| bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- Meeting rules at http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Development/Schedule/MeetingGuidelines -- Init process | ||
| * jeremy | ||
| f13 | ||
| G__81 | This is my first meeting :) | |
|---|---|---|
| * jwb | ||
| bpepple | FESCo meeting ping -- bpepple, caillon, c4chris, dgilmore, dwmw2, f13, jeremy, jwb, notting, spot, nirik, tibbs, warren | |
| * tibbs here | ||
| bpepple | Hi, everybody; who's around? | |
| * jwb | ||
| nirik just happens to be around after all for the meeting. | ||
| jeremy | nirik: hooray! | |
| G__81 | bpepple, you could include my name too :) | |
| G__81 | bpepple, 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__81 | bpepple, am i eligible to attend this ? | |
| tibbs | G__81: All are welcome. | |
| caillon | /nick all | |
| bpepple | G__81: yeah, anyone is welcome to attend, we just ask that folks try to stay on topic. | |
| G__81 | i thought FESCO members are others and not me :) | |
| bpepple | ok, I think we can get started. | |
| --- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCO-Meeting -- http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Schedule/SponsorResponsibilityPolicy -- all | ||
| * wwoods lurking | ||
| bpepple | start off with something relatively easy. | |
| jwb | yay! | |
| f13 | bpepple: looks fine by me. | |
| f13 | something that can be tweaked over time if necessary | |
| jeremy | bpepple: looked good to me | |
| dgilmore | bpepple: looks good to me | |
| bpepple | f13: 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 | ||
| jwb | bpepple, i like it | |
| tibbs | Actually: | |
| "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...) | ||
| bpepple | tibbs: yeah, I can adjust that. | |
| * ianweller just adjusted that slightly. i saw that too | ||
| ianweller | f13: ^^ | |
| tibbs | Although 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. | |
| bpepple | tibbs: 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 | ||
| bpepple | ok, where do we want to start on this? | |
| jwb | at the beginning | |
| bpepple | jwb: ;) | |
| dgilmore | jwb: lets start post big bang | |
| jwb | do we have any defined roles today? | |
| f13 | rel-eng takes care of things relengy | |
| f13 | art takes care of things arty | |
| or were you thinking of something different? | ||
| notting | fesco 1) approves sponsors 2) runs the feature process | |
| tibbs | This has been a big sticking point for some folks post-merge. | |
| jeremy | if 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 | |
| jwb | f13, was thinking of FESCo roles... | |
| f13 | jeremy: and also the rubber stamper of things like the release schedules | |
| jeremy | a 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 | ||
| jwb | yes | |
| bpepple | jeremy: agreed. | |
| * dwmw2_HEL arrives | ||
| jeremy | both 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 | |
| tibbs | I 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. | |
| notting | which brings up whether we should have some sort of 'release' meeting to handle schedules, slip/no slip, features, etc. | |
| jwb | notting, we do that already. it's the rel-eng meeting | |
| notting | jwb: which isn't necessarily the most appropriate place | |
| jeremy | tibbs: 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 :-) | |
| jwb | notting, are you talking about a meeting that involves all the various groups involved in a release? docs, fesco, rel-eng, art? | |
| f13 | jwb: yes | |
| jeremy | notting: okay, that's a fourth thing. Release Driving. it's tied into the third from my list, but not the same thing | |
| f13 | jwb: I think he's talking about having distribution project board or something like that | |
| jwb | yes. i think we should do that. i would also like to see more of the SIGs interacting with the various groups as well | |
| tibbs | jeremy: 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. | |
| f13 | the released distributions are but a part of the whole Fedora Project | |
| jeremy | tibbs: 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 ;) | ||
| jwb | sometimes. sometimes not | |
| tibbs, do you have an example of an infrastructure issue holding you up? | ||
| jeremy | jwb: my example of that would be presto | |
| jwb | presto is delta-rpms, right? | |
| jeremy | ja | |
| jwb | k | |
| tibbs | jwb: It's the whole set of issues surrounding ACLs: maintainer containment, low-barrier sponsorship, etc. | |
| * warren here | ||
| f13 | tibbs: right, those are blocked on somebody putting in the time to /do/ them. | |
