18:30:01 <nirik> #startmeeting FESCO (2010-11-10)
18:30:01 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Nov 10 18:30:01 2010 UTC.  The chair is nirik. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
18:30:01 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
18:30:01 <nirik> #meetingname fesco
18:30:01 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fesco'
18:30:01 <nirik> #chair mclasen notting nirik SMParrish kylem ajax pjones cwickert mjg59
18:30:01 <zodbot> Current chairs: SMParrish ajax cwickert kylem mclasen mjg59 nirik notting pjones
18:30:01 <nirik> #topic init process
18:30:23 <pjones> Oh, crap.
18:30:27 <pjones> woefully unprepared today.
18:31:14 <kylem> i call those 'mondays'
18:31:16 <nirik> #info mjg59 is unable to attend today.
18:32:23 * cwickert is here
18:32:28 * notting is here
18:32:42 <ajax> I think so, Brain, but this time you put the trousers on the chimp.
18:33:20 <nirik> well, thats 5 at least... so I guess we can get started.
18:33:26 <pjones> kylem: tbf, I call it "I handle DST transitions very poorly"
18:33:48 <kylem> i blame the bush congress for moving it around.
18:33:50 <nirik> DST is anoying.
18:33:59 <nirik> #topic Updates policy / Vision implementation status
18:33:59 <nirik> .fesco 351
18:33:59 <nirik> .fesco 382
18:34:01 <zodbot> nirik: #351 (Create a policy for updates) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/351
18:34:05 <zodbot> nirik: #382 (Implementing Stable Release Vision) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/382
18:34:15 <nirik> our bestest friend tickets. ;)
18:34:40 <kylem> goodie. :)
18:34:54 <nirik> Some folks have asked about the critical path as it applies to the oldest supported release.
18:35:03 <nirik> we have had trouble getting many testers for f12 of late.
18:35:11 <nirik> so, some updates are sitting around for a while.
18:35:33 <notting> well, logically if you're in the late stages of a release, you probably want to be even more vigilant about regressions
18:35:34 <nirik> Do we wish to revise/adjust the policy on older stable releases?
18:35:39 <notting> but that doesn't really help the resource issue
18:35:47 <nirik> yeah.
18:35:48 <cwickert> we have people giving faked karma, this is definitely not what we intended
18:35:54 <cwickert> even proven testers
18:36:10 <pjones> ugh.
18:36:23 <cwickert> but I have to admit that I have no idea how to improve this ether
18:36:41 <nirik> I have a f12 vm that I test things with, but it's not the first place I spend my time testing. ;(
18:36:51 <kylem> 'faked' as in "oh it works on f13, i'll upkarma f12 too"?
18:38:10 <nirik> yeah, or "foo said this works, so I agree, even tho I didn't test it myself"
18:38:18 * nirik looks for an example
18:38:39 <cwickert> kylem, fakes as in "proxy karma to get this through bodhi"
18:38:51 <cwickert> wich means: "no, I haven't tested it at all"
18:39:06 <kylem> well, the latter is much worse than the former.
18:39:09 <kylem> imnso.
18:39:13 <Oxf13> proxy karma when it has multiple non-proven testers giving positive karma and the only thing missing is the special proven tester karma does not strike me as a bad thing.
18:39:32 <cwickert> but this is abusing the system I think.
18:39:43 <Oxf13> then again, I have been guilty of doing that exact thing myself, so obviously I'm biased.
18:40:01 <cwickert> Oxf13, you are not alone, i know others
18:40:04 <nirik> perhaps that would be a chance to ask someone who wants to provide the testing to join proventesters?
18:40:08 <nirik> it's not like it's a high bar.
18:40:25 <cwickert> the problems I see are mainly for the old releases
18:40:33 <cwickert> I mean, who wants to run F12?
18:40:54 <kylem> someone must, otherwise why are we providing updates?
18:40:59 <nirik> people who want stable, but are probibly not very involved in fedora. ;)
18:41:27 <kylem> this sounds like a good opportunity for the people who constantly moan about 'fedora server spin' and how updates kill their puppy to get involved and make sure that kind of crap /doesn't/ happen.
18:41:28 <nirik> so, we could just keep things the same, or make critpath have a timeout? or ?
18:41:38 <notting> right, the issue is that proventester relies on enthusiasm, and enthusiastic people are more likely to run later things
18:42:21 * nirik nods.
18:42:36 <kylem> notting, couldn't've said it better myself.
