| --- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- Meeting rules at http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Development/Schedule/MeetingGuidelines -- Init process | ||
| bpepple | marek: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Schedule/NewSponsors | |
|---|---|---|
| marek | bpepple: can I add him to that page, with bugzilla links etc...? | |
| marek | as for next meeting vote | |
| bpepple | marek: yeah, that would be fine. Once you do that I'll send the info to the mailing list for discussion. | |
| FESCo meeting ping -- bpepple, dgilmore, dwmw2, jwb, notting, nirik, sharkcz, jds2001, j-rod | ||
| Hi everybody; who's around? | ||
| * nirik is here. | ||
| sharkcz is here | ||
| dwmw2 just about | ||
| j-rod here | ||
| dwmw2 | wenchlet is sick though and I'm playing nurse... which means going to the shop imminently to find sustenance | |
| * dgilmore kinda | ||
| nirik | dwmw2: get delivery? :) | |
| * jds2001 here | ||
| dwmw2 | nirik: not here. | |
| nirik | bummer. | |
| * jwb is here | ||
| bpepple | ok, I see eight of us, so we can probably get started. | |
| * j-rod wonders... is a wenchlet akin to a wench as a piglet is to a pig? | ||
| bpepple | First off, I'd like to welcome sharkcz to FESCo. | |
| * wwoods lurks | ||
| jds2001 gives a big welcome to sharkcz :) | ||
| bpepple | sharkcz: you got any questions? | |
| sharkcz | thanks to all :-) | |
| sharkcz | bpepple: no | |
| bpepple | cool, all right let's get to business. | |
| --- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo-Meeting -- Elect new FESCo chair - all | ||
| bpepple | Ok, jwb & jds2001 expressed interest in being the chair? Anyone else want to throw their hat in? | |
| * bpepple went a little crazy with question marks. | ||
| j-rod | I sort of half-heartedly threw my hat towards it, but it missed. | |
| bpepple | j-rod: ;) | |
| j-rod | and now I'm picking it up. | |
| bpepple | ok, so we've got j-rod, jwb, and jds2001 up for chair. | |
| j-rod | oh, no, I mean I'm picking it up and keeping it -- NOT throwing it in. :) | |
| too many j's | ||
| bpepple | j-rod: oh right, misread that. ;) | |
| jwb | there are never enough j's | |
| bpepple | ok, so it's jwb and jds2001. You both still want it? | |
| jds2001 | i will yield to jwb if he wants it :) | |
| jwb | actually, i think jds2001 might bring "new blood" better than i | |
| dwmw2 | mmm, blood | |
| jwb | i've been the pseudo "vice-chair" for a while now | |
| either way works for me though | ||
| * bpepple is fine with either of you guys being chair. | ||
| jds2001 | does anyone have opinions on who *shouldn't* be chair? | |
| * dwmw2 shouldn't | ||
| tibbs|h | zodbot needs a .coinflip command. | |
| * dgilmore says dwmw2 shouldnt also | ||
| jds2001 | dwmw2: you're appointed! | |
| :) | ||
| * dwmw2 promotes an attitude of violence towards jds2001 | ||
| nirik | tibbs|h: there is one. ;) | |
| .coin | ||
| not loaded I guess. | ||
| jds2001 | or not. | |
| bpepple | I'm fine with either jds2001 or jwb. Someone just needs to step forward. ;) | |
| jds2001 | if jwb wants it to be me, i guess it's me :) | |
| dgilmore | jwb, jds2001: cat fught :) | |
| cat fight | ||
| * jds2001 needs to get crash course in chairing FESCo, though :) | ||
| jwb | jds2001, if you have the time, go for it | |
| jds2001 | jwb: that's the thing, most weeks I do, some I might not. | |
| dgilmore | jds2001: by my einne meenie miny moe your it | |
| jds2001 | dgilmore: :) | |
| nirik | @coin | |
| bpepple | jds2001: I'm still around, so I can pitch in when needed. | |
| fedbot | nirik: heads | |
| jwb | shifting the minute taking should help | |
| jds2001 | yeah | |
| bpepple | jwb: agreed. | |
| jds2001: do you want to lead the rest of the meeting? Or you want me to? | ||
| jds2001 | either way... | |
| bpepple | how about I finish up today, and next week it's all you. ;) | |
| --- jds2001 has changed the topic to: FESCo-Meeting -- New FESCo meeting time (Friday's @ ?) - all | ||
| jds2001 | that'd work too | |
| dgilmore | any time friday works for me | |
| bpepple | jds2001: to late you already took control. ;) | |
| dgilmore | i think notting had the hardest time requirements | |
| dwmw2 | any sensible time in Europe works for me. | |
| on Fridays | ||
| jds2001 | I have a 3PM on Fridays, but that's too late for sharkcz and dwmw2 I think. | |
| jwb | i will point out that friday morning is usually better than friday evening, but that is opposite for people in .eu | |
| dgilmore | dwmw2: 2am sensible? | |
| jwb: friday morning in the us is friday evening in .eu | ||
| bpepple | Do our usual starting time work for folks? Just switching the day to Friday? | |
| dwmw2 | dgilmore: :) | |
| jwb | dgilmore, that's what i just said | |
| jds2001 | WORKSFORME | |
