15:00:50 <sgallagh> #startmeeting Server Working Group Weekly Meeting (2014-03-25)
15:00:50 <zodbot> Meeting started Tue Mar 25 15:00:50 2014 UTC.  The chair is sgallagh. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:00:50 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
15:00:53 <sgallagh> #chair sgallagh mizmo nirik davidstrauss Evolution adamw simo tuanta mitr
15:00:53 <zodbot> Current chairs: Evolution adamw davidstrauss mitr mizmo nirik sgallagh simo tuanta
15:00:55 <sgallagh> #topic roll call
15:00:59 <nirik> morning
15:01:02 <sgallagh> #info sgallagh is present
15:01:02 * jreznik is lurking
15:01:08 <sgallagh> #info nirik is present
15:01:13 <sgallagh> #info jreznik is present
15:01:23 * mizmo here
15:01:34 <tuanta> .fas tuanta
15:01:34 <zodbot> tuanta: tuanta 'Truong Anh Tuan' <tuanta@iwayvietnam.com>
15:02:04 <sgallagh> #info mizmo is present
15:02:07 <sgallagh> #info tuanta is present
15:02:36 <adamw> .hellomynameis adamwill
15:02:38 <zodbot> adamw: adamwill 'Adam Williamson' <awilliam@redhat.com>
15:02:41 <adamw> sorry, folks
15:02:42 <sgallagh> #info adamw is present
15:04:14 * sgallagh waits a couple minutes to see if anyone else filters in
15:04:43 <adamw> who've we got so far?
15:05:31 <sgallagh> adamw: myself, nirik, mizmo tuanta and you
15:05:37 <sgallagh> So we have quorum, but just barely
15:05:43 <sgallagh> (Also jreznik, sorry)
15:05:57 * zoglesby is here for Docs talk
15:06:08 <simo> hola
15:06:13 <sgallagh> #info simo is present
15:06:25 <simo> that's a lie ;-)
15:06:26 * mizmo has to go at 12
15:06:29 <sgallagh> #info zoglesby is present to represent Documentation
15:06:33 * simo too probs
15:06:41 <sgallagh> Ok, let's get started then
15:06:44 <sgallagh> #topic agenda
15:06:47 <sgallagh> #info Agenda Topic: tcpwrappers
15:06:50 <sgallagh> #info Agenda Topic: Documentation Needs
15:06:53 <sgallagh> #info Agenda Topic: Change Proposal Filing
15:07:07 <sgallagh> Anything else to add to the agenda? Otherwise this is what we'll cover today
15:08:02 <sgallagh> Ok, I'll take that as a "no"
15:08:07 <sgallagh> #topic tcpwrappers
15:08:40 <sgallagh> We've been asked to weigh in on the topic of tcpwrappers support in Fedora (ostensibly because Server usage is the most likely)
15:08:53 <adamw> is anyone else finding it really hard to care?
15:08:59 * sgallagh raises his hand
15:09:02 <adamw> =)
15:09:11 <nirik> yeah.
15:09:20 <tuanta> :)
15:09:26 <adamw> personal feedback: I stopped using it sometime in 2006. response to This Week's Fedora Soap Opera: mehhhhhhh.
15:09:28 * mizmo raises hand
15:09:29 * jsmith raises his hand too
15:09:36 <davidstrauss> Whoops, just realized that my Quassel was disconnected. The meeting *is* on. :-)
15:09:47 <sgallagh> Proposal: Fedora Server won't include it as a mandatory component unless Base Design elects to do so. If someone is maintaining it for Fedora, let them keep doing so.
15:10:07 <jsmith> WORKSFORME :-)
15:10:08 <sgallagh> #info davidstrauss is present
15:10:08 <adamw> that's an excellent way of formulating 'we don't care'
15:10:10 <adamw> +1
15:10:16 <nirik> well, it's going to be pulled in probibly... but sure.
15:10:19 <jreznik> sgallagh: I can bring it to the Base WG mtg this week too but I believe even Base would have similar opinion
15:10:49 <sgallagh> adamw: Well, it's not just "we don't care" and more "we're not committing to supporting it"
15:11:08 <tuanta> good point. +1 from me too
15:11:21 <nirik> right, and that we don't intend to use it actively.
15:11:27 * sgallagh nods
15:11:34 <adamw> yeah.
