| bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- Meeting rules at http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Development/Schedule/MeetingGuidelines -- Init process | ||
| bpepple | FESCo meeting ping -- bpepple, dgilmore, dwmw2, jwb, notting, nirik, kick_, jds2001, j-rod | |
|---|---|---|
| Hi everybody; who's around? | ||
| * dwmw2 here | ||
| nirik is here | ||
| bpepple | poelcat: ping. | |
| * poelcat here | ||
| Kick__ is here | ||
| dgilmore | here | |
| * notting is here | ||
| bpepple | poelcat: you want to lead the feature policy discussion? | |
| poelcat | bpepple: yes | |
| --- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo-Meeting -- Features - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/F11PolicyReview -all | ||
| bpepple | poelcat: ok, floors yours. | |
| poelcat | https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/F11PolicyReview | |
| i'll run through the comments we have | ||
| poelcat | if FESCo things we should change the policy or process then we'll discuss | |
| poelcat | First item was inviting owners to meetings and emailing them | |
| this seems doable | ||
| notting | +1 from me | |
| poelcat | as long as they include their email address on the feature page itself | |
| Kick__ | +1 | |
| notting | poelcat: <account>@fedoraproject.org should also work | |
| nirik | sure, 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. | |
| nirik | well, part of the charter of devel-announce is that it wouldn't contain regular announcements I thought. | |
| dwmw2 | I 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 | |
| nirik | if we want devel less high volume, we could always go back to fedora-maintainers. ;) | |
| bpepple | nirik: 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. | |
| notting | also, there could (possibly?) be feature owners (art, etc.) that may not need to be on devel-announce | |
| poelcat | what do other voting members think? | |
| nirik | bpepple: yeah. ;( Perhaps poelcat can email them when their features are going to be discussed in the next meeting? | |
| * jds2001 here | ||
| jds2001 | i tned to agree with bpepple in terms of what the FESCo chair is responsible for. | |
| jds2001 | if poelcat (or designee) wants to mail them individually, that's fine. | |
| poelcat | how about each week I provide the features up for review along w/ owner's email address | |
| bpepple | or if someone else wants to be chair, I'm more than willing to step aside. | |
| poelcat | then when bpepple sends agenda to f-d-l he CCs them | |
| jds2001 | that doesn't sound to onerus. | |
| * bpepple will go along with whatever the group decides. | ||
| poelcat | we have a few other things to cover... how can we close on this? | |
| bpepple | it sounds like we're cc the feature owners/ | |
| jds2001 | i was concerned that bpepple (or whoever the chair is) would be spending all sorts of time doing research into email addresses, etc. | |
| bpepple | jds2001: we will, but that's fine. | |
| * poelcat will block on sending feature page to fesco w/o any email address | ||
| poelcat | any objections to moving on? | |
| bpepple | none here. | |
| jds2001 | +1 to cc'ing feature owners if feature wrangler provides email address (either on feature page or somewhere else) | |
| non here. | ||
| poelcat | the next issue raised was "sticking to the process" | |
| * poelcat is a little hazy on this one | ||
| poelcat | AMQP *was* added before feature freeze | |
| in accordance w/ the policy | ||
| bpepple | I disagree with mclasen's examples, but the general premise I agree with. | |
| jwb | bpepple, here now | |
| nirik | which link are you guys looking at for the comments? | |
| poelcat | is there anything specific we need to do differently for Fedora 11 or ammend the policy? | |
| notting | i 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 | ||
| poelcat | nirik: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/F11PolicyReview | |
| jds2001 | same here, I think we started on a slippery slope with liveconnect. :( | |
| but there were overriding reasons to do that as well. | ||
| nirik | notting: +1. I think a meeting or two at the end of the cycle to change things that fail testing/qa would be good. | |
| jds2001 | I 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 | |
| nirik | or at the request of maintainers/feature owner (but that should be obviously the case). | |
| poelcat | notting: when in the release cycle should this review happen? | |
| jds2001 | wouldnt failing testing fall into "not testable"? | |
| wwoods | no | |
| * 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. | ||
| wwoods | Empathy was testable - it was present in the distro and the binaries worked | |
| it just didn't meet the (unfortunately, unwritten) specifications | ||
| jds2001 | true. | |
| notting | poelcat: back-of-the-envelope guess would be 'prior to preview freeze', but i can be pushed around on that. wwoods - ideas? | |
| bpepple | wwoods: correct. the problem was that in comparison to our current default (pidgin), empathy didn't past mustard. | |
| poelcat | empathy also wasn't here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/10/FeatureList, though maybe part of gnome 2.24 | |
| bpepple | poelcat: correct, it was part of the gnome feature. | |
| wwoods | right. it failed testing because it didn't meet the (unwritten, de-facto, "roughly the same feature set as pidgin") spec | |
| poelcat | so one week prior to Final Freeze.. fedora qa submits feature pages that are failing and recommend dropping from list? | |
| wwoods | in the future these specs should be, y'know, written down | |
| so we can check 'em before Preview | ||
| notting | poelcat: preview freeze, not final freeze | |
| poelcat | same thing | |
| notting | sorry, thinking 'final freeze' as OMG WE ARE DONE freeze | |
| bpepple | wwoods: 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. | |
| wwoods | also 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 | ||
| jds2001 | and that QA guy might not use this thing on a daily basis, keep in mind. | |