| bpepple | s/Do/Does/ | |
| nirik | that works for me. | |
| sharkcz | 2am = 20:00 here, works for me too | |
| dwmw2 | bpepple: yeah, although an hour earlier would be nicer. | |
| dgilmore | jwb: sorry misread it | |
| jwb | bpepple, it would sort of work. i have a hread life meeting at the same time, but i rarely attend it | |
| sharkcz | dwmw2: +1 | |
| dwmw2 | 6pm on a Friday is a different issue to 6pm on a Wednesday... :) | |
| bpepple | dwmw2: I'm fine with moving it up one hour. | |
| dwmw2 | even more so for those on the mainland, since it's 7pm for them... | |
| nirik | moving up an hour would work ok for me too. | |
| dgilmore | sharkcz: i meant 02:00 GMT :) | |
| sharkcz | dgilmore: then I am out ;-) | |
| dgilmore | sharkcz: :) | |
| dwmw2 | dgilmore: see the news from olpc today? | |
| bpepple | ok, so I don't hear any objections to dwmw2's proposal. So if no one speaks up, I say we have our meeting on Friday's at Noon(est). | |
| dgilmore | dwmw2: no i did not | |
| jds2001 | sounds good. | |
| dwmw2 | http://wiki.laptop.org/go/The_OLPC_Wiki | |
| j-rod | wfm | |
| sharkcz | ack | |
| dgilmore | +1 for dwmw2's proposal | |
| bpepple | alright, if no one objects I think the last bit of business we need to decide is handling the meeting summaries. | |
| jwb | ok, so what time exactly? | |
| dwmw2 | jwb: 17:00 GMT | |
| jwb | works for me | |
| bpepple | I suggested on the mailing list we rotate the person handling the meeting summary every 2 meetings. Anyone have a problem with that? | |
| jwb | nope | |
| jds2001 | nope, just need to coem up with a schedule. | |
| sharkcz | no | |
| bpepple | jds2001: how about alphabetical? (Note: I'll handle this week's) | |
| jds2001 | sounds good as any to me :) | |
| jwb | alphabetical by irc nick? | |
| or? | ||
| * jds2001 was thinking last name, but any way works. | ||
| bpepple | jwb: I was thinking last name, but truthfully I don't care. | |
| * nirik does not care either. | ||
| jwb | the "this week's" comment threw me off | |
| last name is fine | ||
| jds2001 | i.e. we'll start this next meeting. | |
| jwb | i guess i'm up next week | |
| dgilmore | jwb: :) | |
| bpepple | jwb: ;) | |
| ok, I think that covers all the administrative stuff we needed to cover. We can probably move on. | ||
| * bpepple takes a back seat, and lets jds2001 drive. | ||
| jds2001 | gack | |
| --- jds2001 has changed the topic to: FESCo-Meeting -- Adding provenpackagers to experienced maintainer | ||
| jds2001 | definition - | |
| fail. | ||
| oh well, what this is about is the "experienced maintainers" definition in who's allowed to tocuh what packages. | ||
| there's also concern about the size of the provenpackagers group. | ||
| (281 last I checked a few weeks ago) | ||
| dwmw2 | I don't think it's a problem | |
| let people apply common sense when touching other peoples packages | ||
| jwb | the plan was to send an email to the group asking for voluntary removal, right? | |
| nirik | I think if we do any culling we should start with people who never used their powers... | |
| jds2001 | yep. | |
| dwmw2 | it _always_ used to work just fine, when it was RH-internal. | |
| jds2001 | nirik: is there an easy way to find out? | |
| dwmw2 | why would we _need_ to remove powers from people who don't use them? What's the point? | |
| jwb | dwmw2, tread carefully | |
| nirik | jds2001: easy? not sure. Could cull the commits logs | |
| jds2001 | convincing folks who look at sheer numbers that there aren't many. | |
| nirik | dwmw2: yeah, not sure there either. | |
| * jds2001 not personally concerned. But others have voiced concern.' | ||
| nirik | So, whats the issue we are trying to solve again? some people don't like that provenpackager has many people in it and thus dont trust it? | |
| dwmw2 | The 'issue' is pure FUD, as far as I see it. | |
| nirik | f13: you around? I know you were one who had some issues with it? | |
| jwb | for something like provenpackager, FUD is all it takes for it to be useless | |
| tibbs|h | Precisely. | |
| dwmw2 | jwb: really? | |
| jwb | people opt in or out of letting the group touch packages based on their comfort level with how it was seeded, etc | |
| tibbs|h | People don't want to let provenpackager touch their packages because there are too many people in it. | |
| dwmw2 | jwb: oh, I didn't realise people could still opt out of that. | |
| nirik | nevermind that I suspect almost none of them have used their powers. | |
| dwmw2 | despite that fact that I've probably been told three times already. I'm not very clever | |
| bpepple | tibbs|h: Do these folks have any concrete reasons for their fear, or just a general distrust of you contributors? | |
| s/you/our/ | ||
| j-rod | that's what I was wondering | |