15:12:13 <sgallagh> adamw: As another personal anecdote, I've used it exactly once myself: for the RHCE exam on RHEL 4
15:12:45 <simo> sgallagh: as long as we are not forcibly removing it I am fine
15:13:22 <nirik> if we wanted to we could possibly get it dropped from our images... but that would be some work too.
15:13:25 <simo> so +1 to don't care/no explicit support
15:13:36 <simo> nirik: is it worth it ?
15:13:44 <davidstrauss> +1
15:13:55 <sgallagh> +1 to my own proposal (for the record)
15:14:00 <nirik> simo: not to me. ;) It would likely need convincing openssh to drop it's dep and a few others.
15:14:01 <simo> nirik: I mean I won't stop an upstream to kill it, but I wouldn't cause fedora work to remove tcpwrappers
15:14:07 <nirik> +1
15:14:38 * nirik notes you can do what systemd plans to also and use tcpd still, even if it's not linked with tcp_wrappers.
15:14:43 <sgallagh> I count +6, with only mizmo present and silent.
15:15:15 <mizmo> +1 (Sorry i 'raised my hand' before)
15:15:34 <sgallagh> #agreed Fedora Server won't include tcpwrappers as a mandatory component unless Base Design elects to do so. If someone is maintaining it for Fedora, let them keep doing so. (+7, 0, -0)
15:15:48 <sgallagh> mizmo: Sorry, I missed that.
15:16:03 <sgallagh> #topic Documentation Needs
15:16:37 <sgallagh> #info The Documentation team (represented today by zoglesby) would like us to let them know what Server-specific tasks we will have for them
15:16:38 <nirik> so, I would guess we would want some kind of docs on role configration?
15:16:51 <nirik> and possibly a release notes type thing for each role?
15:17:23 <sgallagh> We probably also want docs on Cockpit, though those may end up coming from upstream.
15:17:37 <sgallagh> Fedora Docs should at least coordinate that
15:18:07 <zoglesby> nirik: As it stands right now, we are going to give Server, Cloud, and Workstation a section in the Release notes
15:18:07 <sgallagh> zoglesby: Can you narrow the question for us at all? What specific information do you need to know?
15:18:15 <nirik> and (althought this may be too much to start with) we should make a 'How to make new roles' document.
15:18:27 <nirik> zoglesby: good...cool. .
15:18:37 <sgallagh> nirik: I'd like to formally recommend that this not be an F21 blocker :)
15:18:46 <nirik> right.
15:18:50 <nirik> agreed
15:18:51 <sgallagh> F21 is more a PoC for the Roles than anything else
15:18:58 <zoglesby> sgallagh: Out side of the release notes, why question is really do you want Fedora Server specific docs
15:19:31 <tuanta> Installation guide is also needs to be updated, I think
15:19:36 <sgallagh> zoglesby: A Role-deployment HOWTO is probably necessary
15:19:40 <zoglesby> Do you see the need for a "Fedora Server Guide" on doc.fp.o? Or is the information in other guides okay
15:19:49 <sgallagh> I'm not sure where that fits in the Documentation tree, but it needs to be there.
15:19:58 <davidstrauss> I'd like a doc sweep for stuff that still refers to pre-systemd utilities.
15:20:10 <sgallagh> tuanta: Good point; the products aren't sharing install media, so that process will vary slightly
15:20:29 <sgallagh> davidstrauss: s/service/systemctl/ and such?
15:20:35 <davidstrauss> sgallagh: Yes
15:20:41 <sgallagh> davidstrauss: +1
15:21:03 <tuanta> Installation is one of the the first docs people need
15:21:09 <simo> shouldn't we have per-product docs that highlights the specific of the product and then they all refer to a common body of docuemnts for everything they share ? (ie everything but sometimes with different default configs)
15:21:11 <sgallagh> zoglesby: There will be some Server-specific content
15:21:41 <sgallagh> simo: I'd prefer that as well
15:21:49 <tuanta> zoglesby: it's good to have a separated section for Fedora Server Guide on docs tree
15:21:59 <jreznik> tuanta: we were thinking at Base that installation is more Base documentation
15:22:24 <zoglesby> sgallagh: So would a standalone guide be the best option from the WGs standpoint?
