18:00:21 #startmeeting 18:00:21 Meeting started Thu Aug 29 18:00:21 2013 UTC. The chair is mhayden. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 18:00:21 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 18:00:32 #topic Fedora board 18:00:41 ok 18:00:44 hi 18:00:50 * spot is now known as CTHULHU 18:00:58 OH NOES! 18:01:00 okay, this is my first time using meetbot ;) 18:01:06 * gholms gives mhayden a #meetingtopic 18:01:06 lol spot 18:01:13 s/CTHULHU/emacs_user/ 18:01:38 #chair gholms 18:01:38 Current chairs: gholms mhayden 18:01:43 #chair misc 18:01:43 Current chairs: gholms mhayden misc 18:01:46 #chair jwb 18:01:46 Current chairs: gholms jwb mhayden misc 18:01:50 who am i missing on chairs? 18:01:50 Afternoon 18:02:02 #meetingtopic Fedora Board (29 Aug 2013) 18:02:05 mhayden: This guy 18:02:08 #meetingname board 18:02:08 The meeting name has been set to 'board' 18:02:08 thanks, gholms ;) 18:02:10 #chair mjg59 18:02:10 Current chairs: gholms jwb mhayden misc mjg59 18:02:13 mhayden: ;) 18:02:18 rbergeron might be a bit late 18:02:24 jreznik is missing 18:02:32 er, absent 18:02:52 hola, here'ish 18:03:06 #chair rdieter 18:03:06 Current chairs: gholms jwb mhayden misc mjg59 rdieter 18:04:05 i think that just leaves inode0 18:04:12 I'm here 18:04:27 #chair inode0 18:04:27 Current chairs: gholms inode0 jwb mhayden misc mjg59 rdieter 18:04:34 * mattdm is not a chair but is here too 18:05:22 what did we have on the agenda? i know we talked about the rings proposal from mjg59 but he was away last week 18:05:37 Yeah, sorry, poor timing on my part 18:05:38 just that again 18:05:38 If we have anything else on the agenda I suggest we take care of that first. 18:05:44 Oh. All right, then. :) 18:06:50 So basically I'm pretty happy with the technical side of the proposal being something that's up to fesco 18:07:36 But it's currently tied in with a change to our default audience and also a somewhat different technical leadership process 18:08:27 The first definitely seems like something that we should be following, and the latter's probably something we should discuss even if it's ultimately something that can be left up to fesco to make decisions on 18:10:03 mattdm: Am I right in thinking that the desire is to have all of this approved by the time F20 is out? 18:10:21 mjg59 Or significantly before, if possible. 18:10:24 Ok 18:10:26 * gholms agrees with mjg59 18:11:01 I would actually like to start forming the working groups _now_. 18:11:02 Which makes it seem like we should probably discuss it before we're given something to approve, just to avoid having to bounce things back and forth 18:12:15 when you say "working group", are you talking workstation/server/cloud working groups? or something else? 18:12:19 Yes, unless the board is ready to approve the draft as it is. 18:12:46 mhayden Yes. Plus the Base Design and Env + Stacks WGs 18:12:47 At the moment I'm most interested in the bits about audience and direction. Everything else falls out of that, no? 18:13:03 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora.next/boardproposal#Working_Groups 18:13:19 * Sparks is here 18:13:19 thanks, mattdm 18:13:35 #chair Sparks 18:13:35 Current chairs: Sparks gholms inode0 jwb mhayden misc mjg59 rdieter 18:13:50 gholms Yes, although the base design and env+stacks parts are severable 18:14:21 it would be nice to not sever them because they help make a coherent picture 18:14:28 mattdm: Yes, though one guides the ither. 18:14:32 *other 18:14:57 (dang phone keyboards) 18:15:00 yes. helps answer question of "what is this base the base of" 18:16:08 so are these five working group groups all on the same level? or are some subgroups 18:16:14 Can the workgroups that form change the target audience as defined in the draft? 18:16:15 couldn't figure it out from the proposal 18:16:31 mhayden They are all subgroups of FESCo 18:16:39 on basically the same level 18:16:40 inode0: The target audience is going to influence who's interested in joining the working groups 18:16:44 mattdm: makes sense 18:17:08 inode0 The propoal is that they will refine what's there and bring it back to the board for approval 18:17:11 mattdm: Ok, sticking to the working groups for the moment - what exactly is the role of the fesco member? 18:17:37 It's variously been described as a liason but also as a shepherd, which are two very different things 18:17:47 What I'm getting out f this draft is that the targey audience is whoever the working groups choose to aim for. Is that correct? 