16:01:28 #startmeeting Server Working Group Weekly Meeting (2014-11-25) 16:01:28 Meeting started Tue Nov 25 16:01:28 2014 UTC. The chair is sgallagh. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 16:01:28 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 16:01:31 #chair sgallagh mizmo nirik davidstrauss stefw adamw simo tuanta mitr 16:01:31 Current chairs: adamw davidstrauss mitr mizmo nirik sgallagh simo stefw tuanta 16:01:31 #topic roll call 16:01:42 .hello stefw 16:01:43 stefw: stefw 'Stef Walter' 16:01:47 .hello sgallagh 16:01:48 sgallagh: sgallagh 'Stephen Gallagher' 16:01:49 * nirik is here. morning 16:02:17 .hello tuanta 16:02:18 tuanta: tuanta 'Truong Anh Tuan' 16:03:12 .hello simo 16:03:13 simo: simo 'Simo Sorce' 16:03:17 .hello adamwill 16:03:18 adamw: adamwill 'Adam Williamson' 16:03:22 sorry, bit of a home plumbing emergency 16:03:41 * tuanta is also in FAmSCo meeting. Time change would make that conflict. 16:03:47 * simo hands adamw a 1 inch wrench 16:03:54 adamw: Ouch, sorry to hear that 16:04:52 #topic Agenda 16:05:00 I have three things on the agenda this week: 16:05:12 #info Agenda Item: Empty WG Seat 16:05:12 #info Agenda Item: Status check on Fedora 21 16:05:12 #info Agenda Item: Fedora 22 Planning 16:05:40 Are there any other topics that we should consider? 16:05:59 tuanta: Do you want to discuss any of the Ambassador materials today? 16:06:50 sgallagh: yes, if we have enough time 16:07:01 otherwise, I will drop an email first 16:07:31 #info Agenda Item: Ambassador materials 16:07:57 OK, let's get started 16:08:03 #topic Empty WG Seat 16:08:24 As I'm sure all of you noticed, davidstrauss has chosen to step down from his seat on the Working Group. 16:09:15 thanks david 16:09:26 #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Server/Governance_Charter 16:09:40 According to our charter, we will fill this seat by majority consensus 16:10:20 How do we want to gather candidates? 16:10:45 call to mailing list first? 16:10:49 Which mailing list? 16:11:03 ours. that would get anyone already interested/involved. 16:11:04 Do we want to restrict ourselves to current readers of the server@ list? 16:11:05 what kind of candidate do we want ? 16:11:05 sgallagh, IIRC, last time we sent a message to the server@ mailing list 16:11:34 simo: Well, IMHO, I'd like to see us fill davidstrauss's position with someone of similar background (meaning a person doing actual deployments) 16:11:46 But I'm open to other recommendations 16:13:07 FWIW it is not entirely before after F21, but I’ve heard a (to me convincing) argument that having ~a dozen contributors and 9 of them “voting” demotivates the others and is a barrier to joining. Would we want to change the model instead of prolonging its use by filling the seat? (Feel free to say that we are not discussing this to day.) 16:14:01 mitr: The governance charter requires a consensus of the WG to change the rules, which we cannot have until we fill the seat. 16:14:12 mitr: we should rather reduce the "qualified voting" to when it really matters 16:14:13 OK :) 16:14:27 simo: Which I think we've been doing anyway 16:14:37 for ordinary things we should not need WG votes, just consensus by *anyone* that is participating 16:15:11 According to the meeting notes, we've only had three formal votes in the last three months. 16:15:15 sgallagh: I think maybe we should make it clearer by inviting everyone to the meeting etc 16:15:40 I think 90% is perception and how we communicate and behave shapes it 16:15:43 right, we work on consensus. 16:15:50 point is 16:15:52 I am pretty sure thats in the charter/setup... 16:15:52 /me agrees 16:16:08 we should make it clear consensus extends outside of the WG members 16:16:13 indeed 16:16:18 "The Server Working Group strives to work on consensus and only vote on things where it’s clear people aren’t going to be convinced to agree." 