--- jds2001 has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- init
jds2001FESCo meeting ping -- bpepple, dgilmore, dwmw2, jwb, notting, nirik, sharkcz, jds2001, j-rod
* notting is here
* bpepple is here.
* sharkcz here
* nirik is here.
jds2001before we get started, does anyone have objections to the mail I sent to f-devel yesterday right after the agenda?
* jwb is here
bpepplejds2001: which message was that?
nirikabout the summaries?
jds2001bpepple: saying that our "shared minutes" thing has devolved into failure.
bpepplejds2001: agreed (noting that I was the one the dropped the ball last week).
nottingi would agree. the idea could work, but it wasn't clear to me from week to week whose turn it was
jds2001I hate signing up for more work, but it's not *that* much more work.
--- jds2001 has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting - agenda at https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/report/9 - Tickets
jds2001.fesco 118
zodbotjds2001: #118 (Asking for sponsoring status (+ provenpackager): mmaslano) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/118
jds2001so this was quite...interesting.
jds2001so i guess we should split it into 2
and discuss guidelines for each, which we may need to finally write down.
so let's do provenpackager first
nottingthis is what lead to patrice writing up some approval guidelines?
jds2001oh, i missed it on f-devel
* jwb is now not here (phone call)
j-rod is now not not here
jds2001j-rod: :D
* dgilmore is here
notting is +1 on mmaslano for provenpackager
jds2001OK, I see five +1's, so we've approved mmaslano's request for provenpackager.  I'll add her after the meeting.
Now on to the more contentious - sponsor.
* nirik re-reads the emails
bpeppleRalf had some concerns about not having done many package reviews didn't he.
jds2001yeah, I think so.
* jds2001 digs up the thread too
nirikyeah. They have done 66 reviews, mostly merge reviews.
* nirik checks his eyes. ok, not mostly, but some merge reviews.
bpepplePatrice also had some concerns about mmaslano being able to guide the sponsoree to do the best choices in packaging and reviewing.
jds2001yeah, i saw that number too.  Ralf had a concern of quality, and it being too much too fast.
and that to.
* nirik is on the fence. Either a cautious +1, or a "come back in a month or two with more experence", not sure which. ;)
jds2001as j-rod mentioned last week, a cautious +1 should likely be a -1, come back in a month or so.
bpepplenirik: yeah, I'm also not really sure.  If anything I guess I'm in the come back in a month or so.
jds2001: agreed.
* jds2001 too
j-rodcrystal ball says: ask again later
j-rodflex your newfound provenpackager power a bit first
* dgilmore says ask again later
jds2001-1, come back in a month or two.
dgilmore, j-rod: do I take those as -1?
bpepple-1 here also.
* notting was leaning +1. although i don't think that can carry now in any case
jds2001anyone else?
dgilmorejds2001: yes
jds2001so far I see 2 +1, and 4 -1.
nirik: was your vote -1 from "yeah"?
* jds2001 didnt count that
niriksorry, phone call. Yeah, I am ok with -1 for now, and revisit in a month or so.
OK, so I see five -1's, so we've declined marcelas sponsor request. I will add her to provenpackager after the meeting though.
jds2001.fesco 125
zodbotjds2001: #125 (New sponsor request - kasal) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/125
bpepplethis was the request that was a pre-emptive for any changes we make to provenpackager wasn't it?
jds2001yeah, if i recall
* jds2001 looking
jds2001and answering questions about autotools, etc.
nirikyeah, but they can do that now just fine.
jds2001yeah, i fail to see what becoming a sponsor would do for that.
dgilmorei think +1 to provenpackager and -1 to sponsor
jds2001.fasinfo kasal
zodbotjds2001: User: kasal, Name: Štěpán Kasal, email: skasal@redhat.com, Creation: 2007-03-26, IRC Nick: kasal, Timezone: Europe/Prague, Locale: en, Extension: 5101401, GPG key ID: 05909B88
jds2001: Approved Groups: cla_done fedorabugs packager cvsl10n cla_redhat cla_fedora cvsspecspo ols provenpackager
jds2001: Unapproved Groups: None
nirikthey are already provenpackager. ;)
dgilmorehe is already provenpackager
nirik-1 to sponsor from me. If they would like to start doing more reviews and sponsoring new contibutors, come back and we will revisit.
dgilmore-1 to sponsor.  he indicated that he did not really wantto sponsor people
jds2001-1 here too
j-rod-1 as well
notting-1, but not based on his body of work (which is fine)
jds2001i see seven -1's, so we've declined kasal's request.
