bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- Meeting rules at http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Development/Schedule/MeetingGuidelines -- Init process
* jeremy
G__81This is my first meeting :)
* jwb
bpeppleFESCo meeting ping -- bpepple, caillon, c4chris, dgilmore, dwmw2, f13, jeremy, jwb, notting, spot, nirik, tibbs, warren
* tibbs here
bpeppleHi, everybody; who's around?
* jwb
nirik just happens to be around after all for the meeting.
jeremynirik: hooray!
G__81bpepple, you could include my name too :)
G__81bpepple, i am very much around here :)
* caillon happy to be here now, as opposed to other, worse places.
caillon tries to forget
caillon tries to forget
dgilmore is here
G__81 is here
notting is here
spot is here
* bpepple waits another minute to see if any other FESCo members roll in.
G__81bpepple, am i eligible to attend this ?
tibbsG__81: All are welcome.
caillon/nick all
bpeppleG__81: yeah, anyone is welcome to attend, we just ask that folks try to stay on topic.
G__81i thought FESCO members are others and not me :)
bpeppleok, I think we can get started.
--- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCO-Meeting -- http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Schedule/SponsorResponsibilityPolicy -- all
* wwoods lurking
bpepplestart off with something relatively easy.
f13bpepple: looks fine by me.
f13something that can be tweaked over time if necessary
jeremybpepple: looked good to me
dgilmorebpepple: looks good to me
bpepplef13: that's what I sorta figured also.
* nirik thinks it looks ok... probibly needs more added over time...
ianweller was asked to make that look pretty for the wiki. you might check the history just in case i screwed something up
jwbbpepple, i like it
"Once the package database is available,"
I guess it is available currently, and you can do watchbugzilla and watchcommits.
f13(you can include this on the front page with {{:Extras/Schedule/SponsorResponsibilityPolicy/IRCMeetingInclude}})
is that supposed to be literal?
(I bet it is...)
bpeppletibbs: yeah, I can adjust that.
* ianweller just adjusted that slightly. i saw that too
ianwellerf13: ^^
tibbsAlthough I don't think pkgdb has any special setup to allow sponsors to add themselves to packages like that. The requests still need to be acked by the packager.
bpeppletibbs: yeah, that's correct.
ok, I don't hear any objections (other than tibbs correction), so we can probably move on.
--- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCO-Meeting -- FESCo Responsibilities/Role -- all
bpeppleok, where do we want to start on this?
jwbat the beginning
bpepplejwb: ;)
dgilmorejwb: lets start post big bang
jwbdo we have any defined roles today?
f13rel-eng takes care of things relengy
f13art takes care of things arty
or were you thinking of something different?
nottingfesco 1) approves sponsors 2) runs the feature process
tibbsThis has been a big sticking point for some folks post-merge.
jeremyif I were to break down what fesco does at present, it really falls into a few (large) categories -- 1) things related to getting new contributors involved (sponsorship, etc) 2) approving things like packaging guidelines 3) trying to take a role in the "direction" of the distro via the feature process
jwbf13, was thinking of FESCo roles...
f13jeremy: and also the rubber stamper of things like the release schedules
jeremya lot of the work around trying to deal with distro direction has led to less time being spent on the "how do we make contributors more successful" types of tasks
leading to the sticking point tibbs alludes to
bpepplejeremy: agreed.
* dwmw2_HEL arrives
jeremyboth of these are very important tasks.  but I would argue that it may not be (in fact, I'd argue *shouldn't*) the same people doing them and overseeing them
tibbsI was hoping to offload the feature process somewhat; honestly I wish we could direct things a bit more but it's hard to order around volunteers.
nottingwhich brings up whether we should have some sort of 'release' meeting to handle schedules, slip/no slip, features, etc.
jwbnotting, we do that already.  it's the rel-eng meeting
nottingjwb: which isn't necessarily the most appropriate place
jeremytibbs: some of that comes down to how you do it, though...  "ordering volunteers around" is bad.  "directing volunteers in the direction we want to go" is good :-)
jwbnotting, are you talking about a meeting that involves all the various groups involved in a release?  docs, fesco, rel-eng, art?
f13jwb: yes
jeremynotting: okay, that's a fourth thing.  Release Driving.  it's tied into the third from my list, but not the same thing
f13jwb: I think he's talking about having distribution project board or something like that
jwbyes.  i think we should do that.  i would also like to see more of the SIGs interacting with the various groups as well
tibbsjeremy: I guess my fundamental complaint is that the things I'm involved with are mostly blocked on issues of infrastructure development, and I'm not sure there's any room to push there.
f13the released distributions are but a part of the whole Fedora Project
jeremytibbs: sometimes that's just a question of asking the right question in the right place.  cf mmcgrath's query about mediawiki and ianweller popping up and being a superstar
(the right place often not being obvious. and right time also mattering. but time is just the fourth dimension of place ;)
jwbsometimes.  sometimes not
tibbs, do you have an example of an infrastructure issue holding you up?
jeremyjwb: my example of that would be presto
jwbpresto is delta-rpms, right?
tibbsjwb: It's the whole set of issues surrounding ACLs: maintainer containment, low-barrier sponsorship, etc.