18:42:41 <nirik> is it lack of proventesters? or lack of any testers at all?
18:42:53 <kylem> if nobody cares about updates, why do we support f12 so long?
18:43:05 <cwickert> I'd like to apply for proven testers if that helps
18:43:24 <nirik> cwickert: please do.
18:43:31 <cwickert> and I also have a kvm capable machine, so I can test F12
18:43:34 <nirik> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/critpath?release=F12&untested=True
18:43:50 <Oxf13> kylem: I think because there is a fundamental difference between "consumer" and "contributor"
18:44:00 <Oxf13> lots of consumers of F12, few contributors to f12
18:44:27 <Oxf13> or a number of contributors to f12, but only within their fiefdom
18:44:39 <kylem> but if nobody tests the updates, they don't get the updates, so what's the difference between providing them or not?
18:44:45 <kylem> it reduces the work i have to do. :)
18:44:47 <nirik> adamw / jlaska: either of you around to provide input on this?
18:44:49 <kylem> but not the end result.
18:45:51 <nirik> kylem: well, those people consuming will have a less secure/bugfixed install.
18:46:29 <ajax> remind me.  do security updates have an autoapproval timeout?
18:46:44 <ajax> (i think they should)
18:46:46 <nirik> If they are critpath, no. They need 1 proventester.
18:46:49 <kylem> you're missing my point -- if they don't consume -testing, and they never get into -updates, then the point is moot because they're /still/ running a less secure/bugfixed installed.
18:46:53 <nirik> ie, the same as any other critpath
18:47:13 <ajax> but if critpath updates don't get automatically bumped out to stable i think that's sort of the _point_
18:47:37 <kylem> since we can't track who's using what, it's virtually impossible to tell.
18:48:00 * nirik at this point thinks we should call for more f12 testers on the test list and gather proposals for other ideas how to change things.
18:48:39 <kylem> i agree -- isn't one of our goals turning consumers into contributors? :)
18:48:47 * jlaska reads
18:48:53 <nirik> sure, but we don't have much way to notify them of this.
18:49:25 <nirik> "Hey, you, consumer! Test this stuff for the betterment of all!" "buzz off, I want to get $work done here, I don't have time for that"
18:49:29 <kylem> we could push a default /etc/motd update in -testing gently reminding them.
18:49:32 <kylem> :)
18:50:17 <nirik> well, or a packagekit lottery. "You have been chosen to test some updates! You may already be a winner!"
18:50:28 <nirik> but I don't think any of that will solve the issue.
18:50:51 <jlaska> well, we don't offer a lot of proventester guidance at the moment either (something we'll be thinking about).  So unless you've been plugged in for some time, it's hard to ramp up to speed for some critpath component you may never have heard of
18:51:33 <nirik> right.
18:52:20 <nirik> proposal: Call for more proventesters in general and f12 ones in particular for now. Accept proposals to adjust or change the policy for Oldest stable release/ideas on how to make it better.
18:53:02 * nirik notes we are over 15min too.
18:53:19 * cwickert is afk for a moment
18:53:40 <kylem> nirik, +1. i don't see what else we can do...
18:53:55 <pjones> nirik: yeah :/
18:53:59 <nirik> yeah, I don't think we have a fully formed (or any formed) proposal to change things.
18:54:07 <notting> +1. always willing to hear good proposals
18:54:33 * kylem prepares for the impending "critpath is broken, doom and gloom, woe is me, see this example" mails. :<
18:54:35 <ajax> yeah +1 to nirik's proposal
18:54:43 <nirik> #agreed: Call for more proventesters in general and f12 ones in particular for now. Accept proposals to adjust or change the policy for Oldest stable release/ideas on how to make it better.
18:55:02 <nirik> #topic ELECTIONS
18:55:15 <pjones> hey, elections.
18:55:16 <nirik> We need to get someone to step up to coordinate the fesco townhalls, etc.
18:55:33 <nirik> also, we need to decide about the late nominations (or pawn it off on the board or whatever)
18:55:46 <pjones> I'm +1 to taking the late nominations.
18:55:49 <pjones> Also I'm completely biased.
18:55:51 <kylem> haha.
18:55:54 <kylem> just a bit, eh?
18:56:28 <pjones> but in all seriousness, I think somebody needs to be running the elections, and the fact that nobody was is the larger part of the reason that 3/4 of the people who intended to re-run missed the deadline.
