14:02:23 <bcotton> #startmeeting Council (2019-10-30)
14:02:23 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Oct 30 14:02:23 2019 UTC.
14:02:23 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location.
14:02:23 <zodbot> The chair is bcotton. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
14:02:23 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
14:02:23 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'council_(2019-10-30)'
14:02:24 <bcotton> #meetingname council
14:02:24 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'council'
14:02:29 <bcotton> #chair jonatoni bexelbie contyk dgilmore dperpeet langdon mattdm sumantrom tyll bcotton pbrobinson asamalik
14:02:29 <zodbot> Current chairs: asamalik bcotton bexelbie contyk dgilmore dperpeet jonatoni langdon mattdm pbrobinson sumantrom tyll
14:02:30 <bcotton> #topic Introductions, Welcomes
14:02:34 <asamalik> .hello2
14:02:35 <zodbot> asamalik: asamalik 'Adam Samalik' <asamalik@redhat.com>
14:02:43 <dperpeet> .hello2
14:02:44 <zodbot> dperpeet: dperpeet 'None' <dperpeet@redhat.com>
14:03:03 <bexelbie> .hello bex
14:03:04 <zodbot> bexelbie: bex 'Brian (bex) Exelbierd' <bexelbie@redhat.com>
14:03:42 <bcotton> hello, asamalik, dperpeet, bexelbie!
14:03:43 <bexelbie> +.5 so slow typing
14:04:03 * asamalik waves
14:04:22 <bcotton> hello, bexelbaby
14:04:29 <langdon> .hello2
14:04:30 <zodbot> langdon: langdon 'Langdon White' <langdon@redhat.com>
14:04:32 <langdon> computer busy crashing..
14:05:01 <bcotton> hi langdon. computers are terrible
14:05:12 <bexelbie> lowecase o/
14:05:19 <langdon> +1
14:05:34 <bcotton> okay, i think we'll get started and see if our fearless leader shows up :p
14:05:48 <bcotton> #topic Today's agenda
14:05:49 <bcotton> 1. #267—Planning Hackfest 2019
14:05:51 <bcotton> 2. #274—Next phase of minimization objective
14:05:53 <bcotton> 3. #254—Close out current modularity objective. Consider and potentially approve next phase
14:05:56 <bcotton> 4. #277—Fedora IoT Edition Promotion
14:05:57 <bcotton> 5. #272—Websites team needs revitalizing
14:05:59 <bcotton> 6. Open floor
14:06:04 <bcotton> #topic Planning Hackfest 2019
14:06:06 <bcotton> #link https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/267
14:06:07 <bcotton> #info 18-20 Nov in Prague
14:06:30 <bcotton> bexelbie: are you waiting on info from anyone?
14:06:59 <bexelbie> i ddont think so
14:07:11 <bexelbie> i owe peter amd sumantro
14:07:29 <langdon> what's our attendee status?
14:07:42 <bexelbie> all but till and dennis
14:07:46 <bexelbie> aiui
14:08:11 <langdon> nice
14:09:30 <bexelbie> now -.5
14:09:48 <bcotton> #action bex to provide pbrobinson and sumantrom whatever it is that he owes them
14:10:14 <bcotton> #topic Next phase of Minimization Objective
14:10:15 <bcotton> #link https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/274
14:10:17 <bcotton> #info Voting begins tomorrow
14:10:30 <bcotton> last chance to tell asamalik all the things you don't like about his proposal
14:10:38 <bcotton> (again, not much to discuss, just a visibility thing)
14:10:50 <asamalik> \o/
14:10:53 <bcotton> anything to add here?
14:11:01 <asamalik> I've responded to all the feedback today
14:11:31 <asamalik> nothing against, two people suggesting we might need more outreach than I indicated in the proposal to make it successful
14:11:49 <bcotton> awesome
14:11:59 <asamalik> more feedback definitely welcome, I'll be looking for it
14:11:59 <bexelbie> I think it would be nice to see more outreach - but I also think you'll need support to do it
14:12:01 <asamalik> EOF
14:12:07 <bexelbie> this could be a great marketing/talking point for Fedora
14:12:13 <bcotton> bexelbie++
14:12:13 <zodbot> bcotton: Karma for bex changed to 8 (for the current release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
14:12:20 <asamalik> bexelbie: that's a good idea
14:12:26 <bcotton> #topic Close out current modularity objective. Consider and potentially approve next phase.
14:12:28 <bcotton> #link https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/254
14:12:29 <bcotton> #link https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/council-docs/pull-request/61
14:12:31 <bcotton> #info Community comment period ended earlier this month
14:12:32 <bcotton> so. langdon.
14:12:50 <langdon> i had grand plans to update the objective this morning.. but.. computers
14:13:27 <langdon> we also have had a *lot* of discussion on devel@ and fesco regarding modularity..
