17:00:26 <bcotton> #startmeeting F30 Beta Go/No-Go meeting
17:00:26 <zodbot> Meeting started Thu Mar 21 17:00:26 2019 UTC.
17:00:26 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location.
17:00:26 <zodbot> The chair is bcotton. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:00:26 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
17:00:26 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f30_beta_go/no-go_meeting'
17:00:31 <bcotton> #meetingname F30-Beta-Go_No_Go-meeting
17:00:31 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f30-beta-go_no_go-meeting'
17:00:36 <bcotton> #topic Roll Call
17:00:40 <mboddu> .hello mohanboddu
17:00:41 <zodbot> mboddu: mohanboddu 'Mohan Boddu' <mboddu@bhujji.com>
17:00:44 <frantisekz> .hello2
17:00:47 <zodbot> frantisekz: frantisekz 'František Zatloukal' <fzatlouk@redhat.com>
17:00:52 * satellit listening
17:01:16 <bcotton> good $daypart to you mboddu, frantisekz, satellit
17:01:27 <frantisekz> bcotton++
17:01:31 <zodbot> frantisekz: Karma for bcotton changed to 16 (for the current release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
17:01:32 <nirik> morning
17:01:46 <frantisekz> evening
17:02:01 <bcotton> hi nirik
17:02:20 <bcotton> we'll give folks a few more minutes to wander in
17:02:21 <nirik> ain't no party like a go/nogo party.
17:02:23 <bowlofeggs> .hello2
17:02:24 <zodbot> bowlofeggs: bowlofeggs 'Randy Barlow' <rbarlow@redhat.com>
17:02:37 <adamw> .hello adamwill
17:02:38 <zodbot> adamw: adamwill 'Adam Williamson' <awilliam@redhat.com>
17:02:49 <pwhalen> .hello pwhalen
17:02:50 <zodbot> pwhalen: pwhalen 'Paul Whalen' <pwhalen@redhat.com>
17:02:50 <bcotton> ...'cause a go/nogo party don't stop (until we have made a decision)
17:02:56 <coremodule> .hello2
17:02:57 <zodbot> coremodule: coremodule 'Geoffrey Marr' <gmarr@redhat.com>
17:02:58 <bcotton> hi bowlofeggs, adamw, pwhalen, coremodule
17:03:13 <bowlofeggs> what happens if someone calls the cops on our go/nogo party?
17:03:16 <coremodule> hi bcotton
17:03:23 <adamw> depends if they're go cops or nogo cops
17:03:57 <bcotton> adamw++
17:04:23 <bcotton> okay, looks like FESCo, RelEng, and QA are all well-represented, so let's get going
17:04:29 <sgallagh> .hello2
17:04:30 <zodbot> sgallagh: sgallagh 'Stephen Gallagher' <sgallagh@redhat.com>
17:04:34 <bcotton> #topic Purpose of this meeting
17:04:35 <bowlofeggs> adamw: is QA the go/nogo cops?
17:04:35 <bcotton> #info Purpose of this meeting is to check whether or not F30 Beta is ready for shipment, according to the release criteria.
17:04:37 <bcotton> #info This is determined in a few ways:
17:04:43 <bcotton> #info 1. No remaining blocker bugs
17:04:45 <bcotton> #info 2. Release candidate compose is available
17:04:47 <bcotton> #info 3. Test matrices for Beta are fully completed
17:04:54 <bowlofeggs> were there go/no-go cops inside all of us, all along?
17:05:05 <bcotton> #topic Current status — Blocker bugs
17:05:20 <bcotton> bowlofeggs: maybe the real go/no-go cops are the friends we made along the way
17:05:25 <bowlofeggs> haha
17:05:28 <bcotton> #link https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/milestone/30/beta/buglist
17:05:44 <bcotton> #info 0 Proposed Blockers
17:05:48 <sgallagh> .fire bcotton
17:05:50 <zodbot> adamw fires bcotton
17:05:53 <bcotton> (^^ a Christmas miracle?)
17:05:55 <sgallagh> bcotton: That's not true.
17:06:13 <sgallagh> Oh, wait. I guess it's no longer "proposed"
17:06:17 <bcotton> #info 2 Accepted Blockers
17:06:48 <bcotton> so let's review this real quick and see if they're still real
17:06:51 <bcotton> #topic (1690566) Arm desktops do not have a browser
17:06:53 <bcotton> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1690566
17:06:55 <bcotton> #info Accepted Blocker, spin-kickstarts, POST
17:07:33 <nirik> sadly this one is still there...