18:56:38 <cwickert> at least one person nominated himself after there was a big fat message box
18:56:39 <nirik> I also think we should look at setting up the dates for the next election and adding the milestones to poelcat's master list.
18:57:07 <cwickert> I agree that the elections are handled very bad this year
18:57:31 <cwickert> but on the other hand last year a person was taken of the list for missing the deadline by a few hours
18:57:50 <Oxf13> which I think was a big mistake
18:57:51 <pjones> yeah, and I think we should probably apologize to him about that.
18:57:57 <kylem> hum. i'm not running so i assume i could do it, but i assume it would be better for someone completely external and unbiased to do it?
18:58:05 <nirik> so, first question: Should we be the ones to decide on the late nominees? (Given that we might be biased?). Should we ask the board?
18:58:13 <ajax> those who do not learn from history...
18:58:22 <cwickert> hold on, nirik
18:58:39 <cwickert> I think we  *must* take the late nominations into account
18:58:44 <cwickert> at least the first one
18:58:46 <notting> we also probably should investigate updating https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_maintainer_policy#FESCo_elections to match whatever election policy we have, as it does not now
18:59:01 <cwickert> as we need to have +25% nominees than seats
18:59:03 <poelcat> nirik: they were in the schedule for F14
18:59:13 <nirik> poelcat: oh? hum.
18:59:21 <poelcat> and will be for F15 if someone can tell me the starting date
18:59:21 <kylem> nirik, i don't think i'm comfortable deciding that. i think an external entity is probably better...
18:59:23 <nirik> notting: where does it mismatch?
18:59:38 <cwickert> indeed, the deadline was announced
18:59:46 <notting> nirik: ' Candidates must self-nominate at least three days before the election opens by writing their information onto the wiki. '
18:59:48 <pjones> cwickert: so what you're saying is if I'd just not added my name, we'd have delayed the election for more nominees anyway?
18:59:48 <poelcat> nirik: http://poelstra.fedorapeople.org/schedules/f-14/f-14-elections.html
18:59:50 <nirik> cwickert: ah, so the initial ones would have required an extension anyhow by our rules?
18:59:58 <notting> ' A minimum number of candidates are necessary in order to hold an election. This will be the number of open seats + 25%.
18:59:58 <notting> If not enough candidates have signed up by the deadline, the election may be delayed waiting for more candidates to appear'
19:00:02 <pjones> notting: right.  tbf, we're all in under the deadline as stated there.
19:00:09 <pjones> so we've got conflicting deadlines ;)
19:00:46 <nirik> notting: yeah, that looks old/wrong. How about we change it to "Candidates must nominate themselves by the deadline to do so"
19:00:53 <cwickert> pjones, we need to delay the deadline until we have enough nominations. one could aregue if we stop after the first additonal nomination or if we take than all
19:01:22 <pjones> cwickert: I would argue that that's prejudicial (what if two people are editing the wiki at the same time?) and it obviously *has* to be time-based.
19:01:38 <nirik> based on that, I think we should accept them all, and perhaps extend another day or two now in case someone else wants to nominate too.
19:01:47 <pjones> nirik: yeah.
19:01:50 * nirik is happy with more choices/people willing to serve.
19:02:09 <notting> nirik: i can be +1 to that
19:02:12 <pjones> I think we could be safe extending it to this monday so that the latecomers aren't some special case.
19:02:29 * nirik looks at the current schedule.
19:02:40 <nirik> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Elections
19:02:54 <pjones> nirik: I'm +1 to that language change; then at least we're only maintaining policy at one place.
19:03:13 <cwickert> frankly speaking, I think we should only take the first person to fullfill the +25%. at least the person who put himself on the list knowing that he was late should not be considered. everythign else would be unfair to others
19:03:37 <ajax> "the" person?
19:03:50 <ajax> you think there was only one?
19:04:09 <nirik> I would only think we would want to extend out to the 13th. Since Townhalls could be after that and we would want all parties to be known by then at the very least.
19:04:21 <cwickert> ajax, as mentioned there was a person who put his name on the list although a big fat message box said the time was over
19:04:32 <cwickert> but atm I dunno who it was
19:04:49 <Oxf13> somewhat curious that we'd actively turn away people who are interested in running.
19:04:56 <Oxf13> sad that we did it once before.
19:05:00 <Oxf13> lets... not do it again?