* warren here
f13tibbs: right, those are blocked on somebody putting in the time to /do/ them.
f13tibbs: most have FESCo pre-approval
tibbsf13: My point precisely.
jwbso how can FESCo help there?
jeremyfor things like that, I think it's a matter of having the "wishlist" as it were prioritized.  and enough detail around them that volunteers *can* help move them forward
tibbsWe can't direct work when the work isn't there.
tibbsSo FESCo just ends up talking about a bunch of stuff.
f13tibbs: FESCo helps by clearing the way /for/ it to be done
jwbf13, i disagree with that
f13which is a lot better than somebody spending a lot of time trying to do something, to be told "no".
nirikjeremy: +1... a wishlist/todo list would be nice there...
jeremytibbs: in its initial form, the members of fesco were also involved with a lot of the doing.  skvidal, mschwendt and others did a lot of early heavy lifting
skvidalville, too
jwbthat's part of the issues
jeremyskvidal: that was not intended to be an exhaustive list.  just the what I could come up with in 5 seconds
skvidaloh - I know - I just meant that mschwendt and ville did a bunch of build in the proto-extras stuff
they were great
jwbExtras was smaller, with less people and groups involved
* skvidal will go back to being quiet now
jwbnow we've sort of exploded, with multiple SIGs and groups running the various pieces of what old FESCo used to do
dgilmorejeremy: presto is not so much infrastructure as koji development
jeremydgilmore: that's infrastructure related.  but in any case
dgilmorejeremy: not really deployment and development are seperate
* bpepple thinks we might be getting side-tracked by details, and not looking at the big picture for FESCo.
jeremybpepple: indeed
jwbbpepple, was trying to steer us back :)
dgilmorebpepple: we need to make sure people know they are free to work on most anything they want to
dgilmorewithin a few limitations
jwbpart of the big picture is that Fedora as a whole is larger than it was in the old days, where it was easy to define what FESCo was supposed to do
bpeppledgilmore: agreed, we just need to do a better job of advertising what needs to be worked on.  I think that is why the wiki conversion was such a success.
jwbok, here's the deal
nirikperhaps it would be worthwhile to update http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Development/Schedule/IdeasContainer as a todo/wishlist... but not sure that answers what FESCo does. ;)
jwbFESCo needs to figure out what it really wants to focus on, and let the SIGs deal with what it doesn't
bpepplejwb: I agree.
do we want to focus on Features?
tibbsOversight, obviously.
jwbtibbs, yes we'd need to retain oversight.  but i'm getting there
jeremytibbs: if we're focused on oversight, what's the difference between fesco and the board?
tibbsI would argue that we focused way too much on features during the F9 cycle.
jeremy: The board is political, not technical.
jwblet's take an example that i think is working well
the packaging committee
tibbsOr at least, the board is "something", not technical.
jwbthey give us a report, we look it over and stamp it
we spend on average 5 minutes looking at it
jeremytibbs: the board gets their hands dirty with technical *all the time*.  and always has been
tibbsjeremy: If that's the case then I don't see a reason for FESCo to exist.
* G__81 is a silent spectator
bpeppletibbs: If the SIGS discussions are done in public (like the package committee), I'm not sure oversight is needed since people can make the objections noted..
jwbthe awkward silence leads me to believe there is truth to tibbs's statement
nottingwell, as a board member, i'm not sure i want to put *more* on the board's plate
jeremytibbs: that idea was met with people coming after me with pitchforks and torches the last time I was in this conversation  ;) (which was in the context of the board wrestling with this question when I was on the board)
f13at the very least, that would mean putting together a body of people to deal with Features
nottingbpepple: i'm not sure you can expect all concerned people to subscribe to all SIGs' lists
jds2001and there needs to be some body tasked with mediating disputes (that they know about)
jeremynotting: fedora-devel-announce exists...
f13and dealing with sponsor promotions
jwbhave the SIGs spend reports
EPEL does (did?)