18:18:07 * gholms apologizes for typos 18:18:16 gholms, that's my understanding 18:18:27 That's not my reading of it 18:18:28 mjg59 I guess I *hope* more as a liason but with responsibility to shepherd if that becomes necessary? 18:18:42 hence my question 18:18:44 mattdm: What kind of shepherding would be necessary? 18:19:02 mattdm: Up until this point fesco have stayed out of the decision making process until someone explicitly asks them 18:19:12 gholms: that's what i got out out of it as well (working groups cater to target audience) 18:19:44 If it's the working groups who are expected to define the target audience then the discussion of target audiences should be removed 18:20:09 mjg59 sheparding sounds more negative than I want to be going for here. 18:20:15 But I think this discussion is going to be much easier if we stick to one topic at a time 18:20:48 (yes I'm having trouble thinking in two threads) 18:20:50 mjg59: Yeah, makes sense 18:21:02 mattdm: Ok. So, basically, my question still stands. In what situations would the fesco rep be anything other than someone to facilitate communication? 18:22:13 That person will also be resposible for active communication 18:22:44 making sure status is reported at fesco meetings, for example 18:23:08 mattdm: Can you imagine any situations in which fesco would proactively overrule a decision made by a working group without some other party requesting it? 18:23:29 i suppose example situation could be to maintain focus and direction. fesco member could help guide like... "I see you thinking about foo... i'd recommend not, fesco will likely veto that... I'd suggest..." 18:23:54 rdieter: Right the "fesco will likely veto that" bit is what worries me 18:24:35 fesco is still ultimately responsible for the overall technical direction of the project 18:24:41 sure, there are pros/cons, but it sure should help speed things up... avoiding potential round-trips on various topics/approvals 18:25:14 rdieter: I agree, but various bits of it make it sound like fesco would be more active in decision making than previously 18:25:26 true 18:25:32 and I can imagine that there might be some situation where that might happen, where the direction of a particular group seems like it will have an impact on the whole 18:25:38 I kinda like that part though, honestly. 18:25:41 mattdm: Can you give examples? 18:26:10 I don't have one offhand. 18:26:35 Yes, but does the group's fesco member have any need to do take on a role that is more than just advisory and communication? 18:26:53 mattdm: For the most part I thought the base/other split would make it difficult for one group to have an impact on the whole 18:27:09 mjg59 Yes, that's why I'm having trouble thinking of an example 18:27:19 I hope that the design avoids those situations in most cases. 18:27:36 I just also don't want to say that it could never happen 18:28:06 we can imagine package that go in more than 1 group 18:28:19 mattdm: So for instance, the idea is that if (say) cloud made a change that also impacted server then fesco would have Opinions, but if workstation decided to entirely drop suppotr for unaccelerated 3D hardware then fesco wouldn't? 18:28:32 for example, I can imagine apache being managed by server crowd, but also impacting cloud 18:28:52 Yeah, the OS isn't *that* modular. 18:29:57 mjg59 So, okay, in that case I can see FESCo acting as a sort of supreme court. It may be that the other working groups have no topical objections but other parts of the community might. 18:30:18 that's not different from how it is now. 18:30:22 mattdm: Yeah, this is basically my sticking point 18:30:58 So, do you think 1) fesco should not have that power or 2) fesco should have that power and it should be more spelled out? 18:31:02 Is that a bad thing? I thought that happens today anyway. 18:31:08 or 3) something else I don't understand 18:31:20 mattdm: Right now fesco has that role because we produce one top-line product and there's no real governance for the other components 18:32:07 mattdm: My view of how this was going to work was basically fesco remaining in charge of everything that's common and the working groups getting to do what they wanted otherwise 18:32:17 That seemed to be where the improved agility would come from 18:32:37 who handles issues working groups can't solve between themselves? 