| f13 | tibbs: most have FESCo pre-approval | |
| tibbs | f13: My point precisely. | |
| jwb | so how can FESCo help there? | |
| jeremy | for 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 | |
| tibbs | We can't direct work when the work isn't there. | |
| tibbs | So FESCo just ends up talking about a bunch of stuff. | |
| f13 | tibbs: FESCo helps by clearing the way /for/ it to be done | |
| jwb | f13, i disagree with that | |
| f13 | which is a lot better than somebody spending a lot of time trying to do something, to be told "no". | |
| nirik | jeremy: +1... a wishlist/todo list would be nice there... | |
| jeremy | tibbs: 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 | |
| skvidal | ville, too | |
| jwb | that's part of the issues | |
| jeremy | skvidal: that was not intended to be an exhaustive list. just the what I could come up with in 5 seconds | |
| skvidal | oh - I know - I just meant that mschwendt and ville did a bunch of build in the proto-extras stuff | |
| they were great | ||
| jwb | Extras was smaller, with less people and groups involved | |
| * skvidal will go back to being quiet now | ||
| jwb | now we've sort of exploded, with multiple SIGs and groups running the various pieces of what old FESCo used to do | |
| dgilmore | jeremy: presto is not so much infrastructure as koji development | |
| jeremy | dgilmore: that's infrastructure related. but in any case | |
| dgilmore | jeremy: 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. | ||
| jeremy | bpepple: indeed | |
| jwb | bpepple, was trying to steer us back :) | |
| dgilmore | bpepple: we need to make sure people know they are free to work on most anything they want to | |
| dgilmore | within a few limitations | |
| jwb | part 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 | |
| bpepple | dgilmore: 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. | |
| jwb | ok, here's the deal | |
| nirik | perhaps 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. ;) | |
| jwb | FESCo needs to figure out what it really wants to focus on, and let the SIGs deal with what it doesn't | |
| bpepple | jwb: I agree. | |
| jwb | so | |
| do we want to focus on Features? | ||
| tibbs | Oversight, obviously. | |
| jwb | tibbs, yes we'd need to retain oversight. but i'm getting there | |
| jeremy | tibbs: if we're focused on oversight, what's the difference between fesco and the board? | |
| tibbs | I would argue that we focused way too much on features during the F9 cycle. | |
| jeremy: The board is political, not technical. | ||
| jwb | let's take an example that i think is working well | |
| the packaging committee | ||
| tibbs | Or at least, the board is "something", not technical. | |
| jwb | they give us a report, we look it over and stamp it | |
| we spend on average 5 minutes looking at it | ||
| jeremy | tibbs: the board gets their hands dirty with technical *all the time*. and always has been | |
| tibbs | jeremy: If that's the case then I don't see a reason for FESCo to exist. | |
| * G__81 is a silent spectator | ||
| bpepple | tibbs: 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.. | |
| jwb | the awkward silence leads me to believe there is truth to tibbs's statement | |
| notting | well, as a board member, i'm not sure i want to put *more* on the board's plate | |
| jeremy | tibbs: 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) | |
| f13 | at the very least, that would mean putting together a body of people to deal with Features | |
| notting | bpepple: i'm not sure you can expect all concerned people to subscribe to all SIGs' lists | |
| jds2001 | and there needs to be some body tasked with mediating disputes (that they know about) | |
| jeremy | notting: fedora-devel-announce exists... | |
| f13 | and dealing with sponsor promotions | |
| jwb | have the SIGs spend reports | |
| EPEL does (did?) | ||
| PC does | ||
| rel-eng could, IS could | ||
| f13 | As something of a SIG leader, I still want /a/ body to bounce ideas off of | |
| jeremy | f13: 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 | |
| notting | f13: i agree, and i don't think the board is necessarily appropriate | |
| f13 | fedora-devel-announce was created with the explicit statement that it was /not/ for sending weekly reports to. | |
| jwb | i didn't mean f-d-a | |
| warren | especially needed is a group to sometimes make decisions because ideas bounced on fedora-devel-list become useless flamewars. | |
| notting | i don't think the board, as it stands now, is the proper place for approval/disapproval of PC reports, for example | |
| jwb | hm | |
