04:04:05 <cmurf> #startmeeting Workstation WG (2021-03-09)
04:04:05 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Mar 10 04:04:05 2021 UTC.
04:04:05 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location.
04:04:05 <zodbot> The chair is cmurf. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
04:04:05 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
04:04:05 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'workstation_wg_(2021-03-09)'
04:04:08 <cmurf> #meetingname workstation
04:04:08 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'workstation'
04:04:10 <cmurf> #chair mcatanzaro
04:04:10 <zodbot> Current chairs: cmurf mcatanzaro
04:04:19 <cmurf> #topic Rollcall
04:04:22 <cmurf> #info present:    Allan, Chris,  Tomas,Kalev Mattias, Michael, Jens -- Langdon, , Neal, Owen
04:04:24 <cmurf> #info regrets:
04:04:26 <cmurf> #info present guests:
04:04:28 <cmurf> #topic Approval of Mar 2 minutes
04:04:30 <cmurf> https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-2/2021-03-03/workstation.2021-03-03-08.02.log.html
04:04:32 <cmurf> #agreed no objections
04:04:34 <cmurf> #topic Announcements, follow-ups, status reports
04:04:36 <cmurf> #info daylight savings time in North America starts next week, new time 1330 UTC
04:04:38 <cmurf> #info kalev: Fedora 34 beta go/no go meeting, QA needs to make a RC compose, heads up on the blockers list and get them resolved soon; do we want to do a GNOME 40 test week? Or test day?
04:04:40 <cmurf> #link https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/milestone/34/beta/buglist
04:04:42 <cmurf> #agreed sounds like a good idea to have a test day or week, if there are enough participants
04:04:44 <cmurf> Discussion over what version of GNOME 40 and coordinating with upstream release.
04:04:46 <cmurf> Michael: Too late for testing once the RC is cut, because that's not intended to change.
04:04:48 <cmurf> Allan: there have been UX changes since the beta, so if we want those tested we need some kind of snapshot or pull in the RC.
04:04:50 <cmurf> #action Kalev to coordinate with QA on test day(s)
04:04:52 <cmurf> #topic Guidelines for preinstalled and non-removable apps
04:04:54 <cmurf> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/125
04:04:56 <cmurf> Allan has posted guidelines in the issue.
04:04:58 <cmurf> Allan: Main question is what is the point in all of this? It's a draft, but are we going to use it? Original motivation was to review default apps in a more objective way each release instead of just making it up as we go.
04:05:00 <cmurf> Langdon: Provide structure for having too many apps, and revisiting the original design goals of Workstation.
04:05:02 <cmurf> Neal: Looks good but the unbranded/generic requirement for design I think is not necessary, i.e. the branding in application names.
04:05:04 <cmurf> Langdon: Problem I'd like to see resolved is understanding what specific applications serve specific media support. i.e. search for video and get Totem as a result vs Videos, is important that the user is pointed to the correct app.
04:05:06 <cmurf> Allan: I agree it needs a bit more clarity on generic branding not being a hard requirement.
04:05:08 <cmurf> Michael: How about we loosen the requirement?
04:05:10 <cmurf> Kalev: Exception should be e.g. Firefox, Chrome, Evolution, people know what they do. I don't think Totem falls under the same category.
04:05:12 <cmurf> Langdon: Another example is LibreOffice.
04:05:14 <cmurf> Allan: We're not excluding LibreOffice, it's fine.
04:05:16 <cmurf> Langdon: To Neal's point, this is mainly a GNOME decision, and it should not be a Fedora requirement
04:05:18 <cmurf> Mattias: Does seem like an upstream application design issue
04:05:20 <cmurf> Michael: Proposal, Allan will weaken this point in the policy as we've discussed at length. Need to get it moved somewhere official, suggest we do it here
04:05:22 <cmurf> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Workstation/Guidelines/Applications_and_Launchers
04:05:24 <cmurf> Michael: Do we really need a review every six months? Other than things getting included in by accident?
04:05:26 <cmurf> Kalev: We can use the test day(s) to review accidentally dragged in packages
04:05:28 <cmurf> Allan: I think it's worth going through the list to make sure they're useful, actually being used, rather than there by inertia.
04:05:30 <cmurf> Jens: Useful to review them from time to time.
04:05:32 <cmurf> Langdon: Maybe once a year? Every two releases?
04:05:34 <cmurf> Chris: Every release is easier to keep up with, less work, more recent memory to do comparison between last release and current release to see why things might have been accidentally added.
04:05:36 <cmurf> Kalev: Agreed
04:05:38 <cmurf> #action Allan will incorporate suggestions and figure out where to put the guidelines
04:05:40 <cmurf> Langdon: Value to manually reviewing the content but there's a bunch of automation that should be taking place to check for accidental random packaging somehow getting into the media.
04:05:42 <cmurf> #topic OpenFloor
04:05:44 <cmurf> #info Discussion on where to put Workstation related docs
04:05:46 <cmurf> Langdon: confusing whether things are found in wiki or what the new thing is instead of wiki and generally just how to organize
04:05:48 <cmurf> Allan: I've been trying to clean up the various workstation related wikis and docs because I found it confusing. I see these more as docs for the WG to use to maintain consistency rather than being consumable Fedora community wide.
04:05:50 <cmurf> #topic Improve Fedora interoperability between Ethernet and WiFi
04:05:52 <cmurf> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/198
04:05:54 <cmurf> #agreed defer
04:05:56 <cmurf> #topic Can we make vaapi work out of the box?
04:05:58 <cmurf> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/209
04:06:00 <cmurf> #agreed defer
04:06:06 <cmurf> #endmeeting