--- jds2001 has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- init
jds2001FESCo meeting ping -- bpepple, dgilmore, dwmw2, jwb, notting, nirik, sharkcz, jds2001, j-rod
* bpepple is here.
* sharkcz is here
jds2001 really hopes we have quorum this week :)
* nirik is here.
bpeppleyeah, hard to say if we will or not.
jds2001well, jwb was around, so we should have if he shows up here :)
jwb: ping
--- jds2001 has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting - agenda at https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/report/9 - Tickets
jds2001.fesco 130
zodbotjds2001: #130 (Request to become sponsor: rjones) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/130
* rwmjones here
bpepple+1 here.
bpeppleI think notting also gave a +1 on the list.
nirik+1 from me as well.
jds2001bpepple: i didnt see that, but there's 5 +1's anyhow, so we've approved the request
jds2001.fasinfo rjones
zodbotjds2001: User: rjones, Name: Richard W.M. Jones, email: rjones@redhat.com, Creation: 2007-05-03, IRC Nick: , Timezone: Europe/London, Locale: en, Extension: 5101606, GPG key ID: 42E996DA, Status: active
jds2001: Approved Groups: cla_done fedorabugs packager cla_redhat cla_fedora gitautobuildrequires
jds2001: Unapproved Groups: None
jds2001ok, I'll add him to provenpackager and upgrade him in packager after the meeting.
rwmjones: congrats :)
nirikcongrats rwmjones. Use your powers wisely. ;)
rwmjonesok, of course :-)
sharkczjds2001: rwmjones  was asking for sponsor status
jds2001sharkcz: yeah, part of that is provenpackager.
rwmjonesyeah, I just want to sponsor kalev
nirikand hopefully more folks down the road too. ;)
jds2001anyhow, moving on....
the next two are related to ACL opening stuff.
jds2001.fesco 10
.fesco 124
zodbotjds2001: #10 (Review list of non-provenpackager committable packages) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/10
jds2001: #124 (Re: Packages with closed ACL's - LVM related items) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/124
jds2001oops, i missed one on the agenda
the gdal one
nirikwe owe more answers to the lvm folks I think...
jds2001yeah, that's why I wanted to discuss it here.
so the threat assessment that mmcgrath provided was pretty good.
* jds2001 not convinced that shouldn't be made public.
jwbi'm curious how many emails mmcgrath got
nirikyeah. I have been thinking it over, but haven't come up with any grand redesigns of our current system based on it yet.
jds2001mmcgrath: ping
mmcgrathjds2001: pong
nirikI think we may want to try and get as many of us together as we can at a fudcon and see if we can come up with a better setup... and until then use what we have and try and improve it where we can.
mmcgrathwhats up party people?
jwbmmcgrath, how many emails did you get in regards to your smolt change?
jwbover what duration?
* mmcgrath looks.
mmcgrathIt'll be a month on monday.
nirikthe volume is just too high for there to be too much scrutiny. I glance over things, but if I am low on time thats about it.
jwbmmcgrath, ok thanks
jds2001however, the smolt owner would get it.
jds2001if I get cvs commit mail I'm not expecting, you better believe I'd say something.
nirikunless the cvs commit thing was used/still there.
jwbjds2001, that isn't the problem
it's one of the other vectors that is
jds2001yeah, that's one hole I don't like.
nirikyou will get however a build notification from koji, even if the commit is bypassed.
jwbnirik, that still relies on someone noticing before it hits a repo
which may or may not happen
thinking of vacations, etc
nirikindeed. For rawhide that could be a very short window too.
jwbhowever, none of this is new
nirikno, its all stuff we know...
jwbi think the lack of response does show something we might want to focus on a bit more though
* nirik isn't sure what to do about it in the current setup. More co-maintainers for everything would help.
jds2001how would that help the smolt case?
nirikco-maintainers would get commits/build/update notices and be able to see what changed?
jwbreally, this is just a small part of a bigger review that needs to happen
because nobody audits for pkg guideline adherence either
nirikagreed. If we had a low review queue, some of those folks could re-review packages, but we sure don't. ;(
jwbyep.  it's a problem that we don't have enough people to scale to
has been for a while now
* nirik nods.
jwbalso, no single group seems to want to own such an item
FPC says it's outside of their scope
nirikSome more automated qa could help, but it's hard to get setup for.
jwbwe have a package review SIG, correct?
bpepplejwb: sorta.
jwbbpepple, does it consist mostly of you and tibbs?
bpepplenot really active or terribly organized.
yeah, more tibbs than me lately.
tibbsI have not been successful at getting people interested in a SIG.