15:22:36 <sgallagh> jreznik: Well, Installation is going to vary though. In Workstation, it's going to be a Live install, on Cloud an image deployment
15:22:46 <sgallagh> Server is the closest to the "traditional" installation
15:22:51 <tuanta> jreznik: but there are some specific steps/notes for each products as well
15:23:26 <sgallagh> zoglesby: I think simo has the right idea: a standalone primary guide that refers to other docs for things that are common between the Products (and non-Product world)
15:23:38 <davidstrauss> sgallagh: I found the docs on creating software collections to be pretty unusable, too.
15:23:55 <tuanta> +1 sgallagh, simo
15:24:13 <nirik> I think a standalone server guide makes sense, and can/should refer to the install guide for things (or other guides)
15:24:13 <zoglesby> Okay, I will start working on an outline and pick peoples brains as needed.
15:24:20 <jreznik> sgallagh: yep, I think it should be the goal
15:25:10 <zoglesby> As far as the release notes, I will just need to know what people think should be included, but that is a task for a later time
15:25:10 <sgallagh> zoglesby: That would be most appreciated. Please send your thoughts to the mailing list
15:25:24 <sgallagh> zoglesby: Hopefully the release notes will fall from the Change Proposals fairly neatly
15:25:31 <sgallagh> (our next meeting topic)
15:25:47 <zoglesby> sgallagh: We always hope so
15:26:17 <sgallagh> zoglesby: Have you read our PRD and Tech Spec? If so, please stick around and help us turn the latter into a collection of Change Proposals
15:26:25 <sgallagh> Then you'll be sure to get what you need :)
15:27:17 <jreznik> and for Changes - the same process as for other
15:27:23 <sgallagh> #info General consensus (no formal vote) is that there should be a primary Fedora Server documentation that can refer to other documentation common to other Products or non-Product Fedora.
15:27:33 <sgallagh> #undo
15:27:33 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: INFO by sgallagh at 15:27:23 : General consensus (no formal vote) is that there should be a primary Fedora Server documentation that can refer to other documentation common to other Products or non-Product Fedora.
15:27:39 <sgallagh> #info General consensus (no formal vote) is that there should be a primary Fedora Server document that can refer to other documentation common to other Products or non-Product Fedora.
15:27:42 <sgallagh> I english good.
15:27:57 <mizmo> makes sense
15:28:34 <sgallagh> zoglesby: Is there any further information you would like on this topic right now? If not, we'll move on to Change Proposals
15:28:46 <zoglesby> sgallagh: I am good for now
15:28:57 <sgallagh> Thank you for raising this discussion
15:29:04 <sgallagh> #topic Change Proposal Filing
15:29:14 <sgallagh> Ok, I'd like for us to do two things today:
15:29:22 <sgallagh> 1) Come up with a list of Changes to file
15:29:26 * jreznik is listening
15:29:45 <sgallagh> 2) Divide up the work of filling out the appropriate forms
15:30:38 <sgallagh> Getting the obvious ones out there:
15:30:56 <sgallagh> * Framework for Server Role Deployment
15:31:15 <sgallagh> * Featured Server Role: Domain Controller
15:31:31 <sgallagh> * Featured Server Role: SQL Database Server
15:32:09 <sgallagh> * Cockpit Server Management Console
15:32:39 <sgallagh> Actually, let me #info those (assuming no argument)
15:32:55 <sgallagh> #info Change Proposal: Framework for Server Role Deployment
15:32:57 <nirik> would the framework have the command line tool? or is that going to be a part of/variant of cockpit?
15:33:03 <sgallagh> #info Change Proposal: Featured Server Role: Domain Controller
15:33:26 <sgallagh> #Info Change Proposal: Featured Server Role: SQL Database Server
15:33:38 <sgallagh> #info Change Proposal: Cockpit Server Management Console
15:33:54 <sgallagh> nirik: Actually, the OpenLMI team committed to providing the command-line tool
15:34:01 <nirik> cool!
15:34:03 <sgallagh> And that should be a Change as well
15:34:05 <nirik> yep
15:34:17 <sgallagh> #info Change Proposal: OpenLMI Support for Server Roles
15:34:48 <sgallagh> nirik: (And we'd likely have a simple command-line tool as a side effect of producing the role deployment anyway, if only for testing purposes)
15:35:23 <davidstrauss> Are OpenLMI and Copr coordinating at all?
15:35:47 <sgallagh> davidstrauss: I don't understand the question. They're unrelated technologies.
15:36:01 <jreznik> davidstrauss: they know about each other
15:36:24 <sgallagh> mizmo: Do you think we should be filing a Change for website design?
