20:00:11 #startmeeting Server Working Group Weekly Meeting (2016-09-06) 20:00:11 Meeting started Tue Sep 6 20:00:11 2016 UTC. The chair is sgallagh. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 20:00:11 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 20:00:11 The meeting name has been set to 'server_working_group_weekly_meeting_(2016-09-06)' 20:00:11 #meetingname ServerSIG 20:00:11 The meeting name has been set to 'serversig' 20:00:11 #chair nirik adamw mhayden jds2001 mjwolf sgallagh dperpeet smooge vvaldez 20:00:11 #topic Roll Call 20:00:11 Current chairs: adamw dperpeet jds2001 mhayden mjwolf nirik sgallagh smooge vvaldez 20:00:11 .hello sgallagh 20:00:15 .hello smooge 20:00:17 sgallagh: sgallagh 'Stephen Gallagher' 20:00:18 .hello vvaldez 20:00:18 .hello kevin 20:00:20 smooge: smooge 'Stephen J Smoogen' 20:00:23 vvaldez: vvaldez 'Vinny Valdez' 20:00:25 nirik: kevin 'Kevin Fenzi' 20:00:26 .hello langdon 20:00:30 .hello mjwolf 20:00:31 langdon: langdon 'Langdon White' 20:00:34 mjwolf: mjwolf 'Michael Wolf' 20:00:34 .hello dperpeet 20:00:37 dperpeet: dperpeet 'None' 20:00:45 That may be the fastest we have ever hit quorum 20:01:01 i'm trapped in a meeting at the office today :| 20:01:16 mhayden: "Please send help. Or coffee."? 20:01:35 .hello jstanley 20:01:36 jds2001: jstanley 'Jon Stanley' 20:01:38 or any other form of caffeinated beverage :) 20:01:43 i'll catch up on the notes later 20:02:21 By my count, that's everyone but adamw 20:02:28 So we can probably get started 20:02:36 #topic Agenda 20:02:47 cool. we can assign everything to him. ;) 20:02:49 mizmo? 20:02:51 #info Agenda Item: Server Vision and Mission 20:03:20 I'm also in a meeting but I'm going to dual-task 20:03:57 smooge: mizmo__ isn't technically a Server WG member, though she is fantastically helpful during PRD discussions like this 20:04:39 OK, so my primary item for today's agenda was to hopefully finalize our mission and vision so we can get to work on the harder stuff :) 20:05:02 well that cna be pretty hard, as evidenced last week :) 20:06:08 If we have some time at the end, I'd like to talk a little bit about Ansible Galaxy and maybe assign someone to help me investigate it 20:06:19 #topic Ansible Galaxy 20:06:22 #undo 20:06:22 Removing item from minutes: 20:06:30 #info Agenda Item: Ansible Galaxy 20:06:35 Any other topics? 20:07:34 #topic Server Vision and Mission 20:07:44 OK, so I dropped the ball on this last week. Sorry about that. 20:08:04 I sent out something like a summary this morning and kicked off the Mission discussion. 20:08:33 Do we want to keep painting the Vision shed or accept the slightly-wordy version for now and massage it down the line? 20:08:58 * jds2001 doesnt think fitting into a tweet should be a criteria 20:09:07 i.e. im fine with the wordy version :) 20:09:22 I think it's good for now 20:09:43 we may want to revisit once we have a proper mission :) 20:10:06 dperpeet: well, the mission should align with the vision, no? 20:10:07 Proposal: Accept "Anyone should be able to confidently obtain, configure and deploy software services that address their needs using readily-available and trustworthy recipes." as the Fedora Server Vision 20:10:09 not the other way around 20:10:20 Yes, the mission must serve the vision 20:11:00 jds2001, that is true, but sometimes thinking about things a bit more changes how you understand them - I meant the consequence temporally 20:11:40 ahh 20:11:46 anyhow, +1 to the proposal 20:11:52 +1 as well 20:11:56 +1 20:11:59 +1 20:12:05 who votes here? 20:12:32 +1 20:12:35 langdon: Server WG have the binding votes, but anyone is welcome to speak and influence said votes 20:12:38 langdon: adamw dperpeet jds2001 mhayden mjwolf nirik sgallagh smooge vvaldez 20:12:58 ack.. and a none voting +1 :) 20:13:02 *non 20:13:12 sure, we don't want to spend all our time on this one thing, so +1 and revist if needed 20:13:13 (influence by way of reasoned argument, usually. Though bribes might be cool too.) 20:13:24 oh, meetings? we love meetings 20:13:28 +1 whatever 20:13:50 Welcome, adamw :) 20:13:58 adamw: is there something wrong with it?? 20:14:01 * adamw can always be influenced by bribes 20:14:14 jds2001: i don't know, i didn't read it, but you all said +1 so i thought i'd say +1 too. :P 20:14:20 :) 20:14:34 +1 to close it out 20:15:10 adamw: "I didn't read it" is a perfectly valid reason to vote 0 :-P 20:16:11 Server WG accepts "Anyone should be able to confidently obtain, configure and deploy software services that address their needs using readily-available and trustworthy recipes." as the Fedora Server Vision (+8, 0, -0) 20:16:18 #agreed Server WG accepts "Anyone should be able to confidently obtain, configure and deploy software services that address their needs using readily-available and trustworthy recipes." as the Fedora Server Vision (+8, 0, -0) 20:16:35 OK, so now we know what change we want to effect in the world. 