18:32:50 nirik: If it impacts multiple working groups then it's a fesco issue 18:32:52 * nirik was seeing fesco in that role. 18:33:07 mjg59: i like that view for sure 18:33:09 right. 18:33:11 But if it's something that a given product has defined for their product, it seems like the responsibility of that working group 18:33:22 i don't think anyone is really disagreeing here. 18:33:31 Yeah, if it only affects them. 18:33:33 So if server wanted to only ship 64-bit install images, that seems like something server could do without fesco involving themselves 18:33:35 i assume that working groups could escalate disagreements/arguments to fesco? 18:33:59 But mattdm seemed to be saying that there were some kinds of decisions that a working group would make without impacting other products that fesco might still want to deal with 18:34:09 I don't see fesco micromanaging groups, but if there's something that comes up that is changed and they didn't think about impact elsewhere, I would hope fesco could overrule them 18:34:31 That can happen today, though. 18:34:39 nirik: What do you mean by "impact elsewhere"? 18:34:44 * nirik thinks this is bogged down in details. 18:35:40 nirik: I think this is pretty fundamental 18:35:43 mjg59: affects the core/base or other products? 18:35:57 or packages in them? 18:35:58 nirik: If it affects other products (either directly or via shared stuff) then yeah, I think fesco's the appropriate body 18:36:17 So, one example might be something that desktop/workstation changes that affects a non-primary product -- breaks Xfce, say 18:36:54 mattdm: Right, this seems like an important thing 18:36:57 This is a question, by the way. Is that okay? 18:37:06 I find it hard to discuss in the abstract. 18:37:18 nirik: I gave a concrete example 18:37:28 * nirik reads back up looking for it. 18:37:52 (is the example the 64-bit server? that's absolutely the intention.) 18:38:06 mattdm: Ok, so I think this is basically the heart of it. Is a non-primary product intended to be based off core, or off one of the products? 18:38:07 sure, I wouldn't have a problem with that specific example. 18:38:28 mattdm: No, Workstation choosing to drop support for unaccelerated 3D hardware 18:38:28 althought... 18:38:33 that means no arm32? 18:39:09 nirik: Sorry, by 32-bit I meant x86 18:39:27 brb, being pulled aside by $vp 18:39:30 * nirik has no problem with that one either. If non primary things want to ship/support that, they could step up and maintain them, and workstation could go on 18:39:59 this is why the rings proposal is fundamental to this. 18:40:47 Yeah 18:41:14 Basically I'm just looking for a stronger definition of "overall technical direction" 18:41:58 If it's "Dealing with everything that impacts more than one primary product", that seems straightforward and easy 18:42:05 mjg59, yesterday you said you were also looking for justification for the changes. 18:42:33 jwb: That's a separate conversation 18:42:59 i was hinting this one was over... 18:43:02 I am okay with making that change to FESCo's role. 18:43:06 maybe i'm overly optimistic 18:43:15 Is anyone _not_ okay with that? 18:43:26 If it's "Fesco's ideas about what a product should look like are more important than the working group's", that seems like more of a problem 18:43:49 well, I still see fesco as a safety there, but I suppose if it comes to a thing thats not affecting others, they could move that product. 18:44:05 move? 18:44:11 mjg59 Right; even though I have personal strong opinions about what all three products should look like, I am willing to let go and trust people. 18:44:42 mattdm: Sure. I just think we should make sure that the governance model is nailed down in order to avoid people disagreeing on it later. 18:44:50 ie, workstation group decides to move to ratpoison because they like it better and want to target very technical users. So, fesco says, ok, you are now a different product and the people who want to work on the targets for workstation are another project? 18:45:10 ie, if the group wants to change target ? 18:45:23 nirik: If the group wants to change target then that seems like a board concern 18:45:37 yes I agree that that's a board concern 18:45:37 yeah, that's a significant audience change 18:45:37 yeah, true 18:45:54 do i get to tell people no anywhere in this? 18:45:57 If the group believes that a change they're making better satisfies their target audience and fesco disagrees... 