14:05:00 <stickster> #startmeeting Workstation WG
14:05:00 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon Dec  3 14:05:00 2018 UTC.
14:05:00 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location.
14:05:00 <zodbot> The chair is stickster. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
14:05:00 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
14:05:00 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'workstation_wg'
14:05:03 <stickster> #meetingname workstation
14:05:03 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'workstation'
14:05:08 <stickster> #topic Roll call
14:05:17 <stickster> go ahead Matthias :-)
14:05:22 <stickster> .hello pfrields
14:05:23 <zodbot> stickster: pfrields 'Paul W. Frields' <stickster@gmail.com>
14:05:34 <otaylor> .hello otaylor
14:05:35 <zodbot> otaylor: otaylor 'Owen Taylor' <otaylor@redhat.com>
14:06:00 <stickster> #chair mclasen ryanlerch otaylor
14:06:00 <zodbot> Current chairs: mclasen otaylor ryanlerch stickster
14:06:12 <kalev> .hello kalev
14:06:13 <zodbot> kalev: kalev 'Kalev Lember' <klember@redhat.com>
14:06:16 <stickster> #chair kalev
14:06:16 <zodbot> Current chairs: kalev mclasen otaylor ryanlerch stickster
14:06:26 <ryanlerch> .hello ryanlerch
14:06:27 <zodbot> ryanlerch: ryanlerch 'Ryan Lerch' <rlerch@redhat.com>
14:06:33 <stickster> Great, that's quorum then :-)
14:07:54 * stickster looks for agenda since no catanzaro
14:07:59 <mcatanzaro> .hello catanzaro
14:08:00 <zodbot> mcatanzaro: catanzaro 'Michael Catanzaro' <mcatanzaro@gnome.org>
14:08:05 <mcatanzaro> Sorry I'm running late today
14:08:27 <stickster> cool! /me hands over gavel
14:08:51 <mcatanzaro> We have seven open issues since we had to cancel the meeting two weeks ago
14:08:52 <stickster> #info Agenda: https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issues?status=Open&tags=meeting
14:09:02 <stickster> #chair mcatanzaro
14:09:02 <zodbot> Current chairs: kalev mcatanzaro mclasen otaylor ryanlerch stickster
14:09:04 <mcatanzaro> Let me try to prioritize which to get to today
14:09:14 <mcatanzaro> The LUKS one probably requires further discussion
14:09:25 <mcatanzaro> (Before discussing here)
14:09:28 <mcatanzaro> Let's skip that
14:10:05 <mcatanzaro> "Fix placement of Welcome to Fedora application in live boot
14:10:05 <mcatanzaro> Fix placement of Welcome to Fedora application in live boot
14:10:05 <mcatanzaro> Fix placement of Welcome to Fedora application in live boot
14:10:05 <mcatanzaro> placement of Welcome to Fedora application in live boot
14:10:05 <mcatanzaro> Fix placement of "welcome to Fedora"... not sure what needs discussed there... it's just a bug
14:10:16 <mcatanzaro> Thanks kiwiirc for mucking that up
14:10:52 <mcatanzaro> Let's go bottom-up
14:10:52 <mclasen> the welcome to fedora app could do with some love in general
14:11:03 * mcatanzaro agrees
14:11:08 <mcatanzaro> #topic Default disk partitioning layout for Workstation
14:11:23 <otaylor> I think that one probably needs to be done together with the LUKS one
14:12:06 <otaylor> Since some of the proposals for encryption involved encrypting /home separately
14:12:29 <otaylor> But we do need to try and figure out a plan pretty quickly since there are Anaconda components here if we're doing anything for F30
14:12:39 <mcatanzaro> Yes
14:12:58 * stickster wonders if any Anaconda folks are sitting in this channel
14:13:03 <mcatanzaro> Actually for this one, we already agreed to get rid of /home and LVM
14:13:23 <mcatanzaro> But the discussion in the LUKS topic raises questions as to whether we should revisit this
14:14:00 <mcatanzaro> So issues here are: (a) needs someone to implement, (b) maybe should be reconsidered if there is a new proposal in the LUKS topic
14:15:05 <stickster> And since (a) we really need to resolve (b) :-)
14:15:27 <kalev> I think the LUKS enablement would need someone to drive this and fix up all the stack to work correctly. I think it was premature to approve the ticket without that.