jds2001.fesco 113
zodbotjds2001: #113 (wanna-be provenpackager - caolanm) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/113
bpepplebelated -1 (kasal) here also.
nirik+1 to caolanm
bpepple+1 to caolanm
jds2001i see six +1's, so we've approved caolanm's request.
jds2001ok, seven :)
jds2001.fesco 127
zodbotjds2001: #127 (Request provenpackager - stahnma) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/127
nirik+1 stahnma
jds2001i see six +1's, so we've approved stahnma's request. I'll add him after the meeting
let's do the only non-ACL thing next
jds2001.fesco 129
zodbotjds2001: #129 (FPC report - 2009-03-31) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/129
* jds2001 steps away for a sec
nirikthe second of those seems to be missing content.
nirikHere are the contents of a sample .desktop file (comical.desktop): (nothing)
jds2001oh, that's on the guidelines page already
nirikoh, it's just a change to an existing doc
jds2001thought one question i have
dgilmore+1 to both
jds2001is why would anyone do this in a spec file
nirik+1 to both.
jds2001rather than as a SourceX:
sharkcz+1 to both
jds2001doesnt incredibly matter, but just wondering.
notting+1 to both
nirikI guess to have less files to deal with? ie, if you unpack it somewhere you just have the spec and don't need to cp around the .desktop?
bpepple+1 to both.
jds2001i see six +1's, so we've approved both FPC proposals.
jds2001.fesco 10
zodbotjds2001: #10 (Review list of non-provenpackager committable packages) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/10
jds2001I think the exception requested here was initscripts
* jds2001 reads the ticket to see if there were others.
nirikI would like to move we don't open things until next week at least... to give time for people to see the missing meeting summaries and comment before it happens.
dwmw2makes sense. there's no massive rush
jds2001seems reasonable.
dwmw2I'm disinclined to approve initscripts
having waited for months to get a simple fix for ifcfg-foo applied :)
the world won't end if provenpackers can commit to it
* notting has had bad history with people committing broken patches to it, and having to clean it up
jds2001notting has a point that changes to that should be upstream, but I agree the world won't end if they're upstream in a bit.
dwmw2giving provenpackager access doesn't mean that we have to encourage people to _use_ it
notting... then... what's the point?
jds2001exactly. and we're all human.
I broke fp.o DNS last night. Should I no longer work on infrastructure stuff since I messed up?
or learn from my mistakes and move on?
dgilmorejds2001: being a cards fan is punishment enough
bpepplejds2001: just beaten severely. ;)
jds2001dgilmore: :)
nottingmaybe i'm confused. i thought the point of provenpackager wasn't patching upstream; it was making things builds, fixing dependencies, etc.
sharkczI have heard an opinion that rawhide should be open to all and only releases should work with ACL
jds2001i would be disinclined to put a non-emergency patch in anything
(like X won't build without this patch)
sharkcz: aiui, only the maintainer can submit an update in bodhi.
lmacken: is that still true?
nottingergo, i'm not understanding dwmw2's reasoning - hell, i've waited for years for various kernel interfaces to not be crap, but it doesn't mean i should have write access to directly add patches to linus's tree
sharkczjds2001: but rawhide updates doesn't go thru bodhi
jds2001sharkcz: right, i was just saying that would be de facto how it is.
how you were suggesting.
nirikok, so where are we here...
jds2001good question :)
* jds2001 got distracted by someone at my desk :D
nirikI guess it depends on if we want to grant exceptions for sensitive packages which have a history of bad commits being done? or ?
jds2001that's something of a slippery slope.
though I guess if history needs to be one of the indicators, then I'm fine with it.
* jds2001 doesnt expect a flood of commits starting next week or anything, either :)
nirikon the one hand I doubt there would be any non maintainer commits to it... on the other if we open it there well could be.
dwmw2I agree that it's a slippery slope
nottingi'll be fine with whatever is voted - i'll obviously recuse myself from this particular one. i just found dwmw2's reason specios. especially since he had arch maintainer status already and could have committed if he felt that strongly about that reason, but didn't :P
dwmw2I'm inclined to concede that it's necessary for firefox and thunderbird, and deny just about anything else
notting: actually I don't. ppc isn't secondary yet :)
and last time I waited for ages was a long time ago, anyway
it was just an example of when it would have been useful
nirikdo we need to vote on initscripts now? or just defer? I'm fine either way.
