--- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- Meeting rules at http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Development/Schedule/MeetingGuidelines -- Init process
* f13
dgilmore is here
f13 throws rocks at gmail
jwbf13, i gave up and switched to the web interface for today
bpeppleFESCo meeting ping -- bpepple, caillon, c4chris, dgilmore, dwmw2, f13, jeremy, jwb, notting, spot, nirik, tibbs, warren
Hi everybody; who's around?
f13the web interface makes my brain hurt
* tibbs here
dgilmoref13: thats what you get
* abadger1999 multitasks
f13dgilmore: running my own mailserver made my butt hurt
* bpepple waits another minute before starting.
dgilmoref13: butt or head i guess
jwbdgilmore, run one for us on fedoraproject.org
dgilmorejwb: if anyone wants mail hosting im happy to offer it
* nirik is here
jwbi get lots of mail
bpeppleok, we can probably get started with the sponsor nominations.
dgilmorejwb: i get between 1000 and 2000 emails a day
jwbdgilmore, i get that many between a couple folders
anyway, meeting time
nottingdo we have a list of which of the nominations has expressed interest in being a sponsor?
bpeppletibbs: did you here back from any of the nominees, whether they actually wanted to be sponsors?
jeremybpepple: ooh, that's a good question :)
dwmw2oh, it's thursday
bpeppleI know Ignacio did,  but he's the only one that I'm aware of.
tibbsI only pinged ivasquez myself; Nicholas indicated that he would ping the three that had not previously indicated.
nottingbpepple: in the absence if that, i'm inclined to vote -1 on the others
dwmw2time goes fast when you're gainfully unemployed :)
tibbsUnfortunately he did not say which three those were.
niriknim-nim: any news from the other nominees?
bpepplenotting: me also.
tibbsActually I'd prefer to table the votes of those who did not acknowledge; votes against them, well, sound like votes against them.
jeremytibbs: that sounds reasonable
nottingtibbs: fine with me
bpeppletibbs: I agree.
c4christibbs: agreed
* nirik nods.
bpeppleSo, we can vote on Ignacio.
--- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo-Meeting -- sponsor nominations -- Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams
nirik+1 on Ignacio
jeremyas ignacio's original sponsor, +1
tibbs+1 ivasquez
bpeppleok, that's eight '+1', so Ignacio has been approved.
tibbs: Did nim-nim indicate he wanted to be a sponsor? or should we move on?
tibbsbpepple: That's a good question.
tibbsHe wasn't one of the ones you listed.
Oh, weit, it was.
bpeppletibbs: I thought I did.
tibbsSorry, digging through my mail here.
dgilmorei say we move on until we hear from them that they are willing to accept the role
tibbsI seem to have confused Patrice and Nicholas; my apologies.
bpeppledgilmore: I'm fine with that, since we're unsure if nim-nim wants to be a sponsor.
--- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCO-Meeting -- FESCo meeting at FUDCon? -- all
jwbi wish
bpepplewarren wanted to see if the folks at FUDCon wanted to have a FESCo meeting.
jeremyhow about a show of hands of who's actually going to be at fudcon first
* nirik will be there... whenever is fine.
tibbsI will not be at fudcon.
bpeppleWho's going to be there?
nottingi will be there
* jeremy will be there
dgilmore will be there
warren fudcon
nirik will be there.
warrenIf we have a fesco meeting then we will need conference call
nottingis this 'a special fudcon fesco meeting' or 'how are we scheduling the normal meeting, given fudcon'?
* f13 will be there
jwbthat is easy to arrange
* c4chris will not be there
tibbsIf we can get a speakerphone or something then I'll be happy to call in.
warrengobby seemed to be awesome with conference calls
bpepplenotting: I believe a normal meeting, since it looks like about half of FESCo will be at FUDCon,
spoti will be there every day except saturday
bpeppleDo we want to try to set-up a conference call?