14:15:50 <mcatanzaro> Well for the LUKS ticket nobody had proposed any changes to LUKS at the time I proposed it
14:16:00 <mcatanzaro> It just seemed commonsense to me to flip the existing default from off to on
14:16:18 <otaylor> kalev: consider it a statement of intent from the working group that started a discussion :-)
14:16:26 <mcatanzaro> And I'd rather not revisit that unless the WG has had a complete change of heart, since I don't think it's acceptable to continue to ship without disk encryption
14:17:55 <otaylor> mcatanzaro: but also has to be done carefully, since also not acceptable to lose data if someone changes their keyboard layout...
14:18:10 <mcatanzaro> Sadly that's the status quo we already have
14:18:27 <mclasen> I don't think turning on disk encryption without a clear goal of what were protecting against is pointless
14:18:51 <otaylor> I think we need basically a delegated group to  come up with goals, alternatives, proposals, and bring it back to the WG - we aren't going to solve this in our IRC meetings
14:19:13 <mcatanzaro> mclasen: It protects the user's personal data against lost or stolen laptop....
14:19:42 <mclasen> does it ? if you encrypt /usr, your data in /home is still out in the open
14:19:45 <mcatanzaro> otaylor: The million dollar question becomes: who wants to lead that group
14:19:59 <stickster> otaylor: agreed. I don't think it's a great choice to try and decide stuff like this in this meeting, without more domain expertise
14:20:03 <mcatanzaro> mclasen: That's not how LUKS works, it encrypts everything except /boot
14:20:26 <mclasen> depends on your partioning, I guess
14:20:40 <mclasen> anyway, as owen says, it needs to be a complete plan
14:20:43 <otaylor> Not sure it needs a leader - just a set of people - I think aruiz and aday have effectively volunteered (though maybe aruiz wants to delegate) - then someone from WG here would be good
14:20:50 <stickster> mcatanzaro: Typically it's someone who feels strongly about the outcome :-)
14:22:03 <mcatanzaro> Maybe somebody else feels strongly about the outcome? :P
14:22:50 * mclasen has strong feelings about lvm, but they're not suitable for leading
14:23:02 <kalev> I'd propose that we retract the approval to enable LUKS until someone comes to us with a complete plan
14:23:24 <otaylor> mcatanzaro: I'll leave it to you first, but if you don't think you want to do it, I can be the WG representative
14:23:25 <mcatanzaro> I'd oppose, since I'm happy with simply enabling LUKS as-is
14:23:47 <mcatanzaro> otaylor: I think you'd do better than me anyway, since you're more familiar with the technical details. Thanks!
14:24:09 <otaylor> kalev: I'd say we just sit on it - just not take concrete action - until we have a better idea
14:24:18 <kalev> that works for me as well :)
14:24:38 <mcatanzaro> I'm happy with anything that doesn't result in us reverting our previous unanimous decision to enable LUKS. Alberto's latest proposal seems compatible with ensuring Fedora is relatively safe and secure against a lost or stolen laptop. Even if it is slightly less secure than the complete passphrase-based full disk encryption we have now.
14:25:19 <mcatanzaro> And I'm happy with deferring the LUKS change by a release or two if people are actively working on implementing such a proposal. But I'm not happy if we just revert the previous decision and wait indefinitely for LUKS to improve.
14:25:33 <mcatanzaro> Because not using LUKS is not OK!
