| --- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- Meeting rules at http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Development/Schedule/MeetingGuidelines -- Init process | ||
| * f13 | ||
| jwb | ||
| jeremy | ||
| dgilmore is here | ||
| f13 throws rocks at gmail | ||
| c4chris | ||
| jwb | f13, i gave up and switched to the web interface for today | |
|---|---|---|
| bpepple | FESCo meeting ping -- bpepple, caillon, c4chris, dgilmore, dwmw2, f13, jeremy, jwb, notting, spot, nirik, tibbs, warren | |
| Hi everybody; who's around? | ||
| f13 | the web interface makes my brain hurt | |
| * tibbs here | ||
| jwb | ||
| dgilmore | f13: thats what you get | |
| warren | here | |
| * abadger1999 multitasks | ||
| f13 | dgilmore: running my own mailserver made my butt hurt | |
| * bpepple waits another minute before starting. | ||
| dgilmore | f13: butt or head i guess | |
| jwb | dgilmore, run one for us on fedoraproject.org | |
| dgilmore | jwb: if anyone wants mail hosting im happy to offer it | |
| * nirik is here | ||
| jwb | i get lots of mail | |
| bpepple | ok, we can probably get started with the sponsor nominations. | |
| dgilmore | jwb: i get between 1000 and 2000 emails a day | |
| jwb | dgilmore, i get that many between a couple folders | |
| anyway, meeting time | ||
| notting | do we have a list of which of the nominations has expressed interest in being a sponsor? | |
| bpepple | tibbs: did you here back from any of the nominees, whether they actually wanted to be sponsors? | |
| jeremy | bpepple: ooh, that's a good question :) | |
| dwmw2 | oh, it's thursday | |
| bpepple | I know Ignacio did, but he's the only one that I'm aware of. | |
| tibbs | I only pinged ivasquez myself; Nicholas indicated that he would ping the three that had not previously indicated. | |
| notting | bpepple: in the absence if that, i'm inclined to vote -1 on the others | |
| dwmw2 | time goes fast when you're gainfully unemployed :) | |
| tibbs | Unfortunately he did not say which three those were. | |
| nirik | nim-nim: any news from the other nominees? | |
| bpepple | notting: me also. | |
| tibbs | Actually I'd prefer to table the votes of those who did not acknowledge; votes against them, well, sound like votes against them. | |
| jeremy | tibbs: that sounds reasonable | |
| notting | tibbs: fine with me | |
| bpepple | tibbs: I agree. | |
| c4chris | tibbs: agreed | |
| * nirik nods. | ||
| bpepple | So, we can vote on Ignacio. | |
| c4chris | +1 | |
| --- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo-Meeting -- sponsor nominations -- Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams | ||
| dgilmore | +1 | |
| bpepple | +1 | |
| nirik | +1 on Ignacio | |
| jwb | +1 | |
| jeremy | as ignacio's original sponsor, +1 | |
| warren | +1 | |
| tibbs | +1 ivasquez | |
| notting | +1 | |
| f13 | +1 | |
| bpepple | ok, 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? | ||
| dwmw2 | +1 | |
| spot | +1 | |
| tibbs | bpepple: That's a good question. | |
| tibbs | He wasn't one of the ones you listed. | |
| Oh, weit, it was. | ||
| bpepple | tibbs: I thought I did. | |
| tibbs | Sorry, digging through my mail here. | |
| bpepple | np. | |
| dgilmore | i say we move on until we hear from them that they are willing to accept the role | |
| tibbs | I seem to have confused Patrice and Nicholas; my apologies. | |
| bpepple | dgilmore: 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 | ||
| jwb | i wish | |
| bpepple | warren wanted to see if the folks at FUDCon wanted to have a FESCo meeting. | |
| jeremy | how about a show of hands of who's actually going to be at fudcon first | |
| * nirik will be there... whenever is fine. | ||
| tibbs | I will not be at fudcon. | |
| bpepple | Who's going to be there? | |
| notting | i will be there | |
| * jeremy will be there | ||
| dgilmore will be there | ||
| warren fudcon | ||
| nirik will be there. | ||
| warren | If we have a fesco meeting then we will need conference call | |
| notting | is this 'a special fudcon fesco meeting' or 'how are we scheduling the normal meeting, given fudcon'? | |
| * f13 will be there | ||
| jwb | that is easy to arrange | |
| * c4chris will not be there | ||
| tibbs | If we can get a speakerphone or something then I'll be happy to call in. | |
