--- 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/
* nirik is here.
* sharkcz is here
* notting is here
* j-rod here now
jds2001ok, so i'm gonna alter the order a bit
flags will come last :)
* jwb_ is here
jwb_i have to leave in exactly 58 min
j-rodone of these days, I'll figure out the right way to get ctrlproxy to start up and automagically startlisteners where its supposed to...
* jds2001 too
dwmw2I probably do too
* jds2001 wonders if we'll have quorum after an hour.
jwb_i suggest we push flags to the board
anyway, proceed
--- jds2001 has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting - agenda at https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/report/9 - Tickets
dwmw2or to the fesco after the elections
jds2001.fesco 152
zodbotjds2001: #152 (provenpackager request - iarnell) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/152
nirik+1 he's done good perl work.
bpepple+1 here also.
jds2001i see seven +1's, so we've approved iarnells's provenpackager request
jds2001.fesco 153
zodbotjds2001: #153 (Provenpackager request: hadess) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/153
dwmw2massively unimpressed by
buggbotBug 497703: medium, low, ---, bnocera, CLOSED NOTABUG, bluez requires pulseaudio
dwmw2but +1 anyway
j-rodhrm. he's been a good co-maint on some stuff I work on.
nirik+1 here as well.
jds2001i see 7 +1's, so we've approved hadess's request.
quick feature
jds2001.fesco 157
zodbotjds2001: #157 (OSGi Auto Dependencies - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/OSGiAutoDeps) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/157
jds2001is this really a feature?
dwmw2sounds good, but is it a feature?
nottingthis sounds more like a FPC issue than a feature
jds2001especially given "Nothing will be visible to end-users. We will update the Eclipse Plugin packaging guidelines once we are confident that the automatic dependency script works as expected. "
indeed that too.
jwb_yeah... send this to FPC
jds2001being an FPC item, that is.
nottingwas the gconf stuff a feature?
if that wasn't, i don't see how this is
nirikalso, does it have buy in from rpm mainatiners? does it need rpm changes?
jds2001i *think* it's already in rpm according to the feature page.
or maybe that was "a rpm"
nirikthere's a rpm bug about the script having issues.
jds2001all for punting to FPC?
nirikI think this is good and nice work, but not a feature as written... so yeah, punt to FPC.
bpepple+1 to moving to FPC.
jds2001alright, I'll send a message to FPC.
unless abadger1999 is here and got that :)
jds2001.fesco 156
zodbotjds2001: #156 (FESCo should allow non packagers to be committee members) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/156
jwb_i'm fine either way on this one
nottingi'm somewhat skeptical in that part of FESCo is approving FPC guidelines
bpeppleReading through the thread I didn't see any compelling reason to open up the candidate pool.
jds2001me too, sort of.  We make some pretty technical packaging decsions, so background there is good.
jwb_judging from the number of people that actually run, it won't actually matter anyway
dwmw2what exactly is the criterion right now?
jwb_dwmw2, member of packager
jds2001and that's it.
* nirik doesn't feel too strongly either way... but it's not hard to become a packager. ;()
nottingjds2001: so, it boils down to having maintained or co-maintained a package at some point (as we don't clean active accounts that have orphaned all their packages)
dwmw2is there actually anyone who wants to stand for the coming election who _isn't_ in packager?
out of interest
bpeppledwmw2: no idea.
* nirik doesn't know of any off hand.
nottingdon't know. the nominations page so far is pretty sparse
* jds2001 doesn't either.
nirikI note that currently notting is the only one on the nominations page. ;)
bpeppleI didn't see anyone in the thread express an interest in running.
jwb_no.  we like to plan for and discuss complete theoreticals these days
jds2001yeah, notting notting and notting :)
bpepplejwb_: ;)
nottingjds2001: was hoping there would be more after your message (and the various discussions)
dwmw2I really don't care enough to vote
jwb_i'm sure we'll be derided for our apathy
nirikI think -1 for now, revisit if anyone wishes to down the road.
dwmw2that's not apathy :)
bpepple-1 to allowing non-packagers candidates.
dwmw2it seems to be a non-issue
nirikand if anyone feels blocked from running now, feel free to ping me and I will be happy to review a package from them.
jds2001yeah, a solution looking for a problem.