20:16:57 Our mission should describe what purpose Server Edition serves to achieving that goal 20:17:01 "whats this queue for?" "I dunno, but there's a lot of people in it, so I stood in it too" :) 20:17:35 sgallagh: are there any examples for these? 20:17:44 nirik: That's how we get political parties -_- 20:17:56 nirik: Well, I can cite the Red Hat Mission, which is actually a great example. 20:18:23 Red Hat: "Our mission is to be the catalyst in communities of customers, contributors, and partners creating better technology the open source way." 20:19:22 that's an action, but is it measurable? 20:19:35 i guess how many projects they've catalyzed, etc 20:19:45 jds2001: A Mission is still aspirational 20:19:57 I think you want the Outcomes (in the Kellogg Model) to be specifically measurable 20:20:17 Where the Impact is a little more vaguely defined 20:21:42 I think one of the reoccuring questions jds2001 and I am coming up with is that the old way mission statements were supposed to be formulated was that they should always be measurable 20:21:59 which isn't how the Kellogg Model does things it looks like 20:22:03 In the mail thread, I suggested: ""Fedora Server Edition provides a platform for the creation and deployment of assured service roles meeting the needs of both traditional and leading-edge computing." 20:22:30 assured has a specific meaning in some circles :) 20:22:47 jds2001: Could you provide that meaning? 20:22:56 "assured service" seems very specific in an easily misunderstood way 20:22:58 not any i hang around in, but others :) 20:23:14 sgallagh: assured as in "meets federal standards" 20:23:25 ok 20:23:29 specifically in the defense arena 20:23:32 So maybe that's the wrong terminology, then 20:23:56 My intent was basically to imply "certain to have been tested and validated by someone you can trust" 20:24:11 "assured" was the most abbreviated way I thought of to say that 20:24:12 before we get into the guts... in general: do we want to provide just a platform? or should it already contain what you need for many roles et al? 20:24:20 right, maybe validated is the right word? 20:24:28 dperpeet: Sorry, what do you mean by "contain what you need"? 20:24:37 jds2001: I could work with that, sure 20:24:37 maybe I'm just misunderstanding platform 20:24:47 dperpeet: it should contain what you need - i.e. the bits and recipies to deploy those bits in a sane way 20:25:06 I read that as "you can use this as the foundation, but by itself you can't yet do anything concrete" 20:25:20 dperpeet: Maybe it would be less ambiguous if I used the word "ecosystem" in place of "platform"? 20:25:26 yes! 20:25:32 yes :) 20:25:47 (Didn't think of that before, but I think it fits what I was intending) 20:25:48 ecosystem is also a perfect word if you want to modularize *cough* 20:26:36 OK, so currently working with "Fedora Server Edition provides an ecosystem for the creation and deployment of validated service roles meeting the needs of both traditional and leading-edge computing." 20:26:58 how about "is an ecosystem"? 20:27:05 more succinct and positive 20:27:54 s/meeting the needs of both traditional and leading-edge computing/enabling bimodal IT/ ??? 20:28:01 or is that too management-speak? :) 20:28:30 jds2001: Even *I* don't know what "enabling bimodal IT" means (though I have some guesses based on context) 20:28:35 dperpeet: +1 20:28:59 Fedora Server Edition is an ecosystem for creating and deploying validated service roles in traditional and leading-edge computing 20:29:24 sgallagh: fair enough :) 20:29:29 /me notes that actually fits in a tweet too :) 20:29:39 so, for me, "ecosystem" reads as "not fedora" ... like outside fedora 20:30:02 ? 