14:13:39 <bcotton> so i wonder if we should start this process all over, given that so much conversation has happened on devel and in other fora after it was initially drafted and published
14:13:40 <langdon> however, I don't agree with the assertion that we should "wait and see" ..
14:14:15 <bexelbie> langdon, how so?
14:14:40 <sgallagh> bexelbie: I'd like to see the Council take a stand in favor (or against) continuing the Modularity implementation.
14:14:55 <langdon> well.. i think the council is making a directional statement wiht the objectives.. not an implementation one.. the council approving an objective is independent of the details of how it is implemented
14:14:59 <sgallagh> Because right now, FESCo is split on it and there are calls from some quarters to drop it.
14:15:00 <bexelbie> I believe we explicitly said we believed in the value of modularity in our last meeting
14:15:25 <langdon> bexelbie: yes.. but the "no approval of the objective" does not reinforce that
14:15:36 <bcotton> i don't think we can fully separate direction and implementation
14:15:39 * langdon englishing awesomely today
14:15:46 <bexelbie> the objective spells out a plan which seems to be in debate - I wasn't aware we were solely at the implementation level
14:16:27 <bexelbie> we've also let this objective go for a while with no approved write up as a vote of our confidence in the idea and wanting it ...
14:16:45 <sgallagh> If nothing else, I'd like the Council to act sort of like Product Management and provide us with a set of use-cases that the solution must address.
14:17:04 <bexelbie> sgallagh, ok, that is a different request
14:17:09 <langdon> bexelbie: so you are saying the council doesn't back it?
14:17:15 <sgallagh> Maybe, but I'm getting tired of the goalposts moving.
14:17:17 <bexelbie> I believe that the council would like this proposal to have those cases in them
14:17:17 <langdon> or at least you on the council?
14:17:42 <langdon> bexelbie: is that for the objective or docs?
14:17:43 <bexelbie> langdon, actually I am saying we definitely want this - and we've let this objective slide because we want it - we have deliberately not shut it down while waiting on this document
14:18:00 <langdon> bexelbie: what document?
14:18:37 <bexelbie> langdon, I feel like the objective proposal needs to be more than "do modularity - whatever that means" - I think sgallagh brings up a good point that an enumeration of use cases (a prod mgmt like document) is a good way to have an objective proposal with straying into implementation details
14:18:42 <langdon> the docs have lots of use cases, examples, etc.. sgallagh just wrote yet another blog post of the requirements taken from a different direction
14:19:07 <bexelbie> I really liked sgallagh's recent post laying out the goals - that was the write up I ahd missed before
14:19:09 <langdon> bexelbie: well.. that definitely changes the goal posts on an objective proposal :/
14:19:31 <sgallagh> bexelbie: Thanks. I was hoping it would help, but it doesn't seem to have made much of an impression on the naysayers
14:19:33 <bexelbie> langdon, what should it be then?  You just said you didn't want it to be about implementation
14:19:37 <langdon> well.. ok... there are a bunch of old blog posts outlining the same doc
14:19:44 <bexelbie> sgallagh, you're never going to "win 100%"
14:20:08 <langdon> bexelbie: i think it can be fine to do objectives that way.. im just saying it is deifnitely very different from how we have done them thus far
14:20:09 <sgallagh> bexelbie: Sure, but a non-trivial number of those are on FESCo, which can actively stymie our efforts
14:20:16 <bexelbie> I think we have an opportunity to talk about how this needs to happen.  I think a core question that is being asked (at least in my read) is whether Fedora can exist with modularity and without it at the same time
14:20:37 <bexelbie> that feels above this objective proposal
14:20:43 <bexelbie> and maybe that is what the council needs to weigh in on
14:21:09 * bexelbie reads that from the conversation around default modules versus all things must have a bare rpm version too
14:21:38 * bexelbie is not speaking for the whole council here - others should chime in
14:21:55 <bexelbie> and to reiterate I think modularity is critically important to Fedora now and for our future
14:22:07 <bexelbie> I think it solves real problems that really matter based on the goals enumeraged by sgallagh
14:22:29 * bexelbie even uses some modular software happily :D
14:23:12 <langdon> i still see many of the "problems" being policy decisions.. which are infinitely flexible.. e.g. the most recent thread tlaking about private rpms.. we could have that policy in fedora today.. we just don't.. that doesn't make it "true"
14:23:31 <bexelbie> I think we def have some policy problems
14:23:47 <bcotton> i wonder if it's worth putting some time on the council hackfest calendar to discuss this. modularity is such a large and important objective that we might be better suited having a higher-bandwidth discussion about what we specifically want from this proposal
14:23:50 <bexelbie> for example, is Fedora actually supposed to be self-hosting (partially or fully) - we never have said that explicitly afaik
14:24:02 <langdon> i had planned to talk to sgallagh about the policy part later today to respond to some of that
14:24:15 <bexelbie> bcotton, I am good with this, but I think we need to have some guidance from langdon about where this should go
14:24:27 <bexelbie> I hate to say it -- but a proposal - we can't just have an open debate
14:24:31 <bexelbie> that won't get us to an answer to take back
14:24:41 <bcotton> we also need to give langdon some guidance on where we want it to go
14:24:47 <bexelbie> if we have policy problems langdon and sgallagh lets make those things explicit
14:24:53 <langdon> bexelbie: i am just kind of on the fence on does an objective "contain" the story or "point" to the story
14:25:04 <sgallagh> bcotton: When is the Council Hackfest?