| warren | gobby seemed to be awesome with conference calls | |
| bpepple | notting: I believe a normal meeting, since it looks like about half of FESCo will be at FUDCon, | |
| spot | i will be there every day except saturday | |
| bpepple | Do we want to try to set-up a conference call? | |
| * jeremy doesn't know what we'll have available in the way of speakerphones | ||
| bpepple | Or should we cancel next week's meeting? | |
| notting | jeremy: yeah, i'm pestering stickster on the other channel | |
| nirik | how about we try and get a speakerphone, if not, do regular irc meeting? | |
| jeremy | notting: I saw that right after I hit enter | |
| jwb | i have a number we can use | |
| * c4chris won't be available at all next week... | ||
| bpepple | How about we try to set-up a conference call, and if there is no speaker phone available at FUDCon, we fall back to IRC? | |
| f13 | jwb: numbers won't be that difficult, it's getting a speaker phone to use that might be | |
| f13 | bpepple: +1 | |
| jeremy | bpepple: sure | |
| notting | bpepple: worksforme | |
| bpepple | Does Thursday at 1EST, conflict with anything at FUDCon? | |
| tibbs | It's tough to say what's happening at a barcamp ahead of time. | |
| notting | lunch? | |
| dgilmore | tibbs: thurs and fri are not barcamp | |
| warren | Do we want to allow other fudcon attendees to sit in during the meeting if they stay quiet? | |
| dgilmore | saturday is barcamp | |
| bpepple | warren: I don't see any problem with that. | |
| jwb | warren, sure... | |
| f13 | bpepple: no different than them idling in #fedora-meeting | |
| bpepple | ok, 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 | ||
| bpepple | Ok, I missed the meeting on Monday, so I don't really know where we are at on this. | |
| jwb | no major progress | |
| summary was: Board wants a FESCo-like group to oversee the features | ||
| spot | i think we're waiting on the board to tell us which responsibilities it has tasked to us, above and beyond Features. | |
| dgilmore | bpepple: i just sent my thoughts to the list just before | |
| notting | spot: 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 | |
| jwb | so we've made no progress | |
| f13 | hurray impass! | |
| bpepple | f13: ;) | |
| f13 | I think we should be making ice cream cones. | |
| dgilmore | everyone please read and respond to my email | |
| f13 | dgilmore: which mail? | |
| * bpepple goes to check his e-mail real quick. | ||
| tibbs | Well, I did add some documentation on one of the areas I think FESCo should be covering. | |
| c4chris | haven't received it yet... | |
| dgilmore | f13: the one i sent about 20 mins ago | |
| c4chris | (mailcleaner can be dog sloooooowwww...) | |
| f13 | tibbs: indeed. | |
| tibbs | The subject of dgilmore's mail is "My take on what fesco's role is" | |
| f13 | dgilmore: I think that's a good start | |
| dwmw2 | dgilmore: it makes a lot of sense to me | |
| * bpepple pretty much agrees with dgilmore's mail. | ||
| jwb | i think it's what we're already doing | |
| bpepple | jwb: agreed. | |
| f13 | dgilmore: I'd add "Decision oversight on anything that directly impacts Fedora contributors" | |
| jwb | which 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 | ||
| dgilmore | f13: :) its just a start. | |
| tibbs | Essentially everything is under the board's purview. | |
| dgilmore | nirik: please feel free to help make it clearer | |
| nirik | tibbs: agreed, so that makes it hard to see what subset FESCo should be looking at. | |
| f13 | I'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. | |
| dgilmore | f13: sometimes we should be doing the work | |
| nirik | f13: but thats also the case of the Board, right? | |
| dgilmore | f13: but we dont have to be the ones doing it | |
| f13 | dgilmore: 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. | ||
| jwb | spot, me either | |
| bpepple | f13: like you mentioned earlier on the mailing list, we should do a better job of advertising what needs to be worked on. | |
| dgilmore | f13: yes, but i think as fesco at times we will just have to do stuff | |
| jwb | maybe we can wait for the new board to look at this | |
| f13 | bpepple: indeed. | |
| notting | spot: (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" | |
