bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- Meeting rules at http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Development/Schedule/MeetingGuidelines -- Init process
bpeppleFESCo meeting ping -- bpepple, dgilmore, dwmw2, jwb, notting, nirik, kick_, jds2001, j-rod
Hi everybody; who's around?
* dwmw2 here
nirik is here
bpepplepoelcat: ping.
* poelcat here
Kick__ is here
* notting is here
bpepplepoelcat: you want to lead the feature policy discussion?
poelcatbpepple: yes
--- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo-Meeting -- Features - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/F11PolicyReview -all
bpepplepoelcat: ok, floors yours.
i'll run through the comments we have
poelcatif FESCo things we should change the policy or process then we'll discuss
poelcatFirst item was inviting owners to meetings and emailing them
this seems doable
notting+1 from me
poelcatas long as they include their email address on the feature page itself
nottingpoelcat: <account>@fedoraproject.org should also work
niriksure, if it's not hard, sounds good to me.
bpepple-1, if the devel mailing list is too high of volume, maybe we should be sending the agenda to the devel-announce list.
nirikwell, part of the charter of devel-announce is that it wouldn't contain regular announcements I thought.
dwmw2I think it makes more sense just to Cc people when stuff of interest to them is happening
Kick__we have a feature owner and I don't think it's too much work to send him a mail when his feature is on the agenda
nirikif we want devel less high volume, we could always go back to fedora-maintainers. ;)
bpepplenirik: maybe this is a case of me having been chair too long.  As is, handling the agenda & summary takes up a lot of time already for as far as I can tell so people can just ignore.
nottingalso, there could (possibly?) be feature owners (art, etc.) that may not need to be on devel-announce
poelcatwhat do other voting members think?
nirikbpepple: yeah. ;( Perhaps poelcat can email them when their features are going to be discussed in the next meeting?
* jds2001 here
jds2001i tned to agree with bpepple in terms of what the FESCo chair is responsible for.
jds2001if poelcat (or designee) wants to mail them individually, that's fine.
poelcathow about each week I provide the features up for review along w/ owner's email address
bpeppleor if someone else wants to be chair, I'm more than willing to step aside.
poelcatthen when bpepple sends agenda to f-d-l he CCs them
jds2001that doesn't sound to onerus.
* bpepple will go along with whatever the group decides.
poelcatwe have a few other things to cover... how can we close on this?
bpeppleit sounds like we're cc the feature owners/
jds2001i was concerned that bpepple (or whoever the chair is) would be spending all sorts of time doing research into email addresses, etc.
bpepplejds2001: we will, but that's fine.
* poelcat will block on sending feature page to fesco w/o any email address
poelcatany objections to moving on?
bpepplenone here.
jds2001+1 to cc'ing feature owners if feature wrangler provides email address (either on feature page or somewhere else)
non here.
poelcatthe next issue raised was "sticking to the process"
* poelcat is a little hazy on this one
poelcatAMQP *was* added before feature freeze
in accordance w/ the policy
bpeppleI disagree with mclasen's examples, but the general premise I agree with.
jwbbpepple, here now
nirikwhich link are you guys looking at for the comments?
poelcatis there anything specific we need to do differently for Fedora 11 or ammend the policy?
nottingi think we need to expand the 'dropping' policy to set a specific timeframe during which features that fail their testing plans are discussed
which should cover the empathy case
poelcatnirik: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/F11PolicyReview
jds2001same here, I think we started on a slippery slope with liveconnect. :(
but there were overriding reasons to do that as well.
niriknotting: +1. I think a meeting or two at the end of the cycle to change things that fail testing/qa would be good.
jds2001I think we need *some* form of flexibility, not sure how to "codify" that.
notting http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Policy/Dropping, for example, doesn't say anything about dropping as the result of failing testing
nirikor at the request of maintainers/feature owner (but that should be obviously the case).
poelcatnotting: when in the release cycle should this review happen?
jds2001wouldnt failing testing fall into "not testable"?
* nirik thinks mclasen's comments make it sound like FESCo just dropped a feature they didn't like... where feature owners, qa and other interested parties all discussed it and came to a consensus.
wwoodsEmpathy was testable - it was present in the distro and the binaries worked
it just didn't meet the (unfortunately, unwritten) specifications
nottingpoelcat: back-of-the-envelope guess would be 'prior to preview freeze', but i can be pushed around on that. wwoods - ideas?
bpepplewwoods: correct.  the problem was that in comparison to our current default (pidgin), empathy didn't past mustard.
poelcatempathy also wasn't here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/10/FeatureList, though maybe part of gnome 2.24
bpepplepoelcat: correct, it was part of the gnome feature.
wwoodsright. it failed testing because it didn't meet the (unwritten, de-facto, "roughly the same feature set as pidgin") spec
poelcatso one week prior to Final Freeze.. fedora qa submits feature pages that are failing and recommend dropping from list?
wwoodsin the future these specs should be, y'know, written down
so we can check 'em before Preview
nottingpoelcat: preview freeze, not final freeze
poelcatsame thing
nottingsorry, thinking 'final freeze' as OMG WE ARE DONE freeze
bpepplewwoods: definitely.  unfortunately, empathy was the first feature we've had that's replaced a default application, and we didn't really think through what the test plan should entall.
wwoodsalso can we change the name of the "test plan" section to "How to test"
maybe add some info to the empty template indicating that the section is for listing exactly how a QA guy (like, say, me) would check to be sure the feature works as expected
A lot of those sections list how the devs plan to test their own code. which is nice, but not useful to QA
jds2001and that QA guy might not use this thing on a daily basis, keep in mind.
poelcatwwoods: it is already there https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Features/EmptyTemplate&action=edit&section=8
f13when is the translation freeze for release notes?
wwoodsyeah. Assume an enthusiastic intern with a few years' Linux experience.
f13because if we're changing featurs, we need to give docs enough time to update the relnotes, and give translators enough time to translate the changes
sticksterYes, we're already in freeze for release notes for the GA.
