--- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- Meeting rules at http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Development/Schedule/MeetingGuidelines -- Init process
* j-rod here
* j-rod about to start stuffing face, at which point typing will be harder
bpeppleFESCo meeting ping -- bpepple, dgilmore, dwmw2, jwb, notting, nirik, sharkcz, jds2001, j-rod
Hi everybody; who's around?
* nirik is here.
* sharkcz here
rwmjones_going to discuss feature readiness tonight?
bpeppleI believe jds2001 & notting are going to arrive late.
rwmjones: I believe that's on the agenda.
* jwb is here
bpeppleok, while we wait for folks to show up, we can probably start review the FPC items.
bpepple.fesco 99
zodbotbpepple: #99 (Review FPC items) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/99
* notting is here now
bpeppleLooks like there are two items from FPC:
* bpepple doesn't have any objections to either item.
nottingboth look fine to me
sharkczboth are fine to me
nirikfine with both of those here.
bpeppleok, I don't see any objections so we're fine with the FPC items.
aright, I don't see any feature items on the agenda, but I believe there are some features we need to look at, aren't there?
nottingthe rpm agenda item could be considered a feature
bpepplenotting: ok, let me pull that up.
.fesco 97
zodbotbpepple: #97 (rpm 4.7 in Fedora 11) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/97
bpepplenotting: are they planning on writing a feature page for this?
f13if they have to, they will
ddumasyes, i'll do a page
f13from releng, I'd really like to see this in, but I'd like some assurance that it'll leave beta and hit final release prior to the Fedora 11 devel freeze
jwbhas the rpm team done any sort of mass rebuilds with it?
ddumastheir schedule calls for final by May 1, devel freeze is apr 14
can pull it in
caveat is that if a truly awful problem shows up, fallback is revert to 4.6
f13and then rpm grows an epoch.  It's like meta!
jwbf13, this doesn't make you hesitate at all, being so close to Beta?
and after the mass rebuild?
f13jwb: not really.  I think its mostly userspace improvements not so much build side
f13and the idea was that if approved, the build goes into rawhide today
nottingjwb: according to pan on the mailing list, the one change that could break builds (checking for binaries in noarch packages) was already in the rpm used for the mass rebuild
f13which gives us a number of days before the freeze and after the freeze to back it out.
jwbf13, have you done any test composes with it?
nirikthis would NOT include lzma right?
jwbnirik, believe that is correct
spotnirik: yeah, we would not be enabling lzma format with this
* nirik doesn't think we need yet another incompatible rpm format change right now.
f13jwb: I haven't seen a build of it yet
nottingnirik: well, the support is there. but given that's it's an incompatible change for now, we don't have to use it
Panuno lzma, there isn't new enough lzma in rawhide anyway
ffesti_the lzma version needed is not even in Fedora
f13jwb: but that'll be one of the first things I'll do
nirikright. Just making sure that this wouldn't result in needing 4.7 to read rpms produced by 4.7
spotnirik: nope. we could drop back to 4.6 if needed without rebuilds
f13we can target lzma for F12 or whenver we rebuild everything again for .i686
nottingPanu: do you have anyone who really wants to use the posix file cap stuff?
nirikok, with that said I'm ok with doing it... might need a feature page tho if the improvements are end use visible, which it sounds like they are... (less mem, etc)
j-roddoes it make any sense to branch rpm in cvs now?
Panupeople from Suse and RHEL-side have shown interest in that, but whether we build with libcap support for F11 is another matter
we can just leave it out too, so it's impossible to produce incompatible packages
j-rodbuild 4.7 into raw-er-hide, test compose before throwing it at f11?
* notting is +1 for 4.7
bpepple+1 to rpm-4.7 here also.
j-rodcautiously optimistic +1
sharkcz+1 too
nirik+1 (to be less verbose)
Panuif you want to play on the safer side, I'm ok with branching in cvs now
f13j-rod: I think that's probably unncessarily complicated
f13Panu: do you have a build queued up yet?
j-rodthat's what I suspected, but wasn't sure if maybe worth it to mitigate risk
jwbcan anyone tell me any kind of testing that has happened with it?
f13j-rod: we want it built for rawhide to get testing by users, stuffing it somewhere else misses the users
Panuf13: no, but it's mostly just commit + build away
f13Panu: will you be able to do so after the meeting, so that I can try some composes with it?