* jeremy doesn't know what we'll have available in the way of speakerphones
bpeppleOr should we cancel next week's meeting?
nottingjeremy: yeah, i'm pestering stickster on the other channel
nirikhow about we try and get a speakerphone, if not, do regular irc meeting?
jeremynotting: I saw that right after I hit enter
jwbi have a number we can use
* c4chris won't be available at all next week...
bpeppleHow about we try to set-up a conference call, and if there is no speaker phone available at FUDCon, we fall back to IRC?
f13jwb: numbers won't be that difficult, it's getting a speaker phone to use that might be
f13bpepple: +1
jeremybpepple: sure
nottingbpepple: worksforme
bpeppleDoes Thursday at 1EST, conflict with anything at FUDCon?
tibbsIt's tough to say what's happening at a barcamp ahead of time.
dgilmoretibbs: thurs and fri are not barcamp
warrenDo we want to allow other fudcon attendees to sit in during the meeting if they stay quiet?
dgilmoresaturday is barcamp
bpepplewarren: I don't see any problem with that.
jwbwarren, sure...
f13bpepple: no different than them idling in #fedora-meeting
bpeppleok, so we'll try to set-up a conference call, and if there is no speaker phone available at FUDCon, we fall back to IRC.
Moving on, unless any one speaks up.......
--- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCO-Meeting -- FESCo Responsibilities/Role
bpeppleOk, I missed the meeting on Monday, so I don't really know where we are at on this.
jwbno major progress
summary was: Board wants a FESCo-like group to oversee the features
spoti think we're waiting on the board to tell us which responsibilities it has tasked to us, above and beyond Features.
dgilmorebpepple: i just sent my thoughts to the list just before
nottingspot: speaking on behalf of a not-yet-sent mail from the board... the board is not going to do that without input from FESCo on what FESCo thinks it should be doing
jwbso we've made no progress
f13hurray impass!
bpepplef13: ;)
f13I think we should be making ice cream cones.
dgilmoreeveryone please read and respond to my email
f13dgilmore: which mail?
* bpepple goes to check his e-mail real quick.
tibbsWell, I did add some documentation on one of the areas I think FESCo should be covering.
c4chrishaven't received it yet...
dgilmoref13: the one i sent about 20 mins ago
c4chris(mailcleaner can be dog sloooooowwww...)
f13tibbs: indeed.
tibbsThe subject of dgilmore's mail is "My take on what fesco's role is"
f13dgilmore: I think that's a good start
dwmw2dgilmore: it makes a lot of sense to me
* bpepple pretty much agrees with dgilmore's mail.
jwbi think it's what we're already doing
bpepplejwb: agreed.
f13dgilmore: I'd add "Decision oversight on anything that directly impacts Fedora contributors"
jwbwhich seemed wrong just a few weeks ago.  or lacking at least
* nirik agrees as well, but it's all still a bit vuage... there is no clear way to say if something should be Fesco or board
dgilmoref13: :)  its just a start.
tibbsEssentially everything is under the board's purview.
dgilmorenirik: please feel free to help make it clearer
niriktibbs: agreed, so that makes it hard to see what subset FESCo should be looking at.
f13I'd also add that FESCo is more about approval/dissapproval/suggestion/etc.. then actually doing work.  ANybody anywhere in Fedora can "do work", it's FESCo that decides what work needs doing and how.
dgilmoref13: sometimes we should be doing the work
nirikf13: but thats also the case of the Board, right?
dgilmoref13: but we dont have to be the ones doing it
f13dgilmore: but we don't have to be 'fesco' to do the work.  We as individuals can do whatever work we want
* spot really doesn't like that the Board is passing the buck here.
jwbspot, me either
bpepplef13: like you mentioned earlier on the mailing list, we should do a better job of advertising what needs to be worked on.
dgilmoref13: yes,  but i think as fesco at times we will just have to do stuff
jwbmaybe we can wait for the new board to look at this
f13bpepple: indeed.
nottingspot: (paraphrasing for other board members) "if fesco can't come to a consensus as to what they should be responsible for, why should they exist"
spotnotting: you already know what i think of mr. katz's flawed argument.
dgilmoref13: if no one steps up to do something then fesco is responsible for getting it done
f13notting: If the board can't figure out what it wants it's subbordinates to do, what good is the board?
dgilmorenotting: other board member expect for me
f13dgilmore: how?  We have no money, we have no employees, we have no funds, we have no ability to magically make shit happen.