16:16:32 sgallagh: I know our charter is ok 16:16:39 it's not a charter issue 16:16:43 it is a perception issue 16:16:55 OK, so ideas for correcting it? 16:17:02 I believe what mitr says is people have been led to believe that only the WG membners opinion ever matters 16:17:19 open up more the meetings 16:17:30 allow anyone to participate and "vote" on issues 16:17:42 I hope that isn't the case. We've had plenty of good interactions with w.g. junland and danofsatx, neither of whom are WG members currently 16:17:52 s/w.g./e.g./ 16:17:58 restrict actual WG member votes to matters that are either controversial or require our vote for official reasons 16:18:06 sgallagh: yup 16:18:08 * nirik thinks we are already doing this. 16:18:14 it is just a matter of making it even clearer 16:18:17 please tell anyone who thinks otherwise we are. 16:18:22 /me nods 16:18:33 OK, can I formally withdraw this topic? 16:18:37 simo: Would you be interested in writing up a clarification blog entry for the Server WG blog? 16:18:38 maybe we can simply blog post with a summary of this discussion :) 16:18:43 haha 16:19:49 simo: Please work up a first draft, send it to the list and when we're good with it, we can post it on the blog 16:20:21 ok 16:20:22 (That way we're also being highly visible about our efforts to fix the perception problem, which could do as much or more good than the post itself) 16:21:03 #action simo to write up a first draft of a blog post describing our decision-making process and how it's not restricted to WG members 16:21:30 I think we also decided above that we'd draw from the current set of server@ subscribers? 16:21:49 as a first cut I would say yes. 16:21:58 if we don't get any interest there we can widen the net 16:22:00 I'll send out an email asking for self-nominations. I can also stick it on the blog 16:22:06 I think that is an useful heuristic, though probably should not be a qualifying criterion. 16:22:14 qualification criterion, whatever 16:22:25 mitr: Sorry, define "that" in this context? 16:22:40 sgallagh: “drawing” from the current subscribers 16:22:47 got it 16:23:18 I'm slightly inclined to widen the net from the start, if only because it may also help with the perception and recognition aspects. 16:24:38 sgallagh: On the vacant seat, should the voting positions be more supervisory/advisory, or a do-ocracy? We have people working on Server (rolekit, test days, …) that have definitely earned a voice; OTOH I can see a good case for having an explicit vote from the _user_ community of the product. 16:25:29 I've been trying to maintain a reasonable balance of both in the current makeup of the WG 16:25:57 * nirik is fine with a wider net at first... 16:26:03 The basic flaw of a pure do-ocracy is that it tends to lead to a product that's "by engineers, for engineers" and rarely what users actually want 16:26:09 Yes. 16:27:22 So while it's not a hard requirement, I would be more inclined to vote positively for a candidate representing users to fill this position. 16:27:37 * mitr will stop derailing this. 16:28:04 So, how wide a net shall we cast? 16:28:39 I think announce@ is probably a little too wide. devel-announce@ and the Fedora Magazine? 16:28:48 looks good 16:28:55 I mean I agree 16:28:59 sure 16:29:04 sure 16:29:06 +1 too 16:29:10 I’d be happy enough with devel@ and server@ but the above is fine. 16:29:36 we want more than devel 16:29:36 #action sgallagh to announce the search for WG candidates on devel-announce@ and the Fedora Magazine 16:29:47 (… for “fine” being “as good or better” to be clear) 16:30:06 Moving on 16:30:11 #topic Status check on Fedora 21 16:30:31 Cockpit has updated its branding 16:30:44 stefw: I saw that, though I also saw another iteration coming? 16:30:57 hmmm, i should double check 16:31:30 I thought I saw chatter about how "Fedora" wasn't mentioned except on the login screen 16:32:11 ah right, i'll see if there's an update of the branding with "Fedora" 16:32:23 stefw: Thanks 16:32:41 #action stefw to check up on a second iteration of the Cockpit branding 16:33:00 so, this is a blocker? 