Panuf13: sure
j-rodf13: stuffing it somewhere else lets a select few test it to make sure its sane before we unleash it on users though... :)
spotjwb: i've done some local abuse testing and it looks okay on my end
bpeppleok, I see five '+1', and no objections to having rpm-4.7 in F11.  So, we've approved the proposal.
f13j-rod: it'll be in koji until the rawhide compose tonight
jwbspot, consisting of?
jwbbpepple, i'm not done yet
f13j-rod: giving select few the ability to test it and untag it if necessary
jwbbpepple, though it won't change the outcome
spotjwb: building some of my more disgusting packages against it, running big yum updates
nirikthe feature page should be written up asap since it's after the deadline for the process.
nottingbpepple: the other feature thing is we owe a response to the banshee ticket
jwbspot, on sparc?
spotjwb: hahaha, no, on x86_64
Panujwb: we trash and burn rpm pretty heavily in our tests (like dist-upgrades, huge installs etc), but there's always something that no amount of local testing will get
j-rodf13: ok, so do the test compose w/it in koji, make sure composes work, and if not, untag?
f13j-rod: pretty much
j-rodok, cool
* dgilmore is here
jwbPanu, yeah, understand.  i just didn't see any sort of "hey, we really have tested this" anywhere
which was making me nervous
Panujwb: the included test suite actually does something real now - it's of course nowhere near "complete" but it's caught all sorts of breakage while developing so it's not just blind faith
jwbok.  +1
bpeppleany other questions about rpm-4.7 or should we move on?
ok, moving on then....
--- bpepple has changed the topic to: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/BansheeAsDefaultMediaplayer
* notting votes -1
bpeppleThis was a feature that the Desktop team was against.
* dgilmore is using it and finds it works better than amarok and totem
bpepple-1, since the feature doesn't have buy-in from the desktop team.
nirikI don't think we as fesco should compell a package being default without buy-in from the affected team without a really really really good reason.
nirik-1 here.
we don't have enough votes for a quorum now
nirikif it works better and is nicer, they should convince the desktop folks to use it by default.
* dgilmore is leaning towards +1
j-rodI'm leaning -1.
spotfwiw, i'm tracking the banshee bugs, and there are still quite a few.
j-roddesktop team doesn't want it, wish to respect their wishes
plus, mono
dgilmorej-rod: i agree that the desktop team should buy in which is why im not just +1
so far im finding it easiser to use and less buggy than other options
sharkczmono makes me worries too ...
abadger1999mono does drag in dependencies for the livecd spin which is negative, but dnielsen is right to say we shouldn't be second-classing apps solely because they're written in mono.
dgilmorei think what its written in should have no bearing on what goes in
nottingabadger1999: i reserve the right to be a language bigot. i'd be second classing things written in tcl too >:)
wwoodsI call bullshit
bpeppleabadger1999: I just don't see Banshee bringing that much extra to the table for the additional dependency bloat it brings.
wwoodsanything that requires its own imaginary computer to run on
is inherently second-class to something that runs on the native hardware
I mean, obviously
f13abadger1999: given that mono isn't allowed in RHEL it is a very real concern.
abadger1999I'd say... We can second class based on lack of in-house knowledge of a language.
f13: then why do we allow it in Fedora?
wwoodsthere's a difference between "allowed" and "enforced"
abadger1999I don't dispute the dependency bloat.
f13abadger1999: lawyers.
abadger1999That's a real technical problem.
f13abadger1999: apparently there is less "risk" in Fedora, but don't quote me on that.
abadger1999: and it could boil down to RHEL engineering just plain not wanting to support mono
abadger1999wwoods: I don't buy that.  A lot of languages we run don't run are interpreted
nottingreading, we have 3 -1, 2 0, one leaning -1, one leaning +1. which means it's impossible for it to pass?
wwoodsyes, and I'd suggest that FESCo should prefer solutions that run natively over things that run interpreted
dgilmoref13: thats fine for them to do
abadger1999f13: That's fine.  So that's a Fedora vs RHEL difference.  Not a technical reason to make a language second class.
