15:05:18 <bcotton> #startmeeting Council (2020-02-05)
15:05:18 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Feb  5 15:05:18 2020 UTC.
15:05:18 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location.
15:05:18 <zodbot> The chair is bcotton. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:05:18 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
15:05:18 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'council_(2020-02-05)'
15:05:19 <bcotton> #meetingname council
15:05:19 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'council'
15:05:23 <bcotton> mattdm: I'm trying!
15:05:40 <bcotton> #chair jonatoni riecatnor contyk dgilmore langdon mattdm sumantrom tyll bcotton pbrobinson asamalik
15:05:40 <zodbot> Current chairs: asamalik bcotton contyk dgilmore jonatoni langdon mattdm pbrobinson riecatnor sumantrom tyll
15:05:41 <bcotton> #topic Introductions, Welcomes
15:05:48 <tyll> #hello till
15:05:54 <tyll> .hello till
15:05:55 <zodbot> tyll: till 'Till Maas' <opensource@till.name>
15:07:17 <mattdm> i am here :)
15:08:51 <mattdm> someone must be talking to ben again
15:08:57 * dgilmore three
15:10:13 <riecatnor> also here!
15:11:09 <bcotton> hey, i was just waiting for people since i started late :p
15:11:19 <mattdm> okay, just making sure :)
15:11:21 <bcotton> #topic Today's agenda
15:11:30 <bcotton> so! who has things?
15:11:35 <bcotton> i have two things:
15:11:58 <bcotton> CI Objective completion (noting that it's done and some process questions)
15:12:10 <bcotton> Git forge requirements
15:12:40 <bcotton> oh, and also a third thing which is also the video meetings
15:12:51 <bcotton> the second two are mostly for zodbot's sake
15:13:02 <bcotton> but if anyone else has items to put on the agenda, now's the time to raise your hand
15:13:19 <mattdm> I think those are probably enough
15:14:07 <bcotton> okay, cool
15:14:14 <bcotton> then i'll start at the bottom and work my way up
15:14:19 <bcotton> #topic Git forge requirements
15:14:39 <mattdm> oh good easy one first
15:14:39 <bcotton> #link https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org/git-forge-requirements/
15:14:46 <mattdm> I'm still reading through the devel list thread
15:15:08 <bcotton> #link https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/YKA74LI7RU4PEQF3BOEL35MTVIRVHYUM/
15:15:19 <bcotton> #info the community comment period closes on 10 February
15:15:27 <bcotton> so if you have comments, add them to the devel thread linked above
15:16:02 <bcotton> #action bcotton to merge proposed requirements from community and distribute to council-discuss list for discussion before they are sent to the CPE team
15:16:15 <bcotton> that's all i have to say about that (like i said, this one is mostly for zodbot's sake)
15:16:24 <mattdm> One thing I want to talk about is our statement from last year on open source for infrastructure
15:16:26 * pbrobinson is here (also on a call)
15:17:01 <bcotton> mattdm: oh yes, that. Evolution mentioned to me at FOSDEM that he couldn't find that on our docs, so we should add that if it's still valid
15:17:08 <mattdm> Because there's pretty strong sentiment in the thread that github is out because it's not open source
15:17:39 <mattdm> I think it's in the commblog post and didn't make it to a policy document
15:18:26 <dgilmore> mattdm:  it is a big reason why we did not go with github when pagure came about
15:18:54 * King_InuYasha waves
15:19:02 * mattdm is trying to find the statement we made before
15:19:59 <bcotton> mattdm: you are correct
15:20:04 <mattdm> "
15:20:06 <mattdm> We also talked about GitHub. Ideally, we want everything to be on open source services (e.g. Taiga, Pagure, or GitLab). But, as a pragmatic matter, we recognize that GitHub has a huge network effect — there are millions of users and developers there, and millions of open source and free software projects hosted there, including software that’s fundamental to the Fedora operating system. We’d
15:20:08 <mattdm> like better integration and syncing with tools like Pagure to give access to that network effect on all-free software, but we also know that there isn’t a lot of developer time to make and maintain those kind of features. Therefore, we’re willing to accept people in Fedora hosting their subprojects on GitHub. We’ve got to focus on what we do that’s unique (and only do things which are unique
15:20:10 <mattdm> when we have a special need to meet our project goals). Git hosting is not one of those things."
