14:02:50 <nils> #startmeeting modularity_wg
14:02:50 <zodbot> Meeting started Tue Oct 17 14:02:50 2017 UTC.  The chair is nils. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
14:02:50 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
14:02:50 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'modularity_wg'
14:02:50 <nils> #meetingtopic Meeting of the Modularity Working Group (once every two weeks)
14:02:50 <nils> #chair dgilmore langdon mikedep333 tflink
14:02:50 <zodbot> Current chairs: dgilmore langdon mikedep333 nils tflink
14:03:01 <nils> #topic Roll Call
14:03:02 <langdon> i was thinking we should put the "cheat sheet" in my sample agenda ticket
14:03:03 <contyk> .hello psabata
14:03:04 <zodbot> contyk: psabata 'Petr Šabata' <psabata@redhat.com>
14:03:07 <langdon> .hello2
14:03:08 <zodbot> langdon: langdon 'Langdon White' <langdon@redhat.com>
14:03:09 <nils> .hello nphilipp
14:03:11 <zodbot> nils: nphilipp 'Nils Philippsen' <nphilipp@redhat.com>
14:03:26 <nils> langdon, *nod*
14:03:48 <nils> #topic Agenda
14:04:08 <nils> #info [nphilipp] WG agenda: "Meeting" label only for WG members?
14:04:20 <nils> contyk, so much for no agenda :D
14:04:25 <nils> anything else?
14:04:56 <contyk> hmm
14:05:07 <contyk> we had the go/no-go meeting last week, there will be another one in two days
14:05:14 <contyk> should we summarize it?
14:05:21 <nils> your call
14:05:23 <contyk> although everyone probably knows
14:05:50 <langdon> not a terribly idea .. but contyk has to do it :)
14:06:11 <nils> #chair sct
14:06:11 <zodbot> Current chairs: dgilmore langdon mikedep333 nils sct tflink
14:06:21 <sct> .hello sct
14:06:22 <zodbot> sct: sct 'Stephen Tweedie' <sct@redhat.com>
14:06:28 <nils> contyk, so, do you wanna?
14:06:30 <tflink> .hello tflink
14:06:31 <zodbot> tflink: tflink 'Tim Flink' <tflink@redhat.com>
14:06:52 <langdon> we could also add "where to find tickets" .. but im not done yet
14:07:12 <nils> langdon, any tickets, or meeting agenda tickets?
14:07:33 <langdon> "tickets blocking the release"
14:07:38 <contyk> nils, langdon: ha, just wanted to say that only if langdon does it
14:08:05 <nils> aah
14:08:52 <nils> meh
14:09:07 <contyk> ok, sure, I will
14:09:08 <nils> there's open floor, if one of you two feels like it by then... :P
14:09:22 <nils> ok
14:09:39 <nils> #info [contyk] go/no-go meeting summary
14:09:45 <nils> good
14:09:56 <nils> #topic WG agenda: "Meeting" label only for WG members?
14:10:11 <nils> Basically, what the title says. :)
14:10:26 <langdon> where did that come from?
14:10:28 <nils> jkurik noticed he couldn't set the "meeting" label
14:10:29 <contyk> what do other WGs do?
14:10:36 <nils> langdon, in your example ticket :)
14:10:47 <nils> I'll hunt up URLs, sec
14:11:02 * langdon looks
14:11:11 <nils> https://pagure.io/modularity/issue/71#comment-470375
14:11:11 <langdon> https://pagure.io/modularity/issue/73
14:11:42 <nils> langdon, yeah, that was my agenda ticket
14:11:55 <nils> "As @jkurik noticed, only members of the WG can edit metadata and therefore add the "Meeting" label to create agenda items for the meetings. Is this how it should be, or how can we work around the limitation?"
14:12:06 <langdon> ohh.. i didn't know "anyone" couldn't add the label.. must have missed the comment
14:12:16 <langdon> we should fix that.. ubt i don't know how
14:12:36 <contyk> should anyone be really able to dictate our agenda?
14:12:49 <contyk> I'm not sure I can do that when filing releng tickets, for instance
14:12:53 <nils> I think editing metadata is restricted to "contributors"
14:13:16 <tflink> do we really feel like that would be a problem? couldn't we lock it down if/when it did become a problem?