17:07:36 <mboddu> So, this is fixed in rawhide but not in the rc compose
17:07:48 <bcotton> #info fix was merged only to master and not the f30 branch so this is *not* fixed in Beta-1.4
17:07:55 <mboddu> When I merged the PR, I thought it was made for f30, but it was actually merged in master
17:08:26 * mboddu bangs his head
17:08:26 <adamw> i've asked for a 1.5 build with this fix in it
17:08:30 <adamw> that would be the only change from 1.4
17:08:39 <bcotton> adamw: that answers the question i was typign
17:08:40 <adamw> so we could potentially go with that tomorrow on smoke testing
17:09:11 <bcotton> #info Beta-1.5 compose will only differ from Beta-1.4 by the fix for this bug
17:09:40 <frantisekz> I assume we can't respin just the arm images?
17:09:52 <mboddu> frantisekz: Nope
17:09:55 <mboddu> Its all or nothing
17:10:05 <bcotton> anything else we want to say on this one?
17:11:20 <bcotton> #topic (1683197) gdm Fails to load with "nomodeset"
17:11:21 <bcotton> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1683197
17:11:23 <bcotton> #info Accepted Blocker, xorg-x11-drv-qxl, ASSIGNED
17:11:40 <adamw> so, this one is awkward
17:11:54 <adamw> we got a sort-of fix for it, only it turns out it only fixes UEFI.
17:12:07 <adamw> i asked ajax for more info on how we can fix the BIOS case, but did not hear back yet.
17:12:22 <adamw> it is definitely worth noting that F29 *final* contains this exact same bug.
17:12:37 <nirik> fun. how did we miss it there?
17:12:42 <adamw> though that was clearly a process fail on our part; as near as I can tell, this specific bug was never considered as an f29 blocker
17:12:43 <frantisekz> we didn't
17:13:03 <frantisekz> I think we've heard it's going to work when it needs to
17:13:10 <frantisekz> but, it doesn't seem so
17:13:12 <adamw> that was a different bug
17:13:32 <adamw> i am curious as to how lruzicka and sumantrom claimed a pass for this test for F29 Final validation as i cannot see how it could possibly have worked
17:13:35 <bowlofeggs> does f29 with updates have this bug?
17:13:35 <nirik> anyhow... so now this causes nomodeset bios boots to not work?
17:13:37 <adamw> i'll have to triple check it, but
17:13:55 <bowlofeggs> i.e. would it be a regression for stable f29 users?
17:14:16 <adamw> yeah, i believe the state for beta-1.4 is bios won't work, uefi may.
17:14:19 * nirik has no sense how many folks still use bios boot...
17:14:26 <adamw> bowlofeggs: i think so. nothing has been done to fix it.
17:14:28 <adamw> nirik: i think quite a lot.
17:14:31 <frantisekz> adamw, uefi didn't work for me today on bare metal
17:14:42 <adamw> my impression is that a lot of people have got 'disable UEFI and secure boot' as a meme
17:14:57 <nirik> possibly so
17:14:59 <adamw> frantisekz: there seem to be other bugs that can occur after this one to break it which *are* hardware-specific
17:15:09 <adamw> my bare metal box doesn't work either, but it's clearly hitting a different bug
17:15:46 <frantisekz> hmm, anyway, I'd incline to not block beta on this one, downgrade it to final blocker
17:15:53 <frantisekz> *not to
17:16:48 <bcotton> agreed. my inclination is to say "forget the criteria! let's move ahead". but i don't know what that does to my opinion of myself
17:17:25 <bowlofeggs> if a lot of users don't use UEFI, they might not be able to test the beta i'd guess
17:17:41 <bcotton> it may be more fair to say "i want the group to decide that, but i don't want to be the one to stand up and propose it" :-)
17:17:50 <nirik> bowlofeggs: well, only if they need/select basic graphics
17:17:57 <sgallagh> bowlofeggs: Well, it's the set of users that both don't use UEFI *and* can't use a mode-setting driver.
17:17:57 <frantisekz> bowlofeggs, I don't think a ton of users use basic graphics
17:17:58 <mboddu> bowlofeggs: IF they only set nomodeset
17:18:04 <sgallagh> That's... likely a very small set of users
17:18:06 <bowlofeggs> oh ok
17:18:14 <bowlofeggs> heh, firehose of replies!