15:20:40 <mattdm> Ah, here it is
15:20:42 <mattdm> #agreed The Fedora Project wants to advance free and open source software and as a pragmatic matter we recognize that some infrastructure needs may be best served by using closed source or non-free tools today. Therefore the Council is willing to accept closed source or non-free tools in Fedora’s infrastructure where free and open source tools are not viable or not available. (+9,0,-0)
15:20:59 <mattdm> That leaves a lot of wiggle around "not viable"
15:22:12 <mattdm> #info that's from December 2018
15:22:45 <mattdm> anyone have anything to say about this? :)
15:24:29 <bcotton> i think it's still valid. the wiggle room is of an appropriate amount
15:25:11 <mattdm> There's the question of "who says what's viable"
15:25:21 <bcotton> the people making the decision
15:25:36 <dgilmore> gitlab or pagure are viable options
15:25:46 <bcotton> dgilmore: maybe. depends on the final set of requirements
15:26:03 <riecatnor> I think the wiggle room is valid based on this statement. It still leaves the sentiment of the community to be considered
15:26:16 <dgilmore> has the question been asked of what we would have to give up in order to deliver an open source solution?
15:26:38 <mattdm> no, because it's still at the requirements stage
15:27:17 <mattdm> The best thing we can do is provide helpful, meaningful requirements here
15:28:06 <mattdm> whic goes back to the thing ben said 15 minutes ago :)
15:29:07 <riecatnor> on the behest of the community, should we put forward a requirement of using open software. I think we need to look at what it might mean for the community if we do not use something open
15:29:23 <bcotton> i think for the purposes of this meeting, we're done on this topic? unless someone wants to make the case that we should overturn our previous agreement and say that under no circumstances should a closed solution ever be allowed
15:30:12 <tyll> IMHO one important point that bookwar raised is that for dist-git we do not really need a git forge but more a review tool - and actually we also need some possibilities to manage the settings that Pkgdb handled. It was just that pagure was supposed to be used to fill in for pkgdb but more because it was available and not because a git forge is the best tool to manage these settings
15:30:12 <dgilmore> I think being pragmatic is reasonable. I guess down the road we will get into the weeks to see if this meets the necessary criteria
15:30:37 <mattdm> tyll++
15:30:38 <zodbot> mattdm: Karma for till changed to 3 (for the current release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
15:30:47 <mattdm> dgilmore++
15:30:48 <zodbot> mattdm: Karma for ausil changed to 1 (for the current release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
15:31:01 <dgilmore> tyll++
15:31:58 <tyll> IIRC in 2018 we also agreed that there might be a difference between core services that we use for packaging and other tools that we use for example to develop other tools
15:32:06 <mattdm> yes.
15:32:17 <mattdm> things that make us unique.
15:32:59 <tyll> using github for dist-git is a different category than using it to develop Bodhi for example
15:34:10 <mattdm> I guess? Do the build tools actually care? It's just some git somewhere
15:35:18 <smooge> after dealing with the build tools for 10 years.. they care deeply about a lot of things you don't realize until you change something small
15:35:31 <dgilmore> they do not, though the builders would need some firewall changes
15:35:50 <dgilmore> koji has a list of whitelisted locations to pull content from
15:35:52 <mattdm> smooge: fair :)
15:35:54 <bcotton> okay, so what i'm hearing is that we're still good with that statement so we just need to come up with requirements to give to the CPE team, got it
15:36:02 <mattdm> bcotton: yes :)
15:36:12 <bcotton> #topic CI Objective completion
15:36:25 <bcotton> #info dperpeet says the CI Objective is done
15:36:31 <dgilmore> dperpeet++
15:36:32 <zodbot> dgilmore: Karma for dperpeet changed to 2 (for the current release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
15:36:41 <bcotton> #action dperpeet to write a summary of the CI objective for the CommBlog
15:36:47 <bcotton> dperpeet++
15:36:47 <zodbot> bcotton: Karma for dperpeet changed to 3 (for the current release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
15:37:12 <mattdm> since dperpeet is not here, I guess that's enough on this :)
15:37:22 <bcotton> so my question for us is: should I go ahead and remove him from Council things or should we consider him on the council until the post is done. i'm inclined toward the former, but
15:37:28 <bcotton> dot dot dot
15:37:42 <mattdm> What's our best carrot?
15:37:53 <bcotton> i don't think either one is particularly carrots
15:37:56 <bcotton> carroty, either
15:38:12 <mattdm> Stick? Lingering guilt over MISSING MEETINGS, say? :)
15:38:22 <tyll> we need a "finished an objective" badge and then he can get it only after the post :-)
15:38:29 <mattdm> tyll++
15:38:34 * bcotton can write a cron job to email him daily
15:38:39 <bcotton> tyll++
15:38:41 <bcotton> that's brilliant
15:39:03 <bcotton> #action bcotton to request a "finished an objective" badge from the Badges team
15:39:25 <bcotton> so it sounds like nobody is super opposed to dropping him now?