18:46:30 Meh. That still sounds more like a policy decision than a technical decision 18:46:56 changing the implementation to meet a target audience is different from changing the target audience 18:47:06 mattdm: Right 18:47:31 jwb from a kernel maintainer point of view? 18:47:33 mattdm: Anyway, I think if that's made clear than my concerns regarding the makeup and function of the working groups is satisfied 18:48:00 mattdm, no, from a board point of view. ignore the question, it's irrelevant 18:48:24 okay. so, I will add a section to the working group definition clarifying relationship with fesco. 18:49:31 (or is it better as a new section about fesco specifically? <- bikeshed to me about this out of band please) 18:49:43 Does anyone else have feelings about the working group definitions/descriptions? 18:50:36 the one I raised earlier if that falls into this category 18:51:01 inode0 -- is that "where do new products come from"? 18:51:06 no 18:51:08 19:16 < inode0> Can the workgroups that form change the target audience as defined in the draft? 18:51:17 That one? 18:51:20 yes 18:51:46 That's in the proposal. They're expected to refine it and bring it back to the board for approval. 18:51:47 most of have the impression they can so something isn't clear 18:52:04 not in the draft but presumed: further changes also require approval 18:52:42 hmm actually in the draft that got changed to "a product requirements document" which is not further defined. 18:53:24 if I clarify that this includes refinement to the target audience, does that suffice? 18:53:36 Suits me 18:53:37 well 18:54:11 well? 18:54:27 we are presumably supposed to say they MUST meet this target audience (from the meeting the other day) but it isn't really true? 18:54:54 inode0: My assumption had been that any change to the target audience would require board approval 18:55:25 right, so, if we go and ask for people to volunteer for these groups based on this target audience, and they come back with something different, what happens? 18:55:26 I think the proposal defines three different "products" because we have more than one target audience. 18:55:27 In that the working groups come up with the definition and the board approve it, and any further changes would be an iteration of the same thing 18:55:29 that isn't my assumption since a hunk of the board doesn't think it is the board's business as you know 18:55:43 which hunk? 18:55:52 I'd just like that cleared up so we can move forward with a clear understanding 18:56:50 inode0: In most cases I'd assume that the board would have no objection to any such changes 18:57:19 But would want to ensure that they appeared to meet our nebulous ideas about what Fedora is, whatever those happen to be that week 18:57:21 if the change comes back as "The fedora cloud product will target automotive embedded systems"... 18:57:48 I think in that case we'd want to call a do-over. But I'm not really worried about that happening. 18:58:08 mattdm: Perhaps they are already a target audience that we've been ignoring? 18:58:08 a couple of minutes left on the meeting folks 18:58:12 I'm not worried about that but I am worried about another product 18:58:39 Sparks: cloud + automotive, you mean flying car ? 18:58:42 Sparks Yeah. But the way to do that is to launch a sig to develop a new secondary product and promote that 18:58:57 mattdm: Perhaps they just did? 18:59:25 We can't keep saying we have this one defined target audience. 18:59:27 if the chances of a huge shift like we're talking about is low, should we spend more time talking about it now? 18:59:37 no 18:59:45 It does seem kind of like that's something we can deal with if we come to it 19:00:23 board/fesco exist to make these hard decisions... feels like a "cross the bridge when we get there" moment 19:00:46 mhayden: +1 19:00:55 ok, I'm sure we will get there pretty soon 19:01:00 Defining exactly what a "this is a change too far" would look like seems difficult 19:01:20 if someone wants to suggest a fundamental shift, then that's our jobs to 1) look at our target audience, 2) look at the change, and 3) make a call with the best knowledge we have 19:01:28 inode0, you think we're going to get to a point where an existing workgroup redefines who they're targetting soon? 19:01:30 mjg59: right 19:01:38 Sparks: do you think the board should tell the workstation sig what their target audience must be? 19:01:44 inode0: No 19:01:44 we're over on time and i've gotta scurry to a $dayjob meeting :( 19:02:09 mhayden: I can take from it, if you want 19:02:12 could someone wrap up the meetbot for me? 19:02:14 thanks misc ;) 19:02:18 inode0: I think that there will be a replacement workstation sig to take the reigns when no one likes what the original is producing. 