notting-1 for now. actually... what's the procedure for becoming approved for packager to co-maintain something if you don't have a new package to submit?
jds2001i dont know that there is one.
niriknotting: get a sponsor to sponsor you...
nirikie, sponsors descretion that you know the guidelines and such.
sharkczIMO the board should decide who can be elected for fesco
jds2001we can surely punt this to the board.
nottingsharkcz: i can bring that up to the board if people like
* nirik is fine with that too.
dwmw2that makes some sense, I suppose
bpepplesharkcz: do other groups (ambassadors, etc) have the board determine their candidate pools?
jwb_no, but i guess we oversee all of them?
in reality, we don't
nottingi don't remember that ever coming to the board for another group
jds2001im not sure they've ever come up for debate.
notting(and fesco doesn't oversee ambassadors, or marketing, etc. unless i missed something)
bpepplenotting: that's what I thought also.  I'm not sure why we would then.
jwb_it's hard to be exclusive of groups when there are no people from other groups trying to be included
inode0 raised the point about voting pool matching candidate pool
sharkczbpepple: I don't  know, but the upper body should decide that in general
jwb_so from that point of view, it makes a little sense
nottingmaybe just allow requesters to escalate to the board if they feel slighted?
bpepplenotting: that seems reasonable.
jds2001and packager is by no means a high bar.
nottingjwb_: i can see that point (and some real-life counterexamples). of course, you could go either way in fixing that
jds2001well, the president must be 35 and a nautral born citizen.
the electorate is not so restricted.
j-rodnb: its Fedora ENGINEERING steering committee here, right?
bpepplej-rod: exactly.
jds2001j-rod: yep.
j-rodso I don't feel so bad about a minimal engineering qualification of packager
ok, so a website person could have some engineering chops
but still
jds2001sure, but they're likely to be a packager too.
ianweller for example is.
j-rodmountains and molehills and whatnot
ianwellerhmm what
ixsjds2001: FWIW: limiting the electorate might be on topic next
* jwb_ points out we're still talking about a theoretical problem
jds2001ianweller you're a packager and a websites dude :)
j-rodcome back when its actually an issue for someone
nottingjds2001: similarly, both mizmo and mso from the art team are in packager, for example. or even our fearless leader stickster
j-rodkeep the restriction. next.
jds2001i think that's how we voted earlier.
next is the great flags debate. I'd like to propose that we use the mini-agenda that abadger1999 provided.
dwmw2before we start
dwmw2do we want to postpone this to the next FESCo?
* abadger1999 looks in
nottingdwmw2: next elected fesco, yo umean?
jds2001that's a good question too.
nottingalso, jwb suggested a board escalation :/
ixsdwmw2: I'm happy with postponing that.
nirikI personally would like to repeal the current thing, and gather more data.
abadger1999dwmw2: I'd say you could postpone defining a policy until the next FESCo but you should make a decision about whether to suspend the current policy until then.
ixsdwmw2: I'd like the policy postponed as well in that case
dwmw2when's the election?
jwb_nirik, i like that
dwmw2is there plenty of time to bring in the policy for F-12 if it is approved after the election?
jds2001june 7-22
ixsdwmw2: on the other hand: current fesco saw fit to approving it, so revisiting the issue is manning up to the problem. Postponing is somewhat weak.
dwmw2it does make sense to suspend the policy if we do that, yes
ixs: p'raps. OTOH it gives people a chance to vote for pro-flags candidates :)
we can have a single-issue election
nirikI regret we passed it as it has a number of issues. I think we need more data to determine how or if it can be fixed or scapped.
bpeppleixs: yeah, it feels like passing the buck on a thorny issue to me also.
jwb_two thoughts from me
jds2001ixs: it allows other folks who may have differing viewpoints to be on fesco at the time.