17:18:28 <adamw> i think there's at least a reasonable case to reconsider this criterion
17:18:36 <adamw> but at the same time be aware that people *do* still at least try and use the option
17:18:47 <nirik> adamw: are the other uefi bugs blockers/proposed? or ?
17:18:51 <adamw> if you google 'fedora 29' 'nomodeset' or 'fedora 29' 'basic graphics' you will find results
17:18:56 <adamw> nirik: not yet, we hadn't really got to that point
17:19:01 <bowlofeggs> if we think it's not that many users, it wouldn't bother me to say it's a final requirement
17:19:06 <sgallagh> Frankly, I think we should consider disabling this option in the bootloader for F31.
17:19:14 <adamw> (and arguably they wouldn't be taken since so far they're all on hardware that works OK with regular graphics)
17:19:38 <adamw> sgallagh: i nominate you to remember how to disable it everywhere. :P
17:19:45 <adamw> (there are a surprising amount of places, iirc.)
17:19:52 <sgallagh> adamw: I didn't say "disable it everywhere"
17:19:58 <sgallagh> Just remove the bootloader entry
17:20:00 <frantisekz> find and replace everywhere, what could go wrong
17:20:15 <adamw> sgallagh: we have at least two bootloaders and i think more than that number of configs. but anyway, that's a sidebar.
17:20:22 <sgallagh> right, back on target
17:20:45 <sgallagh> Is anyone here prepared to die on this particular hill, or shall we agree to kick it to a Final blocker?
17:20:48 <adamw> i would say i'm opposed to dropping this as a blocker *unless we agree to remove or move the criterion*
17:20:54 <adamw> we can't just kick the bug
17:20:57 <sgallagh> ok
17:21:11 <nirik> I guess I am inclined to demote this to final, but the fact that there are other uefi boot issues makes me think we don't have enough testing time. ;)
17:21:14 <adamw> as the criteria stand, and since people have consistently wanted to interpret the text as meaning 'the option should actually work at least a bit', it's a clear violation
17:21:30 <adamw> so, scenario:
17:21:36 <sgallagh> nirik: Well, at minimum we are going to have another day for the 1.5 respin.
17:21:36 <bcotton> so everone knows, the criterion is "The boot menu for all supported installer and live images should include an entry which causes both installation and the installed system to use a generic, highly compatible video driver (such as 'vesa'). This mechanism should work correctly, launching the installer or desktop and attempting to use the generic driver."
17:21:36 <adamw> what if we kick this to final and no-one can figure out a fix by then?
17:21:39 <mboddu> adamw: So, if we punt this, are we ready for the release, do you think we have gotten enough testing?
17:21:47 <adamw> would you actually want to block final on it or would you then be in favour of 'eh let's just drop the criterion'?
17:22:16 <adamw> mboddu: if we agree to delay decision to tomorrow to do some smoke testing on 1.5, i think we could go
17:22:19 <bcotton> i would block final on this, i think. unless someone makes a convincing argument that the set of users affected is sufficiently small
17:22:30 <sgallagh> I'd be in favor of killing this criterion.
17:22:37 <frantisekz> I'd kill the criterion
17:22:45 <nirik> I think we need the criteon if we have the option...
17:22:48 <sgallagh> The set of graphics adapters it covers is an ever-decreasing set.
17:22:57 <adamw> what i'm getting at is, if you wouldn't really block final on this, we shouldn't just punt the criterion to final, we should remove it.
17:23:01 <nirik> because people will select it and tell us we suck when it doesn't work
17:23:15 * mboddu agrees with nirik
17:23:20 <adamw> i guess also note that this bug is, i think, gnome-specific?
17:23:23 <sgallagh> nirik: I think we should also look at dropping this as a selectable (read, not manually entered) item on the bootloader
17:23:31 <adamw> so in theory the option might actually work on kde
17:23:35 <adamw> (and non-blocking desktops)
17:23:57 <nirik> lovely. :)
17:24:26 <mboddu> "Its not working on our default desktop, try our spins" :)
17:24:35 <bcotton> mboddu++
17:25:09 <nirik> this is a pretty complex one... lots of axies. ;(
17:25:15 <adamw> well, i mean, that's a consideration for removing the option
17:25:26 <bcotton> so for the purposes of today, should we provisionally drop the criterion for beta and let QA make the final decision as part of their regular business?