15:39:38 <King_InuYasha> cya folks...
15:39:40 <mattdm> yep sounds good.
15:39:46 <mattdm> dperpeet++
15:39:47 <zodbot> mattdm: Karma for dperpeet changed to 4 (for the current release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
15:39:50 <dgilmore> mattdm: I say we remove him
15:40:02 <bcotton> #action bcotton to remove dperpeet from Council things
15:40:22 <bcotton> #topic Modularity objective
15:41:15 <bcotton> on a related note, we should probably drop langdon and push on dmach (or his designate) to submit a new objective proposal
15:41:37 <dgilmore> +1
15:41:38 <tyll> sounds good
15:41:43 <mattdm> bcotton: yes, that sounds right
15:41:48 <mattdm> langdon++
15:41:49 <zodbot> mattdm: Karma for langdon changed to 5 (for the current release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
15:41:51 <bcotton> #info Modularity development in Red Hat has shifted to a different team
15:41:55 <bcotton> langdon++
15:42:18 <bcotton> #action bcotton to drop langdon from Council things
15:42:42 <bcotton> #action bcotton to let dmach know that he or someone he designates should submit a new objective proposal for modularity
15:43:11 <bcotton> #topic Council video meetings
15:43:20 <bcotton> #action bcotton to add the monthly video meetings to the schedule
15:43:36 <bcotton> #info Council video meetings will be on the second Wednesday of each month
15:43:47 <bcotton> #info the first video meeting will be on 12 Feburary
15:43:54 <mattdm> and riecatnor, we'll feature a conversation with you next week, right?
15:44:07 <bcotton> #info the first video meeting will be "hello, I am riecatnor"
15:44:30 <bcotton> #action bcotton to schedule appearances from other desired guests
15:44:38 <riecatnor> sure. is there anything specific y'all are looking for?
15:44:46 <langdon> thanks for the mentions! ;)
15:45:21 <mattdm> riecatnor: just a "getting to know the new FCAIC" thing mostly, I think
15:45:25 <bcotton> riecatnor: introduce yourself, take questions from people who show up
15:46:00 <dgilmore> riecatnor: plans for a new cake with the FCAIC badge
15:46:04 <tyll> riecatnor: would be interesting to know what tasks you would like to take on next, what you would like to improve/change, what are your values, etc
15:47:36 <riecatnor> sounds great! I will prepare on those topics. Thanks for the input
15:47:53 <tyll> riecatnor++
15:47:54 <zodbot> tyll: Karma for riecatnor changed to 5 (for the current release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
15:48:03 <dgilmore> riecatnor: and of course how one goes about aquiring said badge
15:48:10 <dgilmore> riecatnor++
15:48:11 <zodbot> dgilmore: Karma for riecatnor changed to 6 (for the current release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
15:48:13 <riecatnor> :P you got it
15:48:45 <bcotton> mattdm: do you have a predictable URL for the Google Hangouts backup plan??
15:48:59 <bcotton> (that question really did not require two question marks)
15:49:01 <mattdm> bcotton: no.
15:49:24 <mattdm> I forget if that's even a thing :)
15:49:51 <tyll> it might be called Google meet now
15:50:19 <bcotton> #action mattdm to make a backup plan in case Jitsi doesn't work
15:50:28 <mattdm> That is, awesomely, a totally different thing
15:51:47 <tyll> meet seems to support more participants
15:52:00 <mattdm> Anyway, I'll figure it out :)
15:52:03 <bcotton> i'm not sure it's available outside of Red Hat, though
15:52:13 <tyll> classic hangout only up to 25
15:52:22 <bcotton> yep, it's mattdm's problem now!
15:52:29 <bcotton> #topic Open floor
15:52:42 <bcotton> Anything else in the last 7-ish minutes?
15:53:09 <mattdm> Not from me. Thanks bcotton!
15:53:11 <smooge> google hangouts that Red Hat uses is behind the OTP
15:53:11 <mattdm> bcotton++
15:53:24 <smooge> so is limited to RH personnel
15:53:26 <mattdm> smooge: we'd just use the public one
15:53:36 <tyll> smooge: what is OTP?
15:53:42 <mattdm> which requires google accounts so has its own limits
15:53:43 <smooge> onetimepassword
15:54:00 <bcotton> okay, sounds like we're done here
15:54:05 <mattdm> but aiui is not a problem for the current council composition
15:54:06 <smooge> there is some other word but my brain dropped it
15:54:08 <tyll> I can setup a meeting at https://meet.google.com/ and join from a private tab
15:54:38 <bcotton> see (for real!) you all next week!
15:54:53 <tyll> bye! Thank you all!
15:54:56 <bcotton> #endmeeting