* notting thinks that if we don't feel appropriate making a decision, escalation to the board is much more appropriate than just dropping it on the next fesco
nirikdwmw2: currently the only candidate is notting. ;)
dwmw2notting: true
dwmw2nirik: I'll get round to finding the page and adding my name to it some time
jwb_1) this is more a political issue than anything.  those belong with the board.  2) suspending the current policy in light of 1 seems prudent
dwmw2maybe even before the election :)
abadger1999heh, we'll get more candidates if you punt this decision :-)
bpepplenotting: I'm a little leery of passing the buck on this.  I mean if we can't get a solution to the hard problems, what good is FESCo?
dwmw2I don't much like the policy as-is. If we have FESCo-approved exceptions which render Fedora unshippable in certain places anyway, the whole thing was a pointless waste of time
dwmw2apart from the flames on f-d-l of course, which are always fun.
ixsif it is a political issue and we want to pass it on to the board, the same goes: I'd like the policy turned over first. Because in that case, fesco was never the right body to have instated the policy in the first place
abadger1999jwb_: Note, if this gets punted to the board, I'd definitely like separation between the question of "Goals of Fedora, what goes into Fedora" and "How to implement the goals of Fedora"
nottingbpepple: i sort of agree, i just think that that would be better than meekly punted to the next fesco
jwb_abadger1999, i'm sure the board would agree
bpepplenotting: no, I agree passing to the next fesco would be one of the weakest decisions we've made.
ixsnotting: I think it's a rather gutless decision to push everything which could be a bit harder to the board.
nirikI don't have a problem with fesco deciding this policy, but I think the current thing is not suitable, and we need more data to determine if we can make a suiteable policy or even if we need too.
nottingixs: it's a level of gutlessness. punt to next fesco is worse than punt to board is worse than solve it now :)
abadger1999Another note, the board may need to decide this, but there's a good deal of technical implementation to discuss as well.
jwb_ixs, if we did it all the time, yes.  this issue really does warrant board attention though
ixs, just like the iran situation
ixsnotting: agreed. :)
abadger1999For instance, it is possible to ship flags in the repository but exlucde them from spins.  That's a technical decision.
nirikabadger1999: sure, they could punt back to fesco with a high level goal, and it would be up to us to figure out an implementation I guess.
abadger1999Whereas, do we want to have something we can ship to China is political
ixsjwb_: I'd tend to agree. Problem however: Fesco already did accept that issue in the past. Punting it to the board now is just awkward.
jwb_ixs, we learn from mistakes
ixsjwb_: and it could shine a bad light on fesco.
jwb_i could give two shits about feeling awkward when the right thing to do is fix it
* nirik didn't think this was that big an issue, but the currrent policy surely has lots of faults.
jwb_and part of fixing it is to get the high level decision from the board
ixsjwb_: that's one way to see it. Considering that there have been "worst fesco ever" messages on the list, I don't know if the electorate agrees. :D
jwb_i'm part of the electorate.
dwmw2it's not purely a political issue and not purely technical
nottingixs: maybe people just like quoting comic book guy
dwmw2we need to balance the political downside of shipping flags, with the technical downside of removing them
jwb_ok, this is simple
1) we have no legal reason to remove
bpeppledid we ever get an accurate count of how many packages are affected?
ixsnotting: I have no clue who comic book guy is and I don't even know how to compare this fesco to last year's fesco or so. To me, they all look the same. They could suck, they could be full of win, I wouldn't know.
* nirik doesn't think we have enough data to craft a new policy or fix the current one. We need to gather more in order to tell.
jwb_2) people seem to be concerned about distributing to china, which has political impacts
jds2001and the board would need the same data.
ixsbpepple: handwaving packages is between 5 and 15 which we know of.
* dwmw2 submits a package with some nazi flags in.
* bpepple notes that he is affected by this since he maintains freeciv (possibly the worst offender).
f13bpepple: kevin koffler seems to know about 5 more than the 5 we already know about, he's just not telling
nirikjwb_: 1) ...yet. 2) we don't really know what china requires, do we?
jwb_3) the board is supposed to be our higher level group that deals with the overall direction fedora is going
ixsdwmw2: I'll sponsor...
jwb_nirik, i'm pretty sure we do
f13The evidence we do have is that when RHL took the flags out, that was good enough for China then
nottingnirik: i think that drawing on the example of RHL/RHEL is a reasonable approximation
nirikjwb_: cite needed? Has anyone looked and confirmed that china has a block on flags? what is it? what does it say? what flags?
jwb_f13, that same evidence is inconclusive given freeciv
ixsnirik: 2) we never know what china might come up with. What we're doing here is armchair-lawyering. I don't think this should guide fedorra policy. :D
niriknotting: when was the last time someone checked? 10 years ago?