| spot | notting: you already know what i think of mr. katz's flawed argument. | |
| dgilmore | f13: if no one steps up to do something then fesco is responsible for getting it done | |
| f13 | notting: If the board can't figure out what it wants it's subbordinates to do, what good is the board? | |
| dgilmore | notting: other board member expect for me | |
| f13 | dgilmore: 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 | ||
| notting | nirik: 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 | |
| jwb | debian seems to still get shit done | |
| tibbs | Well, we have "us". | |
| dgilmore | f13: any means we can | |
| spot | the board delegates tasks, it is what they do. | |
| dgilmore | f13: we have time | |
| f13 | jwb: Debian doesnt need somebody on a board to get something done. | |
| spot | we're asking which tasks the board wants us to do | |
| jwb | f13, neither does fedora | |
| spot | we might have additional tasks that we'd like to do | |
| tibbs | That 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. | |
| f13 | jwb: exactly. | |
| spot | but we'd like to get the ones out of the way that the Board wants us to do. | |
| jwb | f13, but the do have a governance model and no paid members | |
| notting | spot: 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 | |
| spot | as of right now, that consists of "Features" | |
| jwb | the paid part was more my point | |
| f13 | jwb: 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." | |
| jwb | f13, sure, agreed | |
| FESCo is responsible for deciding what work _needs_ to be done though | ||
| f13 | jwb: 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 | |
| tibbs | If 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. | |
| nirik | features, sponsor nominations, talking about what we should be responsible for, approving things like bugzappers and maintainer changes. | |
| f13 | tibbs: I fully agree | |
| jwb | FESCo is an oversight committee | |
| nirik | tibbs: I agree too. So, we need to discuss and get a list of such things around so people can pick them up... | |
| spot | If I had to list FESCo's responsibilities, I would say: Features, Sponsors, FPC Oversight, SIG Oversight, and Handling of Maintainer Issues | |
| jwb | spot, i agree | |
| but | ||
| i think we need to add "enforcement" there too | ||
| tibbs | nirik: 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. | ||
| notting | spot: isn't FPC oversight a subset of SIG oversight? | |
| spot | notting: FPC is not a SIG. | |
| tibbs | Not that's a requirement for folks to actually work on stuff, but... | |
| jwb | FPC is weird | |
| jwb | and i have a big issue with it at the moment | |
| spot | nominally, the FPC should report to the board, but it is weird. | |
| notting | spot: 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 | ||
| f13 | can't they all just be 'teams'? | |
| jwb | f13, sure | |
| * nirik is also confused by SIG vs Project vs whatever | ||
| spot | f13: the FPC was created by mandate from the Board | |
| f13 | so? | |
| jwb | so? | |
| spot | SIGs are created by motivated individuals | |
| jwb | so? | |
| f13 | what real difference does it make? | |
| spot | nothing, other than that normally, such an entity would report to the board | |
| not to FESCo | ||
| jwb | they would be termed a "Project" according to quaid's terminology | |
| or stickster's | ||
| i can't remember which | ||
| nirik | so SIGS should report to fesco, but projects should report to the board? | |
| jwb | yes | |
| nirik | ok, so what is EPEL? | |
| f13 | ugh. | |
| please, we should really just kill the lables. | ||
| labels. | ||
| tibbs | Well, projects should report to whoever the board says they report to. | |
| jwb | yes | |
| bpepple | f13: +1 | |
| tibbs | I mean, that's kind of immaterial to us anyway. | |
| f13 | each team cna report to whomever they deem necessary | |
| * nirik finds they are just confusing | ||
| f13 | (which may be nobody) | |
| spot | f13: i'm not sure that works. | |
| i think there needs to be a defined level of oversight | ||
| jwb | SIGs have no governance model | |
| spot | as simple as possible | |
| jwb | Projects do? | |
| f13 | spot: what are SIGs going to do? features? we have oversight | |