19:02:22 (even if i will not do much) 19:02:49 i am doubtful that will happen 19:03:15 And clearly a server offering won't meet with our current target audience of workstation people. 19:03:22 And then there is cloud... 19:03:47 So I think that these groups have already, to some extent, defined their target audience. 19:04:01 mattdm: If the idea is that we're pretty much leaving the target audience up to the working group, it seems kind of unnecessary to leave the descriptions of the target audiences in the proposal 19:04:20 exactly 19:04:25 * rdieter thinks it ok to mention a starting point 19:04:31 and to ask the board to say they MUST be satisfied 19:04:45 does it _hurt_? I like them as a starting point. 19:05:02 Outside a basic "The cloud image is intended to be a minimal environment for cloud deployment, the server image is intended to satisfy audiences who want a headles physical server and the workstation image is intended for people who want an interactive graphical environment" 19:05:18 I think that if any SIG wants to promote a product they should come to the table and talk about the hole that they wish to fill. 19:05:35 mattdm: As written, I think the workstation definition would cause needless debate 19:05:47 It's important to not fragment things down and keep people working together. 19:06:37 i think debate is inevitable, if it doesn't happen earlier it will later 19:06:47 the workstation definition ended up (recently) rewritten to be significantly calmer and broader than it was originally 19:07:21 based on feedback from existing desktop sig 19:07:27 so if it ended up being the desktop we have as the default now is that ok with you? 19:08:14 rdieter: especially since debate would just be a rehashing of the existing discussion, like packagekit issue and focus, etc 19:08:30 mattdm: Right now I still don't think it matches what we're currently offering 19:08:42 mattdm: And I don't think we benefit from creating that uncertainty 19:09:26 mjg59 it is definitely intended to be a change towards a more specifically-technical audience. 19:09:58 mattdm: Well, no. It's intended to be something that's determined by the working group. 19:10:08 I thought we'd just agreed that. 19:10:32 we are dancing around who is deciding the target audience 19:10:35 mjg59: so what would you like to see wrt target audience? remove it? (I think so, but making sure) 19:10:35 mjg59 sure. but as above, that's the suggested starting point / baseline. 19:10:47 mattdm: Why bother with the baseline? 19:10:59 rdieter: Yes 19:11:07 mjg59 Because it helps set expectations when asking people to volunteer for the group? 19:11:18 * rdieter was wondering that too 19:11:25 mattdm: What expectations? 19:11:42 if this isn't your target audience you won't fit in here? 19:11:42 that this is a general direction the board sees as valuable for fedora 19:11:43 helps define what "Workstation" "Server" "Cloud" means 19:11:57 rdieter: +1 19:11:58 mattdm: The obvious thing here is for the existing desktop product to be the workstation product 19:12:26 But it's currently not defined that way, and it's not clear to me why not 19:12:32 rdieter: I think there are some assumptions around what those terms mean but a mission statement would be quite appropriate. 19:12:32 inode0 if this isn't your target audience, there may be other areas that will be more interesting for you to work on, yeah. 19:12:41 but maybe one could argue their definitions are self-evident, at least enough so for purposes of creating working groups 19:13:15 mjg59 So, let me ask flat out: do you think it _should_ be? 19:14:00 mattdm: So, if the working group comes back to the board and asks for the current target audience should we ok that? 19:14:11 mattdm: I think that our interactive graphical desktop product should be defined by the people who are interested in working on an interactive graphical desktop 19:15:29 inode0 That's really up to the board. I think it's _definitely_ one of the strategic direction issues the board is here to answer. 