19:05:07 <cwickert> http://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Development/SteeringCommittee/Nominations&action=history
19:05:12 <Oxf13> (not that I have much say here, just outside obvservation)
19:05:14 <pjones> yeah, it seems like the solution to "we don't have enough qualified people running" isn't "allow exactly one more person in"
19:05:27 <ajax> cwickert: wikis have history, you know.
19:05:42 <nirik> looks like someone added mjg59 and also added the note.
19:05:42 <cwickert> ajax, that's why I just posted the link ;)
19:05:50 <nirik> so it was not there when he was added.
19:06:04 <pjones> and tbh, I don't see why I should be treated differently than mjg59 just because I didn't know I was late yet when I edited the wiki, and I told him he was...
19:06:09 <cwickert> nirik, nope, the note was added 9 hours before
19:06:13 <pjones> that looks like a pretty big pile of bs
19:06:26 <nirik> oh, so it was.
19:06:48 <nirik> proposal: extend nominations to 0:00UTC on 2010-11-13.
19:06:55 <ajax> also: dude was getting married.  he might have been a bit busy.
19:07:12 <notting> nirik: +1. if we're letting more in, let more in.
19:07:13 <cwickert> people are always busy
19:07:31 <pjones> nirik: +1
19:07:34 <ajax> nirik: +1
19:07:52 <cwickert> obviuosly ;)
19:08:00 <kylem> nirik, +1.
19:08:20 <cwickert> -1, I know you all are going to hate me
19:08:30 <Oxf13> my outside opinion, a late added candidate (like day the voting opens) doesn't hurt anybody but the candidate IMHO, so I'm not so sure why there should be a deadline on when a candidate can be added outside of how much time it takes to gather the list and shove it into the voting machine.
19:09:07 <nirik> cwickert: I don't hate you. ;) Why wouldn't you want to extend things tho? Just curious on your rationale?
19:09:11 <pjones> cwickert: we can disagree without hating you.
19:09:26 * nirik is +1 for his own proposal, so I think thats enough votes to pass it.
19:09:29 * rbergeron notes that there are also town hall coordinators who have to try and wrangle several people's schedules into a time when everyone can attend, and that can be time-consuming.
19:09:53 <rbergeron> so when things get extended, unless that period is extended as well, it creates a smaller time frame for that person to get things done
19:10:01 <cwickert> nirik, the deadine was posted on the list and we removed people in the past, too. we are removing features, we are blocking updates, and all that if they are late. so why do it different with people?
19:10:22 <pjones> the deadline was not posted on the list.
19:10:40 <notting> ? afaik, a message to the list with links was posted, one of the links had the deadline, which was not the page where you added the nominations
19:10:44 <cwickert> pjones, poelcat said so and I recall reading it
19:10:45 <nirik> cwickert: well, in the past we had sufficent candidates? I am thinking this is just an extension since we didn't...
19:10:49 <pjones> only the opening date was in the email.
19:10:55 <pjones> cwickert: you recall wrong.
19:11:12 <pjones> cwickert: http://fpaste.org/PTbJ/
19:11:37 * nirik is sorry he didn't add more dates there.
19:11:45 <pjones> notting: right.  a deadline was on the wiki at a non-obvious place, though there was a link to that page in the email.
19:11:47 <nirik> I based it off stickster's post from last elections.
19:11:58 <cwickert> nirik, now that you metion it: we also ran an election for 4 seats with 5 nominations, this means we didn't fulfill the 25% at that time ether
19:12:08 <nirik> :(
19:12:23 <cwickert> pjones, it was one of the schedule mails, not this one
19:12:31 <cwickert> brb
19:12:39 <nirik> so lets fix it now by extending and next time add dates to announcements and follow our +25% rule?
19:12:49 <pjones> so some non-election-related email included the election deadline?
19:12:57 <pjones> my gut reaction is: "so what?"
19:13:00 <nirik> #agreed extend nominations to 0:00UTC on 2010-11-13.
19:13:06 <pjones> nirik: we seem to have agreed to that.
19:13:08 <nirik> (unless anyone wants to change their vote?)
19:13:24 <nirik> ok, so, who will step up to help coordinate?
19:13:34 <nirik> kylem: if you have the time, I think it would be fine for you to... ;)
19:13:34 <cwickert> how many votes did we have?
19:13:47 <nirik> cwickert: 5 for 1 against I think.
19:13:58 <kylem> nirik, i think i can scrap the time.