| we're interleaving conversations too much | ||
| jds2001 | warren: that goes along with my vision | |
| warren | jds2001: are you on the fesco nomination page? | |
| jwb | nobody is | |
| jds2001 | warren: not yet, will be today though :) | |
| warren | I 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" | |
| jwb | jeremy, which are what? | |
| jeremy | one 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 | ||
| jwb | how would you split those without losing synergy between them. they are related and conflicted enough to require _really_ good communication | |
| jeremy | jwb: so are QA, art, websites, ... | |
| warren | is it really worth the effort to elect/organize two separate groups | |
| jwb | jeremy, exactly. which is sort of my point | |
| shut up global notices | ||
| abadger1999 | warren: Not necessarily elected, one could be appointed by FESCo/allocated to a SIG. | |
| bpepple | abadger1999: similar to the packaging committee. | |
| jwb | jeremy, we need more interaction between the groups already. creating two more separate groups isn't exactly helping that | |
| jeremy | jwb: 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... | ||
| jeremy | jwb: and I don't think it makes things worse. and it *definitely* would allow for some level of focus | |
| nirik | ie, shouldn't we be trying to do a lot of the care stuff now, and then tech heats up as we get nearer release. | |
| notting | well, do the QA, rel-eng, art, sigs currently report to ... fesco? the board? | |
| abadger1999 | Infrastructure does some of the things that fall under "contributor care" but the focus is different. | |
| jwb | notting, right | |
| notting | jwb: there were two choices there. :) | |
| jeremy | nirik: 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 | |
| jwb | abadger1999, correct. i view that as implementation of what FESCo has laid out as the plan | |
| jds2001 | notting: i conisder fesco. | |
| jwb | notting, right | |
| bpepple | notting: most of them (no art) report to fesco. | |
| jwb | art doesn't report to anyone that i know of | |
| jeremy | notting: rel-eng to fesco. the others the board afaict/afaik | |
| jds2001 | notting: fesco is the tactical body, and the board is the strategic body. | |
| jeremy | (in as much as they do) | |
| bpepple | jwb: I believe they report to the board. | |
| nirik | jeremy: sure, but not at the fesco level yet, right? | |
| jeremy | nirik: my argument is that we should be involved in it now | |
| * poelcat wonders where the existing 'reporting structure' is currently documented? | ||
| nirik | in what way? until someone has features for us to look at, or the like... how can fesco as a whole do anything? | |
| jwb | frankly, we should have a rep in every group we really care about | |
| jeremy | poelcat: there was a document that was started at one point; I don't know if it ever went anywhere | |
| bpepple | poelcat: spevack used to have a chart for it. I can't remember we're it's located, I can dig through my mail later. | |
| jeremy | nirik: 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 | |
| bpepple | jeremy: 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 | ||
| jeremy | bpepple: *nod* | |
| jds2001 | bpepple: that thread is locked away where no one can read it. Summary? | |
| jwb | jds2001, this entire meeting is essentially a summary | |
| jds2001 | ok :) | |
| bpepple | jds2001: yeah, one moment and I'll move the e-mail to a public place. | |
| jwb | basically 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 | ||
| warren | A small group of people who care needs to exist to make decisions and settle disputes WHEN NEEDED. Otherwise we become Debian and lose. | |
| bpepple | jds2001: http://bpepple.fedorapeople.org/fesco_role.txt | |
| warren | (just a thought) | |
| jwb | Proposal: Create a Features SIG that operates in a similar fashion to the PC | |
| jeremy | warren: guess what. we have that. there's always the board. | |
| bpepple | jwb: +1 | |
| jeremy | jwb: I don't think that really does much to help fesco's focus | |
| warren | then do we need fesco anymore? | |
| caillon | no, we don't | |
| really, we don't. | ||
| jwb | jeremy, it eliminates something that's a time drain | |
| progress in small steps | ||
| * nirik thinks poelcat was essentially doing that. ;) | ||
| warren | features SIG is whoever cares enough to participate? | |
| jwb | nirik, yes | |
| caillon | yes. | |
| poelcat leads that well | ||
| jeremy | jwb: why do small steps? we're at a good time to actually make *real* changes that could get us somewhere | |