PC does
rel-eng could, IS could
f13As something of a SIG leader, I still want /a/ body to bounce ideas off of
jeremyf13: there's definitely still a need for a group which is involved with "contributor care and feeding" which would involve things like sponsor promotions, makign sure things are easy, etc
nottingf13: i agree, and i don't think the board is necessarily appropriate
f13fedora-devel-announce was created with the explicit statement that it was /not/ for sending weekly reports to.
jwbi didn't mean f-d-a
warrenespecially needed is a group to sometimes make decisions because ideas bounced on fedora-devel-list become useless flamewars.
nottingi don't think the board, as it stands now, is the proper place for approval/disapproval of PC reports, for example
we're interleaving conversations too much
jds2001warren: that goes along with my vision
warrenjds2001: are you on the fesco nomination page?
jwbnobody is
jds2001warren: not yet, will be today though :)
warrenI want to add myself to a third section
* jeremy thinks that really, fesco is two big buckets. and by splitting those buckets apart, each would do much better
warren"Nominations of people who would rather not be on fesco"
jwbjeremy, which are what?
jeremyone is the "Contributor Care" type of things and the other is "Technical Details".  the former is what fesco *used* to largely do.  the latter being what the "core cabal" historically did + also (maybe) some things like rubber stamping of packaging committee
--- irc.freenode.net gives channel operator status to ChanServ
jwbhow would you split those without losing synergy between them.  they are related and conflicted enough to require _really_ good communication
jeremyjwb: so are QA, art, websites, ...
warrenis it really worth the effort to elect/organize two separate groups
jwbjeremy, exactly.  which is sort of my point
shut up global notices
abadger1999warren: Not necessarily elected, one could be appointed by FESCo/allocated to a SIG.
bpeppleabadger1999: similar to the packaging committee.
jwbjeremy, we need more interaction between the groups already.  creating two more separate groups isn't exactly helping that
jeremyjwb: but just because two things are related doesn't mean that you make the same body responsible for them
* nirik thinks those things should proportion in the release cycle...
jeremyjwb: and I don't think it makes things worse.  and it *definitely* would allow for some level of focus
nirikie, shouldn't we be trying to do a lot of the care stuff now, and then tech heats up as we get nearer release.
nottingwell, do the QA, rel-eng, art, sigs currently report to ... fesco? the board?
abadger1999Infrastructure does some of the things that fall under "contributor care" but the focus is different.
jwbnotting, right
nottingjwb: there were two choices there. :)
jeremynirik: tech stuff is at its most important *now*.   otherwise, we won't be in a good place in six months (5 now!) for the release
jwbabadger1999, correct.  i view that as implementation of what FESCo has laid out as the plan
jds2001notting: i conisder fesco.
jwbnotting, right
bpepplenotting: most of them (no art) report to fesco.
jwbart doesn't report to anyone that i know of
jeremynotting: rel-eng to fesco.  the others the board afaict/afaik
jds2001notting: fesco is the tactical body, and the board is the strategic body.
jeremy(in as much as they do)
bpepplejwb: I believe they report to the board.
nirikjeremy: sure, but not at the fesco level yet, right?
jeremynirik: my argument is that we should be involved in it now
* poelcat wonders where the existing 'reporting structure' is currently documented?
nirikin what way? until someone has features for us to look at, or the like... how can fesco as a whole do anything?
jwbfrankly, we should have a rep in every group we really care about
jeremypoelcat: there was a document that was started at one point; I don't know if it ever went anywhere
bpepplepoelcat: spevack used to have a chart for it.  I can't remember we're it's located, I can dig through my mail later.
jeremynirik: there are things about technical direction that we know we want to do.  we could be actually driving those discussions and actually reaching resolution on some of them
bpepplejeremy: agreed.  that what caillon and I wanted FESCo to move towards in our proposal back in april. https://www.redhat.com/mailman/private/fedora-extras-steering/2008-April/msg00000.html
* jwb notes that thread should have moved to fedora-devel
jeremybpepple: *nod*
jds2001bpepple: that thread is locked away where no one can read it.  Summary?
jwbjds2001, this entire meeting is essentially a summary
jds2001ok :)
bpepplejds2001: yeah, one moment and I'll move the e-mail to a public place.
jwbbasically it ended with: we need to be doing more, we don't exactly know what
or how
ok, we aren't going to get anywhere without some kind of proposal
warrenA small group of people who care needs to exist to make decisions and settle disputes WHEN NEEDED.  Otherwise we become Debian and lose.
bpepplejds2001: http://bpepple.fedorapeople.org/fesco_role.txt
warren(just a thought)
jwbProposal: Create a Features SIG that operates in a similar fashion to the PC
jeremywarren: guess what.  we have that.  there's always the board.
bpepplejwb: +1
jeremyjwb: I don't think that really does much to help fesco's focus
warrenthen do we need fesco anymore?