* jwb sees fingers pointing everywhere
nottingnirik: well, art falls under the purview of the board (being a subset of everything), and yet it is fairly clear what's art's purview. i don't think fesco is much muddier
jwbdebian seems to still get shit done
tibbsWell, we have "us".
dgilmoref13: any means we can
spotthe board delegates tasks, it is what they do.
dgilmoref13: we have time
f13jwb: Debian doesnt need somebody on a board to get something done.
spotwe're asking which tasks the board wants us to do
jwbf13, neither does fedora
spotwe might have additional tasks that we'd like to do
tibbsThat isn't a lot of effort, but if fesco asked me to direct my effort at something specific then I'd probably try to do so.
f13jwb: exactly.
spotbut we'd like to get the ones out of the way that the Board wants us to do.
jwbf13, but the do have a governance model and no paid members
nottingspot: that was part of the request too - what are you doing now, and what would you like to be doing. that is reasonable for fesco to provide, imo
spotas of right now, that consists of "Features"
jwbthe paid part was more my point
f13jwb: I guess what I'm getting at is we need to better advertise that "Being in FESCo isn't about 'doing work', one can 'do work' regardless."
jwbf13, sure, agreed
FESCo is responsible for deciding what work _needs_ to be done though
f13jwb: so that we don't false advertise for people running for FESCo expecting to be doing a bunch of work and instead be sitting through meetings where we ack/nack features and proposals
tibbsIf someone steps up to say "I want to work on something" we should damn well have a set of projects ready for them to work on, though.
nirikfeatures, sponsor nominations, talking about what we should be responsible for, approving things like bugzappers and maintainer changes.
f13tibbs: I fully agree
jwbFESCo is an oversight committee
niriktibbs: I agree too. So, we need to discuss and get a list of such things around so people can pick them up...
spotIf I had to list FESCo's responsibilities, I would say: Features, Sponsors, FPC Oversight, SIG Oversight, and Handling of Maintainer Issues
jwbspot, i agree
i think we need to add "enforcement" there too
tibbsnirik: This meeting probably isn't the place for that, though.  I'm planning on working on my ideas; when they become more fully formed, I'll present them for a vote.
Then they can be come "FESCo approved projects" or whatever.
nottingspot: isn't FPC oversight a subset of SIG oversight?
spotnotting: FPC is not a SIG.
tibbsNot that's a requirement for folks to actually work on stuff, but...
jwbFPC is weird
jwband i have a big issue with it at the moment
spotnominally, the FPC should report to the board, but it is weird.
nottingspot: maybe i'm crazy, but what's the (real, on the ground) difference?
* f13 smells trouble trying to pin labels on things like fpc vs kde
f13can't they all just be 'teams'?
jwbf13, sure
* nirik is also confused by SIG vs Project vs whatever
spotf13: the FPC was created by mandate from the Board
spotSIGs are created by motivated individuals
f13what real difference does it make?
spotnothing, other than that normally, such an entity would report to the board
not to FESCo
jwbthey would be termed a "Project" according to quaid's terminology
or stickster's
i can't remember which
nirikso SIGS should report to fesco, but projects should report to the board?
nirikok, so what is EPEL?
please, we should really just kill the lables.
tibbsWell, projects should report to whoever the board says they report to.
bpepplef13: +1
tibbsI mean, that's kind of immaterial to us anyway.
f13each team cna report to whomever they deem necessary
* nirik finds they are just confusing
f13(which may be nobody)
spotf13: i'm not sure that works.
i think there needs to be a defined level of oversight
jwbSIGs have no governance model
spotas simple as possible
jwbProjects do?
f13spot: what are SIGs going to do?  features?  we have oversight
jwbdid everyone read stickster's wiki page?
f13packaging?  We have oversight
I really think we need oversight on specific actions, not loose groupings of people.
jwboversight without enforcement (or the ability to mandate) is pointless
f13if some "problem" comes up with a team, that can be brought to whomever.  FESCo or the board.