dgilmoredoesnt mean we have to do the same thing
bpepplenotting: correct.  In essence we've rejected this as a feature.
f13I didn't say we do.
abadger1999wwoods: So... deluge is out and rtorrent is in?
rwmjones_I say repalce all shell scripts with ocaml
* nirik doesn't care what it's written in... forcing it on the desktop folks seems like a bad idea.
jwbnotting, yeah, that's what i said earlier
f13however it is a real consideration, technical or not.
wwoodsI am *not* suggesting that FESCo refuse, reject, or otherwise *penalize* things soley for being interpreted
abadger1999f13: it's a real consideration for Fedora?
f13abadger1999: yes, we can't simply ignore our biggest consumer
nottingcan we move on, we do have a lot of other agenda items
f13abadger1999: we're certainly not RHELs puppet, and we make our own decisions
j-rodcall me a hard -1.
f13abadger1999: but that doesn't mean we completely ignore the biggest consumer we have.
bpepplenotting: yeah, there's no reason to rehash the whole mono argument here.
wwoodsbut given a choice between otherwise similar solutions, things that run natively should be *preferred*
bpepplerwmjones: you wanted us to discuss your feature didn't you?
rwmjones_bpepple, sure
bpepplerwmjones: got a link handy?  I don't see that it was added to the agenda. :(
rwmjones_current status is here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Windows_cross_compiler#Current_status
rwmjones_I didn't necessarily want to discuss it, just show fesco that it's proceeding a a reasonable pace
bpeppleSo, there are 7 or so packages that still need to be reviewed?
rwmjones_yes, and some upstream work on portableXDR (which is, ironically, blocked on *Sun*), and change to comps-f11.xml
the comps-f11.xml change was briefly discussed on f-d-l today
nirikso we need to ack that it's not 100% and thats ok, right? since it's supposed to be at this point...
rwmjones_isn't it supposed to be at 100% by 14th April?  anyway, yes
nottingrwmjones_: i'd say please get the comps group in ASAP - AIUI, even if all the reviews aren't done, there's still enough available for the group to be meaningful?
jwbrwmjones_, it's supposed to be testable by Beta
which is next week
rwmjones_yup, there's still 33 packages going to be in F11, which includes all the major stuff.  The other 7 are nice to have, but they're just libraries.
sgallaghOn a related note, I wanted to confirm the status of SSSD as a feature. (After this discussion)
bpepplesgallagh: works for me.
f13jwb: no, its supposed to be testable by the feature freeze, which was this week
dgilmorerwmjones_: so as things get added to fedora how will a user pick up the new packages?
nirikyeah, testable now, but I guess not 100% needed yet. ;)
jwbf13, right, sorry
rwmjones_dgilmore, not sure I understand the question?
there's a core of compiler packages (about 5 in total) which went into Fedora last year
dgilmorerwmjones_: the missing packages. as they get added to fedora will a user need to take manual steps to pick them up? me is thinking yes
rwmjones_but to compile real software you also need libraries ... which libraries you need depends on the software oyu're trying to compile
so we picked ~ 30 libraries as a "good set" to have
and we've got basically 7 reviews to get done before we will have that good set
dgilmorei guess someone that needs to compile something knows what libraries they need and makes sure they have them
rwmjones_but that doesn't mean you can't compile software
dgilmoreso basically its testable but not as complete as it could be?
rwmjones_dgilmore, yes, you just yum install mingw32-foo
dgilmore, yes
it'd be nice to have Gtk for example, which we are missing two reviews before we have that
so its met the guidelines as a feature for Feature freeze
rwmjones_actually 3 reviews, mingw32-jasper, mingw32-pango and mingw32-fontconfig
dgilmoreits testable
dgilmoreI think that we should add the comps group  and tout it
* nirik thinks it seems just fine... add the comps group soonly...
rwmjones_I'll do it today
* j-rod approves this message
bpepplerwmjones: cool.  Any other questions for rwmjones otherwise we can move on.
dgilmoremake sure you add your new group to the develoment group  so it shows up in anaconda etc in the right spot
nottingi wouldn't necessarily quibble about the completion percentage, it sounds like one of those features where it's a somewhat meaningless number, once the base compiler gets in
dgilmorenotting: right.  the completeness will grow over time
rwmjones_outside fedora we have something like 50 more packages ...