| is there actual grounds to this fear | ||
| * jds2001 has a local pkgdb at home with an old data dump | ||
| jds2001 | 81 packages were opted-out iirc | |
| bpepple | That's been my problem with understanding the problem here. | |
| tibbs|h | I don't know if I could find any instance where this was discussed. | |
| jds2001 | most of them either looked sane, or belonged to one contributor. | |
| nirik | there was a thread on the sponsors alias. | |
| jds2001 | sane == kernel/lvm2/etc | |
| nirik | skvidal and f13 both expressed that they disliked how it was populated. | |
| j-rod | "OMG! My package is SOOO important, I can't let *ANYONE* I don't know personally touch it." | |
| ^^^ about what it sounds like to me | ||
| dwmw2 | j-rod: The fear is that a well-known and trusted contributor might suddenly suffer a brain tumour and start wreaking havoc on other peoples packages, I believe. | |
| that too. | ||
| j-rod | and its not like things can't be reverted and people yelled at if they *do* do something dumb | |
| dwmw2 | mostly what you said, in fact, but I was trying to pretend there was at least _some_ sanity to it | |
| in the interest of being constructive | ||
| jwb | j-rod, you mean like the kernel? | |
| j-rod | haha | |
| tibbs|h | There was one instance yesterday where someone was reluctant to open to provenpackager, but eventually allowed it with the note that they can always revoke access later. | |
| dwmw2 | j-rod: well, maybe a brain tumour could incite me to commit, build _and_ push some packages? | |
| I don't think it should be optional | ||
| tibbs|h | nirik: That was your discussion with rsc. | |
| nirik | yeah | |
| dwmw2 | not without fesco approval, anyway | |
| j-rod | jwb: well, there *are* a few packages where restrictions do make some sense... | |
| dwmw2 | if you want to block provenpackagers (as we might, for the kernel), then you should need fesco approval for that. | |
| * jds2001 thinks fesco needs to review the current list, too. | ||
| jwb | j-rod, i know. i was just pointing out the exception to your rule :) | |
| dwmw2 | but then again, if packagers commit to the kernel when they shouldn't, we should take them out back and shoot them. Problem solved. | |
| j-rod | gotcha :) | |
| +1 | ||
| dgilmore | dwmw2: does that include me? | |
| dwmw2 | proposal: tell people to stop being fucking stupid. Impose a rule that all "provenpackager cannot commit" ACLs must be fesco-approved | |
| j-rod | wait, I might have just given grounds to get myself shot... | |
| tibbs|h | Most people don't realize that cvsadmin members can commit to their packages regardless of the ACLs in place. | |
| dgilmore | j-rod: wondering the same thing. not taht i often touch the kernel. but i have done so in the past | |
| jds2001 | dwmw2: +1 | |
| dwmw2 | dgilmore: but you do so _appropriately_ | |
| nirik | also secondary arch people are always allowed. | |
| dgilmore | tibbs|h: as are the secondary arch groups | |
| sharkcz | +1 | |
| dwmw2 | I think the real problem is that people are too territorial about their^Wour packages. | |
| j-rod | dgilmore: yeah, as long as there's no inappropriate touching, its all good... :) | |
| bpepple | dwmw2: +1. | |
| tibbs|h | The bottom line is that if you own a package in Fedora, you are going to have to accept that a bunch of people are going to be able to mess with it. | |
| dgilmore | cvsadmin fedora-sparc fedora-ia64 fedora-s390 and fedora-arm all can touch any package | |
| j-rod: :) | ||
| dwmw2 | so my proposal stands, perhaps reworded to be slightly more quotable | |
| tibbs|h | People need to understand that if they have a "mine!" attitude then they should just not bother. | |
| dwmw2 | tell people to stop spreading FUD, require FESCo approval for any package to prevent provenpackager commits | |
| bpepple | tibbs|h: totally agree. | |
| j-rod | Indeed -- its a *community* distribution. | |
| jwb | so what do we do with the ones that exist already? | |
| jds2001 | I see five +1's to dwmw2's proposal. I'll ask abadger1999 for a list of current packages to review. | |
| * nirik is ok with dwmw2's proposal I guess. | ||
| jds2001 | jwb: review them. | |
| jwb | and we need to line up abadger1999 to make the pkgdb changes | |
| j-rod | +1 to dwmw2's proposal | |
| dgilmore | jwb: review and remove or get justification | |
| dwmw2 | jwb: give the package owners a time limit (1 month?) to get FESCO approval, then re-enable provenpackager commits if not given | |
| nirik | also, can we add a blurb about sponsoring new provenpackagers to the wiki? | |
| jwb | we need the prevention in place before the review | |
| otherwise we'd have a lot more to review | ||
| so, abadger1999 ping | ||
| dwmw2 | if there are still concerns, there are other things we can do. | |