16:33:02 simo: FreeIPA was submitted for stable and should be in last night's TC4 16:33:07 nirik: No, it's an FE 16:33:32 already proposed? I don't see it off hand. 16:33:43 nirik: Currently marked as VERIFIED 16:34:01 ok, then it's already pushed... 16:34:17 .bz 1161775 16:34:23 Yes, the first version was. 16:34:28 .bug 1161775 16:34:31 sgallagh: Bug 1161775 No Fedora branding for Cockpit in Fedora 21 Server - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1161775 16:34:53 you want to reuse the same bug for more/different? might be better to make a new one, or I guess say that one failed. 16:35:06 we are running really low on time for more FEs 16:35:07 IMHO 16:35:21 Yeah, I'm kind of leaning towards "Fix it in an update" 16:35:36 yeah 16:35:36 The really important piece IMHO was the login screen 16:36:31 * nirik is really hoping we could do a rc1 tomorrow before long weekend... but I guess we will see. 16:36:44 nirik: I'd be in favor of that 16:37:02 (Instead of the TC5 I was asking for today) 16:37:22 I've been revising the test matrix quite a bit 16:37:30 you should see that TC4's is rather different from TC3's 16:37:47 sgallagh: depends on if we can get fixes for all blockers in hand. ;) 16:37:50 adamw: Thanks. I appreciate it 16:38:05 i set out to implement test cases for the new criteria, but it's rather ballooned into a project to try and modernize/unify the freeipa, AD and realmd test cases 16:38:34 BTW, quick note for TC4 testers today: the openldap package on the media is newer than the one on most of the mirrors, so DC deploys are a bit messed up. 16:38:41 It should sort itself out as the mirrors sync 16:39:01 there's a whole set of realmd test cases that are basically duplicates of the same test, one for AD and one for FreeIPA, and i'm trying to unify those, plus use some templates and stuff to keep the content consistent (and modernize it). 16:39:01 #info quick note for TC4 testers today: the openldap package on the media is newer than the one on most of the mirrors, so domain controller deploys won't work until the mirrors sync. 16:39:22 so anyhow, need to make sure the new tests are run for TC4, and keep an eye out for new ones showing up - i'll aim to get the rest of the new criteria covered with test cases today 16:39:53 adamw: Thanks. If you need some help with those this afternoon, let me know. 16:40:42 #info The test matrix for Fedora Server has been redesigned for TC4 and later. It includes the new criteria we voted on last week. 16:42:18 As I alluded to above, TC4 is still lacking the branding images we wanted, but I *think* it was only because we accidentally forgot to include the fedora-productimg-server package in the compose. 16:42:31 So I'm hoping that the next TC/RC will just work. 16:43:05 That being said, even if it doesn't, the general-purpose Fedora logos have been updated, so they are no longer the blurry placeholder. 16:43:17 So that's our worst-case scenario (which is not terrible) 16:44:11 sgallagh: it's not so much a case of 'accidentally forgot', it's more 'i can't know about a fix if there isn't an accepted blocker/fe bug open with that update listed as fixing it'. 16:44:34 the tc4 compose request included all the updates that were marked as fixing blocker/fe bugs; if it wasn't in the list it's cos it wasn't doing that. 16:45:20 OK, I'll make sure the bodhi update is corrected for that. 16:45:48 (But I *did* call them out explicitly as being needed when I asked you to create the request...) 16:46:28 yeah, well, there's a dozen other things that need to go in, that's why there's a process with blocker bugs and things, so we have a nice clean list to work off so stuff doesn't get missed 16:46:38 people telling people stuff in IRC has historically proven an unreliable mechanism :P 16:46:53 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155228 was closed, that's why i didn't have them on the list. 16:46:54 I have no idea what you're talking about, Mr. President. 16:47:11 OK, lesson learned. I'll fix that after the meeting. 