j-rodsee: taiwanese delegation, summer olympics '08
nirikj-rod: they were importing a linux distribution? :)
f13jwb_: yeah, they could have just not noticed freeciv
too busy actually learning with their computers.
jwb_f13, right
ixsjwb_: people seem to be concerned about distributingto china. emphasis on the seem... :/
* f13 ducks
j-rodno, but they couldn't carry their own flag on Chinese soil
nottingnirik: RH legal, in their message to spot, said that including flags can/will cause issues with distribution within china and other areas. they did not call out other concerns
nirik: they also said that was not a *legal* issue, just a consideration
ixsnotting: source for that?
j-rodcan't we just have a Chinese spin? :)
abadger1999ixs: That's in spot's message to the list I think.
f13ixs: I am concerned with being able to distribute to China.  There are existing contributors there (lots of translators) and many potential.
ixsnotting: I have read spots stuff and didn't see anything from legal stating definite problems.
nottingixs: one of spot's messages in the thread. i can dig up a message-id if you need it
nirikyeah, I specifically want to know what china (or whoeever) prohibits. they likely have laws written down and everything. ;)
j-rod'this spin is certified to not have any flags in it, so its safe for use in China'
jds2001j-rod: then we would show favortisim to china
ixsnotting: would be great, because I seem to have missed it then during my writeup. But it's more general interest, look it up later tonight.
ewanIt's also not clear that even if flags are a problem, that they're the only problem.
abadger1999jds2001: But at least it's honest :-/
dwmw2out of interest, do we ship any world maps with the borders between Pakistan and India shown on them...?
ixsjds2001: nah, having a chinese spin is not showing favorites. everyxbody is free to make a local spin. fedora-de spin, full of nazi flags... fedora chinese with less taiwan in there...
nottingixs: Message-ID: <4A119823.4090509@redhat.com>
nirikproposal: 1) drop current policy 2) try and find some suckers^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hpeople who are willing to look further into the issue and gather data and report back to us about it. 3) see if we can craft a policy based on that data or decide we don't want one
sharkczsimilar situation is Serbia vs Kosovo ...
ixsjds2001: as long as they keep to the spin guidelines, that's perfectly okay.
jds2001ixs: sure.
dwmw2nirik: +1 I was just about to propose something almost identical
jwb_nirik, i'm honestly OK with just doing #1
dwmw2suspend the current policy -- it wasn't in force yet _anyway_ because we were never going to make F-11 comply
ixsnirik: that would be proposal 2 in the ticket, isn't it?
nirikjwb_: yeah, it may be that we can't craft a policy that helps, so then no policy might be better.
j-rodI'm for suspend and revisit vs. drop
nirikixs: not sure. let me look.
nottingdwmw2: well, we already have packages that have them removed. are we going to tell people they must put them back?
dwmw2do we have any Chinese locals who can help us understand the practicalities?
jds2001j-rod: me too.
notting: no, why would we
j-rodalso, are flag-bearing packages on the DVD iso and/or the live images?
or only in the repo?
nirikixs: well, not exactly... you mention a SIG, but this doesn't need to be a sig, just a few people gathering info.
nottingjds2001: just making the speculation that any statement we make could lead to  aqiuck CVS war between than and kkofler :)
j-rod: if they're put back to where they've been removed, yes
f13j-rod: they could potentially be on any spin
j-rod: most certainly in the games spin
niriknotting: were those changes made after this policy? ?
nottingfreeciv's on the games spin. kde (which has them currently removed, unless i missed it) is obvs on the DVD & KDE spins
ixsnirik: ahkay.
j-rodso as long as we have at least one spin and the installer flag-free, I don't really see a problem
nottingnirik: kde's had them excised since the RHL days, unless it's been changed to put them back
abadger1999nirik: They preexist.
j-rodChina can police themselves
ixsnotting: kde has them not removed AFAIK
* nirik points out thats another thing we don't know: all the packages that are containing flags.
j-rod'these Fedora versions are okay for use in China, these ones are not'
'don't install these packages'
ixsnotting: I think the only package which removed them was the deluge thingy where rozzbeh opened the bug.