caillonno, we don't
really, we don't.
jwbjeremy, it eliminates something that's a time drain
progress in small steps
* nirik thinks poelcat was essentially doing that. ;)
warrenfeatures SIG is whoever cares enough to participate?
jwbnirik, yes
poelcat leads that well
jeremyjwb: why do small steps?  we're at a good time to actually make *real* changes that could get us somewhere
jds2001soemone needs to be there to right the ship when the process goes wrong, though.
jwbjeremy, ok.  fine.  Proposal: FESCo renames itself to Contributor SIG and focuses on contributor issues
jwbrest of it goes to the Board
jds2001someONES I should say.
jeremyjwb: I think that we have to at the same time create the technical direction society or some such.  but yes, basically what I'm proposing
caillonjds2001, i like to have more faith in things working.  if things are not working, it will resolve itself quickly.  we have enough people that care to make sure that happens.
jds2001the Board won't be managing features, or issues between contributors, or any of a number of other things that FESCo does (or should do) today.
jwbjeremy, both that report to the Board for oversight?
jeremyjwb: yes
abadger1999jeremy: Both elected?
jwbessentially what you're proposing is the complete disbandment of FESCo into SIGs
caillonjds2001, *cough* "down with codeina" "we love codeina"
jeremyjds2001: fesco has gone to the board for guidance on features in the past already
jeremycaillon: I wasn't going to be so explicit, but yes :-)
abadger1999: _honestly_, I don't have a strong opinion on elected. but we've set up a culture in fedora of electing for things, so probably :-)
jwbno, we need an answer today on this
(can't we postpone any relevant election)
jwbbecause if there is no FESCo, there's no reason to hold an election
warrennotting: +1
caillonso we do the time wasty thing some more?
spotfwiw, i think there continues to be a need for a SIG oversight group.
jwbspot, i agree
jwbit's down to whether that's FESCo or the Board
nottingcaillon:  i simply mean i don't want to rush into a decision today because of a self-imposed election deadline
jds2001again, being all corporate for a minute, I think that FESCo is the tactical group, and the Board is the strategic group.
* bpepple doesn't have much faith in the board on tech issues (yes, I'm still bitter about the whole codeina fiasco).
spotjds2001: i would agree with that assessment.
f13so we get Features SIG, we get Release Management SIG (not to be confused with release engineering), we get a Contributor Care sig, and we have a vacancy for 'oversight' right?
jwbnotting, so you want to arbitrarily extend our terms until we can eventually come to a decision?
spotI see the breakdown like this:
jeremyjds2001: except that our strategies are tactcial (... and our tactics are strategic)
spotThe board tells us we need to fly.
spotFESCo says we need to fly on an airplane.
spotthe SIGS build, paint, and crew the plane.
nottingjwb: for values of abitrary <= 1 month or so, as opposed to < 2 hours ;)
caillonbpepple, the board is made of humans.  they make mistakes.
poelcator if you look to the "Fedora Board" like "Board" and each board member is responsible for certain sub-project... corporate example would be: audit commitee, compensation, etc.
caillon(though cyborgs are free to run)
warren(then Ralf complains about the plane)
spoteach level is responsible to the one above it.
abadger1999spot: Ideas also bubble up, though.
jeremyspot: Make Less Overhead.  Get More Shit Done.
spotabadger1999: absolutely.
nirikproblem is, that fesco has no power to pay workers to build a plane, it can only hope they decide to do one.
f13"If you're going to build a plane, please build it this way."
warrenperhaps FESCO has more value in the "we're deadlocked, somebody needs to decide"
spotnirik: but if no one says "we're building a plane", when someone builds a catapult, we have no grounds to say no.
caillonpoelcat, then you're getting more into appointed board members and less so elected board members.
abadger1999So it would also be: SIG #1 decides to implement an airplane, FESCo says that's great, SIG#2, please provide crew for the plane.
spotThis is Fedora. The board gives FESCO the right to make that decision.,
spotIf a SIG doesn't like it, well, that's tough.
spotFESCO being elected helps that significantly.
jds2001caillon: it doesn't matter elected or appointed.
caillonpoelcat, unless they are elected in their various SIGs, and then appointed as a representative to the board.
jds2001the Board members get together (however they got there), and say "I'll look after X"
spotabadger1999: I see FESCo as a definer of roles for SIGs to perform.
nottingcaillon: oof, so we change the composition of both the board and fesco?
jds2001it so happens that group X may have a represenative on the Board.
spotabadger1999: certainly, we want input from the SIGs on those roles
caillonjds2001, and when all the board members only have one interest....
