| --- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- Meeting rules at http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Development/Schedule/MeetingGuidelines -- Init process | ||
| bpepple | FESCo 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 | ||
| jeremy | ||
| nirik is here. | ||
| wolfy takes notes | ||
| warren meh! | ||
| poelcat here | ||
| bpepple | ok, let's start slowly while folks continue to show up. | |
| --- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCO-Meeting -- Bill Nottingham (sponsor nomination) | ||
| * dwmw2 here | ||
| bpepple | notting: you aren't a sponsor? | |
| * jeremy doesn't know if we can trust that notting person ;-) | ||
| caillon | i agree. notting looks too much like nothing. | |
| notting | bpepple: not afaict | |
| bpepple | just assumed you already were. | |
| caillon | +1 for him | |
| bpepple | +1 | |
| caillon | bpepple, i'm guessing there's a lot of people who can/should be but just aren't. | |
| tibbs | +1 | |
| dwmw2 | +1 | |
| nirik | +1 | |
| * c4chris here | ||
| caillon | although i find it hard to sponsor people who i should be sponsoring because someone always sponsors them before i do. | |
| c4chris | notting: +1 | |
| tibbs | We should still vote on making people sponsors less we have an appearance of favoritism. | |
| bpepple | ok, with spot's vote, that's more than half of FESCo, so notting has been made a sponsor. | |
| jeremy | tibbs: what if I vote -1? | |
| bpepple | notting: I'll update you account after the meeting. | |
| jeremy | does that help avoid an appearance of favoritism? :) | |
| bpepple | s/you/your/ | |
| * dgilmore is here | ||
| bpepple | ok, 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? | |
| bpepple | f13 mentioned he would probably miss the meeting due to the intern fair. | |
| nirik | +1, we should announce exact dates asap tho if possible. | |
| bpepple | warren: I'm not sure. anyone else from rel-eng want to field that? | |
| dgilmore | +1 also | |
| jeremy | nirik: the exact dates depend on when perl 5.10 is ready to go | |
| nirik | yeah, understood... we should also note too when it's ok for maintainers to start rebuilds... | |
| notting | warren: 'at a certain point' would probably be 'a week or so prior to beta freeze' | |
| c4chris | notting: agreed | |
| +1 for proposal | ||
| tibbs | We know we need to do this. The only question is when. | |
| warren | yeah, when. | |
| c4chris | is theer any reason maintainers should not start right now ? | |
| warren | c4chris, I dunno | |
| notting | c4chris: if they depend on perl, they may just need to do it again l;ater | |
| nirik | It'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. | ||
| c4chris | is Jakub around ? | |
| tibbs | I 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. | |
| dwmw2 | +1 | |
| c4chris | I 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. | |
| nirik | mass rebuilding twice seems like something to avoid to me... but perhaps I am just lazy. ;) | |
| c4chris | nirik: right but delaying unnecessarily because of potential gcc bugs is not great either | |
| bpepple | ok, I see five '+1', and one '0' to the rebuild proposal. | |
| notting | +1 | |
| warren | +1 | |
| tibbs | In case it wasn't obvious from my above, comment, that's a +1 from me too. | |
| f13 | ok, I'm here. | |
| bpepple | ok, that's eight '+1', and one '0', so the rebuild proposal has passed. | |
| f13 | but somewhat distracted. | |
| caillon_ | f13, have you talked to jakub yet? | |
| f13 | not today no | |
| * jwb is here | ||
| f13 | c4chris: the detection script will notice if you've already rebuilt your package and not trigger a second build. | |
| c4chris | f13: right, but there was some question whether another rebuild migth become necessary if gcc is changed again | |
| f13 | nod | |
| tibbs | Will the rebuilds be backgrounded so regular access to koji isn't completely useless for two weeks? | |
| f13 | yes | |
| builds will be backgrounded | ||
| tibbs | Cool. | |
| c4chris | so should we still wait for jakub's GA, or do we start right now? | |
| f13 | c4chris: I'd wait for jakub to OK it, but I think he just ponged me on irc, brb | |
| bpepple | anything else? or should we move on? | |
| nirik | also we should make clear if this is going to be after the perl landing... | |
| c4chris | no real point waiting for non perl-related things | |
| though | ||
| 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 | ||