| jds2001 | soemone needs to be there to right the ship when the process goes wrong, though. | |
| jwb | jeremy, ok. fine. Proposal: FESCo renames itself to Contributor SIG and focuses on contributor issues | |
| jwb | rest of it goes to the Board | |
| jds2001 | someONES I should say. | |
| jeremy | jwb: 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 | |
| caillon | jds2001, 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. | |
| jds2001 | the 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. | |
| jwb | jeremy, both that report to the Board for oversight? | |
| jeremy | jwb: yes | |
| abadger1999 | jeremy: Both elected? | |
| jwb | essentially what you're proposing is the complete disbandment of FESCo into SIGs | |
| caillon | jds2001, *cough* "down with codeina" "we love codeina" | |
| jeremy | jds2001: fesco has gone to the board for guidance on features in the past already | |
| jeremy | caillon: 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 :-) | ||
| jwb | no, we need an answer today on this | |
| notting | why? | |
| (can't we postpone any relevant election) | ||
| jwb | because if there is no FESCo, there's no reason to hold an election | |
| warren | notting: +1 | |
| caillon | so we do the time wasty thing some more? | |
| spot | fwiw, i think there continues to be a need for a SIG oversight group. | |
| jwb | spot, i agree | |
| jwb | it's down to whether that's FESCo or the Board | |
| notting | caillon: i simply mean i don't want to rush into a decision today because of a self-imposed election deadline | |
| jds2001 | again, 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). | ||
| spot | jds2001: i would agree with that assessment. | |
| f13 | so 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? | |
| jwb | notting, so you want to arbitrarily extend our terms until we can eventually come to a decision? | |
| spot | I see the breakdown like this: | |
| jeremy | jds2001: except that our strategies are tactcial (... and our tactics are strategic) | |
| spot | The board tells us we need to fly. | |
| spot | FESCo says we need to fly on an airplane. | |
| spot | the SIGS build, paint, and crew the plane. | |
| notting | jwb: for values of abitrary <= 1 month or so, as opposed to < 2 hours ;) | |
| caillon | bpepple, the board is made of humans. they make mistakes. | |
| poelcat | or 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) | |
| spot | each level is responsible to the one above it. | |
| abadger1999 | spot: Ideas also bubble up, though. | |
| jeremy | spot: Make Less Overhead. Get More Shit Done. | |
| spot | abadger1999: absolutely. | |
| nirik | problem 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." | |
| warren | perhaps FESCO has more value in the "we're deadlocked, somebody needs to decide" | |
| spot | nirik: but if no one says "we're building a plane", when someone builds a catapult, we have no grounds to say no. | |
| caillon | poelcat, then you're getting more into appointed board members and less so elected board members. | |
| nirik | indeed. | |
| abadger1999 | So it would also be: SIG #1 decides to implement an airplane, FESCo says that's great, SIG#2, please provide crew for the plane. | |
| spot | This is Fedora. The board gives FESCO the right to make that decision., | |
| spot | If a SIG doesn't like it, well, that's tough. | |
| spot | FESCO being elected helps that significantly. | |
| jds2001 | caillon: it doesn't matter elected or appointed. | |
| caillon | poelcat, unless they are elected in their various SIGs, and then appointed as a representative to the board. | |
| jds2001 | the Board members get together (however they got there), and say "I'll look after X" | |
| spot | abadger1999: I see FESCo as a definer of roles for SIGs to perform. | |
| notting | caillon: oof, so we change the composition of both the board and fesco? | |
| jds2001 | it so happens that group X may have a represenative on the Board. | |
| spot | abadger1999: certainly, we want input from the SIGs on those roles | |
| caillon | jds2001, and when all the board members only have one interest.... | |
| jeremy | spot: except that everyone is a volunteer (nominally). we don't say "You. You go do $foo". those that do decide | |
| spot | thus, SIGs don't need to ask permission to do things outside their roles | |
| warren | spot: don't sigs define themselves because they are interested in it? FESCo can't really decide for volunteers what they are interested in. | |
| poelcat | if 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 | |
