18:03:32 #startmeeting 18:03:32 Meeting started Thu Sep 19 18:03:32 2013 UTC. The chair is misc. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 18:03:32 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 18:03:50 too late :) 18:04:13 #meetingname board 18:04:14 The meeting name has been set to 'board' 18:04:43 #chair sparks jreznik 18:04:43 Current chairs: jreznik misc sparks 18:05:05 anybody else for board meeting ? 18:05:30 misc: i am here but i dont think i can comment 18:05:30 * inode0 is here 18:05:43 #chair inode0 18:05:43 Current chairs: inode0 jreznik misc sparks 18:05:56 frankieonuonga: you can comment on anything you want to comment on :) 18:06:12 * jreznik is here 18:06:49 :-) 18:07:45 so we have a quorum but need to be unanimous I guess 18:07:57 here now 18:08:08 inode0: Then what's the point of a quorum? 18:08:22 quorum is what we want 18:08:24 it allows a vote to be binding without everyone being here 18:08:25 :) 18:09:02 * jreznik would require unanimous only for case - terminate Fedora :) 18:09:09 inode0: Yes... so we have a quorum... let's go! 18:09:20 si 18:09:26 so 18:09:28 * gholms is here 18:09:42 * inode0 is ready to propose terminating release names whenever we are ready :) 18:09:49 #chair gholms 18:09:49 Current chairs: gholms inode0 jreznik misc sparks 18:09:54 misc: Perhaps we could start with #164 before digging into the release names? 18:09:55 * mhayden winks at inode0 18:10:05 #chair mhayden 18:10:05 Current chairs: gholms inode0 jreznik mhayden misc sparks 18:10:16 sparks: yep 18:10:29 #topic ticket #164 18:10:41 I'm not thrilled but won't stand in the way either 18:10:47 #link https://fedorahosted.org/board/ticket/164 18:10:53 * gholms looks up the ticket info 18:10:58 so first, the ticket 164, request for a domain name. 18:11:24 inode0: What problem could you possibly have with a local group using a web address that isn't completely foreign in their language? 18:11:49 #info #164: Community Domain Request for fedora.web.id 18:11:59 * inode0 points Sparks in the general direction of LATAM 18:12:15 #idea Allow the Indonesian group to use fedora.web.id for their URL and direct id.fedoracommunity.org to that FQDN. 18:12:25 inode0: This is not the same. 18:12:36 not yet 18:13:06 inode0: Whatever 18:13:14 but that wasn't a problem when it began either 18:13:29 ie general direction of latam, the incident regarding ownership of domain ? 18:13:48 as I said, I won't stand in the way but just am not thrilled with all these locally owned domains 18:14:09 smooge is already investigating RH owning the domain 18:14:18 Refresh my memory: why can't we just have RH own it? 18:14:26 gholms: No reason. 18:14:29 that isn't in the ticket 18:14:52 but it would make it less thrilling to me 18:15:03 or less not thrilling 18:15:06 inode0: i am not either to be honest, but i am ok to give a try 18:15:11 * inode0 would like it better 18:15:43 Can we approve it with the thought that RH can/will own the domain? 18:15:53 * gholms would be +1 to that 18:15:58 +1 18:16:05 +1 18:16:08 can i vote ? 18:16:12 +1 18:16:14 frankieonuonga: no 18:16:23 but you can say what you think 18:16:45 Is that everyone? 18:16:50 jreznik: ? 18:16:52 mhayden? 18:17:08 so a "+1" means "it's approved as long as red hat owns the domain" ? 18:17:15 i was a bit confused by the vote 18:17:15 mhayden: Yes 18:17:16 * gholms nods 18:17:27 count me +1 then (thanks for confirming) 18:18:00 #agreed ok on the request 18:18:10 Okay, I'll go update the ticket. 18:18:19 ...and update smooge 18:18:19 thanks sparks ;) 18:18:40 next topic ? 18:18:46 ah, sorry, secretarize Go decision... 18:19:00 what is the vote now? 18:19:22 #topic fedora release name 18:19:30 can actually red hat own these sort of domains? but it's covered in the decision... 18:19:42 inode0: that the problem 18:19:51 jreznik: If they can then we're all set. 18:21:17 so first, do we think we are enough to reach majority or not ? 18:21:27 #idea The Fedora Board is terminating Release Names as they are currently fashioned following Fedora 20. The community as a whole or working groups can propose any reformation of release names going forward if they are desired. 18:22:05 * inode0 thinks +5 is what it takes 18:22:21 who will accept reform ? and bassd on what ? 18:22:44 misc: whoever you replace the Board with most likely :) 18:22:48 Can we provide any pointers for people interested in said proposals? 