* jwb looks at clock
nottingnext is sssd?
bpepplealright, if there's nothing else, let's move on to the SSSD feature update.
--- bpepple has changed the topic to: SSSD feature
bpepplesgallagh: your up.
sgallaghAs discussed on f-d-l, we are slightly behind on delivery. We were not package-reviewed by the Feature Freeze, though we fully expect to be at 100% completion and testable by the beta freeze
dgilmoresgallagh: so its not testable today?
nottingthis is the one with the commnication snafu?
bpepplenotting: correct.
sgallaghdgilmore: tied up in package revie at the moment
It will be testable as soon as the package hits Rawhide (hopefully today) and 100% feature-complete by Monday night
nirikI think due to miscommunication we owe them the chance to get it in... they were targeting the wrong date.
* notting agrees
bpepplenirik: agreed.
sharkcznirik: +1
* dgilmore agrees
bpeppleand based on sgallagh's info here it looks like it will be ready by Monday/
dgilmoreit sounds like it will be done by then
bpepplesgallagh: anything else we need to know? otherwise we can probably move on.
sgallaghbpepple: I don't believe so. Thank you very much.
bpepplesgallagh: thanks!
anything else regarding features, or should we go back to the agenda?
dgilmorelets move on
nottingbpepple: unless we go through poelcat's list of 5 features that don't appear to meet the criteria
bpepplenotting: most have missed that e-mail. let me see if I can find it real quick.
notting"Subject: F11 feature pages needing update or evaluation"
* nirik goes to grab more coffee.
bpeppleah, found it.
--- bpepple has changed the topic to: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/gcc4.4 -- stale information
nottingseems obviously in and testable
bpepplenotting: agreed.  It probably just needs the % completed updated.
jwbsomeone just edit the page
dgilmorenotting: indeed
bpepplehow many packages are still needing to be rebuilt?
* notting looks at f13
f13that' s a bit misleading
dgilmore9 of those are my sparc specific packages
f13some of those are either secondary arch specific packages, or packages that are olpc and never built for devel (but not blocked form devel)
nirikalso some are now blocked/obsoleted.
* bpepple still has 3 to fix himself.
f13and some are just mysteries, added to pkgdb and koji, but never built or checked into CVS
dgilmoref13: typos?
f13dgilmore: some may be, some are just odd
f13I've sent some mail on them to the owners, but not all of them
bpeppleok, so it looks like the page just needs to be updated, and finish fixing the outstanding packages that haven't been rebuilt.
dgilmorebut overall we are in decent shape
f13I was going to look more closely as that number is what's left after all the known failures are fixed
sharkczsome of the package are blocked by closed acls on their deps
bpepplecool, anything else about gcc4.4? or should we move on to the next item.
bpeppleok, moving on then......
--- bpepple has changed the topic to: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/IntelKMS -- docs requested by FESCo still missing
* jds2001 here, better late than never
bpeppleok, it looks like they've only had a week to get the docs completed.
nottingit's certainly testable now, so i would say it's fine for beta
* nirik is testing it even now. ;)
bpepplenotting: agreed. what sort of deadline should we give for the docs?
nottingwhen do we finalize the relnotes?
f13docs should be done prior to the string freeze
or just at string freeze, so that translators can translate them.
dgilmoreso monday
jds200117:53 < f13> I've sent so
bpeppledgilmore: hmmm, that's not good.
f13Monday is string freeze?  yikes
that doesn't seem right
bpeppleyeah, seems early.
dgilmorethats what the schedule says
f13yeah, I wonder if the release notes people realize that
dgilmoreprobably not
bpeppleif that is right, we need to see if Kristian can get it done by then.
dgilmorethats what the schedule says
so we need to try make sure its done by then
* nirik nods
dgilmorewe should send an email out today stating beta/string freeze is monday
to fedora-devel-announce
bpeppledgilmore: agreed.
dgilmoreIf people want i will do it
bpeppledgilmore: thanks!
nirikalso someone should bug Kristian specificially. ;)
bpepplenirik: agreed, you want to handle that? ;)
nirikI can mail him... I don't know if he is on irc anywhere to bug more realtime.
bpepplenirik: thanks!
alright onto the next item.