17:25:35 <frantisekz> bcotton++
17:25:41 <bcotton> i.e. QA can decide if it's a beta, final, or dropped criterion
17:26:00 <nirik> well, I think what we end up doing may also depend on how hard it is to fix?
17:26:10 <adamw> well, it's not solely up to QA to decide, but aside from that, that's reasonable
17:26:44 <mboddu> I think, we either fix it now (which I am inclined to) or remove the criteria. Since it doesn't sound good that our default desktop has issues while others work
17:26:57 <adamw> agree that we at least believe this should no longer be a beta criterion and leave further decisions for later
17:27:09 <bcotton> proposed #agreed We will consider the criterion for the issue provisionally dropped for beta and make the final decision as part of regular business
17:27:10 <adamw> mboddu: unfortunately we can't fix it right now. :P
17:27:17 <adamw> at least not unless you have ajax in a cage over there...=)
17:27:17 <frantisekz> yeah, let's postpone it to final criterion and decide later
17:27:22 <mboddu> adamw: I have faith in you :P
17:27:56 <nirik> I guess I'm ok with removing it from beta and redeciding it, but we should set a deadline for that for before final freeze..
17:28:03 <nirik> so we aren't discussing it in the final go/no-go
17:28:22 <bcotton> nirik: agreed. what's a reasonable deadline?
17:28:23 * bowlofeggs didn't realize we had the authority to cage people…
17:28:27 <bowlofeggs> muahahaha
17:28:30 <adamw> huh, i may have to revisit my evaluation that f29 had the exact same bug
17:28:41 <adamw> i don't think it did any more. oh well
17:28:44 <adamw> it clearly had *some* bug...
17:28:56 <nirik> bcotton: week before final freeze? to give time to propose critera change and get it added/removed?
17:29:38 <bcotton> that would be 9 April just for the record
17:29:49 <bcotton> modified proposed #agreed We will consider the criterion for the issue provisionally dropped for beta and make the final decision as part of regular business by 9 April 2019
17:29:55 <nirik> personally, I think we need to either remove the option and critera, or fix the option and keep the critera... but others might disagree.
17:30:18 <kalev> I agree :)
17:30:19 <frantisekz> i am okay with having non-working option in beta
17:30:27 <nirik> bcotton: +1
17:30:35 <frantisekz> bcotton, ack
17:30:45 <kalev> ack
17:31:21 <sgallagh> nirik: I agree with that.
17:31:25 <mboddu> nirik: I agree with that
17:31:33 <bcotton> whoa
17:31:38 <mboddu> sgallagh: haha :)
17:31:40 <bcotton> okay, i don't see any objections, so
17:31:44 <bcotton> #agreed We will consider the criterion for the issue provisionally dropped for beta and make the final decision as part of regular business by 9 April 2019
17:31:51 <bcotton> and that's the end of the blockers
17:32:07 <bcotton> anything else re: blockers before we move on?
17:32:46 <mboddu> sgallagh: ^ do you have anything related to cockpit issue?
17:33:05 <sgallagh> mboddu: No issue exists.
17:33:06 <mboddu> Or are you still digging into it
17:33:14 <mboddu> sgallagh: Okay
17:33:22 <mboddu> nvm then
17:33:23 <sgallagh> No, it turned out to be a networking issue. Once that was resolved, Cockpit was fine
17:33:30 <adamw> nirik: uh, wait, did you mean you don't want to ship beta with the option present but broken?
17:33:43 <mboddu> sgallagh: Ahh okay
17:33:58 <bcotton> #topic Current status — Release candidate compose
17:34:14 <mboddu> bcotton: I am about kick of 1.5 compose
17:34:28 <bcotton> #info Beta-1.4 is the current Release Candidate
17:34:37 <nirik> adamw: no, I meant final
17:34:46 <bcotton> #info Beta-1.5 is about to begin to address only the outstanding blocker
17:34:49 <adamw> ok
17:35:29 <bcotton> mboddu: when would you expect the compose to complete?