jeremyspot: except that everyone is a volunteer (nominally).  we don't say "You.  You go do $foo".  those that do decide
spotthus, SIGs don't need to ask permission to do things outside their roles
warrenspot: don't sigs define themselves because they are interested in it?  FESCo can't really decide for volunteers what they are interested in.
poelcatif someone can send me a list of the current "groups" and how they report NOW... I can create a picture; then we can create a second picture of what you want it to look like... i think we are going to go around in circle trying to figure all this out on IRC
jeremythe entire *idea* was that Fedora is a meritocracy.  those that do decide...  we've increasingly crept more towards vote on everything bureaucrats over time instead
* nirik nods at jeremy
jeremyand thus less about getting things done
warrenI move that we postpone the nomination and election because we really need to formally define this.
nottingi think there *is* a concern that contributors may not like oversight moving from a completely elected to a half-appointed board
spotjeremy: yes, but who resolves technical conflicts?
jeremythe "cool" things happening in fedora *aren't* happening because fesco says so (or even the board).  they're happening because a contributor does something cool
spotanarchy is fun and all, but still.
nottingso, the board is oversight and fesco-ng is operations?
spotrevisor is cool, should we abandon pungi?
warren(isn't infrastructure operations?)
jeremyspot: in the absence of a SABDFL, that is *ultimately* the board.  Or stickster_afk ;)
spotnotting: the board is only supposed to be oversight and vision.
jeremyjwb: self-appointed benevolent dictator for life
f13pronounced NAMBLA
jeremyand fwiw, I am +1 to notting's proposal of delay elections by like a month so that this can get hammered out
rather than electing without knowing what we're electing for
f13spot: given that I am the one doing the composes, that's not likely to happen.  If somebody else was appointed by the board to compose Fedora, that would ultimately be their (and the board's) decision.
caillonjeremy, agreed.  the board can delegate to technical leaders for specific issues
jeremycaillon: correct
spotf13: so, you're doing what you're doing because a higher power told you to?
spotMake Less Overhead. Get Shit Done.
other hackneyed bullshit.
* dwmw2_HEL has to go
f13spot: sortof?  I'm doing Fedora releases because that's my job.  I use pungi because there was a need for a tool and so I wrote one.
spotthe question is whether Fedora contributors want an elected group to provide oversight and set technical direction
I'd argue that they do.
f13first, define "technical direction"
second, define "oversight" (:
spot"where we're going" and "someone who makes the call when we have a disagreement"
wwoodsyou do hear a lot of comments like "I wish someone would just decide how X was supposed to work"
jeremyspot: let's elect our kernel maintainer too.
warrenjeremy: lxo?
f13spot: "where we're going" is largely Feature proposals brought to us by developers.
f13spot: so yeah, Feature SIG.
lxowarren, hehe
spotf13: thus, we're adding linux-libre.
bpeppleI agree with notting & jeremy that we can't really go forward with the election without this being decided.  Does anyone disagree with that assessment?
f13otherwise it's things like the Infrastructure SIG deciding tomove to media wiki
f13bpepple: I do not disagree.
* nirik is +1 to holding off on elections until after fudcon... where there should be a talk about this
abadger1999bpepple: The alternative is to let the new FESCo do that... but that's never worked in the past.
nottingspot: actually, that's an interesting example. who, in a new framework, would decide that "there will be no alternate kernels in fedora"
jwbbpepple, i don't disagree.  but waiting for another whole week to discuss this again is not a good idea
warrennomination should also be froze
f13spot: if the Feature SIG says yes to that feature, and the board doesn't veto it, then by all means, yes we are.
spoti don't think the board is necessarily qualified to make those calls.
caillonawesome.  fesco grabs the slot that stickster_afk wanted for the election and now decides to not use it ;)
nottingf13: george is from oversight. *ducks and runs*
jeremycaillon: bwahaha.  the evil plan works!
caillonbut yeah +1 to not have an election as planned
wwoodsso FESCo either needs to write a charter or dissolve into SIGs?
bpepplecaillon: following our long tradition of never having our elections when we plan to. :(
f13perhaps the person who writes the best charter automatically becomes the new leader?  (:
notting: I don't get it...
nottingf13: don't worry about it.
f13notting: would you be able to formulate that decision (no alternative kernels) into an area of responsibility?
nottingf13: the fedora distro sanity committee
spotnotting: that would be an oversight committee.
f13we could make that releng...
abadger1999oversight. Dispute between kernel maintainer and kernel-libre maintainer
nottingf13: not sure that's appropriate
f13notting: didn't say it was.
jeremywe've now been talking about this for about an hour, fyi
spoti'm not entirely sure why there is the push to convert Feature oversight into a SIG.