19:14:17 <cwickert> nirik, correct me if I'm wrong, I only count 4:1
19:14:24 <cwickert> of which 2 were biased
19:14:44 <cwickert> oh, sorry, was 5
19:15:05 <nirik> true that there were people with a horse in the race.
19:15:21 <nirik> I'm also fine with asking the board if people think thats more kosher.
19:15:23 <cwickert> and without these we don't reach the quorum of 4 we need
19:15:50 <nirik> kylem: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/announce/2010-October/002873.html
19:15:53 <notting> who's missing today? mclasen, mjg59, and ..?
19:16:00 <nirik> SMParrish
19:16:01 <kylem> thanks.
19:16:14 <cwickert> if we agree to extent the deadline, we need to 1) announce it and 2) need the FPL to announce in to the person who was removed last time. he is very upset
19:16:29 <cwickert> s/announce7apoligize
19:16:39 <pjones> I think we do need to apologize to him, yes.
19:16:47 <nirik> yeah, agreed.
19:16:52 <pjones> I think he was treated poorly/.
19:18:05 <nirik> I think we might want to look at re-working our elections a lot... but thats a larger topic.
19:18:11 <cwickert> +1
19:18:27 <pjones> nirik: yes, absolutely.
19:18:33 <pjones> this time has been a bit of a disaster.
19:18:48 <nirik> So, where do we stand? would folks like me to ask the Board for a ruling on this to avoid appearence of improprioty? (I know, I can't speel)
19:19:13 <nirik> #info kylem is going to step up to coordinate fesco elections this time.
19:19:20 <kylem> i would prefer deferring to the Board or the FPL or anyone outside of Fesco.
19:19:21 <pjones> I think the board can weigh in if they think they need to
19:20:05 <pjones> and unless they do so, we've voted to extend the date since the original closing date yielded a candidate list that didn't meet the criteria for holding the election
19:20:13 <notting> if the board is going to weigh in, i think we should ask for a OOB decision given the timeframe
19:20:17 <nirik> proposal: I ask the Board to rule on the late nominations issue with our note about what we decided/discussed.
19:20:19 * spot does not speak for the board, but i'd say just do it.
19:20:38 * thomasj wonders what's a OOB decision
19:20:46 <pjones> thomasj: out of band
19:20:51 <thomasj> pjones, thanks
19:21:16 <pjones> so what happens if the board says the three of us are out?  there's no election?
19:21:40 <notting> thomasj: just that it might help to have a decision faster than the normal meeting schedule, if possible
19:21:40 <pjones> that seems to be what the policy says.
19:21:41 * rdieter is with spot, fwiw, "just do it"
19:21:58 <thomasj> notting, thanks
19:22:53 <notting> mclasen_: current discussion point is extending the election nomination period
19:23:03 <mclasen_> ok
19:23:04 <nirik> pjones: part of this I think is due to the fact that fesco used to be different than the other elections, and then in the last few cycles we merged all of them into the same timeframe, etc.
19:23:07 <notting> mclasen_: proposal is 'extend nominations to 0:00UTC on 2010-11-13'
19:23:35 * cwickert got disconnected
19:23:44 <pjones> nirik: yeah, I can see that.
19:23:59 <pjones> nirik: still doesn't answer what good it does to go to the board - according to the policy we can't hold the election.
19:24:11 <pjones> unless they say yes to more candidates, that is
19:24:21 <notting> pjones: we have conflicting rules
19:24:27 <pjones> exactly.
19:24:30 <cwickert> indeed
19:24:47 <nirik> yeah.
19:25:12 <nirik> I think it's right to extend, and I'm sorry we didn't last time when someone was removed. ;(
19:26:30 <nirik> so, we have at least 2 board folks saying just extend.
19:27:10 <nirik> I can poll more, and we move on for now?
19:27:34 <notting> mclasen_: did you have a +/- to the proposal?
19:27:53 <mclasen_> I think extending is fine
19:27:54 <mclasen_> +
19:28:37 <nirik> ok, so that would be +4 (with 2 abstaining) -1, which would be a majority?
19:29:04 <notting> nirik: not to go back to systemd, but it was stated the decision there was 5, not majority
19:29:38 <nirik> well, if we have 9 people, 2 abstain, the total pool of possible voters is 7 and then 4 is a majority?
19:30:58 <nirik> so, I am going to ask more board people to weigh in, but move on.
19:31:12 <nirik> lets move on to an easier topic:
19:31:14 <nirik> #topic #485 Revisit Bundled Libraries process
19:31:14 <nirik> https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/485
19:32:31 <kylem> hrm.