| jeremy | the 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 | ||
| jeremy | and thus less about getting things done | |
| warren | I move that we postpone the nomination and election because we really need to formally define this. | |
| notting | i think there *is* a concern that contributors may not like oversight moving from a completely elected to a half-appointed board | |
| spot | jeremy: yes, but who resolves technical conflicts? | |
| jeremy | the "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 | |
| spot | anarchy is fun and all, but still. | |
| notting | so, the board is oversight and fesco-ng is operations? | |
| spot | revisor is cool, should we abandon pungi? | |
| warren | (isn't infrastructure operations?) | |
| jeremy | spot: in the absence of a SABDFL, that is *ultimately* the board. Or stickster_afk ;) | |
| spot | notting: the board is only supposed to be oversight and vision. | |
| jwb | SABDFL? | |
| jeremy | jwb: self-appointed benevolent dictator for life | |
| f13 | pronounced NAMBLA | |
| jeremy | and 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 | ||
| f13 | spot: 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. | |
| caillon | jeremy, agreed. the board can delegate to technical leaders for specific issues | |
| jeremy | caillon: correct | |
| spot | f13: so, you're doing what you're doing because a higher power told you to? | |
| spot | Make Less Overhead. Get Shit Done. | |
| other hackneyed bullshit. | ||
| * dwmw2_HEL has to go | ||
| f13 | spot: 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. | |
| spot | the question is whether Fedora contributors want an elected group to provide oversight and set technical direction | |
| I'd argue that they do. | ||
| f13 | first, define "technical direction" | |
| second, define "oversight" (: | ||
| spot | "where we're going" and "someone who makes the call when we have a disagreement" | |
| wwoods | you do hear a lot of comments like "I wish someone would just decide how X was supposed to work" | |
| jeremy | spot: let's elect our kernel maintainer too. | |
| warren | jeremy: lxo? | |
| f13 | spot: "where we're going" is largely Feature proposals brought to us by developers. | |
| f13 | spot: so yeah, Feature SIG. | |
| lxo | warren, hehe | |
| spot | f13: thus, we're adding linux-libre. | |
| bpepple | I agree with notting & jeremy that we can't really go forward with the election without this being decided. Does anyone disagree with that assessment? | |
| f13 | otherwise it's things like the Infrastructure SIG deciding tomove to media wiki | |
| f13 | bpepple: I do not disagree. | |
| * nirik is +1 to holding off on elections until after fudcon... where there should be a talk about this | ||
| abadger1999 | bpepple: The alternative is to let the new FESCo do that... but that's never worked in the past. | |
| notting | spot: actually, that's an interesting example. who, in a new framework, would decide that "there will be no alternate kernels in fedora" | |
| jwb | bpepple, i don't disagree. but waiting for another whole week to discuss this again is not a good idea | |
| warren | nomination should also be froze | |
| f13 | spot: if the Feature SIG says yes to that feature, and the board doesn't veto it, then by all means, yes we are. | |
| spot | i don't think the board is necessarily qualified to make those calls. | |
| caillon | awesome. fesco grabs the slot that stickster_afk wanted for the election and now decides to not use it ;) | |
| notting | f13: george is from oversight. *ducks and runs* | |
| jeremy | caillon: bwahaha. the evil plan works! | |
| caillon | but yeah +1 to not have an election as planned | |
| wwoods | so FESCo either needs to write a charter or dissolve into SIGs? | |
| bpepple | caillon: following our long tradition of never having our elections when we plan to. :( | |
| f13 | perhaps the person who writes the best charter automatically becomes the new leader? (: | |
| notting: I don't get it... | ||
| notting | f13: don't worry about it. | |
| f13 | notting: would you be able to formulate that decision (no alternative kernels) into an area of responsibility? | |
| notting | f13: the fedora distro sanity committee | |
| spot | notting: that would be an oversight committee. | |
| f13 | we could make that releng... | |
| abadger1999 | oversight. Dispute between kernel maintainer and kernel-libre maintainer | |
| notting | f13: not sure that's appropriate | |
| f13 | notting: didn't say it was. | |
| jeremy | we've now been talking about this for about an hour, fyi | |
| spot | i'm not entirely sure why there is the push to convert Feature oversight into a SIG. | |