warrenCan we at least have agreement to postpone nomination/election because it really makes no sense to do now?
bpepplewarren: I think we've already done that.
warrenoh, ok.
f13spot: because people think we spent too much time on Feature stuff adn not enough time on $SOMETHING_ELSE
bpepplef13: +1
f13but then again, that $SOMETHING_ELSE could be pushed out to a SIG too
spotf13: i'd argue that's tough. Feature oversight is one of the things FESCo does.
spotas an oversight committee.
f13spot: I don't disagree.
jeremyspot: does the fact that you're settling on the fact that fesco is just an oversight committee not bother you?
bpepplespot: I would think the early stages of the feature process could be handled by a sig.
spotbpepple: early stages as in?
f13bpepple: what are the early stages?
bpeppleinitial vetting stages of features.
spotjeremy: not really. more power to the people
jeremy: just making sure the people don't go too nuts.
jeremy: and resolving technical disputes
jwbi agree with spot
f13bpepple: sure, spreading the work that poelcat does by himself across more people would be fine, that's really poelcat's decision.
jwbthough if that is the progression for FESCo, we need to rebrand to FEOCo
spoti don't care what we call it, as long as it is elected
(i really do think that is important)
jwbi was joking
but yes, an elected body is important
spotapproving features for future releases is steering.
* jeremy wonders how many layers of elected bodies we *really* need, though
spotjeremy: well, realistically, we have one right now.
one and a half.
f13jeremy: given that a lot of key SIGs aren't elected, it would be good to have soemthing elected above them for oversight.
releng, not elected. Packaging, not elected.
bpeppleqa, not elected.
warrenwe're still going in circles, let's take this to a list
jeremyf13: those who do the work get to make the decisions...
warrenbut which list?
spotjeremy: again, lxo did the work for linux-libre.
jwbjeremy, there is a disparity there
jeremyspot: and were the discussion not in fesco, it would instead have been in the board.  see codeina. again.
lxooh, the doubtful honor of becoming a canonical counter-example
jwb"those who are paid to do the work have a distinct advantage over those who volunteer"
nottinglxo: no, canonical runs ubuntu
lxo"nothing is so bad that can't be useful at least as an example to be avoided"
jeremyjwb: for better or worse, that is the way that open source works as it's gone beyond something that people do in their garage
spotlxo: just pointing out that you did the work there, and certainly wouldn't be going back to do it differently were it not for FESCo.
jeremyjwb: I started to write a paper on that for one of my classes, fwiw ;)
lxonotting, heh.  ever heard of uhurubuntu?  (uhuru is freedom in swahili).  it's along the lines of freed-ora and freed-ebian :-)
jwbjeremy, you and i understand that.  yet it presents a conundrum of sorts
lxospot, no worries, I just found it funny and entertaining.  I *do* have a twisted sense of humor
nottinglxo: meh. i suppose that's what the lakers use instead instead of the celtics
spoti don't see FESCo as a mechanism to tell SIGs what to do, as much as to tell them what they really shouldn't do.
spota technical check and balance
nottingspot: if we go down that road, do we have the necessary critical mass to spin out the various SIGs?
jwbnotting, ?
spotnotting: if the board says we do, we do.
warrendid we agree on where to discuss fesco's charter?
jwb"spin out the various SIGs"?
jeremyspot: and then the board acts as another level of checking and balancing.  hooray!
spotwhy do people listen to me on Legal issues?
nottingjwb: i mean, do we have the people to do all the sig forming legwork, will we have SIGs of one?
bpepplewarren: not yet.
spotbecause the Board says i get to make those decisions
f13notting: we already do have a Feature sig of one.
jeremywarren: fab or fedora-devel-list.  either works for me.  maybe fab is most appropriate
spot: no, because luis hasn't said you're wrong yet ;)
jwbnotting, i don't think that should be our concern
nottingf13:is that a sig? poelcat isn't (afaik) doing any judgement on the features themselves aside from adherence to the process
f13that would mean though getting elected to FESCo shouldn't be about "what I want Fedora to do" it would be more about "What I want to keep from happening"
spotf13: true, but you dont have to be on FESCo to make something happen
f13notting: he's doing the legwork to get features in shape for proposal, continual pushing and prodding of feature owners to submit stuff, coming up with feature policy all on his own, etc...