19:15:40 * rdieter has to go too. for the record I'm ok either way (of having an initial definition of target audience... or not... as long as working group can refine/define it later too) 19:16:02 mattdm: Basically, the definition that you've written doesn't describe what many Fedora contributors are currently producing 19:16:42 And sending a message that they're not welcome in the development of this new product doesn't seem helpful 19:16:48 mjg59 the definition that's there now was actually written by the desktop group 19:17:05 Just out of curiosity was consideration given to having a desktop product that would be what it is now in addition to the more technically oriented workstation product? 19:17:16 mattdm: For instance, *I* have no interest in working on the described workstation product 19:18:05 mattdm, that isn't apparent. 19:18:38 I don't think we benefit from describing all of our products in such a way that a non-technical user with an interest in free software is outside their target audeience 19:19:18 Our community work is heavily focused on beinging the benefits of freedom to people who would otherwise just be running Windows or OS X 19:20:11 It may well be that discussion between the workstation working group, the community, marketing and the board results in us changing that 19:20:23 But that should be the end of the conversation, not the beginning 19:20:40 hold on second i just got a credit card fraud call. brb 19:20:44 No problem 19:21:43 mjg59: I think that we have certain values within the Project which should lead the efforts to build our products. 19:21:45 so, as the discussion have been going since 1h20, do people think we can reach a agreement in 10 minutes, or shall we continue in the ticket ? 19:22:11 the ticket didn't work last week. i'm not sure why it would now 19:22:30 jwb: good point, so another meeting ? 19:22:56 I do not really think a endless meeting is good, nor would meeting every week for a few weeks :/ 19:23:32 so except increasing frequency :/ 19:23:52 misc: Perhaps we come back next with proposals that we just vote on... no discussion. :) 19:24:47 Sparks: but we need discussion first to find the proposal 19:24:59 misc: We all have proposals 19:25:00 mjg59 "Target audience: Users who are looking for a great out-of-box experience with Linux. While this should apply to a wide selection of potential users we want to focus especially on attracting developers, sysadmins and other IT professionals; Linux enthusiasts at universities; 'makers' and content creators." 19:25:22 mattdm: +1 19:25:44 that's what it says right now. 19:25:52 really? 19:25:57 * Sparks hasn't looked this week 19:25:57 yes. 19:26:11 god damnit 19:26:16 yes, it was softened quite a lot 19:26:30 It reads more like a mission 19:26:32 mattdm: The following paragraph makes it appear that the emphasis is on the technical usres 19:26:54 which is what it clearly still is from everything I can gather 19:27:50 mattdm: Do you think there's any difference between the target audience described in the proposal and the people catered to by the existing desktop imge? 19:27:58 * gholms returns, reads scrollback 19:28:42 I think there is some difference between the target of the upstream project, yes. 19:28:55 mattdm: Which upstream project? 19:28:59 gnome. 19:29:28 Gnome fills the bill of the first sentence? 19:30:04 mattdm: That's not really what I asked 19:30:06 As does KDE and LXDE and... 19:30:41 I don't think that the current desktop image strongly caters to anyone. It just says "here I am". 19:30:46 mattdm: I don't really care what upstream's target audience is. If their work meets our needs then who cares? 19:31:03 mattdm: The people working on it clearly have ideas about how it should be built 19:31:06 Sparks +1. But where does our definition of our needs come from. 19:31:26 mattdm: From our users 19:31:33 mattdm: From our contributors 19:31:41 mattdm: Based on previous conversation, the working group defines the target audience and that sets the needs 19:31:54 * gholms suspects it's the contributors and not much else 19:32:31 gholms: Well, that's mostly true but there is a fine line between user and contributor. Every user has the opportunity to become a contributor 19:32:41 Sparks: That's not actually true 19:32:49 mjg59: No? 19:32:52 Sparks: Is that *actually* true? 19:33:01 Sure it is. 19:33:15 Sparks: People who have to work 16 hour days to feed their family don't get to become contributors 19:33:33 irrelevant 19:33:39 People whose spouses pervent them from using the internet don't get to become contributors 19:33:40 this side discussion can be had elsewhere 19:33:43 focus please 19:33:47 AFAIK, I didn't have to pass any background check to file a bug or write documentation. 