20:30:03 how about: 20:30:04 langdon: Why do you think so? 20:30:16 langdon: something between platform and ecossytem? 20:30:17 I actually prefer "platform" if you think about it in terms of platform vs distro or OS 20:30:22 im having trouble coming up with that word 20:30:25 s/in traditional and leading-edge computing/for all computing needs/ ? 20:30:46 cause usually "ecosystem" is the impact your "thing" has on everything else... like a "partner ecosystem" 20:30:49 nirik, +1, but all is very strong 20:30:50 nirik: Fedora Server 26: Codename Shamwow! 20:31:09 it's a floorwax and a desert topping! 20:31:26 so since i'm mainly here as a qa rep i don't have much of an opinion on this stuff, and i've got an errand to run, so i'm going out...you can count me +1 to anything both nirik and sgallagh +1 and which contains no outright profanity. :P 20:31:26 * langdon goes to hit a thesaurus 20:31:38 lol 20:31:41 ha 20:31:44 adamw: Thanks for the vote of confidence :) 20:32:02 I think ecosystem fits because a server shouldn't be about the server itself, what you worry about is how the services run and interact 20:32:04 adamw: you're no fun! 20:32:42 langdon: Yes, except we also talk about the RPM ecosystem in Fedora. 20:32:48 And the Atomic ecosystem... 20:32:56 The GNOME Software ecosystem... 20:32:58 does that not include say rpmfusion? 20:33:00 Shall I continue? 20:33:16 langdon: Will this not include things like Ansible Galaxy, perhaps? 20:33:30 don't get smart with me!!;) 20:33:47 i think Ansible Galaxy will definitely *enable* some of this. 20:33:52 what I worry about most with "platform" is that it conveys that things (non specified) will run within/on said platform, but aren't part of the platform itself 20:33:58 but I don't think that we want to say "here's Galaxy, go have fun!" 20:34:08 and.. actually.. I am not sure it would.. it would be a subset of galaxy, right? 20:34:30 I don't think thats going to be the case 20:34:34 langdon: right (at least from my perspective) 20:34:42 nirik: huh? 20:34:50 nirik: not everything on galaxy becomes a role 20:34:56 I think galaxy will be a great place to publish and have folks help us on roles. 20:35:09 nirik: +1 for sure 20:35:10 I think it's not likely any role there will just work for our needs 20:35:39 but honestly.. I think you could stick with ecosystem and be fine.. just in the "longer form" mission somewhere just explain it means "Fedora stuff".. and I think it is "fine" 20:35:41 Right. But working with that project would make it part of our ecosystem, but not strictly underneath the Fedora banner,. 20:35:46 at least until someone things of a better term 20:35:49 a middleground would be "environment", but that seems like a pretty used-up word 20:36:10 "arboretum"? :-P 20:36:25 sgallagh, sold! ;) 20:36:34 royal botanical garden? 20:36:38 oh wait, wrong way 20:37:48 I really think "ecosystem" is the right word. 20:37:55 do we want to emphasize "traditional and leading-edge"? I think nirik had a point that this is pretty long 20:38:00 If we discover that there's confusion down the road, we can reconsider of course. 20:38:27 I like the idea of phrasing it to show we want it to encompass more than just bleeding edge or anything else specific 20:38:28 dperpeet: Well, we really have hit an inflection point. 20:38:52 I want us to be clear that we're not just abandoning our traditional users to chase the latest hotness all the time. 20:39:14 (But that we're also not going to ignore the paradigm shift that's happening) 20:39:17 indeed, the LTS emphasis 20:39:30 (kind of) 20:39:36 not necessairly LTS as such 20:39:49 it seems nice... but very vague 20:39:51 but rather more traditional methods of deployment 20:39:54 than containers and stuff 20:40:10 dperpeet: Which does? 20:40:39 "traditional" can be interpreted in many different ways... but I guess that is the intent 20:40:39 I mean, it's less vague than "all your computing needs" and less confusing than "enables bimodal IT". 