nottingixs: kdebase3 certainly still does. i haven't checked the kde4 packages as i didn't track where they moved to there
abadger1999ixs: There are some specific packages where they are not removed but for the most part they are in a separate package.
ixsjds2001: but it seems there are people who want to make that our problem.
nirikj-rod: it's useless to speculate I think... do they really care? what does their law say? what do other distros do? we just don't know.
nottingnirik: RHL/RHEL remove them. mandriva removes the taiwanese flag only (lame!)
niriknotting: turbo? they are big out there still...what do they do?
dwmw2I _really_ don't want to be doing that kind of thing (removing only .tw)
nottingdon't know. kubuntu ships them, according to a mail on the thread
ixsnotting: do we care for other distributions?
f13dwmw2: that's why I'm for a no flags at all policy
ixsnotting: this also means RHL
dwmw2I'm perfectly happy putting flags in separate packages in rpmfusion. I really don't understand why it's such a bloody issue
nirikI personally would like to see fedora easily accessable in places like that, but we need to find out what they require to see if it's worth the trade off to fedora.
f13dwmw2: anything less is just asking for trouble
ixsdwmw2: slippery slope
nottingixs: nirik asked what other distros do. i answered
dwmw2ixs: why so?
ixsdwmw2: what will we be doing next? russia and france are problematic regarding crypto.
dwmw2: we currently have contributors in france?
nottingixs: and yes, kde-l10n removes them as well
dwmw2we're already _on_ the slope. We already removed the swearing and the nekkid wenches.
f13ixs: we do what the governing bodies of Fedora find acceptable.
abadger1999dwmw2: porting (notting's volunteered to do that), having to build the packages in two separate repos, having to point people at the other repo to get the packages,
jwb_is there a reason we're doing a real-time rehashing of a 300 email list thread here?
ixsdwmw2: high time to stop. it's only getting worse.
* nirik sees the train driving off into the weeds
ixsnirik: agreed.
dwmw2removing crypto is much more of a technical problem than removing flags.
ixsokay: proposal:
1. drop the policy
2. pass the buck to board
nottingixs: crypto is a core component. flags as a crap UI to pick languages... not so much.
ixsthey should decide if we want a policy, if we need it and who's going to take care of it.
abadger1999I'd strongly encourage writing a specific question for #2.
niriklets back up.
* abadger1999 does not want another codina
dwmw2I think punting it to the board is as weak as punting it to the next fesco
nirikproposal (please only fesco people vote): drop current policy.
dwmw2suspend the policy, collect more information and revisit in time to implement it (if we want to) for F-12.
ixsdwmw2: but at least the mess is cleaned up.
nirik+1 here. It has lots of flaws.
dwmw2nirik: +1
nottingnirik: i can't vote on that without some other co-proposal (followup? new proposal? just ignore it?)
nirikok, was hoping to get something done. ;) how about:
nottingi.e., my vote on dropping the current policy is dependent on what we do next
nirikproposal: 1) drop current policy 2) try and find some suckers^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hpeople who are willing to look further into the issue and gather data and report back to us about it. 3) see if we can craft a policy based on that data or decide we don't want one
ixsnirik: I'll volunteer as the sucker.
dwmw2+1 to all of that.
nirikI guess 3 could be extended with ask the board if we think that we are unable to draft a policy without higher level guidance.
nirikbut I would like to see data and come up with a specific question to the board if so.
jds2001sure, of course.
nottingis part of #2 actually listing all packages that would be affected by any theoretical policy?
delero(sorry for accidental noise)
niriknotting: yes, it should be.
jds2001notting: yeah
nirikixs: that would be great.
ixsnirik: no problem.
ixsnotting: I think however that the number of packages should not influence any decisions about a policy. Either the policy is sound, or it's not. It doesn't matter how many packages or who is affected.
fedoraadityawhat is new?
jds2001i only seee three votes for that now :/
dwmw2ixs: I disagree with that.
nirik1) packages with flags in fedora. 2) what other distros do (I think this is a useful datapoint) 3) what any specific laws are for affected countries (perhaps we could ask ambassadors about this)
ixs: it is important. We need to know how much burden it places on our maintainers.