14:25:13 <langdon> two weeks (ish)
14:25:20 <bcotton> sgallagh: Nov 18–20
14:25:22 <bexelbie> my read is that an objctive should describe where we will be after the initiative is successful
14:25:40 <sgallagh> Where?
14:26:01 <langdon> bexelbie: hmmm... i see what you are saying.. but I don't think that is true in practice..
14:26:04 <langdon> sgallagh: prague
14:26:12 <sgallagh> Aww, crap. I have a training class that week.
14:26:12 <bexelbie> sgallagh, the state of the OS - "With Fedora I can install a version of my choice of library packages" for example
14:26:49 <bexelbie> sgallagh, if we need you we can schedule an hour for you to call in - the hack is just for council members with others called in as needed
14:27:00 <bexelbie> for example, in the last one we had Paul Frields dial in for part of a conversation about infra
14:27:03 <langdon> i don't know... maybe i need to take a whole new stab at the obj doc
14:27:39 * sgallagh nods
14:30:36 <bcotton> okay, so it sounds like we've exhausted this for now
14:30:49 <langdon> bcotton: \o/
14:30:59 <bcotton> we need to continue the conversation and converge on something, but not now
14:31:00 <langdon> take that any way you like ;)
14:31:14 <bcotton> #topic Fedora IoT Edition Promotion
14:31:16 <bcotton> #link https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/277
14:31:18 <langdon> i may start from scratch.. and maybe that will help
14:31:22 <langdon> sorry
14:32:03 <bcotton> so it looks like this is approved based on the ticket vote
14:32:36 <bcotton> there are some open questions that pbrobinson hasn't addressed, but nothing that should stop us
14:32:37 <dgilmore> I'm +1 to iot
14:32:47 <bcotton> so you have 60 seconds to give a -1 or it's approved :-)
14:32:52 <bcotton> hi dgilmore!
14:33:51 <langdon> i will point out the latest zdnet article re:fedora 31 already thinks this is true :)
14:34:02 <bcotton> #info Proposal is approved (+4,0,-0)
14:34:24 <bcotton> langdon: well if sjvn says it, it must be true :-)
14:34:41 <bcotton> #topic Websites team needs revitalizing
14:34:43 <bcotton> #link https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/275
14:34:47 <bcotton> OH BOY THIS ONE
14:35:07 <bcotton> so yesterday was kind of a dumpster fire getting the website updated (and in fact we're still finding things that need updated)
14:35:54 <bcotton> we're making some of the metadata update releng's responsibility, but we need to get the website team back from the dead
14:36:12 <bcotton> in part because most of the websites are still using the older, more-broken setup
14:37:05 <bcotton> ideas, suggestions, whiskey?
14:37:07 <langdon> has anyone discussed with docs about them merging?
14:37:26 <bcotton> not afaik, but i'm not sure it's a good fit
14:37:30 <bexelbie> I am not sure docs needs a discussion on this in that I think they default to saying yes
14:37:39 <bexelbie> but it does limit the design of the site
14:37:45 <bexelbie> is that actually a problem?
14:38:18 <bcotton> a functional website is better than a beautiful website
14:38:35 <langdon> i thought we had plenty of design.. just not enough html, js, css .. no?
14:38:52 <bexelbie> yes and that means we effectively are blocking ourselves imho
14:38:59 <bcotton> langdon: yeah, it's mostly flask-ifying things afaik, and then maintaining
14:39:11 <bcotton> there are a number of open issues and PRs for the websites repos
14:39:42 <langdon> will a fly by help? or do we really need someone dedicated?