--- bpepple has changed the topic to: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/liblvm
bpeppleThis one seems to not had the % completed in awhile.
dgilmoref13: one quick question.  is this a blocking freeze?
dgilmore thought so
nottingstickster just said that the relnotes don't freeze at the normal string freeze
bpepplenotting: when do the relnotes freeze?
dgilmorewe should have that added to the schedule
notting<stickster> notting: http://poelstra.fedorapeople.org/schedules/f-11/f-11-docs-and-trans-tasks.html
(final freeze date, looks like)
* stickster points Sparks at above conversation ^^^^
bpeppleok, so based on the info Kristian doesn't need to scramble to get the docs ready by Monday, correct?
* nirik already sent mail asking him to update by monday. Oh well. ;(
jwbi have to drop for a real life meeting
sticksterSparks may disagree, but I would take 2009-04-01 as a target date for release notes completion
That's when the wiki is snapshotted for translation for F11 PR
stickster StillBob
bpepplestickster: ok, thanks for the info.
alright, so back to liblvm. It looks like the feature page needs to update the % completed. Or am I missing something else?
nottingit really needs updating, there's no way to say what's there at all
sharkczthere is nothing like liblvm in koji ...
bpepplehmm, so maybe the % completed is actually accurate then?
nirikyeah, so likely this needs to be dropped...
* dgilmore agrees
dgilmoreits not testable  punt to F-12
sharkczand nothing even in bugzilla
bpeppledgilmore: yeah, I tend to agree.  Is deepthot about?
looks like maybe its called llvm
nottingllvm is a compiler
dgilmorenever mind me
pulling at strings
shows llvm lvm2 lvm2-cluster and system-config-lvm
sharkczI was searching for "liblvm"
nottingbut yeah, +1 to punting it
bpepple+1 to punting.
jds2001  +1
ddumasliblvm - they were plannign to move page to f12 - sorry, thought that had happened
bpeppleok, that's six '+1' to pushing liblvm to F12.
ddumas: np.
alright, let's move on then...
--- bpepple has changed the topic to: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/MultiplePAMStacksInGDM
nottinghalfline: ?
* nirik saw code land on that.
bpeppleI believe poelcat flagged this feature since it's missing docs.
jds2001so same thing, give them more time for docs?
nottingworks for me
bpepplejds2001: I believe so.
* jds2001 sorry, got to the office and my deks was occupied by a very talkative person from out of town :)
bpepplealright, onto the last feature item then....
--- bpepple has changed the topic to: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/SystemtapStaticProbes
mjwHi,  feature owner here. We are at 30% atm (but the most important package that everything else depends on is in).
bpeppleis this feature testable?
mjwMy fault, I mis-advised the team about the 100% goal date, thinking it was April 14th.
We have a TODO list (7 items roughly 10% each) that we will hit before that date (given cooperation by affected package maintainers).
mjw mjung
bpepplemjw: I believe it doesn't need to be 100%, just in a testable state for the Beta.
mjwIn our defense we did make a video showing how cool the feature is and how to test it (if you rebuild your own package...)
jds2001if i can do that today, we're all good.
mjwBut yeah, there are still a couple of package patches to push. We really missed the fact it should have been ready and testable today.
We would have pushed a bit more aggressively if we had know earlier. Sorry about that.
bpeppleare any of the packages in a testable state?  If not, we should probably push this to F12.
mjwIt is testable if you build your own package. The main systemtap-sdt-devel package is in. But none of the packages depending on it have been patched and build in the repo yet. Only on our own test machines.
jds2001so you mean like postgres, etc? The targets of the probes?
nottingcan we get one or two in by beta, if the patches are already odne?
mjwSo, not testable for people not doing packaging themselves atm.
Yes, we expect to have those 5 listed done before beta.
jds2001just to be clear, that's tuesday, right?
tuesday is beta freeze.
mjwO, then I guess not.
sigh. This was really pilot error. We misinterpreted the deadline date.