| abadger1999 | jwb: pong | |
| dwmw2 | we could allow _commits_ but not bodhi pushes, perhaps? | |
| abadger1999 | Question: Why not add a third group? | |
| jds2001 | dwmw2: that's already teh case. | |
| jwb | abadger1999, how hard would it be to change pkgdb to not allow packagers to change "provenpackagers can commit" ? | |
| dwmw2 | jds2001: oh, then people really are just being muppets then :) | |
| jwb | abadger1999, a third group? | |
| abadger1999 | jwb: That should be easy to disable | |
| jds2001 | abadger1999: I was thinking adding 'fesco' as a group that could change that . | |
| abadger1999 | jwb: packager provenpackager adminpackager | |
| or similar. | ||
| jwb | diff between the latter? | |
| dwmw2 | do we have stats on how many packages currently _don't_ have 'provenpackagers can commit' set? | |
| I prefer keeping it as simple as possible. | ||
| jds2001 | dwmw2: in my DB db should_open was false on 81 pkgs iirc | |
| nirik | who do we need another group? | |
| * nirik is getting confused here. | ||
| jds2001 | but I don't know how many have 'provenpacker can commit' unchecked. | |
| abadger1999 | The way packager-provenpackager was set up, it segregates new packagers in the packager group. That's somewhat of a different thing than provenpackager-adminpackager: | |
| abadger1999 | adminpackager == a group that has commit access to almost all of the packages. | |
| nirik | abadger1999: isn't that 'cvsadmins' ? | |
| and the secondary arch groups? | ||
| jwb | no, he said 'almost' | |
| abadger1999 | nirik: cvsadmins have total access with no way to deny. | |
| dwmw2 | abadger1999: that's what provenpackager was _for_, surely? | |
| nirik | yeah, why is that not provenpackager? | |
| abadger1999 | dwmw2: There's two use cases. and I think the problem is that we put them together. | |
| dwmw2 | what's the other one? | |
| jwb | i'm not generally in favor of adding more levels of maintainer privs | |
| abadger1999 | segregating wet-behind-the-ears packagers so they can be sponsored easier. | |
| * jds2001 either. | ||
| jwb | i mean, i-am-god-packager would be cool, but sort of useless | |
| dwmw2 | yes, but segregating them from the people who'll have access to almost all of the packages. | |
| two groups, surely? | ||
| tibbs|h | Currently we have three access level: your packages - most packages - all packages | |
| Where does another group fit? | ||
| nirik | we have now: packager (restricted to their packages), provenpackager (can commit to everything except small exceptions) | |
| abadger1999 | We don't have any control over what "small exceptions" is. Is that the problem that we're trying to solve? | |
| jds2001 | right. | |
| dwmw2 | didn't we just vote to take control over that? exceptions shall be approved by fesco now | |
| jds2001 | institute policy that every exception must be fesco-approved. | |
| * nirik nods at dwmw2 | ||
| bpepple | dwmw2: correct. | |
| abadger1999 | So having a third group, FESCo could decide which packages deserve to be excluded. | |
| jds2001 | right, have a fesco group | |
| jds2001 | and only that group can tick the box. | |
| abadger1999 | while leaving the packager/provenpackager dicotomy the way it is. | |
| jwb | we don't need a fesco group | |
| abadger1999 | okay. | |
| jwb | we just need to give a list to cvsadmin | |
| tibbs|h | I wonder if this really makes any difference in practice. Has there actually been an instance of a provenpackager not being allowed to touch a package that they wanted to touch? | |
| jwb | having a fesco group would be messy, with member turnover, etc | |
| dwmw2 | tibbs|h: not yet, I think, but we're trying to prevent it from becoming an issue. | |
| abadger1999 | the python-2.6 rebuild showed a few. | |
| dwmw2 | ok, I really have to go to the shops before Karen expires. sorry. | |
| * abadger1999 reads scrollback as quickly as possible | ||
| jwb | jds2001, how many votes did you count for the proposal itself? | |
| bpepple | Do we have a list of the packages that currently don't allow provenpackager? (I lost track if this was asked or not). | |
| jwb | bpepple, no, but we can get one | |
| jds2001 | 5, some came in late | |
| jwb | jds2001, majority i guess | |
| jds2001 | yeah | |
| jwb | add a +1 from me | |
| f13 | sorry I was not around. | |
| jwb | f13 did you need to be? | |
| j-rod | and +1 from me, I don't think mine made it in | |
| f13 | I was pinged about proven packager. | |
| jds2001 | f13: we wanted to know the reasons for concerns over how it was seeded. | |
| bpepple | f13: correct. You want to read back a bit? | |
| f13 | erm... can somebody summarize? | |
| I'm torn between lots of meetings | ||
| jwb | f13, we just passed a proposal: every package has 'provenpackager can commit' checked, and exceptions must have fesco approval | |