My career as a motivational speaker is doomed.
bpepplehopefull,y once work slows down I can help out more.
tibbsWe're still getting reviews done; it's just that there's not much interest in actually organizing that effort.
jwbit's not the new reviews i'm poking at
jwbbut anyway, i think we need to think a bit on this issue.  we've sort of gone on a tangent now from the agenda and i don't want to spend huge amounts of time on this at the moment...
jds2001so as for the specific questions
there has been a threat assessment conducted.
as far the the "not giving out distro-wide access to accounts that don't need it"
we've taken care of that with the reseed, everyone has been vetted by humans that's in that group.
as for 2
i'm not sure where to go on that.
nirikon the one hand, I see the lvm folks point... if provenpackagers (pp) are unlikely to ever touch their packages, why give them access. On the other, it's an exception that would allow for tons more on that basis, and could push the line back to most things closed.
jds2001right, that's a path that I don't want to go down.
nor do I think anyone else does.
bpeppleyeah, and I
nirikI think the idea of a sign off is interesting, but would slow down things, perhaps to a level fedora maintainers are unwilling to deal with.
jds2001so is that where we stand?
* jds2001 assumes there is no dissent? (since that was specifically asked)
jwb(speaking for me anyway)
* bpepple also doesn't dissent.
* nirik has no dissent. If they still object, we could invite them to a meeting to do a more interactive discussion I guess.
sharkcz doesn't dissent
jds2001alright, one more item....should we publish the threat assessment?
niriknote that I have no idea if we are unanimous... since there are only 5 of us here and thats not all fesco.
jds2001nirik: right.
I'll just frame it as "all members present"
or maybe send something to the list.
jwbwhy do i sense a fudcon-ish response
* jwb ducks from bpepple
bpepplejwb: ;)
nirikI don't know if I care about publishing... It might cause some people to come up with a better solution or ideas on how to improve the current setup.
jwbso the way i look at it is this
nirikon the other hand, it might give bad people bad ideas (which they likely already had)
jds2001yeah, none of this is exactly top-secret :)
jwbthe people that are going to exploit these scenarios can easily figure them out on their own.  not publishing it isn't going to magically prevent it
in fact, publishing it might prompt others to add to it
jwbit's possible that someone out there will find something mmcgrath didn't
(unlikely, but possible)
* nirik nods.
jds2001and it lets people know that we do actually think about and read these things :)
jwbyes :)
jds2001next question is where and how, but I'll talk with mmcgrath about that.
bpeppleIs there any harm waiting until next week?  Since I believe all the RH members of FESCo haven't had a chance to weigh-in.
jds2001no objection here.
nirikbpepple: probibly a good idea. I see no hurry in publishing.
bpeppleyeah, I don't see a reason to rush this, since it's not pressing.
jds2001alrighty, I'll make a note to follow up next week.
nirikso are we ready to open the rest of the provenpackager closed packages then?
jds2001I see no reason not to.
let's exclude the LVM stuff for now.
* bpepple is fine with that.
jds2001i see no rush in it, and since they're not in agreement, i generally dont like doing things against their will.
sharkcz+1 to opening with lvm excluded
jwb: ?
jds2001awesome, I'll ask abadger1999 to do that later.
now for some quick features that didn't make it in F11 but were approved then deferred.
jds2001.fesco 38
zodbotjds2001: #38 (DebugInfoFS - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/DebuginfoFS) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/38
jds2001wwoods: you around by chance?
nirik+1 from me. Sorry it didn't make f11, but should be nice in f12. ;)
* jds2001 was wondering what the implementation holdup was.
jds2001but +1 at any rate.
bpepple+1 here.
nirikI think it was just ENOTIME... need to get server setup and tested, etc.
bpeppleDoes it seem a bit early to be approving F12 features to anyone else?
jds2001ahh, yes :(
nirikbpepple: well, if we do the ones that are ready now, it's less to do later, no?
jds2001bpepple: there's early branching now
jds2001so not really :)
bpeppleI just wondered if it took away any of the promotional attention from F11 is all.
jds2001nah, press and stuff is still concentrating on F11
bpeppleso, we have 4 votes for this feature?
* jds2001 counts 3
jds2001oh, four
* jds2001 can't count apparently :D
jds2001jwb: ?
jwbsorry, distracted
DebugInfoFS +1
ok, we've approved DebuginfoFS...
jds2001.fesco 41
zodbotjds2001: #41 (SsytemTap Static Probes - http://tinyurl.com/btqjno) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/41
jds2001+1 here, this should be almost done I think.
jds2001we've approved stap static probes.
jds2001.fesco 64
zodbotjds2001: #64 (liblvm - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/liblvm) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/64
nirikso this means more changes in anaconda storage? or those should be done in the current re-write?
jds2001not sure.
anaconda currently calls the normal LVM tools, I think
nirikit would be nice to have a cycle to just try and bugfix/stabalize anaconda... but I guess thats up to them...