| jwb | did everyone read stickster's wiki page? | |
| f13 | packaging? We have oversight | |
| I really think we need oversight on specific actions, not loose groupings of people. | ||
| jwb | oversight without enforcement (or the ability to mandate) is pointless | |
| f13 | if some "problem" comes up with a team, that can be brought to whomever. FESCo or the board. | |
| (preferrably fesco) | ||
| spot | jwb: yes, but only the board can give FESCo the ability to enforce. | |
| f13 | spot: so lets ask for it. | |
| spot | Features, Sponsors, Packagaing and SIG Oversight, and Handling/Enforcement of Maintainer Issues | |
| jwb | spot, 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 | ||
| spot | :) | |
| jwb | ok, i have a question though | |
| warren | there has to be a clear entity to go to when there are disputes | |
| SIG's are not designed for that | ||
| f13 | warren: so make it FESCo | |
| warren | nod | |
| jwb | FPC makes guidelines. which is great. yet to my knowledge, nobody goes through and does enforcement of those _after_ a package makes it through review | |
| f13 | warren: if FESCo doesn't want to touch it, we can boot it up to the board | |
| notting | spot: so, what level of features? deciding go/no go? (i.e., release management)? or is that a sig? | |
| spot | jwb: FPC always interpreted that (correctly or not) as FESCo's job | |
| nirik | jwb: perhaps we need a brute squad. ;) | |
| spot | notting: go/no go | |
| jwb | spot, i'd like the mandate to make it FPC's job | |
| spot | basically, approving features. | |
| bpepple | Before we move on to the details, do we have agreement on the broad scope of FESCo's responsibility that spot listed? | |
| jwb | sorry | |
| +1 for spot's scope | ||
| c4chris | bpepple: yes | |
| bpepple | +1 | |
| f13 | +1 for spots scope | |
| tibbs | jwb: 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) | |
| notting | actually, i wonder if spot's scope is too narrow | |
| jwb | tibbs, ok we can take that offline | |
| nim-nim | bpepple: I don't mind being a sponsor | |
| jwb | notting, how so? | |
| notting | i.e. 'fesco handles technical matters related to the distribution and its construction. examples of this include ...' | |
| bpepple | notting: how would you change it? | |
| jwb | ok, i'm fine with that too | |
| notting | basically, 'fesco reserves the right to tackle other technical issues' | |
| f13 | sure, that's just sugar on top. | |
| bpepple | notting: I'm fine with that change. | |
| * c4chris likes sugar | ||
| f13 | fesco 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. | |
| jwb | +1 | |
| f13 | +1 | |
| bpepple | +1 | |
| c4chris | +1 | |
| notting | f13: 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 | |
| +1 | ||
| nirik | has the board ever asked FESCo to look at some task? | |
| spot | +1 (obviously) | |
| f13 | notting: sure. | |
| tibbs | Could this be construed to include infrastructure? | |
| spot | nirik: Features | |
| f13 | nirik: sortof, features | |
| nirik: (and well "the definition of FESCo") | ||
| spot | tibbs: loosely, but i think we would wisely delegate that to "Infrastructure" :) | |
| bpepple | tibbs: any reason to include infrastructure? To me it makes sense to have them report to the board. | |
| tibbs | I 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. | ||
| notting | examples of sigs that 'report' to fesco for oversight would be rel-eng, qa, etc. don't think infrastructure qualifies | |
| jwb | it's fine if it does. we also reserve the right to delegate | |
| back in one sec | ||
| nirik | stickster's table had it going to fesco... | |
| notting | jwb: being a technical group not necessarily tasked with the distribution, infrastructure falls outside (imo) | |
| tibbs | I 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. | |
| warren | We do want to discourage the regular idea that people need "permission" to do things, when in most cases nobody cares. | |
| spot | tibbs: advanced dildonics? :) | |
| notting | tibbs: i think 'distribution' limits it well enough for the short term | |
| bpepple | notting: agreed. | |
| f13 | tibbs: how about simple dildonics? | |
| * spot counts a +6 on the broad scope of FESCo's responsibility | ||
| warren | spot: +1 | |