17:36:01 <mboddu> bcotton: I think like 9 EDT
17:36:18 <bcotton> #info Beta-1.5 should complete this evening EDT
17:36:55 <bcotton> adamw: how much additional testing would need to be done? the change in question is pretty unimpactful, i expect
17:36:56 <mboddu> bcotton: It took 7.5 hrs for 1.4
17:37:56 <adamw> just openqa tests and some quick media smoke tests should be enough
17:38:08 <bcotton> awesome
17:38:19 <bcotton> anything else on the compose before we move to test status?
17:38:26 <adamw> oh great
17:38:36 <adamw> so this nomodeset bug is also, i think, *fedora-specific*
17:38:48 <bcotton> la la la, i can't hear you
17:39:20 <mboddu> Since the important people are around, can I get +1 FE on https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1691257 if possible
17:39:27 <mboddu> Its a easy fix and we will get 1 more image
17:40:02 <frantisekz> +1 FE
17:40:07 <bcotton> #topic
17:40:09 <bcotton> #topic (1691257) fedora-arm-mate f30 spin failed to build
17:40:09 <mboddu> Its not going to affect anything, just increasing the disk size
17:40:10 <bcotton> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1691257
17:40:12 <bcotton> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, spin-kickstarts, NEW
17:40:17 <bcotton> +1 FE
17:40:21 <kalev> +1 FE
17:40:22 <nirik> there's another one too.
17:40:32 <nirik> if you are entertaining FEs
17:40:48 <bcotton> nirik: 1691189?
17:40:57 <nirik> yeah
17:41:08 <nirik> +1 FE for fedora-arm-mate
17:41:24 <sgallagh> I'm fine with 1691257 since it can't affect the rest of the compose or change the results.
17:41:38 <sumantro> +1 FE for fedora-arm-mate
17:41:38 <mboddu> nirik: Thanks guys, well, I need to make the PR for f30, since they made it for master (dont want to repeat the same mistake) :D
17:41:54 <bcotton> #agreed BZ 1691257 AcceptedFreezeException
17:42:03 <adamw> sure
17:42:41 <bcotton> #topic (1691189) Please build Design Suite for Fedora 30 Beta
17:42:43 <bcotton> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1691189
17:42:45 <bcotton> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, spin-kickstarts, NEW
17:42:59 * nirik mailed the spin list a list of failures yesterday, glad to see some folks investigated and proposed FE's/fixes
17:43:05 <nirik> +1 this one as well.
17:43:06 <kalev> +1 FE
17:43:19 <sumantro> +1 FE
17:43:22 <frantisekz> +1 FE
17:44:05 <bcotton> #agreed BZ 1691189 AcceptedFreezeException
17:44:20 <bcotton> okay, test time
17:44:32 <bcotton> #topic Current status — Test matrices
17:44:39 <bcotton> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Fedora_30_Test_Results
17:44:55 <bcotton> #undo
17:44:55 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Link object at 0x7fb38a496b50>
17:44:58 <bcotton> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Fedora_30_Beta_Test_Results
17:46:01 <bcotton> i'm seeing a lot of green here
17:46:07 * nirik is testing Xfce now
17:47:02 <adamw> i think we're basically covered except a couple of ARM tests (if pwhalen didn't do them yet) and SAS, as per ye olde traditions
17:47:59 <bcotton> any other questions or comments on testing?
17:48:09 <pwhalen> I think I have the upgrade tests left, will double check
17:49:30 <bcotton> pwhalen: did you want us to hold for your check or were you providing an update?
17:49:50 <pwhalen> bcotton, no need to hold, I get them done
17:49:58 <bcotton> rock
17:50:04 <bcotton> so now we get to the exciting part
17:50:20 <bcotton> #topic Go/No-Go decision
17:50:43 <bcotton> so clearly we don't have an RC that can go at the moment. we have three choices
17:50:46 <nirik> well, technically we have a blocker still... should we keep the meeting open and revisit once we have the new compose?