| jwb | i'll point out that this has nothing to do with concerns over the size of provenpackager itself | |
| f13 | how does FESCo feel about the reasons we've already seen expressed, such that the contents of provenpackager were ill-filled and untrusted? | |
| f13 | and what does FESCo do when they feel the justification isn't "good enough" ? | |
| notting | bpepple: my sincere apologies, i was swallowed by another meeting | |
| bpepple | notting: no worries. | |
| notting | (and am going to be again in 12 minutes) | |
| nirik | f13: can you give some reasons for why people think "the contents of provenpackager were ill-filled and untrusted" ? | |
| tibbs|h | I'll note that http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/CVSAdminProcedure hasn't mentioned the "whoever can commit" flag for some time now. | |
| jds2001 | f13: we wanted to talk about that, the size. My proposal was a voluntary culling of the group. | |
| bpepple | f13: is there any concrete evidence that the initial seeiing was ill-filled and untrusted? I don't really agree with that assessment. | |
| abadger1999 | notting: log of current discussion: http://fpaste.org/paste/922 | |
| f13 | nirik: I can pull the IRC log from when rsc gave his reasoning | |
| f13 | nirik: and I think thl posted about it on fedora-devel list, they felt (and I do too) that number of packages has really no bearing whatsoever that people are trustworthy enough to touch other people's packages | |
| * knurd wakes up | ||
| f13 | number of packages is too arbitrary, and they felt it bloated the group way too much | |
| knurd: please correct me if I'm remembering incorrectly | ||
| notting | abadger1999: weird. fpaste doesn't horizontally scroll | |
| f13 | I /thought/ you had mentioned something about this | |
| nirik | spot: are you around? | |
| abadger1999 | notting: weird. This will work: http://fpaste.org/paste/922/plain | |
| f13 | I just don't see reason in applying a lower bar to the pool of people allowed wide package access than teh bar we apply to people who can sponsor new contributors | |
| nirik | f13: I agree it may have made the group bloated with people who will not use it, but I disagree that they are untrusted by default. | |
| knurd | f13, not sure myself; must be long ago or somebody else who said it | |
| (or myself getting old and forgetfully) | ||
| spot | nirik: i am | |
| nirik | spot: I seem to remember you had strong feelings about this issue at the meeting we decided how to populate provenpackagers... | |
| spot | nirik: well, honestly, i thought it was the wrong way to achieve the goal of encouraging open commits | |
| nirik | f13: I think we do need docs/guideline on when to add someone to provenpackger, and perhaps we could cull it of the people not using it... | |
| jds2001 | nirik: I would start with voluntary culling. | |
| f13 | <rsc> f13: you may argument with "provenpackagers" former "ueberpackagers, but to get "provenpackagers" afaik only maintaining 5 packages is required. Th | |
| jds2001 | see where we get with that. | |
| f13 | at has nothing to do with "proven" nor with "ueber", the German for "above" | |
| nirik | spot: yeah, but it had to balance with the people who don't want anyone touching their stuff... I dunno. Perhaps it's all a failure. ;) | |
| sharkcz | jds2001: yes, that can't hurt | |
| * notting votes -1 on dwmw2's proposal, on the record. in the sense that there should be some sort of review of it, and fesco is the only administrative body around, it makes sense, but I'm not sure that it needs codified. perhaps 'fesco can intervene if there are issues' | ||
| spot | nirik: i still think it is much more interesting to find out why people have various things locked down. | |
| bpepple | f13: If I remember correctly the initial bar was higher than 5. Let me see if I can find the exact number. | |
| * nirik notes it was 8 packages | ||
| jds2001 thinks 8 | ||
| jds2001 too slow :) | ||
| * bpepple sees that nirik beat him to it. ;) | ||
| nirik | and that does show someone has ability to get 8 packages submitted, reviewed and maintain them all. | |
| f13 | sure, 8. Not really a big difference. | |
| nirik: which is super easy if you have 8 perl modules, or python modules, or whatever. | ||
| notting | w.r.t. this, i think there are probably too many people in the group, for the usage case that the group is for | |
| f13 | any number of packages is just going to be arbitrary and in no way demonstrate diversity | |
| nirik | f13: sure, but also, someone new with one package could just request provenpackager... | |
| f13 | whereas sponsors have had /human/ review lookin gover their works and a group decision on their quality and trustfulness. | |