We will have another freeze in a few days for the 0-day update content.
f13so any changes to features needs to happen /before/ the relnotes translation freeze
nottingf13: devel freeze was ~2 weeks ago. relnotes freeze was last week.
jds2001right, string freeze and final freeze are at the same time, right?
sticksterjds2001: release notes content freeze is not quite the same as programmatic string freeze.
* stickster sorry to butt in but hopes he can be helpful
jds2001not a problem at all :)
* stickster shutting up now
poelcat notes we have several topics in play now :)
poelcatwere did we end up with dropping features that fail testing?
any objections to notting's proposal?
bpepplenone here.
* nirik has none
jds2001none here.
poelcatthe next issue raised here I think was freezes around docs/translation content
nottingpoelcat: just to clarify, it's 'may' drop, of course. could do whatever contingency plan, provide exception, etc.
poelcatwhat is the proposed change there?
notting: okay; i'll amend the policy to state that one week prior to final freeze testing must have returned reasonable results or will consider drop, contingency plan, etc.
with that input coming from fedora qa
wwoods: any objections?
wwoodsnone, although we need specs to test against
* j-rod just arrived...
wwoodsso probably the template needs changes to document how/where to write a simple spec
poelcatwwoods: feel free to add it
is there a proposed change to the process around docs/translation content ?
* poelcat sings "all by myself"
bpeppleI'm not sure.
* nirik isn't sure what comment we are addressing now... ?
nottingi think the query was from a relnote beat writer who has problems finding the features for his beat?
i'm not sure what is being suggested that we do differently
* nirik isn't sure how that could be done easily. Perhaps mention in the template if your feature matches up to a beat?
bpepplepoelcat: yeah, I don't really see any proposals in that section.
poelcatokay that about wraps things up... the "out of scope" section was stuff that people added that didn't fit the purpose of this review
jds2001except for pairing up owners with docs folks, which really isnt a bad idea.
poelcatis there anything else FESCo believes should change for the Fedora 11 feature process
nottingi think rjones' comment is sufficiently handled by our first discussion
poelcatnotting: correct
poelcatbpepple: i guess that is all
bpepplepoelcat: ok.  So we'll start reviewing features next week?
jwbi'd like to thank poelcat again
bpepplejwb: +1
poelcatbpepple: yes, we have 2 or 3 in the queue
bpepplepoelcat: cool.
nottingjwb: +1
jwbif FESCo had awards, i'd give you two
poelcatwhich i need to correclty organize
bpeppleanything else?
poelcatjwb: lol thanks
--- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- Free discussion around Fedora
bpepplepoelcat: thanks for your time.
jwbso, who's running for Election?
poelcatyou're welcome
* dgilmore is undecided
jwb is running (again)
* dwmw2 doesn't think he needs to this time
jwbdwmw2, i don't think you have to
bpeppledgilmore: your not up for election until the spring/summer election. ;)
* jds2001 is running again
jwbonly a sub-set is up for re-election.  me, j-rod, and jds2001 i think?
dgilmorebpepple: oh yeah
dgilmorei forgot
jds2001i think there's 4
bpepplejwb: and kick_'s seat.
jwbah, and Kick_
dgilmorebpepple: i dont think ill run for the board again though
nottingshould we put that on the nominations page somewhere?
* Kick__ isn't sure either. I didn't have much time do the stuff I wanted to do
jwbnotting, yeah, we should
notting, i can do that
bpepplenotting: either there or on the main nomination page.
nottingsometihng like 'nominations for these seats, to serve with these existing members'
jwbbpepple, i'll whip something up for both
bpepplejwb: cool, thanks.
also, does anyone want to take over as chair for FESCo. I think my usefulness in the position is at an end.
jwbbpepple, wait another month until a new FESCo is elected?
jwbor are you at the burn-out stage?
dgilmorebpepple: i think we should evaluate that on the first meeting with new FESCo,  unless you really really want out now
bpepplejwb: yeah, I can do that, though I am just about at the burn out stage.  I really wonder about the value of writing up the meeting summaries, since they seem to be largely ignored.
jwbso i have a thought on that
i don't think it's fair for the Chair to have to organize everything, run the meetings, _and_ do minutes
jwbi propose we either designate a "scribe" position or rotate minutes among the FESCo members
nottinganyone want to volunteer for the secretary position?
jwbnot everyone at once
poelcathow much does it pay? ;-)
bpepplehow about I continue to do them for now, and with the next fesco we look at splitting up some of the duties.
jds2001poelcat: you would have our gratitude :)
jwbbpepple, if you're up for that, i'm cool
jds2001poelcat: and a beer at FUDCon :)
j-rodnay, two beers!
j-rodor a gdk-special gimlet
bpepplejwb: yeah, the new fesco should be elected before the end of the year, so I can probably hold on until then.
poelcati'll think about it, but i've already got 4 meetings I do and as bpepple points out they take more time than it appears :)
jwbbpepple, ok
jds2001poelcat: i dont think anyone's asking you to do more :)
bpepplepoelcat: yeah, that was my big objection with adding yet something else to do with witting the meeting summaries.  People are pretty cavalier with my time. ;)
buy anyway enough with my bitching. anyone have anything else they want to discuss this week?
* bpepple listens to the crickets..
bpeppleok, I'll 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!