dwmw2ixs: if the policy means we have to touch _every_ package, it's probably not a sound policy :)
as I said before, it's a trade-off
between a political issue and a technical one.
nottingixs: a policy could be "don't include things that could be controversial where they don't affect the functionality or improve the user interface". that policy would need to know how many things it would touch to be seful
abadger1999dwmw2: It's also a tradeoff between two political issues.
ixsdwmw2: lemme quote f13 on trade offs: Am I the only one that thinks that maintainers who don't have enough time to do things properly in Fedora, shoul
dn't be doing things in Fedora?
dwmw2: so either it's the right thing or not, how much work it needs shouldn't matter. :>
dwmw2yeah, and I want a pony
ixsnirik: but fine. I'll try to see how many packages are affected.
dwmw2if that were true we'd have _all_ architectures as primary :)
nirikixs: it's data fesco should use to determine the scope of the problem, if we need to try and assist maintainers, or if there are so few packages that just dropping them could be an option.
ixsdwmw2: go talk to f13, he's rel-eng.
nottingdwmw2: fedora-cris?
nirikany more votes for that proposal? or does anyone have a counter?
abadger1999nirik: Actually.. just dropping them is a big can of worms because it's not technical.
* nirik is +1 for his own proposal.
bpepple+1 to dropping current policy, and gathering data.
abadger1999porting would be a technical solution.
nirikabadger1999: you feel it would be political then and for the board? possibly.
j-rod+1 for nirik's prop
j-rodand +1 for banning anyone who continues that thread any further until info gathering is done.
nirikixs: can you ask for other interested people to assist you in gathering info? I might be able to help too time permitting.
abadger1999It's saying "rather than having all the free software that is well maintained and someone wants to package" it's "we want to have all of the free software that can be shipped to China"
ixsnirik: would be great.
nottinggiven that dropping is essentially returning to the prior state where there's a de facto but not de jure policy, i'm not sure it helps us much
jwb_i have 4 min
abadger1999ixs: You'll definitely need spot's input as he can make use of RH legal.
* jds2001 too.
nottingabadger1999: china's the current example. i suspect if there was software that prosteletzed on the great satan russia (or some craziness) in the default install, we'd be back here too
jds2001the "having 4 min part", that is.
niriknotting: the de facto policy was never written down tho.
nottingnirik: sure.
abadger1999notting: Depends on what the board says.  It could be "We want to be able to ship the entire repository anywhere in the world"  or it could be "Some working subset of Fedora must be shipable to any part of the world"
dwmw2notting: I have a cris board around here somewhere...
nottingnirik: that's sort of implied from 'de facto' :)
abadger1999Or something else.  there's a lot of different ways this could go forward.
ixsabadger1999: *nod*
* jds2001 disappears, sorry :/
f13abadger1999: or the board could say that it doesn't want to add to the busy work RHEL maintainers will have to do to the packages when they come from Fedora, so follow the RHEL policy of "no flags".
ixsnotting: the de-factor policy is not written down. you'd be hard pressed to enforce anything with an uncooperative packager.
notting: one could even argue, that the RH de-facto policy, is therefore not a fedora policy. I'm sure kanarip is happy to talk about that.
nirikso did we pass that? or is someone else coming up with a proposal?
nottingabadger1999: right, i'm saying that it probably should be looked at slightly larger than 'china' issue
nottingnirik: my counter proposal would be 'no flags without fesco approval'. i doubt that would pass, but we can take a vote if you like
abadger1999notting: Yes and no.  The arguements for a ban like 1/6 of the world's population depend on China being a real issue.
ixsnirik: counting the number of votes, you can close the issue
jwb_i have to leave.  if we don't suspend or drop the current policy, i'm going to be disappointed
jwb_and then 30 seconds later i'll get over it and move on with my life
dwmw2how many votes did we get for 'suspend the policy and collect data to review' ?
ixsnirik: there should be enough for dropping the policy and gather more data
* jwb_ &
bpepplejwb_: ;)
niriknotting: what would cause fesco to approve a package with flags?
ixs5 votes as far as I can see
ewanf13: RHEL only includes a fraction of Fedora though, the whole thing doesn't have to be RHEL safe.
nottingnirik: provided there's actual work on coming to a conclusion as opposed to just punting, i suppose i can be +1
nirikyeah, I think it passed.