| jwb | next week | |
| :) | ||
| notting | jwb: we can decide on a date next week? and next week we'll decide on a date 'next week'? | |
| c4chris | do we want it in parallel with FAB ? | |
| nirik | when is it supposed to be? | |
| jwb | notting, no i meant have the election next week | |
| bpepple | c4chris: only if we modify the election software to support multiple elections. | |
| c4chris | yup | |
| bpepple | nirik: one month after f9 release. | |
| warren | bpepple, +1 | |
| caillon_ | why aren't there defined recurring election timelines? | |
| bpepple | which 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... :) | ||
| f13 | nirik: yeah, timing is /after/ perl, as stated in the proposal. | |
| warren | election is after perl? | |
| f13 | warren: mass rebuild. | |
| c4chris | warren: nah, mass rebuild | |
| f13 | speaking of, jakub gave the go ahead for doing builds manually. | |
| bpepple | caillon: do you mean for FESCo or Fedora as a whole? | |
| f13 | so I'll work on getting the list posted. | |
| bpepple | f13: great, thanks. | |
| warren | So 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 | |
| f13 | warren: basically | |
| nirik | f13: 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? | |
| bpepple | caillon: we sorta do, but it's tied into our release date. | |
| f13 | nirik: yeah, those start/end dates should be in the proposal. | |
| caillon | bpepple, there should be some consistency and expectability | |
| tibbs | I have to head out for a few minutes. | |
| caillon | which is fine. "elections open 3 tuesdays after a release and run until the next monday" | |
| or something | ||
| c4chris | caillon: you mean one month after F9 is not good enough ? You'd like a calendar date ? | |
| f13 | caillon: that seems reasonable to me. | |
| jwb | c4chris, releases slip. calendar dates are impossible | |
| caillon | c4chris, I'd like precision, and not have to choose every time. | |
| f13 | caillon: especially as we try to be more predictable as to /when/ those releases happen. | |
| warren | super tuesday! | |
| c4chris | jwb: that's my impression too | |
| bpepple | caillon: 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. | |
| dgilmore | bpepple: which is why i broughtit up | |
| dgilmore | start getting the word out there and make sure we have intrested candidates | |
| jwb | when is the Board election? | |
| dgilmore | jwb: about the same time | |
| jwb | grr | |
| f13 | everybody wants to elect at the same time :/ | |
| bpepple | dgilmore: how soon before the election do you want to announce candidate nominations? one month? | |
| dgilmore | there will be 3 seats for the board | |
| dgilmore | bpepple: 4-6 weeks | |
| bpepple: possibly even 8 weeks | ||
| c4chris | jwb: why do you think it's bad to have both elections at the same time ? | |
| f13 | c4chris: at the moment, we only have one voting app | |
| dgilmore | It would be nice to open up nominations before F-9 is baked | |
| f13 | only one vote at a time | |
| bpepple | ok, so assuming we have our election the 1st week of June, we would announce the candidate noms around mid-to-late april. | |
| caillon | move elections to before the release then. since we start looking forward to the new release a little before the release is out. | |
| f13 | but second, somebody may want to run for the board, and failing that, run for FESCo, but not both | |
| dgilmore | c4chris: the voting app only allows for one at a time | |
| caillon | and we don't run afoul of the board elections | |
| jwb | c4chris, i don't necessarily | |
| caillon | i just don't want to have to discuss this every release cycle :) | |
| bpepple | caillon: agreed. | |
| jwb | caillon, i don't like before release so much | |
| dgilmore | caillon: :) yes | |
| f13 | I kind of do | |
| jwb | lots of potential candidates are uber busy right up until release | |
| f13 | at some point, before the release is public, there isn't much we can do to direct the release. | |
| jwb | f13, you are crazy. i'm talking about rel-eng specifically | |
| tibbs | I'm back now. | |
| dgilmore | i have been wondering if we should split up FESCo and have elections each release for half the people | |
| f13 | jwb: nah, I just don't sleep during that time so I have some extra cycles to burn | |
| dgilmore | rather than all people once per year | |
| f13 | jwb: but yes, I'm crazy | |
| warren | dgilmore, not a bad idea | |
| jwb | dgilmore, i think we should | |