14:39:47 <bexelbie> docs has the benefit (like any static site generator) of reducing the barrier to entry
14:39:55 <bexelbie> we need someone dedicated to owning merging at a minimum
14:40:02 <bexelbie> afaik we don't even have that
14:40:08 <langdon> gotcha
14:40:16 <bcotton> a fly-by would help, but i think we do need someone to own the ...what bex said
14:40:56 <bcotton> okay, well i don't think we'll solve this today, and it's to some degree representative of a larger problem
14:41:02 <bexelbie> and we may need to explicitly say, "not implementing the proposed designs is ok" to get any contribution
14:41:23 <langdon> i pinged someone :)
14:41:24 <asamalik> I'm not sure if Antora (if that's what you mean, bexelbie, by docs) would help much with websites
14:41:35 <bcotton> we might also need to try recruiting folks outside of our current community
14:41:44 <bcotton> but i'm going to move us along for now
14:41:52 <asamalik> and graphical design / UI changes are not super simple with it, either
14:42:01 <langdon> i actually meant that if "content owners" were merged they might be able to help revitalize the team
14:42:06 <langdon> not so much sharing tools
14:42:36 <bcotton> i think the issue is less content and more tooling, etc
14:42:36 <bexelbie> asamalik, it fits if we don't change the design :D
14:42:42 <bcotton> #topic Open floor
14:42:51 <bexelbie> I am not sure we have content owners
14:42:52 <bcotton> speaking of objective proposals, dperpeet are you still here?
14:44:40 <bexelbie> +.5
14:44:55 <bcotton> okay, dperpeet has wisely gone poof
14:45:05 <bcotton> i thought i created an issue for him to update the CI objective, but i'll do that
14:45:21 <bcotton> #action bcotton to create an issue to for reminding dperpeet that the CI objective needs renewed
14:45:23 <dperpeet> yes I am
14:45:24 <dperpeet> sorry
14:45:28 <bcotton> oh hey!
14:45:33 <bcotton> dperpeet: what i just said :-)
14:45:36 <dperpeet> thank you :)
14:45:54 <dperpeet> Aleksandra (bookwar) has agreed to update her part of the objective also
14:45:55 <dperpeet> on taiga
14:46:01 <dperpeet> and the gating is making good progress
14:46:03 <dperpeet> (pingou)
14:46:12 <bcotton> bookwar++
14:46:12 <dperpeet> dcantrell will soon add the rpminspect
14:46:12 <zodbot> bcotton: Karma for bookwar changed to 5 (for the current release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
14:46:13 <bcotton> pingou++
14:46:22 <bcotton> dcantrell++
14:46:22 <zodbot> bcotton: Karma for dcantrel changed to 1 (for the current release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
14:46:24 <dperpeet> as a general gating test
14:46:48 <dperpeet> that was it in a nutshell
14:47:05 <bcotton> awesome
14:47:07 <dperpeet> but I have it on my list to update it in writing also
14:47:28 <bcotton> dperpeet++
14:47:38 <bcotton> anyone else have open floor topics?
14:48:46 <bexelbie> not me
14:48:55 <bcotton> #topic Next meeting
14:49:11 <langdon> ohh.. i have one thing in this topic
14:49:21 <bcotton> langdon: in the next meeting topic?
14:49:26 <bcotton> langdon: or open floor?
14:49:27 <langdon> correct (sorta)
14:49:31 <langdon> meeting
14:49:33 <bcotton> langdon: go ahead
14:50:22 <langdon> i may be mis-remembering but when we made the "new meeting plan" .. we seem to have dropped any video meetings.. i think those are good to do periodically.. so I would propose we should do them once in a while (every other? every 3? something)
14:51:01 <bcotton> langdon: once a quarter sounds good. want to propose something in council-discuss?
14:51:12 <langdon> bcotton: sure.. or a ticket?
14:51:32 <langdon> bcotton: and.. im right, right? like my memory isn't just flaking?
14:51:50 <bcotton> either one. if you have a specific proposal in mind, you can jump straight to a ticket
14:51:54 <bcotton> langdon: you remember correctly
14:52:05 <langdon> k
14:52:17 <bcotton> #action langdon to propose bringing back an occaisional video meeting
14:53:16 <bcotton> so. our next scheduled meeting is 13 November, and I know mattdm and I will be traveling Pragueward for meetings. the following meeting is 27 November, which is the day before Thanksgiving in the US
14:53:44 <bcotton> proposed #agreed The November council meetings are canceled due to the Council Hackfest and US Thanksgiving holiday
14:54:04 <bcotton> (that would make our next meeting 11 December)
14:54:48 <langdon> could we move the dec one up? i feel like we will need a "read out meeting" quickly after the hackfest
14:55:48 <bcotton> we could do that. depends on how quickly we write things post-hackfest
14:56:01 <bcotton> let's defer that decision to the hackfest itself?
14:56:16 <langdon> ack
14:56:34 <bcotton> objections to canceling the November IRC meetings?
14:56:47 <dperpeet> nope
14:57:00 <langdon> me either.. (i don't see a good way to do them either)
14:57:14 <asamalik> no objections
14:57:49 <bcotton> #agreed The November council meetings are canceled due to the Council Hackfest and US Thanksgiving holiday
14:58:05 <bcotton> okay, i think that's all we have for today, unless someone wants to say something in the last 2 minutes
15:00:04 <bcotton> #endmeeting