| jwb | nirik, and? | |
| jds2001 | nirik: *that* we need some sort of guideline for. | |
| * nirik notes that people with lots of packages don't get autoupgraded, this was only inital seed. | ||
| jwb | nirik, afaik, there is nothing that determines how to approve new members | |
| f13 | nirik: a one package person can request sponsorship status as well, doesn't mean they'll get it. | |
| nirik | right. Perhaps we should add a guideline (at least loose one on that) | |
| notting | jwb: Q: how to approve? A: say no, and don't! (tongue in cheek) | |
| nirik | f13: yeah, but I suspect in the absense of any guideline, some people are just approving anyone who requests. | |
| * nirik has no proof of that of course. | ||
| f13 | I haven't actually been seeing many provenpackager requests | |
| bpepple | nirik: yeah, I think that's a bigger problem than the initial seeding. | |
| f13 | those that I have seen were from reasonable people whom I would have approved | |
| nirik | not too many, but all have been approved. | |
| abadger1999 | bpepple: http://dpaste.com/106472/ | |
| dgilmore | f13: there was initially but not many recently | |
| f13 | I really wanted proven packager to be initially seeded with a small set of /already/ trusted people. | |
| abadger1999 | I think that's the list of packages with closed acls. | |
| nirik | some I didn't recognize the requestor or the approver | |
| f13 | then those that /want/ to have provenpackager can actively seek it out, and those we already apply trust to can decide if they should be brought in or not | |
| these types of things need to be pre-seeded with pre-trusted folks. Our sponsors are exactly that | ||
| notting | apologies. next meeting. | |
| f13 | same here. | |
| nirik | ok, how about this: | |
| bpepple | abadger1999: thanks! I'll have jds2001 add a review of that list at next week's meeting. | |
| nirik | proposal: we don't do anything now, we try and have a hackfest or other informal meeting to try and discuss this and revamp it at fudcon? | |
| f13 | I'm fine with that. | |
| bpepple | nirik: +1 | |
| f13 | my immediate suggestion, boot everybody out that isn't a sponsor, let those that actively want pp re-request membership. | |
| * bpepple since I'm still not convinced it's a problem. | ||
| nirik | I think we need to step back and figure out our goals here. | |
| bpepple | sounds like a good idea, and we've beaten this topic to death today. ;) | |
| f13 | right, my goals were to allow more access to those that are actively willing and wanting to help and share development duties across the collection. | |
| so that new packagers can pre-allow anybody whom the project entrusts with this ability | ||
| and existing packagers can feel comfortable unlocking what is currently locked. | ||
| * quaid waves FESCo on in the midst of their discussion, just ping me when you are done with the channel | ||
| abadger1999 | Other goal: Allow new packagers and people taking over an existing package to find a sponsor easier. | |
| jds2001 | quaid: i thought we had two hours????? | |
| bpepple | so did I/ | |
| quaid | jds2001: I thought you started at 1700 UTC? | |
| jds2001 | 1800 | |
| quaid | ok, so this is still unsolved | |
| we didn't switch our time with the time change | ||
| ok, we're doing Docs in #fedora-docs, meeting times still unresolved | ||
| * quaid notes that https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_meeting_channel says 1700 to 1900 | ||
| bpepple | quaid: we're moving to Friday's next week. | |
| jds2001 | fail. | |
| quaid | bpepple: ok | |
| bpepple | ok, so to summarize our discussion here: | |
| nirik | another goal of more open packages so more people could commit is not served by the current setup. | |
| bpepple | 1. We approved a proposal to have FESCo approve what packages can exclude provenpackagers. | |
| 2. At fudcon there will be a hackfest/discussion about the seeding of provenpackagers. | ||
| Is that correct? | ||
| jds2001 | seems right to me. | |
| jwb | yay | |
| bpepple | just wanted to make sure I got right. | |
| sharkcz | yes | |
| j-rod | sounds like a plan to me | |
| jds2001 | moving right along | |
| bpepple | if there's nothing else we can probably move on. | |
| * nirik wonders again who all from this discussion will be at fudcon? | ||
| --- jds2001 has changed the topic to: FESCo-Meeting -- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/RenamingPackages - nirik | ||
| * bpepple won't be there. :( | ||
| abadger1999 | So, you need me to disable the ability for packagers to disable the provenpackager flag | |
| * jds2001 | ||
| abadger1999 | And leave it open for just cvsadmins for now? | |
| bpepple | abadger1999: I believe that is correct. | |
| abadger1999 | k | |