| warren | Can we at least have agreement to postpone nomination/election because it really makes no sense to do now? | |
| bpepple | warren: I think we've already done that. | |
| warren | oh, ok. | |
| f13 | spot: because people think we spent too much time on Feature stuff adn not enough time on $SOMETHING_ELSE | |
| bpepple | f13: +1 | |
| f13 | but then again, that $SOMETHING_ELSE could be pushed out to a SIG too | |
| spot | f13: i'd argue that's tough. Feature oversight is one of the things FESCo does. | |
| spot | as an oversight committee. | |
| f13 | spot: I don't disagree. | |
| jeremy | spot: does the fact that you're settling on the fact that fesco is just an oversight committee not bother you? | |
| bpepple | spot: I would think the early stages of the feature process could be handled by a sig. | |
| spot | bpepple: early stages as in? | |
| f13 | bpepple: what are the early stages? | |
| bpepple | initial vetting stages of features. | |
| spot | jeremy: not really. more power to the people | |
| jeremy: just making sure the people don't go too nuts. | ||
| jeremy: and resolving technical disputes | ||
| jwb | i agree with spot | |
| f13 | bpepple: sure, spreading the work that poelcat does by himself across more people would be fine, that's really poelcat's decision. | |
| jwb | though if that is the progression for FESCo, we need to rebrand to FEOCo | |
| spot | i don't care what we call it, as long as it is elected | |
| (i really do think that is important) | ||
| jwb | i was joking | |
| but yes, an elected body is important | ||
| spot | approving features for future releases is steering. | |
| * jeremy wonders how many layers of elected bodies we *really* need, though | ||
| spot | jeremy: well, realistically, we have one right now. | |
| one and a half. | ||
| f13 | jeremy: 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. | ||
| bpepple | qa, not elected. | |
| warren | we're still going in circles, let's take this to a list | |
| jeremy | f13: those who do the work get to make the decisions... | |
| warren | but which list? | |
| spot | jeremy: again, lxo did the work for linux-libre. | |
| jwb | jeremy, there is a disparity there | |
| jeremy | spot: and were the discussion not in fesco, it would instead have been in the board. see codeina. again. | |
| lxo | oh, 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" | |
| notting | lxo: no, canonical runs ubuntu | |
| lxo | "nothing is so bad that can't be useful at least as an example to be avoided" | |
| jeremy | jwb: for better or worse, that is the way that open source works as it's gone beyond something that people do in their garage | |
| spot | lxo: 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. | |
| jeremy | jwb: I started to write a paper on that for one of my classes, fwiw ;) | |
| lxo | notting, heh. ever heard of uhurubuntu? (uhuru is freedom in swahili). it's along the lines of freed-ora and freed-ebian :-) | |
| jwb | jeremy, you and i understand that. yet it presents a conundrum of sorts | |
| lxo | spot, no worries, I just found it funny and entertaining. I *do* have a twisted sense of humor | |
| notting | lxo: meh. i suppose that's what the lakers use instead instead of the celtics | |
| spot | i 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. | |
| spot | a technical check and balance | |
| notting | spot: if we go down that road, do we have the necessary critical mass to spin out the various SIGs? | |
| jwb | notting, ? | |
| spot | notting: if the board says we do, we do. | |
| warren | did we agree on where to discuss fesco's charter? | |
| jwb | "spin out the various SIGs"? | |
| jeremy | spot: and then the board acts as another level of checking and balancing. hooray! | |
| spot | why do people listen to me on Legal issues? | |
| notting | jwb: i mean, do we have the people to do all the sig forming legwork, will we have SIGs of one? | |
| bpepple | warren: not yet. | |
| spot | because the Board says i get to make those decisions | |
| f13 | notting: we already do have a Feature sig of one. | |
| jeremy | warren: 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 ;) | ||
| jwb | notting, i don't think that should be our concern | |
| notting | f13:is that a sig? poelcat isn't (afaik) doing any judgement on the features themselves aside from adherence to the process | |
| f13 | that 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" | |
| spot | f13: true, but you dont have to be on FESCo to make something happen | |