* dgilmore viotes that it gets punted to F12
jds2001that's OK, sounds liek a great feature for F12 :)
bpeppleyeah, sorta sucks, but I think we need to kick it to F12.
jds2001but continue the work and it should be really easy for F12 :D
dgilmore+1  to punting to F-12
mjwyeah, ok, we definitely will try to get more work done. We have most of the patches ready.
j-rod+1 -> f12
bpepplealright, so I see six "+1", and one "0" to pushing this feature to F12.
anyone have anything else to add, or should we move on....
ok, I believe that is everything regarding Features (finally).
jds2001: you want to take over?
LetoToI had added DNSSEC as feature?
in trac?
jds2001bpepple: if you want me to, I was just gonna go grab a cup of coffee :D
bpeppleLetoTo: must not have had the meeting tag so I didn't pick it up. :( One moment, and I grab it.
jds2001and I'm not rightly sure we're we're at.
bpepple.fesco 98
zodbotbpepple: #98 (DNS maintainers would like input from Fesco on enabling DNSSEC for recursors for F-11) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/98
bpepplejds2001: np, I continue to lead, I didn't want to step on you toes as Chair. ;)
nottinghow could this break end-user installs , and if it does, how would the user know and be able to fix it?
jds2001np :)
LetoToit has no relation to enduser installs
only those who are installing a recursive nameserver specifically
For f-12 I'll go break enduser installs with it :)
nirikso this is pretty much all in, just needs the switch flipped.
(aside from the NM support I guess)
jds2001so how doees it break nameservers?
LetoToand system-config-dnssec
it could fail to start if dnssec key files are referenced but missing
(should not happen based on rpm dependancies)
or it could break if we screw up dnssec keys and the user/nameserver could not do key updates
nirikand if this causes widespread issues in beta we could disable again easily?
LetoTobut key updates happen via RFC5011 (autotrust package) and fedora updates
/etc/sysconfig/bind with DNSSEC=yes|no
(same for /etc/sysconfig/unbound)
LetoTodue to DLV possible containing old keys put in my people, I prefer to leave that disabled for now
nirikusers can enable it if they want tho right, all the support is there?
LetoTo(DLV is for putting subdomain.com DNSSEC keys in a special registry, as long as .com is unsigned)
via above mentioned settings, and via dnssec-conf package manually
(commandline only. still working on system-config-dnssec. core is there, packaging needs some work)
nirikwhat old keys are in DLV? just things people haven't touched in too long? or broken because implementation changed?
LetoTopeople who got interested in DLV a year ago, put in their key, then 6 months later re-did their DNS, dropped the key from the zone
if we then use DLV, we claim they're being spoofed :)
nirikah, I see. Thats anoying. ;(
LetoToI'll contact Paul Vixie to do a health check on the DLC contents
and after talking to him decide on enabling it per default later on (Prob F-12)
* nirik would love to see DLV, as .com/net are so slow to move.
nirikanyhow, I am +1 for the feature...
LetoToit's still simply changing DLV=dlv.isc.org in /etc/sysconfig/bind|unbound
notting+1 from me
bpepple+1 here also.
bpepplealright, that's 6 '+1', and no objections, so we've approved DNSSEC.
LetoTo(+1 if I'm allowed to vote too :)
bpepplealright, we've got about 10 minutes left.  What items do we *have* to cover today? provenpackager reseed?
* nirik would like to get that out of the way finally. it's been stalled so long.
bpepplenirik: I agree.  Is abadger1999 around?
bpepple.fesco 70
zodbotbpepple: #70 (provenpackager guidelines & reseed) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/70
nirikso I posted to the list 3 proposals on who will add people to the new provenpackager group.
the only one who commented on the list was abadger1999. ;)
bpeppletruthfully, I just want this finished. we've been dragging our feet on this for a couple of months now.
* jds2001 rules out FESCo as an approval board for that - I don't think we need to be involved there unless it becomes a problem.
notting likes provenpackager sponsors == packager sponsors
jds2001I am in favor of FESCo having power to remove, though
nirikI don't care too much which solution it is. Any of the ones I proposed is fine with me.
* jds2001 agrees with notting
bpepplenotting: +1
sharkcznotting: +1
bpepplethough, I wonder why we even need the provenpackager sponsors group then.
dgilmorenotting: +1
abadger1999f13: Does that sound good or too broad?