14:13:19 <langdon> contyk: well.. the idea was anyone could add items.. and then we would select which we would take up
14:13:36 <nils> tflink, the problem is more that we can't seem to unlock it :)
14:13:46 <tflink> ah, I misunderstood
14:14:13 <contyk> yeah, I'm wondering whether we even need to spend time trying to unlock it :)
14:14:33 <nils> The obvious workaround would be that people should ping us to put items on the agenda, right?
14:14:48 <nils> Create ticket, scare someone up from the team who adds the label?
14:14:52 <langdon> yeah.. lets just do that for now
14:15:05 <tflink> wfm
14:15:10 <langdon> but.. meh.. you can't tag a group.. so.. it is still gated
14:15:42 <nils> langdon, what, "@@modularity" doesn't work? ;)
14:16:05 <langdon> nils: i assume you are kidding.. but that would be nice :)
14:16:33 <nils> langdon, I think we all get pinged by mail if an issue is created. Perhaps tell people to add [Meeting] or [WG] to the issue title?
14:17:05 <nils> langdon, I am kidding. I would be positively surprised if that worked... The @ character has too many jobs, really.
14:17:21 <langdon> nils: i like your idea
14:17:32 <langdon> we should doc it in the "sample item" though
14:17:38 <nils> yeah
14:18:21 <nils> We can edit the title, so it can look "right", too.
14:18:50 <nils> so... [Meeting]? [WG]? something else?
14:19:32 <langdon> i like [Meeting Item] or [Agenda Item]
14:20:12 <nils> I lean towards mentioning that it's about the meeting.
14:20:37 <langdon> [Meeting Agenda]
14:20:49 <contyk> 20 minutes in
14:20:52 <langdon> [Meeting Agenda] the shed should be RED!
14:20:55 <nils> [Meeting Agenda Item] :D /jk
14:20:56 <contyk> I love this
14:21:12 <langdon> contyk: knew you would
14:21:21 <langdon> let's call it.. nils.. you decide ;)
14:21:22 <nils> yeah let's make it so then
14:22:10 <tflink> other than the fact that the shed should be BLUE, no objections from  me :)
14:22:10 <nils> no dissents? [Meeting Agenda] it is
14:22:28 <contyk> what about colour blind variants?
14:22:39 <nils> tflink, and it will be VIOLET because a good compromise pisses off all stakeholders equally :)
14:22:50 <tflink> hard to argue with that
14:23:33 <langdon> +1
14:23:37 <langdon> to all of ti
14:23:39 <nils> anyway, where does this need to go? example ticket, the wiki, where else?
14:24:11 <langdon> nils: thats it.. i think
14:24:54 <nils> good
14:25:44 <nils> #info Non-members have to prefix meeting agenda issues with [Meeting Agenda]
14:26:07 <langdon> #info in order to signal to WG members to tag the item correctly
14:26:08 <nils> #info Members can then add the "Meeting" label
14:26:21 <nils> That was almost choreographed :)
14:26:25 <contyk> it's too simple
14:26:28 <contyk> should be more complicated
14:26:34 <nils> haha
14:26:37 <langdon> its ok if people know we back channel ;)
14:26:47 <langdon> GREEN!
14:26:55 <nils> where does sacrificing the chicken fit in?
14:27:09 <nils> anyway, where were we?
14:27:11 <nils> ahh
14:27:29 <contyk> only tickets than rhyme are eligible candidates for meetings
14:27:30 <nils> #action nils update the wiki page and example issue
14:27:43 <nils> contyk, that's the rule, but we won't tell them! :D
14:27:46 <langdon> contyk: +1
14:28:54 <nils> on a more serious note...
14:28:57 <nils> #topic go/no-go meeting summary
14:29:00 <nils> #chair contyk
14:29:00 <zodbot> Current chairs: contyk dgilmore langdon mikedep333 nils sct tflink
14:29:17 <contyk> last week we held a go/no-go for F27 Server Beta
14:29:33 <contyk> since we had no RC available (and still don't), the result was inevitably no-go
14:30:04 <contyk> another beta go/no-go meeting is happening this Thursday, at 17h UTC
14:30:40 <contyk> since there's still a fair number of unresolved issues, it's unlikely it will be go and we should to slip by another week
14:31:07 <contyk> langdon: do we have tickets for everything we talked about yesterday? or should I make them?