| f13 | notting: 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 :) | ||
| f13 | notting: he's doing a non-insignificant amount of work, just like any other SIG | |
| spot | the board is really the group that gets to say "you must do $FOO" | |
| poelcat | i also don't have the technical knowledge or breadth to determine if something should be in||out | |
| f13 | spot: right, I wasn't saying that was a bad thing, just a paradigm shift. | |
| spot | (for better or worse) | |
| lxo | you 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 | |
| jwb | f13, i don't think it's so much of a shift | |
| f13, we're already there | ||
| f13 | jwb: well, a continuation of an existing shift. | |
| jwb | yes | |
| notting | jeremy: well, the board covers more than the oversight that a FEO committee would (such as oversight of ambassadors, etc.) | |
| abadger1999 | spot: So... if we want to say "Everyone must have an upstart init script for F11", the Board makes that decree? | |
| lxo | how 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 | |
| spot | abadger1999: they possess the power to say that, whether they're qualified to do so is another question entirely. | |
| abadger1999 | <nod> | |
| jwb | lxo, the board is not fully elected | |
| lxo | this cabal, instead of being elected as a whole, could have say one appointed member per SIG, or something like that. regular meetings like FESCo. | |
| lxo | and if disputes can't be resolved, escalate to the board | |
| spot | i think part of this boils down to the fact that the board's responsibilities are just as nebulous as FESCo's. | |
| tibbs | Yes, I believe that's the case. | |
| notting | spot: you mean other than 'the buck stops here'? | |
| f13 | FESCo is the elected concious of the board? | |
| spot | the 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... | ||
| notting | we elected spoleeba to be our conscience? uh-oh. | |
| spot | If 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. | |
| spoleeba | notting, ? | |
| f13 | more like unconscience. | |
| lxo | jwb, 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 | |
| jeremy | spot: 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 | |
| jeremy | lxo: yep | |
| bpepple | jeremy: 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. | |
| lxo | could this be improved, perhaps? | |
| bpepple | lxo: yeah, I'm sure it could. | |
| lxo | I do understand there may be an infrequent need for OTR discussions, but... | |
| notting | phone has the bandwidth, irc does not | |
| jeremy | notting: indeed | |
| notting | well, 'phone' | |
| lxo | are the calls recorded? | |
| dgilmore | lxo: no | |
| jeremy | lxo: no | |
| f13 | board also deals with things thta are decidedly !public | |
| lxo | acknowledged | |
| it would presumably be possible,with some effort, to make things more transparent | ||
| jeremy | lxo: yes. and there was a push in that direction for a while | |
| tibbs | But this isn't the place to talk about changing the board. | |
| lxo | ranging from discussing !public issues in separate non-recorded meetings to posting summaries of the public discussions | |
| true | ||
| notting | summaries *are* posted | |
| f13 | you'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. | |
| spot | i 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. | |
| bpepple | ok, 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. | |
| dgilmore | f13: like for instance the monthly public board meeting | |
| jeremy | spot: and I disagree | |
| there! just as much reasoning! | ||
| ;-) | ||
| f13 | dgilmore: except that waiting for arbitration once a month is a bit... long. | |
| lxo | spot, but then, there are various ways to hold elections for such a committee | |
| dgilmore | f13: yes it is | |
| tibbs | spot: What I personally care about is the stuff I joined FESCo originally to deal with. Contributor issues, primarily. | |
| lxo | one of them is to elect the committee. another is for each "state" to elect its own representatives, that end up forming the committee | |
| f13 | tibbs: regardless of FESCo fallout, I would strongly urge you to create a contributor care sig | |
| tibbs | I 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. | |
| f13 | since, as proven before, you don't have to be /in/ FESCo to do something. | |
| jeremy | spot: 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 | ||
| spot | jeremy: not really elected, not really public, and not really doing anything. | |
| bpepple | spot: +1 | |
| tibbs | f13: But if you are indeed in FESCo and you still can't do it, then what? | |
| jeremy | spot: and what, pray tell, is fesco actually doing | |