| we've talked about that a lot in the past and never done it though | ||
| bpepple | dgilmore: I dunno, running the election and all the work before hand in a pita. | |
| caillon | really? | |
| that should be fixed. | ||
| notting | 'hand in a pita'? | |
| * jwb thinks bpepple is hungry | ||
| c4chris | s/in/is/ | |
| dgilmore | so this time we either delegate some seats as 6 month. or we pick half the people and extend there seats by 6 months | |
| bpepple | caillon: we've always had problems getting enough people to have the election, and practically had to plead to get enough candidates. | |
| caillon | so maybe 13 is too many? | |
| bpepple | caillon: possibly. | |
| jwb | it is | |
| f13 | yes, 13 is too manhy | |
| dgilmore | 9? | |
| 7? | ||
| f13 | I'd be far happier with 7 | |
| jwb | 7 | |
| f13 | and interested parties can listen in and comment whenever they want | |
| and really, there shouldn't be any silly things about only 1/2 @redhat | ||
| nirik | yeah, reducing the number was talked about in the past, but we never got around to it. ;) | |
| * notting would say 9, but definitely < 13 | ||
| warren | The reason for 13 is because everyone can't always attend meetings | |
| bpepple | f13: 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. | |
| f13 | I plan on running for the board so I'd give up my seat next time | |
| dgilmore | f13: there is no such things as 1/2 @redhat | |
| caillon | warren, no matter how small your group is, you'll always have that | |
| c4chris | I was told the round tuits are always hard to come by... :) | |
| f13 | *shrug* 9 is OK too | |
| warren | why not 11? | |
| 11 is better than 13 | ||
| tibbs | I am happy to serve again although as usual the time I have for contributions varies significantly over time. | |
| caillon | warren, it's too prime. 9 is better. | |
| f13 | warren: because 11 is blue and I like red. | |
| so lets paint this bikeshed. | ||
| notting | f13: purple! | |
| dgilmore | f13: 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 | |
| notting | ok, so, proposal #1: FESCo , as of the next election, will be 9 people. yay/nay? | |
| nirik | hey, doesn't FESCo report to the board? so can't we punt to them how many people we should have? ;) | |
| jwb | +1 | |
| bpepple | notting: +1 | |
| caillon | notting, yay! | |
| dgilmore | notting: +1 | |
| warren | And 4.5 of the seats will be up for election? =) | |
| notting, +1 | ||
| c4chris | notting: +1 | |
| nirik | notting: +1, fine with me... I'm happy to go or stay. ;) | |
| dgilmore | warren: i say 5 seats will be up | |
| * notting is +1 , of course | ||
| dgilmore | fesco can decide who stays | |
| jwb | one thing at a time | |
| bpepple | ok, so proposal #2: Next election 5 seats will be up for election. | |
| caillon | -1 | |
| dgilmore | +1 | |
| warren | who do you decide which seats? | |
| caillon | next election: all 9 seats are up. the bottom 4 vote getters have to run again in 6 months. | |
| nirik | why not just do them all? then no decision about who needs to be made. | |
| dgilmore | caillon: thats fine | |
| caillon | bottom 4 out of the top 9 that is. | |
| c4chris | caillon: yea, I'd prefer that | |
| bpepple | caillon: I'm fine with that. | |
| notting | caillon: and then rotating after that? | |
| caillon | yes | |
| jeremy | sounds sane | |
| nirik | +1 | |
| jwb | do we have term limits? | |
| dgilmore | jwb: no | |
| f13 | notting: +1 | |
| notting | +1 to caillon's proposal | |
| dgilmore | +1 to caillon | |
| jwb | +1 to caillon | |
| dgilmore, i meant should we | ||
| dgilmore | jwb: i dont think so | |
| c4chris | jwb: I don't think so | |
| nirik | +1 (above was to caillon's proposal if it wasn't clear) | |
| bpepple | ok, should we decide the date next then? | |
| dgilmore | jwb: if the community thinks its time for me to move on then they can vote me off | |
| notting | did caillon's proposal carry? | |
| jwb | not yet | |
| jeremy | +1 | |
| dgilmore | there is 5 +1's for caillon | |
| c4chris | +1 | |
| bpepple | +1 | |
| jwb | now it did | |
| dgilmore | june 2-6? | |
| caillon | dgilmore, we need a week I think. | |
| dgilmore | June 2-8 then | |
| nirik | approval voting? | |
| jwb | one thing at a time | |
| bpepple | +1 to june 2-8 | |
| jwb | didn't we just say calendar dates suck? | |
| * nirik nods. Sorry. | ||
| jwb | hm, maybe only i said that | |
| caillon | We should really do it time relative to a release | |
| jwb | i liked the 3rd tues after release | |