| dgilmore | +! | |
| tibbs | +1 from me as well. | |
| notting_ | sorry about the network flakeouts | |
| bpepple | Ok, 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. | |
| spot | notting_: heat? | |
| notting_ | spot: no, wireless | |
| warren | So we are unwilling to be responsible for dildonics. | |
| spot | only SIG dildonics. | |
| bpepple | alright, so do we want to start on some of the details now? | |
| * spot would prefer to think on the details some more | ||
| f13 | how about we get board to sign off on the broad concept | |
| bpepple | spot: I'm fine with that. | |
| tibbs | I'm not entirely clear on how much detail was requested. | |
| f13 | before we kill ourselves over the details | |
| spot | f13: agreed | |
| jwb | i 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 | ||
| bpepple | jwb: well, it will be a smaller group, since it will be only FESCo. | |
| * stickster returns and catches up on buffer | ||
| tibbs | I failed to understand much of what happened on Monday. | |
| jwb | stickster, summary: we hate you | |
| stickster, no, just kidding :) | ||
| bpepple | let's move on then...... | |
| stickster | jwb: You are joining a very large line | |
| :-D | ||
| --- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo-Meeting -- sponsor nominations -- Nicolas Mailhot | ||
| jwb | stickster, i find that hard to believe | |
| +1 | ||
| dgilmore | tibbs: we were largely talked at by one person that seems to have an agenda of their own | |
| bpepple | since nim-nim mentioned he was interested, we can vote on him. | |
| c4chris | +1 | |
| bpepple | +1 | |
| f13 | +1 | |
| tibbs | +1 | |
| dgilmore | +1 | |
| jeremy | +1 | |
| jwb | dgilmore, i wouldn't have phrased it that way | |
| bpepple | ok, I count seven votes, so nim-nim has been approved to be a sponsor. | |
| notting_ | +Ⅰ | |
| dwmw2 | +1 | |
| --- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- Free discussion around Fedora | ||
| nim-nim | bpepple: thanks | |
| c4chris | dgilmore: (it was pretty much impossible for me to know who was talking...) | |
| bpepple | anything else folks want to discuss? | |
| nim-nim: np. | ||
| jwb | yes | |
| bpepple | jwb: floors yours. | |
| jwb | i vote we rebrand FESCo as FIASCO | |
| dgilmore | c4chris: it wasnt me i couldnt say anything i kept getting talked over | |
| c4chris | eh | |
| bpepple | jwb: and what does FIASCO stand for? ;) | |
| jwb | i can make something up | |
| Fedora Infrastructure and Steering Committee | ||
| * dgilmore is somewhat angry abouta few things at the moment | ||
| spot | +1 to nim-nim | |
| bpepple | dgilmore: regarding? | |
| spot | (sorry, my inbox is jumping today) | |
| jwb | ok, i'll remove my proposal and tell ajax he'll have to make his own committee | |
| stickster | Oh, we're in free discussion now. | |
| jwb | stickster, yes | |
| bpepple | stickster: yeah, open mic. | |
| stickster | I agree that my slapping Infrastructure into FESCo's hands was misguided at best. | |
| bpepple | stickster: 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.) | |
| c4chris | so we give it back to you :) | |
| stickster | I'll fix the page accordingly. | |
| c4chris | we didn't even scratch it, honest | |
| stickster | I think spot and I agree on where to split the bill properly. | |
| bpepple | alright, is there anything else? or should we wrap up for this week? | |
| * bpepple listens to the silence..... | ||
| * c4chris is for wrap | ||
| stickster | And I'd like to say that I for one appreciate the work FESCo has been doing, all issues over scope aside. | |
| jwb | stickster, we can blame spevack for any animosity. you're safe for another couple of months ;) | |
| bpepple | jwb: ;) | |
| dgilmore | bpepple: this and the goings on at OLPC | |
| bpepple | dgilmore: ah. | |
| dgilmore | bpepple: we need a bigger fedora influence in OLPC | |
| * stickster should be taking all the blame for stuff at this point. | ||
| dgilmore | they are going to fuck everything up | |
| bpepple | that sucks. | |
| dgilmore | bpepple: and thats putting things nicely | |
| bpepple | ok, 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! | ||
| f13 | cheers | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.5 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!