* poelcat is impartial at all times, except to the policy :)
f13notting: he's doing a non-insignificant amount of work, just like any other SIG
spotthe board is really the group that gets to say "you must do $FOO"
poelcati also don't have the technical knowledge or breadth to determine if something should be in||out
f13spot: right, I wasn't saying that was a bad thing, just a paradigm shift.
spot(for better or worse)
lxoyou got my attention by mentioning my nick, and only now have I realized that this is the meeting channel and there's a meeting is underway, but let me offer a suggestion anyway
jwbf13, i don't think it's so much of a shift
f13, we're already there
f13jwb: well, a continuation of an existing shift.
nottingjeremy: well, the board covers more than the oversight that a FEO committee would (such as oversight of ambassadors, etc.)
abadger1999spot: So... if we want to say "Everyone must have an upstart init script for F11", the Board makes that decree?
lxohow about let the board be the group that creates SIGs and makes tough calls as needed, let SIGs be stand-alone, and introduce a "cabal of SIGs", that sort of plays the role of trying to sort out conflicts, disputes and directions that would conflict with other SIGs' plans
spotabadger1999: they possess the power to say that, whether they're qualified to do so is another question entirely.
jwblxo, the board is not fully elected
lxothis cabal, instead of being elected as a whole, could have say one appointed member per SIG, or something like that.  regular meetings like FESCo.
lxoand if disputes can't be resolved, escalate to the board
spoti think part of this boils down to the fact that the board's responsibilities are just as nebulous as FESCo's.
tibbsYes, I believe that's the case.
nottingspot: you mean other than 'the buck stops here'?
f13FESCo is the elected concious of the board?
spotthe board is not technical, and I think that FESCo should be.
spot(not necessarily)
not necessarily technical, rather.
* jeremy thought that the elected portion of the board was the conscience of the board...
nottingwe elected spoleeba to be our conscience? uh-oh.
spotIf the board wants to decide which Features are good/no good for Fedora, and act as SIG oversight, then, well, i think i'd be disappointed that it wasn't a wholly elected body.
spoleebanotting, ?
f13more like unconscience.
lxojwb, but isn't the board entitled to override or veto FESCo decisions.  I don't understand what you mean.  sure thing, it would come off bad, but I don't see that it would come off any better than overriding a decision reached by the SIG Cabal
jeremyspot: the board has and will continue to have to make technical decisions.  thus, it will always have a technical component.  and nothing says that the board doesn't ask subject matter experts for opinions in the same way that fesco does in some cases
jeremylxo: yep
bpepplejeremy: my big problem with the board is that there decisions are for the most part done behind closed-doors, unlike FESCo and most of the SIGs.
lxocould this be improved, perhaps?
bpepplelxo: yeah, I'm sure it could.
lxoI do understand there may be an infrequent need for OTR discussions, but...
nottingphone has the bandwidth, irc does not
jeremynotting: indeed
nottingwell, 'phone'
lxoare the calls recorded?
dgilmorelxo: no
jeremylxo: no
f13board also deals with things thta are decidedly !public
it would presumably be possible,with some effort, to make things more transparent
jeremylxo: yes.  and there was a push in that direction for a while
tibbsBut this isn't the place to talk about changing the board.
lxoranging from discussing !public issues in separate non-recorded meetings to posting summaries of the public discussions
nottingsummaries *are* posted
f13you'd likely have to schedule specific meetings to deal with arbitration or oversight or anything like that where it should happen in public and do those as IRC meetings.
spoti think there is value and merit in having a public, wholly elected, committee, above the SIGs, which exists primarily to review Features (where all significant technical decisions in Fedora are Features) and resolve SIG disputes.
bpeppleok, we've gone on for about an hour and a half, we should probably start thinking about wrapping up for today, and moving the discussion to the lists.
dgilmoref13: like for instance the monthly public board meeting
jeremyspot: and I disagree
there! just as much reasoning!
f13dgilmore: except that waiting for arbitration once a month is a bit... long.
lxospot, but then, there are various ways to hold elections for such a committee
dgilmoref13: yes it is
tibbsspot: What I personally care about is the stuff I joined FESCo originally to deal with.  Contributor issues, primarily.
lxoone of them is to elect the committee.  another is for each "state" to elect its own representatives, that end up forming the committee
f13tibbs: regardless of FESCo fallout, I would strongly urge you to create a contributor care sig
tibbsI guess my main complaint is that post-merge I've gotten to do very little of it because that just hasn't been FESCo's focus.
f13since, as proven before, you don't have to be /in/ FESCo to do something.
jeremyspot: more seriously, the _reason_ I disagree is that we already have one group with elected people who review Direction and arbitrate major disputes
spot: even an elected majority now. but even if it was 100% elected, there is *STILL* the trump veto
spotjeremy: not really elected, not really public, and not really doing anything.
bpepplespot: +1
tibbsf13: But if you are indeed in FESCo and you still can't do it, then what?