| jds2001 | abadger1999: right. | |
| * sharkcz won't be there | ||
| * abadger1999 will | ||
| bpepple | nirik's proposal looks good to me. My only nitpick would be that the review wouldn't be in bugzilla. | |
| jds2001 | nirik, j-rod, f13, me, dgilmore, notting abadger1999 afaik | |
| jwb | i'll be there | |
| bpepple | so 6 of the 9 folks in FESCo. | |
| jwb | i'm not in favor of on fedora-devel | |
| then you'll get people posting there for normal reviews too | ||
| jds2001 | nirik: i'd require it be in bugzilla. | |
| nim-nim | bpepple: I'd like the way mass renamed can be performed clarified | |
| jds2001 | that way we have better records than a mailing list archive. | |
| nirik | bugzilla seems like a good idea. | |
| bpepple | nim-nim: any wording suggestions? | |
| nirik | but you would need to attract attention to it somehow | |
| jds2001 | I'm not thinking that a full re-review be required, just look for proper provides/obsoletes. | |
| nirik | ie, there is no package rename queue. | |
| bpepple | nirik: the could send a note to the mailing list with a link to the bug. | |
| jds2001 | nirik: yeah, I would say for this *only* send a note to the ML | |
| * jds2001 has a concern that f-devel would wind up being bugzilla 2.0, though :) | ||
| nim-nim | bpepple: anything that codifies how packagers can be kicked into action instead of hoping individial packagers will initiate their part of a mass rename independently | |
| jds2001 | nim-nim: isn't that what the non-responsive procedure is for? | |
| (I know what mass rename you're getting at, but I wouldn't do it, FWIW) | ||
| nim-nim | bpepple: my preference has always been to authorise infra after FPC or fESCO approval to mass-rename cvs components and just have individual packagers pick up from here | |
| jds2001 | not saying that I wouldn't rename my packages, but you know :) | |
| nirik | nim-nim: the main issue I have with that is that it's then impossible to review the Obsoletes/Provides... isn't it? | |
| tibbs|h | FPC or FESCo aren't going to do the individual change reviews, though. | |
| nim-nim | tibbs|h: some packagers will delay changes indefinitely if they don't have a triggering event | |
| tibbs|h | And we have a procedure for that. It's called the non-responsive maintainer policy. | |
| nim-nim | jds2001: if you have to threaten a non-responsive procedure to make people work on a mass rename, we are in bureaucratic trouble | |
| nirik | nim-nim: couldn't you just have a pool of people from the group/sig co-maintain? | |
| then you can always make changes as needed... | ||
| nim-nim | tibbs|h: I'm not saying the non-responsive maintainer policy is bad, just that it's oversized for this case | |
| nirik | the kde folks have no problems doing things that way. | |
| nim-nim | tibbs|h: a lot of maintainers just need a flag signal to start renames in a mass rename | |
| tibbs|h | So you're saying that if you have a maintainer who is not responsive, then the non-responsive maintainer is "oversized"? | |
| nim-nim | tibbs|h: they don't delay because they are unresponsive, they delay because they just delay | |
| nirik | nim-nim: shouldn't that be 'hey, maintainer, please rename... here's the rename procedure: <link>' | |
| tibbs|h | That's my comedy moment for today. | |
| jds2001 | nim-nim: like me. I haven't complied with the new guidelines yet...been slightly busy :) | |
| but I will, I promise! :) | ||
| * nirik also has a few to update. ;) | ||
| jwb | i was planning on doing it during the hackfest | |
| nim-nim | nirik: s, it's not because people are of bad will | |
| you just need to get the ball rolling | ||
| what is the danger of renaming cvs components in one go? | ||
| it does not make the packages build | ||
| you can still make a review a necessary step | ||
| but it clearly signals people they have stuff to do | ||
| nim-nim | otherwise I fear inertia will just win the day | |
| * jds2001 got bugs which indicated I needed to do something :) | ||
| nirik | nim-nim: the danger is that there is no review of Oboletes/Provides. | |
| which is the point of this entire thing. If it didn't matter, we could just say: rename your package as you like, just request cvs. | ||
| bpepple | nirik: agreed. | |
| nim-nim | nirik: the bias against renaming is ok for individual renames | |
| jds2001 | it's not a bias, the bar is quite low. | |
| but it does need to be reviewed that Provides/Obsoletes are correct. | ||
| nim-nim | how about mass cvs renaming + mass filing of bugs where the review can take place? | |
| you'll still get a few people that push before review | ||
| but you'll always get a few problems like this in a mass operation anyway | ||