15:36:32 <nirik> you mean cockpit and openlmi?
15:36:32 <davidstrauss> Sorry, was thinking Cockpit, not Copr. Ignore my early-morning confusion.
15:36:35 <adamw> are we going to list all the proposals as coming from the WG as a whole?
15:36:45 <mizmo> sgallagh, dont the changes only affect the distro not the websites?
15:36:58 <mizmo> sgallagh, we've never had to file any kind of anything to update the website, and that work is already underway. so i think we're okay
15:37:11 <sgallagh> davidstrauss: They are coordinating to make sure they use the same underlying layers
15:37:28 <sgallagh> In some cases, Cockpit may also use OpenLMI directly, but they aren't at this moment
15:37:40 <sgallagh> davidstrauss: (in other words, they're not building competing stacks)
15:38:11 <sgallagh> jreznik: Can you answer adamw's question? Should we be maintaining these under a Server umbrella, somehow?
15:38:42 <sgallagh> mizmo: Ok, thanks. I just didn't want anyone to be thinking we were intentionally forgetting the impact we have there
15:39:09 <simo> sgallagh: how is openlmi going to help here ?
15:39:18 <mizmo> sgallagh, nah we're fine
15:39:29 <simo> sgallagh: are we forcing everyone to have and LMI provider installed just to use roles ?
15:39:44 <sgallagh> simo: They're going to be wrapping the role management API and creating an LMI metacommand to deploy roles remotely.
15:39:52 <simo> sgallagh: what about locally ?
15:39:56 <jreznik> sgallagh: if you take a look on https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Changes/EmptyTemplate&action=edit I added there optional * Product: and * Responsible WG: fields
15:39:59 <simo> does it mean we have no CLI ?
15:40:21 <jreznik> if you fill it in - I can create category based on that if you wish
15:40:26 <sgallagh> the command works locally as well. I'm still discussing with them about how best to do that.
15:40:48 <simo> sgallagh: well let's make it clear, I am not ok on depending on LMI for basic functionality
15:40:49 <sgallagh> As I already said, in the worst case, a "simple" CLI will get built as a side-effect anyway
15:41:17 <simo> given the current status of server components for example
15:41:26 <jreznik> mizmo: actually I'd like to see also Changes from websites and other teams - to make the progress more trackable and to have documented what's happening in one place but it's up to you
15:41:38 <sgallagh> jreznik: Yeah, a wiki category would be a good idea
15:42:09 <jreznik> sgallagh: it's not wiki category now, only that product thing but then I can do my own categories in the ChangeSet
15:42:14 <sgallagh> simo: I see your point and I mostly agree. We will want to have a local CLI for F21.
15:42:26 <jreznik> but if you'd like to mark it with wiki category too, I'm ok
15:42:28 <simo> I think it is a blocker
15:42:42 <simo> w/o CLI we do not really have a usable role installer
15:42:58 <jreznik> for blocking, I've added also "* Blocks product? product <-- Applicable for Changes that blocks specific product release/Fedora.next -->" field to the template
15:45:25 <sgallagh> OK, so back on topic (and since we've only got 15 minutes left)
15:45:53 <nirik> simo: yeah, we need a usable command line...
15:46:06 <sgallagh> Are there any other Changes we need to file?
15:46:16 <sgallagh> If not, let's start volunteering people to work on them.
15:46:28 <sgallagh> I'd like to suggest that each one be filed by two WG members working together.
15:47:21 <simo> sgallagh: ok I can volunter to work with you on domain controller role
15:47:47 <sgallagh> #action sgallagh and simo to file the Domain Controller change
15:48:27 <tuanta> sgallagh: I can work on "Featured Server Role: SQL Database Server" with someone
15:48:28 <nirik> I can work on db role one
15:48:42 <tuanta> nice, +1 nirik :)
15:48:43 * nirik happy to work with tuanta on it.
15:48:44 <sgallagh> #action nirik and tuanta to file the SQL Database Server Change
15:48:49 <sgallagh> Thanks guys
15:49:34 * adamw not really sure he has the knowledge to help with either of the outstanding ones :(
15:49:38 <adamw> do we have domain experts in those areas?
15:49:39 <sgallagh> I'll coordinate the OpenLMI and Cockpit changes with a representative from their upstreams, but I'd like another WG member to also participate.