19:32:39 <pjones> I propose smiting all of those who request an exception with brimstone.
19:32:49 <ajax> A and B aren't really mutually exclusive
19:32:55 <pjones> (we're looking for a deterrent, right?)
19:33:07 <abadger1999> pjones: Oooh... that's a good idea!
19:33:33 * abadger1999 notes that ajax is correct about that.
19:33:41 * nirik nods.
19:33:51 <abadger1999> If you want both, please specify that to the fpc as well.
19:34:08 * abadger1999 is on the fpc but only one member thereof
19:34:26 <notting> abadger1999: is this request in line with fpc? are they willing to accept this power?
19:34:43 <abadger1999> notting: We took a strawpoll today 6 out of 6 present said yes.
19:34:48 <nirik> oh yeah, sorry, they are.
19:34:52 <ajax> and i'm happy to not think about library bundling anymore.  doing the footwork on libiberty was just _painful_.
19:35:17 * abadger1999 notes that we "delegated" this to fesco originally as well... oh the tangled webs we weave.
19:35:30 * cwickert likes proposal A
19:35:38 <ajax> clearly this indicates that nobody wants to deal with it ;)
19:35:44 * notting is ok with both A and B
19:36:21 <ajax> i don't really have an opinion on who takes the authority
19:36:29 * mclasen_ doesn't think the 'rawhide only' part in B makes too much sense
19:36:32 * nirik likes A
19:36:45 <pjones> what if we just take the text about exceptions out, so that only the really stubborn even try.
19:36:49 <nirik> The only issue with A, is that we may still get people coming to us to override a NO from FPC.
19:37:05 <pjones> (actually serious)
19:37:06 <abadger1999> mclasen_: FPC would take care of sorting out the good proposals from the bad proposals in B.  Those are just proposals that people have tossed out.
19:37:09 <notting> nirik: *shrug* i can be aribtrators
19:37:10 <nirik> pjones: not a bad idea.
19:37:31 <abadger1999> mclasen_: FPC is currently waiting to see if they need to do an analysis of the alternates proposed in B at all.
19:37:34 <nirik> right now there is 0 reason to not request an exception. ;)
19:37:44 <mclasen_> abadger1999: makes sense, I guess
19:38:05 <pjones> nirik: might also be worth exploring a "sponsor" system here
19:38:15 <mclasen_> nirik: one would hope that the content of the 'why no bundled libs' gives some reasons...
19:38:27 <kylem> is the problem here just that we have people who are not willing to do the work required to correctly package things?
19:38:39 <pjones> nirik: where somebody on FPC has to sponsor the exception request to FESCo.
19:38:39 <abadger1999> But, but, My package is special!
19:38:41 <notting> kylem: or upstreams not willing to deal with the work we have done
19:38:42 <abadger1999> :-)
19:38:44 <kylem> so by giving them an out to get an exception, they just come to us by default?
19:38:54 <kylem> heh.
19:39:00 <pjones> kylem: that seems to be what happens, yes.
19:39:21 <pjones> so what if we make it so that somebody on FPC has to think there's a good reason before they can even come to us with the exception.
19:39:26 <pjones> ... request.
19:40:19 <nirik> well, I suppose, but if the reason were good enough they would just approve it right?
19:40:43 <pjones> well, I'm thinking that the only time we really want to hear about an exception is if there's some descent in FPC.
19:40:55 <nirik> humm... yeah.
19:41:07 <mclasen_> s/descent/dissent/ ?
19:41:11 <pjones> mclasen_: er, yes.
19:41:13 <ajax> dissent.  (i wouldn't correct, except that the mistake humorously says something else...)
19:41:14 <pjones> sorry ;)
19:41:21 <pjones> ajax: indeed.
19:41:22 <notting> pjones: if they want to play old games....
19:41:52 <pjones> at least it had a good soundtrack.
19:42:05 <ajax> wow, i actually have the descent media in my cube.
19:42:13 <ajax> anyway!
19:42:14 * mclasen_ thinks that it is fine for the fpc to take over the exception handling
19:42:21 <cwickert> +1 to mclasen_
19:42:22 <nirik> how about: A with the addition of: "If the rejection from FPC has some dissenting votes, it can be appealed to Fesco" ?
19:42:44 <pjones> I'm +1 to that.
19:42:49 <kylem> nirik, that sounds good to me.