20:40:46 So find me a better choice :) 20:40:51 s/me/us/ 20:41:05 I'm actually ok with what we have now 20:41:13 just trying to pick at it from different angles 20:41:37 Sure, that's perfectly reasonable 20:43:34 sgallagh, some days it feels like our regular users feel abandoned if we move from RFC822 to something only 2 decades old. 20:43:45 nirik: http://www.gartner.com/it-glossary/bimodal/ 20:43:50 and I need to scroll down as I am multi lines off from the current conversatiuon 20:43:50 OK, so we're currently working from "Fedora Server Edition is an ecosystem for creating and deploying validated service roles in traditional and leading-edge computing" 20:43:57 er, sgallagh 20:44:06 but that gets even more wordy :) 20:44:10 is fully back now 20:44:20 what about "stable"? 20:44:33 vvaldez: Just a sec, I'll answer when the giggles subside ;-) 20:44:38 :) 20:47:05 Does anyone have a better phrasing they want to propose? Otherwise, I'll take it to a vote. 20:47:22 * nirik still doesn't like the last part, but not enough to hold things up 20:47:44 I'm a bit torn about the last part, too 20:47:50 but I don't have a better alternative 20:47:56 OK, then let's work on that before we go ahead. 20:48:09 what type of computing would not be including in traditional and leading-edge? 20:48:10 do we want to use "computing"? 20:48:21 * langdon has to take off for another meeting.. 20:48:44 dperpeet: I don't love it, but I'm struggling with another term 20:48:53 "datacenter" has large-installation implications 20:49:11 how about "supporting traditional and leading edge applications" humm... no 20:49:22 "IT service roles"? 20:49:56 it's more generic, but shorter =) 20:50:18 I liked nirik's last suggestion on 'for all service needs' 20:50:22 or some such 20:50:28 traditional applications could mean we'll run your apache 1.3 for you :) 20:51:03 jds2001, if you can put that in a container, we'll run it and it's still all on you :) 20:51:04 jds2001: And we might! 20:51:22 Some of that's going to depend on whether and how we deploy modules 20:51:43 It may indeed be that we can support an ancient apache module in limited situations 20:51:48 But that's getting into implementation 20:52:58 Fedora Server Edition is an ecosystem for creating and deploying validated service roles 20:53:24 "for any computing needs" 20:53:59 I suppose I can live with that. I was trying to draw attention to the bimodal nature of things, but maybe that's just noise 20:54:09 Fedora Server Edition is an ecosystem for creating and deploying validated service roles for many computing needs 20:54:11 Fedora Server Edition is an ecosystem ideal for creating and deploying validated roles for IT services of all types 20:54:25 I like smooge's "many" 20:54:54 because if someone says we need to support NCSA httpd out of the box because it meets 'any' 20:54:59 I snuck in "ideal" to emphasize how it's crafted that way... 20:55:30 does the of all types add anything important? 20:55:38 not really 20:55:47 what about "most computing needs" 20:55:51 be bold 20:55:55 I like that 20:56:20 me too 20:56:24 +1 seems like the most appropriate fit 20:56:35 ok before we +1 what one do we like 20:56:44 can we get rid of one "for"? 20:56:54 heh :) 20:56:58 Proposal: Fedora Server Edition is an ecosystem ideal for creating and deploying validated roles for most computing needs 20:57:21 hmm, wait 20:57:40 what happened to "service" roles? 20:57:45 Proposal: Fedora Server Edition is an ecosystem ideal for creating and deploying validated service roles addressing most computing needs 20:57:56 sgallagh, thanks! 20:58:01 +1 20:58:07 +1 20:58:08 +1 20:58:09 +1 20:58:10 +1 20:58:28 +1 20:58:37 * nirik wonders if we should add 'managing' but thats nitpicking perhaps. 20:58:37 adamw gifted his vote, right? =) 20:58:55 dperpeet: Only if nirik votes +1 20:59:00 only if there was swearing in the proposal 20:59:01 Otherwise, we'll assume it to be 0 20:59:01 nirik, I was wondering about that, but do we really want to manage as well? 20:59:11 as an emphasis 20:59:23 sure, +1... well, making and deploying are pretty worthless if you can't update and maintain the thing 20:59:35 true, I guess that depends on the scope of managing 20:59:37 but yeah, it gets wordy 20:59:52 but I guess you can't properly create and deploy unless you also manage 20:59:57 nirik: I was thinking the same, managing could include creating and deploying 21:00:06 Would you prefer: Fedora Server Edition is an ecosystem ideal for creating, deploying and managing validated service roles addressing most computing needs 21:00:23 I think that is too long 21:00:30 I would just use managing unless you want to put emphasis on creating and deploying 21:00:34 yeah, too long... fold create and deploy into managing? 