* jds2001 would like a vote on all of these today if possible,
nottingbut i can live with it. the situations where i've had to clean up broken stuff in the past isn't likely to reoccur the same way in fedora in any case
j-rodwho *does* have commit access to initscripts if its !provenpackager ?
jds2001.whoowns initscripts
zodbotjds2001: notting
jds2001and seocndary arch folks
nottingj-rod: maintainer, co-maintainer, secondary arch teams, cvsadmin
jds2001and cvsadmin
and agk, mitr, harald
jds2001yeah, i need to hack something into supybot-fedora to tell me comaintainers :D
* dwmw2 votes -1 to all applications except the ff/tb/xulrunner one
nirikI'm inclined to say -1, and if provenpackagers commit broken stuff we deal with them, or it more then.
jds2001yeah, -1 here too
* sharkcz agrees with dwmw2
nottingare we voting per-request?
niriklets do them one at a time? or ?
dwmw2notting: we can do them one at a time.
jds2001i have it split up that way.
* notting abstains from initscripts vote
jds2001i see four -1's, and one abstention, so we've declined closed ACL's on initscripts.
dgilmoreim inclined to say +1 to initscripts
bpepple-1 here also.
dgilmorejust because if you get it wrong lonts of machines might not boot
nirikdgilmore: yeah, but also the case with tons of other packages.
dwmw2I bet I can fuck up _any_ package to the extent that it'll prevent the machine booting  :)
dgilmorenirik: sure.  bootloaders, kernel etc
nottingis kernel still closed?
j-rod0 for me
dgilmoredwmw2: but your a special case
nirikdwmw2: indeed.
jds2001notting: they didnt request it be closed.
dgilmorethere is a reson we put you in a white padded room ;)
* nirik suspects there may be more requests when people read the meeting summaries.
jds2001and i dont think the kernel guys are in favor of it being closed anwyways.
bpeppleI think davej has stated that he didn't want the kernel open, but I could be wrong.
jds2001did he?
dwmw2nah. When they see we told them all to piss off, they won't bother asking
bpepplejds2001: I thought so, but my memory could be faulty on that.
dwmw2remember, just because a provenpackager _can_ commit, that doesn't mean they _should_
Perhaps we should make it clearer that this is not intended to signal a free-for-all.
bpeppledwmw2: agreed.
dwmw2that people should still be wary of touching others' packages, and should never do it without consulting
jds2001i think that's already covered in policy.
dwmw2I know, but I think the people who are wanting to close their packages may be losing sight of it (or be concerned that others are)
nottingwhat's the next request?
bpepplewouldn't hurt to reiterate that point in the meeting summary just to remind folks.
dwmw2provenpackagers who commit to other packages without even _trying_ to coordinate with the owner should expect censure
jds2001sure thing.
* jds2001 next.
jds2001.fesco 121
zodbotjds2001: #121 (Keep popt and ethtool non-provenpackager committable) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/121
jds2001-1, there's lots of other things that could break. Just because a lot of stuff requires it doesn't mean anything, really.
jds2001i see eight -1's, so we've declined popt and ethtool
jds2001.fesco 124
zodbotjds2001: #124 (Re: Packages with closed ACL's - LVM related items) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/124
jds2001-1, same as before.
jds2001i see six -1's, so we've declined this request.
jds2001.fesco 128
zodbotjds2001: #128 (Firefox/Thunderbird/XULRunner closed ACL's) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/128
jds2001+1, legal reasons.
notting+1 for mofoco things
nirik+1 I guess. ;(
jds2001i see six +1
's, so we've approved this request
jds2001.fesco 122
zodbotjds2001: #122 (keep closed ACLs for hwdata package) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/122
jds2001-1, caveat that it shouldn't be touched, we don't want to diverge from the canonical list.
nirikI have problems picturing why a provenpackager would touch this package...
dgilmore-1, if someone does touch it they should make sure to get there changes upstream
nirik-1 in any case
nottingnirik: right. it can't possibly be broken in a way that provenpackager would need to touch it
but -1, in that also if a provenpackager did touch it, they couldn't possibly break other software
bpepple-1 here also.
jds2001i see six -1's, so we've declined this request.
That's all I've got.
--- jds2001 has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- Open Floor
jds2001anyone got anything else?
nirikdo we want to approve patrices changes to the wiki: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-April/msg00067.html ?
jds2001sure, I've got no problems with them.
bpeppleI'm fine with what Patrice came up with.
nottingyeah, they looked good
nirikyeah, I liked them too.
jds2001i see five +1's, so we've approved patrice's wiki changes, for whatever that's worth (it *is* a wiki after all :) )
* nirik had nothing else. close meeting early? :)
jds2001sounds good.
* jds2001 closes the meeting in 30
* jds2001 closes the meeting in 15
jds2001-- MEETING END --

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.5 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!