm fine with that.
nottingcaillon: and then rotating after that?
jeremysounds sane
jwbdo we have term limits?
dgilmorejwb: no
f13notting: +1
notting+1 to caillon's proposal
dgilmore+1 to caillon
jwb+1 to caillon
dgilmore, i meant should we
dgilmorejwb: i dont think so
c4chrisjwb: I don't think so
nirik+1 (above was to caillon's proposal if it wasn't clear)
bpeppleok, should we decide the date next then?
dgilmorejwb: if the community thinks its time for me to move on then they can vote me off
nottingdid caillon's proposal carry?
jwbnot yet
dgilmorethere is 5 +1's for caillon
jwbnow it did
dgilmorejune 2-6?
caillondgilmore, we need a week I think.
dgilmoreJune 2-8 then
nirikapproval voting?
jwbone thing at a time
bpepple+1 to june 2-8
jwbdidn't we just say calendar dates suck?
* nirik nods. Sorry.
jwbhm, maybe only i said that
caillonWe should really do it time relative to a release
jwbi liked the 3rd tues after release
c4chrisyea 3rd tues after release sounds good.  Lasts for 1 week
* poelcat wonders if we are planning to cover features today? i have a hard stop at 1400 EST
caillonbut I don't necessarily care if we *always* do it on Jun 2-8 and on Dec 2-8 either.
jwbi'd rather not do calendar dates.  let the current FESCo finish out the release
caillonfair enough.
bpepplepoelcat:I'll break us off in 5 minutes, so we can get to some features.
dgilmorecaillon: i was proposing those dates only for this election
caillondgilmore, ah.  then -1.  I don't think we should be constantly deciding dates.  let's pick a relative time and roll with it.  :)
so +1 to my proposal of 3rd tuesday post release
bpepple+1, I'm fine with that.
c4chrisnominations from end of March up to elections
bpeppleok, that's seven '+1', so caillon's proposal has passed.
we should probably stop there for this week, so we can get to some features before poelcat has to leave.
jeremyc4chris: better to tie it to the schedule.  maybe from "preview release" on?
c4chrisjeremy: fine too
--- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo-Meeting -- New Features - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Dashboard - poelcat
bpepplepoelcat: you want to lead?
--- poelcat has changed the topic to: vote http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/XenFullvirtKernelBoot
dgilmorejeremy: perhaps from Beta through week before election
tibbs+1 for the Xen thing.
nirik+1 here.
bpepple +1
spot also gave +1 on the mailing lists.
bpeppleok, that's eight '+1', and one '0', so it's been approved.
--- poelcat has changed the topic to: vote http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Perl510
* jwb grumbles
f13jwb: hrm?
tibbs+1 perl
nirik+1, do we know when this is going to be done/land?
jwbit's YAF that's already in
dgilmoreits going to happen anyway so lets make it loud
f13nirik: any day now
warrenI just used up all my votes for the year.
tibbsI don't think it's already in.  But spot has already done most of the hard work.
bpeppleok, I see more than seven '+1', so this feature has also been approved.
f13jwb: perl-5.10.0 is not in yet
jwbisn't that what spot is rebuilding for right now?
f13jwb: it hasn't been tagged over to dist-f9 and we can still roll it back at this pint.
jwb: he's building it on the side in a different collection
when it lands in dist-f9, you'll know.
broken dep report will likely be too big to be posted.
jwbthen why are packages being bumped?
--- poelcat has changed the topic to: vote http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/IMDesktopIntegration -- see additional informatoin added at feedback
poelcatSee additional information provided at  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/IMDesktopIntegration#comments
f13jwb: they're being built on the side against the new perl in dist-f9-perl
jwbbut why the bump?
f13jwb: as a pre-emptive strike against the core of perl modules. so that maintainers don't get held up by them when trying to rebuild their packages.
jwbwe can take this out-of-meeting
bpepple+1 to Input Method proposal.
f13well, my question didn't really get answered in the IM thing, but +1 anyway
nirik+1, but I hope they do update to describe what an input-method is and why users should care.
tibbsf13: I thought you said that you got the answer you needed.
"That's basically what I was looking for."
nirikyeah, but it's not been updated yet...
f13tibbs: as in "that's the question I was looking to get answered"
I didn't see an answer.
dgilmoreim still not etirely happy 0
bpepplealright, that's eight '+1', and one '0'.  the IM proposal has been approved.
poelcatI will be sending a final notice to the four feature owners here http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/9/FeatureList which have not been updated in >= 2 months or for the Alpha.  If there is no response I will propose to FESCo that they be dropped from the F9 Accepted Feature list at next week's meeting.
poelcatthat's all from the featureville :)
dgilmorepoelcat: what are the 4 ?
bpepplepoelcat: thanks.
wwoodsext4 is definitely still active
poelcatext4, networkmanager, server providex, update X
warrenthere was a new call for testing of ext4 today
--- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- Free discussion around Fedora
bpeppleanything else folks wish to discuss before wrapping up?
ok, going once...
going twice....
I have nothing.
bpepplef13: ;)
alright, let's put a fork in it.
* bpepple will end the meeting in 60
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!