21:00:36 vvaldez: It doesn't necessarily include "creating" IMHO 21:00:46 yeah, true. 21:00:47 I think it's important to call out creating 21:00:51 But we could s/deploying/managing/ if that would satisfy? 21:00:53 sgallagh: fair enough 21:00:56 because that is often neglected 21:01:02 (citation needed) 21:01:07 "full lifecycle" 21:01:08 :) 21:01:24 nirik: Want to take a stab at working that in? 21:01:27 /me doesn't 21:01:33 * nirik ponders 21:01:45 I could live with managing instead of deploying, but deploying sounds more active 21:01:45 and updating may not be everyone's model, they may perfer to re-create with new and re-deploy 21:02:06 dperpeet: I agree 21:02:16 Fedora Server Edition is a full lifecycle ecosystem, with validated service roles addressing most computing needs. 21:02:21 not very plain tho 21:02:31 ooh, I like that 21:02:38 full lifecycle 21:02:47 * jds2001 thinks that is confusing, but that might just be me. 21:02:48 that might be too jargony 21:02:49 "full lifecycle ecosystem" is a mouthful (of wasps) IMHO 21:02:50 seems very buzz-wordy 21:02:56 yeah. 21:03:03 but it does sound great :) 21:03:07 came straight from the buzzword generator :D 21:03:35 keep that one for the sponsors, maybe 21:03:41 * nirik places tiles on the bingo board. 21:03:56 ok, which one do we want to go back to? 21:04:11 So far, I still prefer "Fedora Server Edition is an ecosystem ideal for creating and deploying validated service roles addressing most computing needs" 21:04:14 I like the one we voted on 21:04:46 I think we can make a valid argument that "deployment" is dependent upon sane manageability. 21:05:24 I agree 21:05:42 yep 21:05:47 Does anyone want to change their original vote? 21:05:52 * jds2001 likes the one we voted on as well 21:06:29 would "operating" help cover any gaps in deploy/manage? 21:06:48 * vvaldez isn't trying to delay 21:06:57 /me considers 21:07:18 hm... it would add something, but is it worth making the text longer? 21:07:35 one could also argue that deploying without operating doesn't make much sense 21:08:09 deploy seems more "fire and forget" manage seems like "inherited and ongoing maintenance" so I could see a need to address that 21:08:10 dperpeet: I think he meant creating and operating 21:08:29 yes, creating and operating 21:08:45 i think one of the problems with mission statements is that we try to cover all bases in as few words as possible 21:08:49 * nirik is ok with the one we voted on 21:08:58 aha! I think I like operate better in that case 21:09:12 and I think we can agree with the fact that we aren't going to cover more thn 60% of a mission 21:09:18 the ongoing maintenance convinced me 21:09:30 "deploy" is more of a mission for docker 21:09:33 * jds2001 has got to go 21:09:44 Fedora Server can operate stuff 21:09:45 I'm riding the fence on 'deploy' vs. 'operate' 21:09:49 I'm good with the consensus 21:10:04 heh, dperpeet :) 21:10:32 I didn't mean to imply value in that statement 21:10:52 :) 21:11:00 Quick show of hands: If you prefer "operate", say +1. If you prefer "deploy" say -1, if you don't care, say 0 21:11:03 0 21:11:16 +1 21:11:24 0 21:11:49 0 21:11:55 +1 21:12:10 0 21:12:24 OK, then I think "operate" has it 21:12:38 #agreed Server Edition Mission is: "Fedora Server Edition is an ecosystem for creating and operating validated service roles in traditional and leading-edge computing." (+8, 0, -0) 21:12:55 Thank you for coming, folks. 21:12:58 err 21:13:04 that's wrong though 21:13:05 Whoops 21:13:07 #undo 21:13:07 Removing item from minutes: AGREED by sgallagh at 21:12:38 : Server Edition Mission is: "Fedora Server Edition is an ecosystem for creating and operating validated service roles in traditional and leading-edge computing." (+8, 0, -0) 21:13:12 Wrong copy-paste... 21:13:40 #agreed Server Edition Mission is: "Fedora Server Edition is an ecosystem ideal for creating and operating validated service roles addressing most computing needs" (+8, 0, -0) 21:13:49 better :) 21:13:52 Thanks 21:13:55 there we go 21:13:59 thanks for running things again sgallagh! 21:14:11 Happy to 21:14:21 thanks everyone 21:14:26 OK, we're over time, so I'm skipping Open Floor. Take it to the list if you have anything 21:14:29 #endmeeting