| bpepple | nirik: do you want to update your proposal to use bugzilla, and next week we vote on it? Or would you like us to do it today? (I'm not really sure how is still around). | |
| nim-nim | IMHO the risk is smaller than just have a mass rename stall because of general inertia | |
| nirik | bpepple: I can update it and talk with nim-nim more and try and revise it for his concerns. | |
| nirik | nim-nim: why would you push before review? | |
| nim-nim | (and again this is only for mass operation, nirik's proposal is fine for individual renames) | |
| bpepple | nirik: that sounds good. | |
| nim-nim | nirik: just say I'm cynical and don't expect people to behave perfectly at all times | |
| bpepple | jds2001: we can probably move on. | |
| nirik | nim-nim: sure, but I don't see what the rename policy doesn't cover for mass renames too... ie, for fonts you tell everyone to rename, they update their packages, request review, you can do that and then they check in. | |
| bpepple | hmm, looks like jds2001 might have stepped away. | |
| jds2001 | for a second | |
| sorry | ||
| bpepple | no worries. | |
| --- jds2001 has changed the topic to: FESCO-Meeting -- Features -- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/KDE42 | ||
| sharkcz | nim-nim: you can set a deadline, file bugs, on time T the group/sig will take care of the rest, and then really do cvs changes | |
| nim-nim | sharkcz: this just reports the charge to a small group | |
| sharkcz: not good | ||
| jreznik | \me is here, listening for KDE 4.2 feature requests complaints | |
| bpepple | jreznik: looks pretty straight forward to me. I don't think I have any questions/ | |
| * nirik doesn't either... +1 here. | ||
| sharkcz | jreznik: looks good to me too | |
| bpepple | +1 to KDE feature. | |
| jds2001 | +1 here | |
| sharkcz | +1 for the records | |
| jds2001 | jreznik: you might want to include the modified packages in teh scope, though. | |
| nirik | nim-nim: but it would always come to that wouldn't it? even if we did cvs for all the renamed packages in advance, some might not update... so someone would need to go do it for them? | |
| jds2001 | preferably before next week if possible? | |
| jwb | i have to drop. phone call | |
| nim-nim | nirik: the trick is to find a process that maximizes the chances of individual packagers doing their part on time | |
| nirik: this is really my main objection to your proposal for mass renames | ||
| jreznik | jds2001: yes, I can but it could be long list | |
| jds2001 | jreznik: put it in another page if you need to, I guess. | |
| wouldn't want to sacrafice readability of the main feature page. | ||
| nim-nim | nirik: it relies too much on individual packagers being proactive, and does not incitivize doing the right thing | |
| jds2001 | +1 | |
| dgilmore | +1 for kde-4.2 | |
| jreznik | jds2001: ok, good idea to use other page to track changes/modified packages | |
| jds2001 | I see five +1's, the KDE 4.2 feature has been approved. | |
| jreznik | nice, thanks! | |
| j-rod | belated +1 | |
| --- jds2001 has changed the topic to: FESCO-Meeting -- Free discussion around Fedora | ||
| jds2001 | anyone got anything else to add? | |
| dgilmore | cubs | |
| jds2001 | suck | |
| * dgilmore is done | ||
| bpepple | I've got nothing. | |
| * jds2001 will end the meeting in 60 | ||
| tibbs|h | Did I miss the FPC discussion? | |
| jds2001 | FPC discussion? | |
| oh, yeah - you did :) | ||
| tibbs|h | OK, I'll scroll back. | |
| bpepple | Did we discuss the FPC? | |
| jds2001 | tibbs|h: we wanted nirik to revise the proposal to use bugzilla. | |
| tibbs|h | Sorry, no, I mean the FESCo review of the FPC decisions. | |
| nirik | no, we didn't discuss the FPC report. | |
| jds2001 | oh, no, that wasn't discussed. | |
| bpepple | tibbs|h: I must have missed the summary e-mail. | |
| tibbs|h: sorry, I was swamped at work yesterday. | ||
| tibbs|h | I thought I got the summary out in time. I can't really get it out any earlier, but hopefully the move to Fridays will make that better. | |
| bpepple | tibbs|h: yeah, having our meetings on Friday should solve the problem. | |
| jds2001 | yeah, is there anything urgent in it? | |
| nirik | so we need to ratify the font splitting rules? | |
| tibbs|h | Not really. | |
| nirik | or object if we object rather. | |
| tibbs|h | It's just the font splitting rules; they can wait a week. | |
| bpepple | How about the FESCo members at FUDCon discuss it, since there should be a majority there. If I've got any objections I'll send them to the mailing list. | |
| jds2001 | sounds like a plan | |
| same for dwmw2_gone and sharkcz | ||
| * jds2001 ends the meeting in 30 | ||
| jds2001 | 15 | |
| 5 | ||
| == Meeting End == | ||
| thanks everyone! | ||
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.5 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!