* nirik also wonders if this is a feature... it does look cool, but it's not very user facing. Is it something we want to trumpet?
sharkczdidn't we ask to make it a part of the storage rewrite?
* jds2001 not sure if this came up at the original meeting or not, but I'm sure it did.
jds2001that made no sense :D
nirikalso hasn't been updated in a while. Perhaps ask owner for more info on these questions and defer?
jds2001actually it didnt come up
this was one of the meetings i missed.
but yeah, we can defer.
jds2001.fesco 132
zodbotjds2001: #132 (Multiseat - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Multiseat) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/132
jds2001so i couldnt find an old ticket for this one.
but I distinctly remember approving it earlier
+1, would be awesome.
nirik+1, hope it makes it.
jds2001alright, I see five +1's, so we've approved multiseat
jds2001.fesco 133
zodbotjds2001: #133 (Dracut - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Dracut) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/133
jwbwe need to ask davej about this one
or one of the kernel guys
* jds2001 hasnt even looked at it yet, and didnt rembmer it.
jds2001 looks
jds2001oh yeah, i remember now.
* jwb tries to get davej
jwbkylem, we're talking about the dracut feature
or trying to decide if it's really going to be a feature anyway
jwbsince davej and notting aren't around, curious if you have knowledge on whether that's a good idea or not
kylemah, no, sorry, from the kernel pov all that's really needed is a changing how the mkinitrd dependency works though, afaik.
jwbok thanks
jds2001, might want to defer this one until notting and davej are around
nirikwe may want to ask this land pretty early in f12... so it can get lots of testing... mkinird/nash has to deal with some weird setups.
jds2001yeah, we can defer this til ppl are around.
that's all I had for tickets, but I got two other things in email.
so Ralf wants us to order that the the Xorg maintainers make c-a-bs work again.
nirikthere is also https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/116 (can wait until after the email stuff)
* jds2001 thinks he needs to lobby upstream, not us.
jds2001nirik: oops, yeah
nirikI think micro managing maintainers on an issue like this should only be done in the most grave and extreme cases, and I don't think this is one. -1 from me.
jwbif there wasn't an option to change it from the default i might have considered.  but there is.  -1
jds2001-1 here too
* sharkcz agrees with jwb => -1
nirikthere are a number of options... the xorg.conf and now the keyboard settings to just enable/disable on the fly.
bpepplestrong -1.
jds2001so moving on....
jds2001Patrice wanted us to approve the new provenpackager policy with changes, but i thought we did that last week.
did i miss it in the summary?
it's also noted that there's a lack of clear ownership of the policy pages in the package maintainer category.
nirikyeah, I thought we approved it... or at least no one had objections.
bpeppleyeah, we approved it last week.
jds2001I have watches on some of them, but certaintly not all.
nirikI think fesco should own/manage/cleanup those, but I don't want to be the one to do it. ;)
bpeppleyeah, I have watches on few of the pages also.
* jds2001 wishes there was a way to watch a category
jds2001and who knows, there may be some MW plugin for that.
* jds2001 is probably going to be upgrading MW this weekend. I can look into that too :)
* nirik just watches the rss feed of all changes for anything interesting.
* jds2001 can work with Susan on the cleanup. Or whomever, just want some docs person to make sure it's sane.
jds2001anyhow, I'll work on that since no one else wants to :D
* jds2001 didnt see people jumping up and down :)
nirikthat would be great jds2001. ;)
jds2001.fesco 116
zodbotjds2001: #116 (figure out what to do about deactivated maintainers) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/116
jds2001so I suck and I haven't sent out the first email, realized that last week.
nirikthe list is down a lot.
jds2001but now i have many fewer to send :)
nirikah, ok. So send now and orphan next week?
jwbsounds like a plan
bpepplesounds good.
sharkczforks for me
jds2001sounds good to me.
nirikjds2001: you will be sending to the fas account holders real emails from fas? or ?
jds2001yeah, I need to find an easy way to get that.
nirikyeah, should be possible I think.
* jds2001 will probably just feed a for loop of person_by_username()
jds2001 <3 python-fedora :)
nirikanything else today?
jds2001nothing from me.
--- jds2001 has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- Open Floor
nirikwe have elections after f11 release? anything we need to do to prep for those?
jds2001should we open nominations now?
bpepplewe should check with mdomsch to see if he is going to run it again.
* jds2001 will check with him when I see him around next.
jds2001anything else?
* nirik has nothing.
* jds2001 hears crickets, and ends the meeting in 30
jds2001== MEETING END ==

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