* jds2001 agreed at FUDCon to draft up a mail. If I know what to draft I can pound out something this weekend.
f13I don't think so.
nirikbpepple: what do you mean?
f13doesn't seem to broad
bpeppleif packagers sponsors == provenpackager sponsors, why even have the provenpackager sponsors group?
nirikrsc_ didn't like it, as it only requires one person to approve into prorovenpackagerer.
jds2001provenpackager sponsors needn't exist
just admins
bpeppleah ok.
nirikdue to the way fas groups work, I think we would have to sync them... abadger1999 ?
jds2001for the initial seed, yeah
j-rodnew sponsors are vetted through the sponsors list, then voted on here
why not just do the same thing for provenpackager?
jds2001but after that, when i approve someone in packager for sponsor, i do the same in provenpackager.
nirikj-rod: that was option B
abadger1999nirik: yea, I don't think I have any code that does that off-hand but I could write some.
jds2001abadger1999: what code?
abadger1999Or FESCo could approve someone as a sponsor of both provenpackager and pakcager when they approve a sponsor
jds2001abadger1999: that's what I was thinking.
sharkczabadger1999: is some group ownership (or access to) of package possible?
j-rodnirik: is it?
abadger1999sharkcz: not at this time.  It's on the wishlist but that's a mile long.
j-rodI guess its implied that new folks are voted on by the list before fesco votes
sharkczabadger1999: because that could solve some of the cases where people ask for provenpackager ...
abadger1999sharkcz: <nod>  I'll gladly accept patches for that ;-)
nirikj-rod: thats option B, others are liking option C, which just needs anyone in provenpackager sponsors to approve them.
jds2001i think j-rod was talking sponsor votes, but im not sure.
i.e. packager sponsors
abadger1999groups as owners is a change that touches a lot of code... good to achieve but will be painful to implement.
j-rodyeah, I was meaning 'first the name is floated on the sponsors list, folks give their input there, then fesco votes, guided by the input from the sponsors list'
jds2001j-rod: that's sounding like B
nirikj-rod: I see that as option B of my choices.
j-rodso if on the sponsors list, there was 2 +1 and 5 -1, we'd vote no
jds2001I'm not opposed to any of the choices :)
nirikoption C has anyone in the sponsors list for provenpackager to see the request and approve them.
jds2001option A seems a little heavy-handed, though.
j-rodthe sponsors giving +/- feedback part wasn't spelled out
* notting would be ok with B as well
j-rodC seems slightly lax
nirikjds2001: yeah, it's a much smaller pool of people is why I suggested it.
j-rodwith C, I'd say "needs to be seconded by another sponsor" or something
nirikhow about we approve B and revisit if we get too many requests, etc?
jds2001yeah, that's hard/impossible to do in FAS as it exists.
sounds good to me
+1 to option B
nirik+1 for B?
j-rod+1 for B
bpepplenirik: +1 (just so we can resolve this)
* nirik nods.
sharkczok, +1 for B
bpeppleok, so I see six '+1' for option B.
* jds2001 will draft and circulate mail tonight/tomorrow.
nirikhurray. So, we wipe provenpackager, populate it with packager sponsors as sponsors (fesco folks as admins?) and then moving foward people are commented on by sponsors and fesco votes on them at meetings?
jds2001we wipe provenpackager, fesco becomes admins
jds2001everyone else is user
jds2001and we discuss on packager-sponsors
nirikah, right, sorry... brain disconnect with typing. ;)
nottingwell, we wipe it and populate it with the sponsors as users, yes?
* nirik predicts there will be a pretty big pile of requests at first... but we will see.
bpepplejds2001: phew, I though you were saying we were only going to populate it with FESCo. ;)
jds2001yeah, im sure there will be.
jds2001bpepple: nah, I'm not a glutton for that much punishment :D
abadger1999You guys want to announce before I do this?
We're going into an infrastructure freeze for the beta on Tuesday.
jds2001yeah, I'll draft something tonight/tomorrow
abadger1999So I'd love to do it... today.
jds2001lets do it monday if we can.
jds2001or over the weekends.
nirikdo we also want to mail provenpackager-members and note why they could be dropped out?
jds2001er weekend.
bpepplealright, anything else about provenpackagers?
if not, I think we can 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!