19:42:56 <ajax> +1 to A, with or without that addition.
19:43:01 <kylem> otherwise i'm sure anyone who has a rejection would just appeal it.
19:43:15 <notting> nirik: +1
19:43:29 <nirik> abadger1999: sound reasonable to you?
19:43:36 <abadger1999> nirik: Sounds reasonable to me.
19:43:39 <nirik> any other votes?
19:43:41 <cwickert> +1
19:44:00 * cwickert needs to leave now, sry
19:44:00 <kylem> +1 (in case it wasn't obvious. :)
19:44:09 <nirik> #agreed A with the addition of: "If the rejection from FPC has some dissenting votes, it can be appealed to Fesco"
19:44:16 <nirik> cwickert: thanks for coming.
19:44:24 <nirik> #topic #486 Plan Fedora 12 EOL
19:44:24 <nirik> https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/486
19:44:52 <cwickert> ah, I think i can stay for that one. my proosal is "tomorrow"
19:44:52 <nirik> I guess this is mostly just housekeeping.
19:45:17 <pjones> +1 to "tomorrow" ;)
19:45:32 <nirik> I can send out the reminder about no new f12 branches now and when the EOL is.
19:45:51 <ajax> nuuuuuuuuke it
19:45:52 <notting> ok. +1 to nirik doing it. :)
19:45:53 <nirik> #action nirik will send out f12 eol reminder.
19:46:06 <nirik> I don't know that there is anything else to do right now on this.
19:46:15 <nirik> Oxf13: was there anything else we need to handle right now on this?
19:46:34 <kylem> heh.
19:46:48 <nirik> ok, moving on then.
19:46:55 <nirik> #topic #487 Approve Fedora 15 Schedule
19:46:55 <nirik> https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/487
19:46:56 * cwickert is gone now
19:47:01 <nirik> Looking forward now... ;)
19:47:08 <kylem> hehe.
19:47:30 <kylem> hrm. does feature submission clash with fudcon?
19:47:30 <notting> already +1'd in releng, don't see a reason to change that vote now
19:47:41 <nirik> it should be right after I thought.
19:47:44 <kylem> ah, 4 days before.
19:47:50 <nirik> hum.
19:48:15 <nirik> yeah, so it's right after fudcon, right?
19:48:27 <kylem> 2011-01-25  Feature Submission Deadline
19:48:33 <kylem> Tempe, Arizona :: January 29-31, 2011
19:48:46 <kylem> which i think is fine?
19:48:48 <nirik> should we move it to right after?
19:48:51 <ajax> looks reasonable to me
19:49:05 <pjones> right after is worse
19:49:05 * nirik was thinking it would be good in case someone comes up with a spiffy new feature at fudcon they want to do.
19:49:15 <pjones> nirik: in which case there's probably not enough time to do it
19:49:21 <nirik> yeah, possibly so.
19:49:22 <nirik> ok
19:49:29 <pjones> nirik: face it, feature submission is for features that are already near completion.
19:49:42 * mclasen_ notes that the gnome3 final release is targetting april 4
19:49:42 <nirik> true.
19:50:20 * nirik notes Xfce 4.8 is targeting jan 16th.
19:50:34 <nirik> anyhow, +1 from me.
19:50:34 <kylem> mclasen_, that's the day before beta... when does gnome3 go into deep freeze before the release?
19:50:42 <kylem> yeah, schedule looks ok to me. +1.
19:50:49 <mclasen_> kylem: the gnome3 beta is supposed to be march 9
19:51:10 <kylem> hrm.
19:51:24 <mclasen_> so yes, we will be pretty frozen during march
19:51:25 <kylem> would it be beneficial to have alpha for fedora 15 mash up more with that then?
19:51:51 <mclasen_> oh, well
19:51:56 <kylem> although i guess things will be close enough at that point?
19:52:03 <kylem> (minus bug fixing)
19:52:07 <mclasen_> the gnome3 schedule lists 2.91.90 on feb23 already as a beta release
19:52:17 <mclasen_> so, we will have a gnome3 beta in f15 alpha
19:52:26 <kylem> oh. that sounds great to me then.
19:53:05 <nirik> ok, any other votes?
19:53:07 <nirik> any objections?
19:53:27 <kylem> are we missing anything? i can't remember approving a schedule before. :)
19:53:31 <mclasen_> if we are going to allow gnome3 beta into f15 alpha, the schedule seems fine to me
19:53:44 <pjones> I'm +1 to adding 3 months to it.