17:50:47 * bowlofeggs looks around to see if the go/nogo cops are watching
17:50:58 <bcotton> 1. say I'm sure Beta-1.5 will be good. we're go
17:51:12 <bcotton> 2. declare no-go and reconvene next week as scheduled
17:51:24 <bcotton> 3. declare a pad hold and reconvene tomorrow
17:51:43 <frantisekz> I am inclining to the third option
17:51:51 <sumantro> 3rd one
17:51:55 <kalev> agree
17:52:04 <Southern_Gentlem> 3
17:52:13 <mboddu> bowlofeggs: Haha :D
17:52:22 <bcotton> option 3 falls outside of our normal procedure, but we can make reasonable deviations. holding a week because of the current blocker seems excessive
17:52:37 <nirik> 👮 say 3
17:52:39 <sgallagh> Option 3 also has precedent
17:52:40 <mboddu> 3rd option
17:52:42 <adamw> yeah, option 3 is ok for me
17:52:45 <sgallagh> I'm good with 3
17:52:52 <Southern_Gentlem> no it isnt we have done this before
17:52:54 <bcotton> so the only argument i'd have against 3 (and i see it's the popular choice) is: do we have enough slack in the tasks that happen between now and 10am EDT Tuesday?
17:53:01 <bowlofeggs> 2++ (which is 3 in C)
17:53:12 * mboddu is kicking off the Beta 1.5 now
17:53:12 <sgallagh> bowlofeggs: No it isn't. ++2 would be 3 in C
17:53:14 <bowlofeggs> (meaning, i also like 3 and am trying to be too clever)
17:53:28 <bowlofeggs> sgallagh: haha right
17:53:41 <bcotton> okay, 3 has overwhelming support it seems
17:53:46 <nirik> bcotton: provided we can reuse testing from current compose I think we might be ok
17:53:53 <nirik> it mostly falls on QA folks...
17:54:19 <bcotton> proposed #agreed We will delay the decision until 1700 UTC on Friday 22 March
17:54:29 * bcotton checks to see if this channel is available then
17:54:35 <adamw> yeah, i'm not expecting us to retest everything
17:54:42 * mboddu checks the lorax BRO
17:54:45 <pwhalen> I'll do the xfce tests on arm again, apologies for the error.
17:54:47 <adamw> since it's almost identical to 1.4 just doing basic checks should be enough
17:55:00 <frantisekz> yeah, I guess we'll have to test mainly if images are booting/are installable?
17:55:20 * nirik just tested x86_64 Xfce, looks fine.
17:55:26 <frantisekz> nirik++
17:55:26 <zodbot> frantisekz: Karma for kevin changed to 38 (for the current release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
17:55:32 <bcotton> is 1700 UTC enough time for QA to do the testing, assuming most folks will be asleep when 1.5 completes tonight
17:55:45 <frantisekz> yeah, I think we're good
17:55:48 <bcotton> i'm thinking particularly of NA West Coast folks like adamw
17:55:59 * sumantro concurs with frantisekz
17:56:11 * mboddu will test kde
17:56:32 <adamw> i don't do most of the testing these days :P
17:56:47 <adamw> the previous compose finished around the same time, european tz folks got the testing done
17:56:50 <bcotton> #info adamw isn't important anymore
17:56:56 <adamw> this is correct!
17:57:00 <adamw> i only did hw raid test
17:57:14 <frantisekz> yeah, we don't have hw raid hardware here...
17:57:28 <bcotton> okay, then i'll poll the responsible parties to formalize the decision
17:57:52 <bcotton> proposed #agreed We will delay the decision until 1700 UTC on Friday 22 March. We will meet in #fedora-meeting-1
17:57:56 <bcotton> FESCo?
17:58:15 <sgallagh> Concur
17:58:17 <nirik> ack
17:58:30 <bcotton> RelEng?
17:58:56 * nirik changes hats
17:58:57 <nirik> ack
17:59:03 <bcotton> QA?
17:59:08 <frantisekz> ack
17:59:11 <adamw> ack
17:59:14 <bcotton> #agreed We will delay the decision until 1700 UTC on Friday 22 March. We will meet in #fedora-meeting-1
17:59:29 <mboddu> Thanks nirik
17:59:31 <bcotton> Fedora 30 Beta is Fedora 19
17:59:48 <nirik> mboddu: figured you were firing the compose off. ;)
17:59:58 <mboddu> nirik: Yup, kicked it off
17:59:59 <bcotton> #action bcotton to announce delayed decision
18:00:09 <bcotton> #action bcotton to schedule next Go/No-Go meeting
18:00:14 <bcotton> #topic Open floor
18:00:23 <bcotton> Anything else we need to cover?
18:00:33 <bcotton> #info Release Readiness meeting is at 1900 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1
18:01:46 <jlanda> thanks to all
18:02:17 <bcotton> okay, i'll see you all in an hour back here. and in 23 hours back here again :-)
18:02:38 <bcotton> #endmeeting