| tibbs | I mean, it's not as if forming a SIG is somehow going to magically make all of the blockers resolve themselves. | |
| f13 | tibbs: then I'm confused as to how it's a FESCo failure that is leading to you being dissapointed. | |
| jeremy | spot: and bullshit on "not really elected" | |
| spot | jeremy: we approved/rejected the Features for F9 | |
| jeremy | poelcat: do you have any numbers on how many features we rejected for anything other than 1) incomplete entry or 2) low % completion ? | |
| spot | mostly approved (which is good), but we did reject. | |
| f13 | tibbs: since Fedora is volunteer, doesn't matter /where/ FESCo "focuses" if there is nobody willing to do the work. | |
| tibbs | FESCo's failure here is readily apparent, isn't it? | |
| tibbs | I mean, crap, what have we been discussing for the past 90 minutes? | |
| f13 | tibbs: can you tell me how we possibly could have "focused" more on something and made /anything/ happen? | |
| spot | for FESCO to have any realistic power, the board has to give it to us. | |
| jeremy | f13: the way that fesco currently operates, if that were something I was interested in, fesco isn't where I'd go | |
| f13 | the way that Fedora is made up, the /only/ "power" a commitee can have is to say "no" or "yes" to somebody doing work | |
| jeremy | f13: we have clear evidence of that from the people who have pulled away from fesco | |
| f13 | we cannot force anybody to /do/ anything for us. | |
| warren | Without FESCO, who decides to that a methodology for lower-level probational contributor access is a good idea or not? | |
| spot | warren: apparently, the people doing the work decide it. | |
| f13 | warren: the Contributor care sig. | |
| warren: and if the board doesn't like what that sig is doing, they can veto | ||
| jeremy | warren: the previously mentioned Contributor Care and Feeding group | |
| spot | thats not a damned SIG | |
| SIGs are people who say "i am doing this now." | ||
| warren | f13: 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 | ||
| spot | who tells them no, or steers them in a different direction? | |
| jeremy | but 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 | |
| bpepple | jeremy: agreed. | |
| * nirik nods | ||
| f13 | warren: if nobody cares about it, the work isn't going to be done, and thus it doesn't much matter, does it? | |
| spot | f13: i think thats a fallacy. | |
| spot | but 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. | ||
| warren | FESCO 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 | |
| f13 | qa? triage? art? | |
| (ok, maybe art was a bad example for a while) | ||
| bpepple | f13: ;) | |
| f13 | famsco? | |
| warren | art 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? | ||
| f13 | if there is nobody who is going to care about it, it doesn't matter what group is responsible for it. | |
| tibbs | I will almost certainly not be at fudcon. | |
| f13 | especially because it's a pretty giant leap from "we'd like something to be done" to "something got done" | |
| warren | f13: I don't think we're on the same page here. | |
| * bpepple won't be at fudcon either. | ||
| warren | we're really late here, discuss more on fab and next week? | |
| spot | bpepple: i really do think we need to ask the board what role they want FESCo to play, if any. | |
| bpepple | spot: I'm fine with doing that. I can send stickster_afk a message later today to get his thoughts. | |
| spot | bpepple: even if they say "decide for yourself" (which would be a cop out). | |
| bpepple | anyone have a problem with asking the board? Speak up now. | |
| warren | If we can't define it ourselves, are they really better qualified? | |
| warren | Perhaps 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. | ||
| spot | warren: 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. | ||
| warren | I don't see any problem in asking them for their opinion. | |
| bpepple | ok, 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. | ||
| spot | bpepple: did we have the "let FTBFS items die" on the agenda? | |
| bpepple | spot: yeah, but I figured we could discuss that next week. | |
| spot | bpepple: ok. | |
| bpepple | I was planning to make it the first item since it got pushed this week. | |
| * bpepple will end the meeting in 60 | ||
| warren | In other news, I'd like to personally revive the "probationary lower level contributor access" proposal | |
| has anyone else been working on that? | ||
| warren Wakko666 | ||
| bpepple | warren: 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!