15:50:35 <sgallagh> adamw: I'd *really* like you and mitr to take on the Server Role Infrastructure one, actually. (Of course, I'm volunteering mitr who can't defend himself...)
15:50:50 <sgallagh> Obviously you should consult the rest of us while doing so.
15:51:10 <adamw> "Framework for Server Role Deployment" ? oh, i missed that one
15:51:16 <adamw> i could help with that, sure.
15:51:18 <sgallagh> adamw: That's the one
15:51:30 <sgallagh> Thanks. I'll assign it to you and check with mitr later.
15:51:31 <tuanta> yes, I think the change owner should be Server WG
15:51:54 <sgallagh> #action adamw to file the "Framework for Server Role Deployment" Change Proposal.
15:52:05 <davidstrauss> I think I'm still recovering my bandwidth too much still to volunteer for anything blocking.
15:52:12 <sgallagh> #action sgallagh to ask mitr to assist adamw
15:52:44 <sgallagh> davidstrauss: You could still volunteer to help with final editing, if you're willing.
15:53:18 <sgallagh> #action sgallagh to coordinate with Cockpit and OpenLMI upstreams to file their Change proposals.
15:53:28 <sgallagh> (man, I have a lot of work in my future)
15:53:37 <tuanta> :)
15:54:04 <sgallagh> davidstrauss: Would you be willing to vet and approve those two?
15:54:06 <davidstrauss> sgallagh: Yes, I can do that for any ones you'd like, especially Cockpit, OpenLMI, or DB server.
15:54:12 <jreznik> in case you'd need any help with filling proposals - let me know
15:54:18 <sgallagh> davidstrauss: Thanks!
15:54:36 <tuanta> thanks, jreznik
15:54:38 <jreznik> davidstrauss: openlmi guys were usually good in proposing changes, I can ping them to do it for F21
15:54:41 <sgallagh> #action davidstrauss to provide final editing review for Cockpit, OpenLMI and DB Server Changes.
15:54:56 <sgallagh> #info jreznik is available to assist with filing proposals
15:55:09 * sgallagh is trying to produce useful meeting minutes for a change this week.
15:55:58 <sgallagh> Ok, I *think* that covers all the Changes we plan to file. Am I missing anything?
15:56:22 <nirik> that seems good to me
15:56:29 <tuanta> I think all have been covered
15:56:33 <tuanta> anything else today?
15:56:44 <sgallagh> #topic Open Floor
15:56:50 <sgallagh> I have one item for Open Floor.
15:57:07 <simo> do we want to set any deadlines ?
15:57:08 <sgallagh> Evolution hasn't attended a meeting since before the PRD was filed, I think.
15:57:10 <tuanta> I need to go for chairing FAmSCo meeting today on #fedora-meeting-2 in a few minutes
15:57:19 <sgallagh> tuanta: Thank you for your participation.
15:57:39 <sgallagh> simo: The deadlines are implied; the Change freeze is imminent.
15:57:44 <tuanta> thanks, see you all later
15:57:46 <sgallagh> jreznik: What's the exact data?
15:57:52 <nirik> have fun tuanta
15:57:57 <sgallagh> Change *Submission* Freeze
15:58:15 <sgallagh> #undo
15:58:15 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Topic object at 0x122e3b50>
15:58:19 <simo> sgallagh: I meant Fedora Server deadlines to make sure we progress in a way that will allow us to have the roles stuff by F21
15:58:26 <jreznik> sgallagh: submission deadline is in two weeeks
15:58:36 <sgallagh> #info Change Submissions must be complete two weeks from today
15:58:41 <sgallagh> #topic Open Floor
15:58:49 <tuanta> nirik: please drop me an email to get started with our *action* to file DB role change
15:58:54 <jreznik> simo: I'd say standard Fedora Change Freezes should apply
15:58:56 <sgallagh> simo: Can you start a thread on the list?
15:59:04 <jreznik> + contingency deadlines
15:59:05 <nirik> tuanta: sure, can do
15:59:06 <sgallagh> We're out of time today and that's likely to be a longer topic
15:59:10 <simo> ok
15:59:20 <simo> sgallagh: I'll propose as topic for nex tmeeting
15:59:23 <sgallagh> simo: Ack
15:59:28 <sgallagh> Thank you
15:59:35 <sgallagh> Anything further for Open Floor?
16:00:28 <sgallagh> Ok, thank you everyone!
16:00:30 <sgallagh> #endmeeting