19:53:51 <pjones> (ha ha only serious)
19:54:26 <nirik> pjones: I've often thought 9mo would be nicer, but it doesn'a align very well with the calendar.
19:54:44 <nirik> we could switch to once a year easily tho. :)
19:54:47 <ajax> +1 to the schedule
19:55:10 <nirik> #agreed Schedule is approved
19:55:38 <nirik> #topic Open Floor
19:56:01 <notting> so, one topic that came up again with the election deadline
19:56:16 <notting> we've been operating under a de-facto rule of 'must get 5 votes'
19:56:29 <notting> do we want to formalize or change our approval processes to any of:
19:56:38 <notting> 1) must be majority of elected body (5)
19:56:43 <nirik> #topic Voting
19:56:45 <notting> 2) must be majority of those present in meeting
19:56:52 <notting> 3) must be majority of those casting vote
19:56:56 <notting> ?
19:57:06 <nirik> yeah, it would be nice to clarify this.
19:57:27 <nirik> I have been operating under 1 I think...
19:57:52 <ajax> subtle.
19:58:12 <nirik> BTW, jsmith, mdomsch, jds2001: care to weigh in on the topic of if we should allow late nominations to the fesco election?
19:58:59 <notting> does anyone feel a need to change to #2 or #3?
19:59:06 <mclasen_> notting: 2) seems to run counter to us accepting 'write-in' votes in tickets
19:59:08 <abadger1999> a long time ago it was #3 but hasn't been that way in ages.
19:59:37 <jsmith> nirik: Sorry, I haven't been following the meeting.  I'd be happy to share my thoughts in general though (or I can try to read the scrollback quickly)
19:59:38 <notting> of course, with 2 or 3, we would need to set the minimum quorum for votes
19:59:44 <ajax> i think the issue only really comes up when enough people recuse themselves that majority is less than quorum.
20:00:37 <nirik> jsmith: basically we would like to extend the nomination period to 2010-11-13 to allow those people who nominated after the deadline in. However, this affects some people voting, and we in the past removed someone for missing the deadline.
20:00:40 <notting> and/or we have issues getting more than 5 or 6 people in the meeting
20:01:30 <nirik> jsmith: so, we would like the Board if possible to look at this and give us a quick ruling. (2 board members already said they are fine with us extending)
20:01:31 <jsmith> nirik: Yeah... it's not really fair that people were asked to pull out of the race last time for late nominations, and then allow them this time...
20:01:44 <nirik> yeah, agreed.
20:01:53 <jsmith> nirik: I'm certainly willing to take it to the Board, if we can get a quorum
20:02:00 <jsmith> Let me see what I  can do.
20:02:04 * jsmith will be right back
20:02:33 <ajax> notting: i don't have a strong need to amend the rules, but it might be worth talking about next week if someone thinks of something clever.
20:02:34 <nirik> jsmith: ok, let me know what you guys think, and we can handle it out of band.
20:02:46 <pjones> I've also been assuming #1 on the list above.
20:02:57 <pjones> #3 is right out
20:03:08 <pjones> #2 would be okay if we also have a more formalized quorum rule.
20:03:11 * mclasen_ has to go, unforutnately
20:03:14 <nirik> lets go with 1. ;)
20:03:18 <pjones> yeah.
20:03:20 <notting> ok
20:03:23 <nirik> votes?
20:03:26 * nirik ducks and runs.
20:03:29 <kylem> +1 to #1. ;-P
20:03:31 <pjones> since there aren't that many of us 2+quorum changes seems silly
20:03:34 <pjones> +1 to #1 from me.
20:03:42 <nirik> +1 to #1
20:03:52 <ajax> also +#1
20:03:59 <nirik> of course that lead us to: does this vote use that method? :)
20:04:07 <notting> +1 to finish it
20:04:13 <notting> will actually put this on the fesco page for reference
20:04:16 <nirik> #agreed voting must be majority of elected body (5)
20:04:21 <nirik> please do
20:04:29 <nirik> #action notting to clarify pages on wiki
20:04:35 <nirik> #topic Open Floor
20:04:39 <nirik> Anything for open floor?
20:05:14 * nirik will close the meeting in a minute to let EMEA have the room.
20:05:19 <ajax> nothing from me
20:05:57 <nirik> thanks for coming everyone
20:06:03 <nirik> #endmeeting