| poelcat | wwoods: it is already there https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Features/EmptyTemplate&action=edit§ion=8 | |
| f13 | when is the translation freeze for release notes? | |
| wwoods | yeah. Assume an enthusiastic intern with a few years' Linux experience. | |
| f13 | because 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 | |
| stickster | Yes, 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. | ||
| f13 | so any changes to features needs to happen /before/ the relnotes translation freeze | |
| notting | f13: devel freeze was ~2 weeks ago. relnotes freeze was last week. | |
| jds2001 | right, string freeze and final freeze are at the same time, right? | |
| stickster | jds2001: release notes content freeze is not quite the same as programmatic string freeze. | |
| * stickster sorry to butt in but hopes he can be helpful | ||
| jds2001 | not a problem at all :) | |
| * stickster shutting up now | ||
| poelcat notes we have several topics in play now :) | ||
| poelcat | were did we end up with dropping features that fail testing? | |
| any objections to notting's proposal? | ||
| bpepple | none here. | |
| * nirik has none | ||
| jds2001 | none here. | |
| poelcat | the next issue raised here I think was freezes around docs/translation content | |
| notting | poelcat: just to clarify, it's 'may' drop, of course. could do whatever contingency plan, provide exception, etc. | |
| poelcat | what 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? | ||
| wwoods | none, although we need specs to test against | |
| * j-rod just arrived... | ||
| wwoods | so probably the template needs changes to document how/where to write a simple spec | |
| poelcat | wwoods: feel free to add it | |
| is there a proposed change to the process around docs/translation content ? | ||
| * poelcat sings "all by myself" | ||
| bpepple | I'm not sure. | |
| * nirik isn't sure what comment we are addressing now... ? | ||
| notting | i think the query was from a relnote beat writer who has problems finding the features for his beat? | |
| poelcat | https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/F11PolicyReview#Miscellaneous | |
| 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? | ||
| bpepple | poelcat: yeah, I don't really see any proposals in that section. | |
| poelcat | okay that about wraps things up... the "out of scope" section was stuff that people added that didn't fit the purpose of this review | |
| jds2001 | except for pairing up owners with docs folks, which really isnt a bad idea. | |
| poelcat | is there anything else FESCo believes should change for the Fedora 11 feature process | |
| poelcat | ? | |
| notting | i think rjones' comment is sufficiently handled by our first discussion | |
| poelcat | notting: correct | |
| poelcat | bpepple: i guess that is all | |
| bpepple | poelcat: ok. So we'll start reviewing features next week? | |
| jwb | i'd like to thank poelcat again | |
| bpepple | jwb: +1 | |
| poelcat | bpepple: yes, we have 2 or 3 in the queue | |
| bpepple | poelcat: cool. | |
| notting | jwb: +1 | |
| jwb | if FESCo had awards, i'd give you two | |
| poelcat | which i need to correclty organize | |
| jwb | :) | |
| bpepple | anything else? | |
| poelcat | jwb: lol thanks | |
| --- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- Free discussion around Fedora | ||
| bpepple | poelcat: thanks for your time. | |
| jwb | so, who's running for Election? | |
| poelcat | you're welcome | |
| * dgilmore is undecided | ||
| jwb is running (again) | ||
| bpepple | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Development/SteeringCommittee/Nominations | |
| * dwmw2 doesn't think he needs to this time | ||
| jwb | dwmw2, i don't think you have to | |
| bpepple | dgilmore: your not up for election until the spring/summer election. ;) | |
| * jds2001 is running again | ||
| jwb | only a sub-set is up for re-election. me, j-rod, and jds2001 i think? | |
| dgilmore | bpepple: oh yeah | |
| dgilmore | i forgot | |
| jds2001 | i think there's 4 | |
| bpepple | jwb: and kick_'s seat. | |
| jwb | ah, and Kick_ | |
| dgilmore | bpepple: i dont think ill run for the board again though | |
| notting | should 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 | ||
| jwb | notting, yeah, we should | |
| notting, i can do that | ||
| bpepple | notting: either there or on the main nomination page. | |
| notting | sometihng like 'nominations for these seats, to serve with these existing members' | |
| jwb | bpepple, i'll whip something up for both | |
| bpepple | jwb: cool, thanks. | |
| also, does anyone want to take over as chair for FESCo. I think my usefulness in the position is at an end. | ||
| jwb | bpepple, wait another month until a new FESCo is elected? | |
| jwb | or are you at the burn-out stage? | |
| dgilmore | bpepple: i think we should evaluate that on the first meeting with new FESCo, unless you really really want out now | |
| bpepple | jwb: 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. | |
| jwb | so 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 | ||
| jwb | i propose we either designate a "scribe" position or rotate minutes among the FESCo members | |
| notting | anyone want to volunteer for the secretary position? | |
| jwb | not everyone at once | |
| poelcat | how much does it pay? ;-) | |
| bpepple | how about I continue to do them for now, and with the next fesco we look at splitting up some of the duties. | |
| jds2001 | poelcat: you would have our gratitude :) | |
| jwb | bpepple, if you're up for that, i'm cool | |
| jds2001 | poelcat: and a beer at FUDCon :) | |
| j-rod | nay, two beers! | |
| j-rod | or a gdk-special gimlet | |
| bpepple | jwb: yeah, the new fesco should be elected before the end of the year, so I can probably hold on until then. | |
| poelcat | i'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 :) | |
| jwb | bpepple, ok | |
| jds2001 | poelcat: i dont think anyone's asking you to do more :) | |
| bpepple | poelcat: 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.. | ||
| bpepple | ok, 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!