ixsthat would be +6 then
nirikI think we (or well the next fesco) should revisit it after we have more data.
nirikI don't think this is being wishy washy. I just don't think we have enough info to craft a more clear policy.
nottingnirik: well, that's a different debate. something like 'functionally required, or used in a reasonable historical context'. or, heck, fesco's discretion.
nirikok, who's taking over for jds2001. :)
notting: but then it doesn't solve the issue right? if china say prohibits something that might prevent fedora from being distributed there.
nottingi was, i believe. this is the last item on the agenda, given that jwb, dwmw2, and jds2001 had to go, i think we probably just want to close for the week
nirikif we do that then why not have them all since we have lost?
nottingnirik: because it's still a crap UI :P
* nirik notes again he doesn't know what if any rule china has
nirikagreed. Perhaps FPC could add a "SHOULD: should not use flags for ui, as this is a bad idea"
ixsnotting: UI is an upstream problem.
ewanThe 'crap UI' argument's great for language selectors, not so much fro FreeCiv
ixsnotting: face it, if bad UI would be a reason for policy, the gnome spoin and the kde spin would be dead.
nottingixs: that's passing the buck just as much as than fesco, though. "sorry we're giving you bad software. blame upstream". :)
bpeppleewan: freeciv can be removed from Fedora. (btw, I say this as it's maintainer)
nirikewan: yeah, but if the law in .cn is no tw flag and freeciv has one, allowing it means they could disallow all of fedora right?
nottingewan: and it could likely come under an exception, i expect.
ewanbpepple: It could, but not on the grounds that flags are poor UI design. It would have to be pure politics.
ixsnotting: UPSTREAM! has always been the fedora battle cry.
nottingnirik: probably depends on what defines 'fedora'.
ixsnotting: claiming that it's always upstream except when we don't like it or know it better is not part of the policy.
nottingixs: i know. and it's because it encourages working in a community, and aids with maintenance. it still shouldn't be a crutch for shipping bad software.
j-rodwe totally need an 'unoffensive to every soul on the planet' spin. As well as the polar opposite, an 'offensive even to axe murders' spin
niriknotting: yeah, I am ok with ending the meeting if we have no more. Perhaps an open floor.
nottingixs: but, realistically, we don't have the resources to fix all the bad software out there
ewannirik: Quite possibly. But simply removing the flag, or freeciv as a whole may not be enough. We just don't know that it actually solves the problem.
bpepplenirik: though how about an open floor not about flags. ;)
nirikbpepple: yes. agreed.
j-rodbpepple: +1
nottingbpepple: all for that
nirikewan: right. no data.
j-roddear flags: die in a fire
oh wait
ixsnotting: working with upstream to fix any language choosers with flags is okay and consistant with the fedora goals. Forking because upstream is not willing to change their flag usage is not.
j-rodthat would offend someone
ixsj-rod: I want the axe murderer spin! that would rock!
nottingany open questions for FESCo not about flags?
what are we doing about crypto in france?
* ixs runs
ewanAs a pro-flags person (actually, mostly pro-freeciv) I'm perfectly happy with the suspend the policy and gather data outcome.
bpeppleixs: do you think you can round up that data by next week? or do you need some folks to help you out?
ewanThough, why /can't/ we have nekkid people wallpapers - it worked OK for Ubuntu?
* ewan also runs
j-rodfor fesco?
ewanj-rod: Probably not, but the thought's crossed my mind. Not sure I can make the time to do it justice though.
nirikoh, one note: I will likely not be at the meeting next week.
ixsbpepple: I can come up with _some_ data. I don't think next week is reasonable if you expect a scientific paper with proofs. :D
bpeppleI'd just like to know how many packages are actually affected by this.
nottinggiven where we stand with f11 and f12, i don't know that we need to rush it to fit in a week
j-rodewan: yeah, its been a struggle for me to carve out the time, wish I had more to give to it :\
bpepplenotting: agreed.
bpepplealright, so is there anything else, or should we put a fork in this meeting?
* bpepple takes the silence as the meeting has finished.
ixsbpepple: I'll see what I can come up with.
bpepple: no guarantees though.
nottingok, i'll send out the summary
bpeppleixs: np, thanks!
* 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!