16:47:16 (though this reminds me we also need to make the blockerbugs webapp handle bug dependencies, le sigh, always another thing.) 16:47:32 i re-opened it already, but only in the middle of doing the compose because i happened to spot lorax somehow or other 16:47:57 #action sgallagh to update the bodhi bugs to note that they fix 1155228 16:48:02 undo 16:48:06 #undo 16:48:06 Removing item from minutes: ACTION by sgallagh at 16:47:57 : sgallagh to update the bodhi bugs to note that they fix 1155228 16:48:12 #action sgallagh to update the bodhi bugs for productimg packages to note that they fix 1155228 16:48:25 OK, anything else that could impact the Fedora 21 delivery? 16:49:52 /me hears nothing 16:50:00 nothing comes to mind 16:50:01 We have ten minutes remaining 16:50:14 * junland overslept.. 16:50:16 Do we want to talk about F22 at all today, or jump to the Ambassador stuff? 16:50:31 ambassador imo 16:50:39 I think I agree 16:50:39 personally I have no mental energy to think about f22 16:50:48 haha 16:50:56 #topic Fedora 22 Planning 16:51:05 #info Skipped in favor of Ambassador discussion 16:51:23 #topic Ambassador materials 16:51:28 tuanta: ping 16:51:31 Your show here. 16:51:35 * tuanta is here 16:51:53 So what do we need to provide the Ambassadors? 16:52:13 In general, Ambassadors work would be started after release date. We do /participate in events, distribute media, swags, etc. Of course, we need to plan all in advance and do preparation with Marketing guys as well as other teams. 16:52:38 Regarding to contents and materials, usually, we will make some Talking Points (e.g. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_20_talking_points). It 16:52:38 is similar to Release Notes, but specific for Ambassadors with focused information to talk to the public at events or so. From those contents, we can make some materials like fliers, cube boxes, etc. to give away at events too. 16:53:16 so first, we need to complete the talking points 16:54:16 in the past, Marketing team made them 16:54:19 i guess the big things are gonna be cockpit and roles 16:54:29 * nirik nods 16:54:43 tuanta: BTW, have you seen the first draft of the Fedora Server brochure page? 16:54:45 #link http://scarlett.frields.org:5000/server/ 16:55:19 (That rolekit logo is *not* sticking around...) 16:55:22 thanks, sgallagh. I just seen it now 16:55:57 Website looks good. 16:55:59 I think we can draw the talking points fairly well from there 16:56:06 http://stg.getfedora.org/server/ is the more up to date stg one now. ;) 16:56:10 junland: Of course you'd say that, you're quoted on it ;-) 16:56:17 nirik: Thanks 16:56:22 yes, contents on that brochure could be quite useful for Talking points 16:56:26 sgallagh: HAHA 16:56:26 #link http://stg.getfedora.org/server/ 16:57:18 /me makes a note to request that the projects mentioned there should get links to their upstreams 16:58:00 yeah, any feedback on those pages, please take them to the websites team... #fedora-websites or their trac. 16:58:10 #info any feedback on those pages, please take them to the websites team... #fedora-websites or their trac. 16:58:23 #link http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-websites 16:59:03 +1 16:59:04 tuanta: Does this provide you with enough to work from for the moment? 16:59:32 I suggest starting a mailing-list thread on the Talking Points topic so we can get those shaped up. 16:59:44 sgallagh, I will double check them all carefully then write to the mailing list what are missing 16:59:51 tuanta: Thank you very much 17:00:08 thanks tuanta 17:00:27 Thanks tuanta. 17:00:28 marketing team already opened a ticket to make the Talking Points wiki page 17:00:29 ty 17:00:38 * tuanta is looking for 17:01:08 #link https://fedorahosted.org/marketing-team/ticket/176 17:01:16 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_21_talking_points 17:01:33 thanks nirik 17:01:37 needs some work 17:02:01 OK, we're now over time. Do we want to continue or take it to the list? 17:02:19 sgallagh, it is fine 17:02:30 OK, thanks for coming everyone. 17:02:38 #endmeeting