jeremyspot: and what, pray tell, is fesco actually doing
tibbsI mean, it's not as if forming a SIG is somehow going to magically make all of the blockers resolve themselves.
f13tibbs: then I'm confused as to how it's a FESCo failure that is leading to you being dissapointed.
jeremyspot: and bullshit on "not really elected"
spotjeremy: we approved/rejected the Features for F9
jeremypoelcat: do you have any numbers on how many features we rejected for anything other than 1) incomplete entry or 2) low % completion ?
spotmostly approved (which is good), but we did reject.
f13tibbs: since Fedora is volunteer, doesn't matter /where/ FESCo "focuses" if there is nobody willing to do the work.
tibbsFESCo's failure here is readily apparent, isn't it?
tibbsI mean, crap, what have we been discussing for the past 90 minutes?
f13tibbs: can you tell me how we possibly could have "focused" more on something and made /anything/ happen?
spotfor FESCO to have any realistic power, the board has to give it to us.
jeremyf13: the way that fesco currently operates, if that were something I was interested in, fesco isn't where I'd go
f13the way that Fedora is made up, the /only/ "power" a commitee can have is to say "no" or "yes" to somebody doing work
jeremyf13: we have clear evidence of that from the people who have pulled away from fesco
f13we cannot force anybody to /do/ anything for us.
warrenWithout FESCO, who decides to that a methodology for lower-level probational contributor access is a good idea or not?
spotwarren: apparently, the people doing the work decide it.
f13warren: the Contributor care sig.
warren: and if the board doesn't like what that sig is doing, they can veto
jeremywarren: the previously mentioned Contributor Care and Feeding group
spotthats not a damned SIG
SIGs are people who say "i am doing this now."
warrenf13: who cares enough to keep such a sig running all year?
you can't just say "split that off into a sig" and expect it to happen
spotwho tells them no, or steers them in a different direction?
jeremybut in any case, I think that things are definitely getting too heated and we've been talking about this for an hour and a half.  we're not getting anywhere
bpepplejeremy: agreed.
* nirik nods
f13warren: if nobody cares about it, the work isn't going to be done, and thus it doesn't much matter, does it?
spotf13: i think thats a fallacy.
spotbut i honestly think the only way this will be resolved is for the board to say whether FESCo exists and what it is responsible for.
otherwise we're just elected to do... something.
warrenFESCO got a group of relatively clueful people together to discuss whatever topic that is relevant today.  You can't exactly expect volunteers to do this on a narrow topic without it falling apart
f13qa?  triage?  art?
(ok, maybe art was a bad example for a while)
bpepplef13: ;)
warrenart got critical mass going and leaders who do shit on a consistent basis.
splitting "contributor care" might not become self-sustaining on its own. it might be a thankless job to lead.
"contributor care" is part of a larger problem
how many of us will be at fudcon?
f13if there is nobody who is going to care about it, it doesn't matter what group is responsible for it.
tibbsI will almost certainly not be at fudcon.
f13especially because it's a pretty giant leap from "we'd like something to be done" to "something got done"
warrenf13: I don't think we're on the same page here.
* bpepple won't be at fudcon either.
warrenwe're really late here, discuss more on fab and next week?
spotbpepple: i really do think we need to ask the board what role they want FESCo to play, if any.
bpepplespot: I'm fine with doing that.  I can send stickster_afk a message later today to get his thoughts.
spotbpepple: even if they say "decide for yourself" (which would be a cop out).
bpeppleanyone have a problem with asking the board?  Speak up now.
warrenIf we can't define it ourselves, are they really better qualified?
warrenPerhaps we need to brainstorm on fab and focus on what roles are missing without FESCO.
And I'm highly skeptical that simply splitting out into SIGs will solve problems.
spotwarren: given that all responsibility would fall to the board, i think they do need to decide whether they want it or not.
right now, they're a trump card.
we'd be asking them to play.
warrenI don't see any problem in asking them for their opinion.
bpeppleok, I'll send stickster_afk a message, and after we hear back from the board we can decide how to proceed.
alright, unless someone speaks up I'll wrap this meeting up.
spotbpepple: did we have the "let FTBFS items die" on the agenda?
bpepplespot: yeah, but I figured we could discuss that next week.
spotbpepple: ok.
bpeppleI was planning to make it the first item since it got pushed this week.
* bpepple will end the meeting in 60
warrenIn other news, I'd like to personally revive the "probationary lower level contributor access" proposal
has anyone else been working on that?
warren Wakko666
bpepplewarren: you might check with f13 since I believe it overlaps with his acl proposal.
and I think he was getting a intern to work on that over the summer.
me 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!