| c4chris | yea 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 | ||
| caillon | but I don't necessarily care if we *always* do it on Jun 2-8 and on Dec 2-8 either. | |
| jwb | i'd rather not do calendar dates. let the current FESCo finish out the release | |
| caillon | fair enough. | |
| bpepple | poelcat:I'll break us off in 5 minutes, so we can get to some features. | |
| dgilmore | caillon: i was proposing those dates only for this election | |
| caillon | dgilmore, 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 | ||
| ;) | ||
| c4chris | +1 | |
| bpepple | +1, I'm fine with that. | |
| jwb | +1 | |
| warren | +1 | |
| dgilmore | +1 | |
| jeremy | +1 | |
| c4chris | nominations from end of March up to elections | |
| notting | +1 | |
| nirik | +1 | |
| dgilmore | +1 | |
| bpepple | ok, 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. | ||
| dgilmore | :) | |
| jeremy | c4chris: better to tie it to the schedule. maybe from "preview release" on? | |
| c4chris | jeremy: fine too | |
| --- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo-Meeting -- New Features - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Dashboard - poelcat | ||
| bpepple | poelcat: you want to lead? | |
| --- poelcat has changed the topic to: vote http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/XenFullvirtKernelBoot | ||
| dgilmore | jeremy: 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. | ||
| jwb | 0 | |
| warren | +1 | |
| notting | +1 | |
| dgilmore | +1 | |
| jeremy | +1 | |
| f13 | +1 | |
| c4chris | +1 | |
| bpepple | ok, 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 | ||
| f13 | +1 | |
| * jwb grumbles | ||
| f13 | jwb: hrm? | |
| dgilmore | +1 | |
| notting | +1 | |
| warren | +21 | |
| tibbs | +1 perl | |
| warren | oops | |
| nirik | +1, do we know when this is going to be done/land? | |
| bpepple | +1 | |
| jwb | it's YAF that's already in | |
| dgilmore | its going to happen anyway so lets make it loud | |
| f13 | nirik: any day now | |
| warren | I just used up all my votes for the year. | |
| dwmw2 | +1 | |
| caillon | +1 | |
| jwb | +! | |
| tibbs | I don't think it's already in. But spot has already done most of the hard work. | |
| c4chris | +1 | |
| bpepple | ok, I see more than seven '+1', so this feature has also been approved. | |
| f13 | jwb: perl-5.10.0 is not in yet | |
| jwb | isn't that what spot is rebuilding for right now? | |
| f13 | jwb: 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. | ||
| jwb | then why are packages being bumped? | |
| --- poelcat has changed the topic to: vote http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/IMDesktopIntegration -- see additional informatoin added at feedback | ||
| poelcat | See additional information provided at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/IMDesktopIntegration#comments | |
| f13 | jwb: they're being built on the side against the new perl in dist-f9-perl | |
| jwb | but why the bump? | |
| f13 | jwb: 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. | |
| jwb | we can take this out-of-meeting | |
| bpepple | +1 to Input Method proposal. | |
| notting | +1 | |
| warren | +1 | |
| tibbs | +1 | |
| dwmw2 | +1 | |
| f13 | well, 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. | |
| c4chris | +1 | |
| tibbs | f13: I thought you said that you got the answer you needed. | |
| "That's basically what I was looking for." | ||
| nirik | yeah, but it's not been updated yet... | |
| f13 | tibbs: as in "that's the question I was looking to get answered" | |
| I didn't see an answer. | ||
| dgilmore | im still not etirely happy 0 | |
| bpepple | alright, that's eight '+1', and one '0'. the IM proposal has been approved. | |
| poelcat | I 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. | |
| poelcat | that's all from the featureville :) | |
| dgilmore | poelcat: what are the 4 ? | |
| bpepple | poelcat: thanks. | |
| wwoods | ext4 is definitely still active | |
| poelcat | ext4, networkmanager, server providex, update X | |
| dgilmore | ok | |
| warren | there was a new call for testing of ext4 today | |
| dgilmore | thanks | |
| --- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- Free discussion around Fedora | ||
| bpepple | anything else folks wish to discuss before wrapping up? | |
| ok, going once... | ||
| going twice.... | ||
| f13 | WAIT! | |
| I have nothing. | ||
| bpepple | f13: ;) | |
| 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!