(preferrably fesco)
spotjwb: yes, but only the board can give FESCo the ability to enforce.
f13spot: so lets ask for it.
spotFeatures, Sponsors, Packagaing and SIG Oversight, and Handling/Enforcement of Maintainer Issues
jwbspot, that's true to a degree.  but we do enforce a bit today on various things.  maintainer conflict resolution for example
oh, you said that
jwbok, i have a question though
warrenthere has to be a clear entity to go to when there are disputes
SIG's are not designed for that
f13warren: so make it FESCo
jwbFPC makes guidelines.  which is great.  yet to my knowledge, nobody goes through and does enforcement of those _after_ a package makes it through review
f13warren: if FESCo doesn't want to touch it, we can boot it up to the board
nottingspot: so, what level of features? deciding go/no go? (i.e., release management)? or is that a sig?
spotjwb: FPC always interpreted that (correctly or not) as FESCo's job
nirikjwb: perhaps we need a brute squad. ;)
spotnotting: go/no go
jwbspot, i'd like the mandate to make it FPC's job
spotbasically, approving features.
bpeppleBefore we move on to the details, do we have agreement on the broad scope of FESCo's responsibility that spot listed?
+1 for spot's scope
c4chrisbpepple: yes
f13+1 for spots scope
tibbsjwb: That's not entirely true; there are things like license review, but at the moment we lack tools to do this effectively.
f13(as a start, we can always add/remove later)
nottingactually, i wonder if spot's scope is too narrow
jwbtibbs, ok we can take that offline
nim-nimbpepple: I don't mind being a sponsor
jwbnotting, how so?
nottingi.e. 'fesco handles technical matters related to the distribution and its construction. examples of this include ...'
bpepplenotting: how would you change it?
jwbok, i'm fine with that too
nottingbasically, 'fesco reserves the right to tackle other technical issues'
f13sure, that's just sugar on top.
bpepplenotting: I'm fine with that change.
* c4chris likes sugar
f13fesco reserves the right to tackle any task handed to it by the Board.
spot Features, Sponsors, Packagaing and SIG Oversight, Handling/Enforcement of Maintainer Issues, and other technical matters related to the distribution and its construction.
nottingf13: in the same way that you say people don't need fesco before they do something useful, fesco shouldn't need board sayso before *they* tackle something new and useful
nirikhas the board ever asked FESCo to look at some task?
spot+1 (obviously)
f13notting: sure.
tibbsCould this be construed to include infrastructure?
spotnirik: Features
f13nirik: sortof, features
nirik: (and well "the definition of FESCo")
spottibbs: loosely, but i think we would wisely delegate that to "Infrastructure" :)
bpeppletibbs: any reason to include infrastructure?  To me it makes sense to have them report to the board.
tibbsI don't particularly want to include infrastructure; I just want to make sure that our definition doesn't accidentally include infrastructure.
* bpepple sees he misread tibbs question. sorry.
nottingexamples of sigs that 'report' to fesco for oversight would be rel-eng, qa, etc. don't think infrastructure qualifies
jwbit's fine if it does.  we also reserve the right to delegate
back in one sec
nirikstickster's table had it going to fesco...
nottingjwb: being a technical group not necessarily tasked with the distribution, infrastructure falls outside (imo)
tibbsI didn't want to get into advanced dildonics over it; just wanted to make sure that we wouldn't be accused of trying to grab too much.
warrenWe do want to discourage the regular idea that people need "permission" to do things, when in most cases nobody cares.
spottibbs: advanced dildonics? :)
nottingtibbs: i think 'distribution' limits it well enough for the short term
bpepplenotting: agreed.
f13tibbs: how about simple dildonics?