14:26:12 <otaylor> OK, I'll take an action item to organize a group, wouldn't expect to have any proposals for the WG until after the new year
14:26:47 <mcatanzaro> #proposal otaylor to form a WG subgroup to investigate LUKS and default disk partitioning; previously-approved change to remove LVM and remove separate /home to be deferred for discussion in the subgroup
14:26:56 <kalev> mcatanzaro: I disagree. If we lose a significant user base who can't type their passwords because of disk encryption, I think that's not OK.
14:27:11 <kalev> user base > disk encryption
14:27:38 <stickster> kalev++ especially if that means "don't use English/Latin? bah humbug on you"
14:27:38 <zodbot> stickster: Karma for kalev changed to 3 (for the current release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
14:28:36 <otaylor> +1
14:28:39 <mclasen> +1
14:29:09 <otaylor> If anybody else from the WG (or not on the WG) wants to be part of the team, let me know
14:29:28 <kalev> looks like mcatanzaro disconnected
14:30:03 <ryanlerch> is it too finickiy to tie the default on to english choice in anaconda?
14:30:04 <stickster> oopsie
14:30:16 <mclasen> shall we give him a minute to come back ?
14:30:27 <stickster> yes, he was having issues earlier with his client
14:31:29 <kalev> ryanlerch: I'd say yes, that's too finicky
14:31:30 <mclasen> ryanlerch: I would say that is a) finicky and b) goes a bit against the spirit of taking localization seriously
14:31:51 <otaylor> ryanlerch: I think it's definitely possible (finicky, but sometimes you have to do finicky things...) to determine whether a password is possible to type at the bootloader password prompt
14:32:03 <otaylor> ryanlerch: But it's not just english vs. not
14:32:17 <stickster> OTOH it also means pushing some testing complexity at QA team
14:36:17 <stickster> Hm, mcatanzaro back?
14:36:23 <mcatanzaro> Yes, hi
14:36:40 <stickster> OK, we figured your client was fritzy based on earlier... go ahead whenever ready
14:39:00 <mcatanzaro> Sorry, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to go ahead with :P Missed some context and in my next meeting now
14:39:09 <mcatanzaro> Did you see my message asking for a new chair?
14:39:31 <stickster> Ah, no we did not
14:39:34 <mcatanzaro> Problem is I loaded pagure, which was a mistake because I introduced a bug where that kills the WebKitNetworkProcess, so not really sure how many of my last messages made it through
14:39:44 <mcatanzaro> Well drat
14:40:06 <mcatanzaro> TL;DR: someone else take over please, I'm in another meeting :)
14:40:46 <mcatanzaro> I was happy with otaylor forming and chairing the subgroup
14:41:06 <otaylor> mcatanzaro: Let me know if you want to be on the subgroup
14:41:13 <otaylor> (included in emails)
14:41:48 <stickster> #action otaylor form a subgroup to look at LUKS issue -- WG is not taking any specific actions until subgroup recommends something
14:42:06 <mcatanzaro> No thank you! As long as the proposal involves lots of disk encryption I'll probably be happy
14:42:32 <mcatanzaro> So LUKS and LVM removal and /home removal, all three deferred to this subgroup? +1
14:43:19 <stickster> We don't want to do the latter two until we know what happens with the first. It makes no sense to set up a bunch of other work that might end up needing redo
14:43:29 <mcatanzaro> Yes
14:43:35 <stickster> esp. since we have to ask nicely for those ;-)
14:44:00 <stickster> #info LVM and /home partioning issues will depend on subgroup report recommendation for LUKS
14:45:06 <kalev> excellent :)
14:45:43 <stickster> #topic Websites issues
14:45:49 <stickster> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/76
14:46:23 <otaylor> I have an active action item there, consider me reminded :-)
14:46:28 <stickster> otaylor: IIUC you were going to propose changes to website. Sorry to pile on here, given the status of the last ticket. :-) Did that happen, and/or do you need help?