19:33:53 Like it or not, it's contributors who are the voice of the project. They may listen to users, but that's secondary. 19:34:03 Sparks: Sure, but you're a white man from a relatively stable background 19:34:10 Let's not ignore the rest of the world 19:34:12 mjg59: You are making assumptions. 19:34:49 Sparks: Do I need to cite actual examples or can we move on? 19:34:52 Okay, so, *I* would like the board to say that it would be better for Fedora if the desktop product would take the voice of experienced Linux users and enthusiasts into account when making design decisions. 19:35:07 mattdm: Ok. *I* would like this proposal not to do that. 19:35:10 BUT, if the board doesn't want to say that, then okay. 19:35:33 gholms: No one person builds a complete operating system. 19:35:42 *I* would like to see the people doing the work come up with a definition on their own 19:35:46 like we said they should 19:35:50 jwb: Right 19:36:04 and if they already have, and it's what is in the proposal, great. but MAKE IT EXPLICITLY FROM THEM 19:36:11 not as a starting guideline 19:36:38 Okay, so, *I* would like the board to say that it would be better for Fedora if the desktop product would take the voice of experienced Linux users and enthusiasts into account when making design decisions. 19:36:49 you just said that 19:36:55 yeah, right? irc client fail 19:36:59 But also let's not make the assumption that the desktop group are the only stakeholders in the product that's going to be handed out to random end users 19:36:59 Sorry 19:37:19 mjg59 +1 19:38:16 So, is it basic board consensus that it's better to just take all of the target descriptions out of the proposal and ask the working groups to come up with them? 19:38:25 I'd prefer that 19:38:27 mjg59: Agreed, but does this proposal effect that change? 19:38:42 i'm +1 to that for the sake of actually getting anything done 19:38:43 gholms: No, but it makes it easier 19:38:44 Okay, I'm switching to a machine with less lag. brb 19:38:54 +1 , same reason as jwb 19:38:58 because, like I said, while I've got strong feelings about what is right for fedora, I'm willing to relax and trust people. 19:39:07 or am trying to :) 19:39:07 good. let's do that 19:39:22 Yeah. Let's go with that. 19:39:34 It'll end up more closely reflecting reality in the end anyway. 19:39:41 should I just strike those three sections entirely? 19:40:07 mattdm: And the final sentence of the previous paragraph? 19:40:20 mattdm: I'd be happy with that 19:40:33 done 19:41:00 so anybody is against the proposal as it stand ? 19:41:45 not with the understanding that these three products are not set in stone for the next decade 19:41:50 (given clarification of fesco role and prd meaning) 19:42:06 mattdm: I think so 19:42:28 mattdm: And thanks for working on this! 19:42:29 inode0: depend, if we cannot decide the process to change in less than 1 decade :) 19:42:58 misc: but we are learning from the past right now! 19:43:00 inode0: we could had a yearly check of the relevance of the project or something like this ? 19:43:17 okay. so, um, do we want to ask for a board vote in a ticket? or for next week's meeting? 19:43:18 s/had/add/ 19:43:33 mattdm: ticket, will be faster, and if not done, next week meeting 19:44:02 ngh. 19:44:19 * gholms nods 19:44:19 ok, let's try ticket. and i'll bug people daily until they vote 19:44:32 jwb: I'm chairing next week, I'll take that bullet 19:44:35 should I file the ticket? 19:44:41 mattdm: Please 19:44:50 okay. will do as soon as I've made edits 19:45:02 #action mattdm fill ticket for vote 19:45:11 mjg59, great 19:45:12 * gholms will comment on the ticket once the updates are in 19:45:21 #action jwb harass people on a daily basis to vote 19:46:07 #undo 19:46:07 Removing item from minutes: 19:46:16 #action mjg harass people on a daily basis to vote 19:46:23 he volunteered :) 19:46:50 Yup 19:46:55 ← sucker 19:48:26 ok, so anything else before ending the meeting ? 19:49:23 Not from me. Sorry for my latency problems today. :( 19:49:54 gholms: no pb :) 19:50:45 ok so thanks for coming all 19:50:50 and see you next week 19:51:06 #endmeeting