* spot counts a +6 on the broad scope of FESCo's responsibility
warrenspot: +1
tibbs+1 from me as well.
notting_sorry about the network flakeouts
bpeppleOk, so I think we've got a consensus on the broad scope of FESCo's role, now we just need to work on some of the details.
spotnotting_: heat?
notting_spot: no, wireless
warrenSo we are unwilling to be responsible for dildonics.
spotonly SIG dildonics.
bpepplealright, so do we want to start on some of the details now?
* spot would prefer to think on the details some more
f13how about we get board to sign off on the broad concept
bpepplespot: I'm fine with that.
tibbsI'm not entirely clear on how much detail was requested.
f13before we kill ourselves over the details
spotf13: agreed
jwbi think we need more thinking, and i think a broad-band discussion (fudcon + phone) will be more productive
unless it turns into a pissing match like monday
bpepplejwb: well, it will be a smaller group, since it will be only FESCo.
* stickster returns and catches up on buffer
tibbsI failed to understand much of what happened on Monday.
jwbstickster, summary: we hate you
stickster, no, just kidding :)
bpepplelet's move on then......
sticksterjwb: You are joining a very large line
--- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo-Meeting -- sponsor nominations -- Nicolas Mailhot
jwbstickster, i find that hard to believe
dgilmoretibbs: we were largely talked at by one person that seems to have an agenda of their own
bpepplesince nim-nim mentioned he was interested, we can vote on him.
jwbdgilmore, i wouldn't have phrased it that way
bpeppleok, I count seven votes, so nim-nim has been approved to be a sponsor.
--- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- Free discussion around Fedora
nim-nimbpepple: thanks
c4chrisdgilmore: (it was pretty much impossible for me to know who was talking...)
bpeppleanything else folks want to discuss?
nim-nim: np.
bpepplejwb: floors yours.
jwbi vote we rebrand FESCo as FIASCO
dgilmorec4chris: it wasnt me i couldnt say anything i kept getting talked over
bpepplejwb: and what does FIASCO stand for? ;)
jwbi can make something up
Fedora Infrastructure and Steering Committee
* dgilmore is somewhat angry abouta few things at the moment
spot+1 to nim-nim
bpeppledgilmore: regarding?
spot(sorry, my inbox is jumping today)
jwbok, i'll remove my proposal and tell ajax he'll have to make his own committee
sticksterOh, we're in free discussion now.
jwbstickster, yes
bpepplestickster: yeah, open mic.
sticksterI agree that my slapping Infrastructure into FESCo's hands was misguided at best.
bpepplestickster: yeah, it makes sense for them to report to the board imo.
stickster(I'm referring to the table on my wiki page, a draft proposal about who should be directly overseeing which projects in Fedora.)
c4chrisso we give it back to you :)
sticksterI'll fix the page accordingly.
c4chriswe didn't even scratch it, honest
sticksterI think spot and I agree on where to split the bill properly.
bpepplealright, is there anything else?  or should we wrap up for this week?
* bpepple listens to the silence.....
* c4chris is for wrap
sticksterAnd I'd like to say that I for one appreciate the work FESCo has been doing, all issues over scope aside.
jwbstickster, we can blame spevack for any animosity.  you're safe for another couple of months ;)
bpepplejwb: ;)
dgilmorebpepple: this and the goings on at OLPC
bpeppledgilmore: ah.
dgilmorebpepple: we need a bigger fedora influence in OLPC
* stickster should be taking all the blame for stuff at this point.
dgilmorethey are going to fuck everything up
bpepplethat sucks.
dgilmorebpepple: and thats putting things nicely
bpeppleok, time to put a fork in this meeting.
* 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
Thanks, everyone!

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