14:46:36 <stickster> otaylor: oops, *jinx. OK, good enough :-)
14:46:47 <stickster> #action otaylor will follow up on this ticket, as noted
14:47:50 <stickster> #topic Docs site for Workstation WG
14:47:52 <stickster> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/69
14:48:15 <stickster> So the way I understand it, we can use any repo we want. Why not just store this in the fedora-workstation Pagure repo we already use (for these tickets, for example)?
14:48:44 <stickster> apparently the new docs site works quite differently in that we can just point it to a repo with content it should include
14:49:10 <stickster> I don't see any other use to which we'd put the pagure.io/fedora-workstation repo :-)
14:50:10 <stickster> #proposed --> #agreed use https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation repo to store Workstation WG docs and have them included in overall docs.fp.o site
14:50:18 <otaylor> There's some pattern of https://pagure.io/projects/fedora-docs/*
14:50:39 <stickster> ?
14:50:41 <otaylor> there is 'coreos' 'flatpak' 'silverblue' under there
14:50:56 <otaylor> But really, no strong opinions, it works either way, and having less repos is a win
14:51:41 * mclasen curious about flatpak docs in there
14:51:44 <otaylor> I think it's up to whoever wants to start writing docs:-)
14:52:05 <otaylor> mclasen: you know those docs
14:52:11 <mclasen> those are yours
14:52:12 * otaylor needs to update them now that we have working Bodhi
14:52:14 <mclasen> ?
14:52:16 <mclasen> I see
14:52:18 <otaylor> mclasen: yes
14:52:34 <otaylor> Repositories under fedora-docs/ aren't necessarily owned by the docs team
14:52:46 * stickster sees others not done that way too, so meh
14:53:07 <otaylor> stickster: I'm happy to support your proposal
14:53:23 * stickster takes votes and will look into this non-urgently
14:53:36 * stickster needs to learn a bit about how this works anyway ;-)
14:53:44 <stickster> restating:
14:53:48 <stickster> #proposed --> #agreed use https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation repo to store Workstation WG docs and have them included in overall docs.fp.o site
14:53:58 <stickster> +1 here obviously ;-)
14:54:09 <otaylor> +1
14:54:13 <ryanlerch> +1
14:54:21 <kalev> +1
14:54:48 <stickster> mclasen: mcatanzaro: ^^ ?
14:54:54 <mcatanzaro> +1
14:54:59 <mclasen> +1
14:55:05 <stickster> #agreed use https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation repo to store Workstation WG docs and have them included in overall docs.fp.o site (+1: 6, 0: 0, -1: 0)
14:55:13 <stickster> OK, and with that, I have to leave for another meeting
14:55:17 <mcatanzaro> Using fedora-docs seems nicer, but I guess that's not what I just agreed to +1
14:55:25 * stickster hands gavel to anyone to close up shop
14:55:36 * mclasen runs out
14:55:46 <stickster> #action stickster send proposal to list on docs to move to repo for antora use
14:56:14 <stickster> I'll figure out what to move from the wiki and see if I can make a draft work for testing :-)
14:56:16 <mcatanzaro> 4m left but let's talk about the meeting schedule
14:56:28 <mcatanzaro> We have a meeting scheduled for Dec 31, that seems unlikely?
14:56:36 <mcatanzaro> #topic Open floor
14:56:53 <mcatanzaro> No that one is skipped on stickster's schedule
14:56:56 <stickster> mcatanzaro: mclasen_afk is up to chair on the 17th. The 31st is set to be removed from schedule
14:57:09 <mcatanzaro> Yes, so next meeting after that is Jan 14... sounds good
14:57:16 <stickster> Jan 28th similarly since many people will be traveling DevConf/FOSDEM
14:57:25 <mcatanzaro> OK
14:57:38 * stickster runs, asks mcatanzaro to #endmeeting and send minutes
14:57:58 <mcatanzaro> Roger roger
14:58:18 <mcatanzaro> stickster: You will update https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/69 though?
15:02:57 <mcatanzaro> #endmeeting