14:31:46 <langdon> contyk: most? i am trying to track them down and put them somwhere coherent
14:31:59 * contyk nods
14:32:04 <langdon> the module server change is a tracker bug for the stuff in bz
14:32:37 <langdon> was considering adding pagure/gh ones as comments to that.. but maybe i should file bzs? 30 odd issue tracking systems make it tough
14:32:55 <langdon> tflink: the "release blocker app" can't follow "not bugzilla" tickets can it?
14:34:37 <tflink> nope, it's designed to work with bugzilla
14:34:49 <langdon> tflink: any other ideas?
14:35:22 <tflink> why should the modular server release be different from other fedora releases?
14:36:56 * tflink assumes that langdon was asking about ideas on how to track release blocking issues
14:37:22 <langdon> maybe it shouldn't be.. i just meant... should i file a ticket in bz for every "upstream ticket"? even though they aren't really "upstream"?
14:39:11 <nils> anything anybody wants to #info?
14:39:52 * langdon goes to look for tracker bug
14:40:17 <tflink> are all the blocking bugs outside of rhbz, then?
14:40:25 <tflink> all/many/most
14:40:37 * langdon waits for bz to load
14:40:42 <langdon> tflink: many, yes
14:40:55 <tflink> I don't understand what you mean by upstream tickets that aren't really upstream
14:41:13 <langdon> #info we are using https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1474931 as a tracker bug for the modular release. However, it is incomplete, accurate but missing items atm
14:42:54 <langdon> tflink: modularity isn't really an upstream project.. it is part of fedora.. so the people "incorporating modularity in to fedora" are the same people who "developed modularity" .. but, at present, that same group of people is using more than one ticket tracking system.. normally this is ok.. gnome bugs belong in gnome land and when they affect fedora they get duped.. in this case they all affect
14:42:54 <langdon> fedora.. and dup'ing them seems weird and extra work
14:43:24 <langdon> so.. in a perfect world.. all modularity bugs should be filed as bzs.. but then we run in to the problem of "what are they attached to"?
14:43:29 <tflink> that's how we've always done it, assuming I understand you
14:43:32 <langdon> ie. project/component
14:43:44 <tflink> note that I'm not claiming it to be an ideal situation
14:44:19 <tflink> as I understand it, things that are part of fedora are "supposed to" go in rhbz, no?
14:45:02 <langdon> yeah.. but.. 1) bz 2) we need to create some components to do that
14:46:26 <tflink> for better or for worse, these processes are heavily tied to rhbz. I'm not saying that it can't change but that's not a trivial thing to do
14:47:47 <langdon> tflink: meh.. thats what i figured :(
14:47:50 * tflink feels like he's misunderstanding something here
14:47:59 <langdon> tflink: i don't think so..
14:48:23 * langdon was just trying to angle out of some pain
14:49:10 <langdon> nils, contyk we good? move on? just open floor?
14:49:28 <tflink> if it is (or is going to be) part of Fedora, it'll have to happen at some point unless we're talking about changing the process for all of Fedora
14:49:34 <tflink> not sure if that helps or not, though
14:49:58 <langdon> tflink: i am perfectly happy for *you* to change all of fedora to suit my needs ;)
14:49:58 <nils> langdon, I'm fine :)
14:50:11 * contyk is good
14:50:24 * langdon has a hard stop in a few so he can get off his train
14:50:25 <tflink> langdon: good luck with that :-P
14:50:36 <nils> good
14:50:38 <langdon> tflink: ill file a bz ;)
14:50:40 <nils> #topic Open Floor
14:50:43 <nils> anything?
14:51:37 <tflink> nothing here
14:52:25 <nils> alright
14:52:32 <nils> 5
14:52:35 <nils> 4
14:52:38 <nils> 3
14:52:41 <nils> 2
14:52:43 <nils> 1
14:52:47 <nils> #endmeeting