18:23:09 i think in the individual smaller groups they can each give in their own names 18:23:16 but this might be a problem 18:23:28 if for example group a uses a name group b used last release 18:23:33 I don't really want to discuss how it might be refashioned today. That is actually complicated. 18:23:33 might confuse users 18:23:45 to think that it is old or a different version 18:23:58 Given the changing organization of the product line. 18:24:02 so with the rings proposal, we're thinking that we might potentially have more than one name going into a single release? 18:24:27 mhayden: That might be a good starting point for a proposal. 18:24:38 If those making the products want names and can arrange them in a way agreeable to Red Hat legal. 18:24:41 i do not like the idea of more than 1 name due to Legal workload 18:24:56 but i didn' t ask them 18:25:03 more than one name seems exponentially more complicated than what we have now 18:25:09 not our problem if we accept this proposal :) 18:25:28 if these products are going to be own products with own governance, release name should be one right they should have 18:25:45 mhayden: it isn't really any more complicated, different products have different names everywhere 18:25:59 inode0: yep 18:26:00 inode0: okay, i'll give you that 18:26:05 mhayden, as far as I know ring proposal has not been community widely acceptance so dont take anything granted yet 18:26:14 ^ This 18:26:15 jreznik: so their own rules or still the same, ie vetted by rh legal ? 18:26:42 Viking-Ice: well, we say "let it to any group that one day will server the same positions as Board" 18:26:42 but the end product that a consumer gets in their hand ought to have one version number and one name (or no name) 18:27:20 as a longtime consumer, names are nothing but a confusing ball of mess. numbers for all the things. 18:27:28 so I'm actually more inclined to stick with release names until it's set up, so groups would have easier starting point to go with release names 18:27:39 mhayden, that would then be decide by the sub-community or whomever comes up with that product 18:27:48 mhayden: if release are synced 18:27:52 Viking-Ice: sure 18:28:02 so we're saying we might have a Fedora 21 workstation but no Fedora 21 server? 18:28:21 jreznik, better to just go away with release names and leave the option for others to set theirs if they wish 18:28:24 I still think we would have to be synced as much as possible because of limited resources but that's another question 18:28:36 Viking-Ice: that is the proposal I just made 18:28:44 mhayden: why not 18:28:47 i think the idea is to have them all go stage by stage but just to let each group decide what they want in their set..will allow people to specialize in what they think they love or are good at 18:28:53 Viking-Ice: it's easier to continue with (process set, contact to legal) than restarting from zero but I'm ok with both 18:29:23 mhayden: while i would find a bit hard to do, i could imagine it being proposed 18:29:35 * inode0 notes the individual products will still need arrangements with legal to clear release names in the future 18:29:35 misc: oh i could certainly imagine it being proposed :) 18:29:53 jreznik, well if RH legal needs to consulted with every name the community comes up with it's better to drop them altogether instead of being depend on them 18:30:18 inode0: yep, that's why I said, it would be easier just to continue with current release names but again - I'm ok with both... ask for vote, and I give +1 to one or the other :) 18:30:30 i'd just like to get more effort into making solid releases rather than whittling down giant lists of release names and getting it through legal ;) 18:30:40 Viking-Ice: that is the current proposal :) 18:30:56 Viking-Ice: well, it's up to RH legal - if they say X release names Y times per year is too much... 18:31:06 inode0, yep ( though jreznik was making counter proposal ) 18:31:08 mhayden: +1 18:31:29 if someone seconds my proposal (or not) we can vote on it 18:31:46 * mhayden scrolls up 18:32:06 Viking-Ice: it's counter proposal but actually the same - one is cancel it now and let groups decide, my is continue and let groups decide (so for now it's one name, then it would be up to groups and RH legal agreement) 18:32:24 inode0: Can you state your proposal as an #idea? 18:32:34 I did state it as an #idea 18:32:36 He did earlier. 18:32:41 out of lazyness, i would say drop 18:32:45 #idea The Fedora Board is terminating Release Names as they are currently fashioned following Fedora 20. The community as a whole or working groups can propose any reformation of release names going forward if they are desired. 18:32:52 inode0: i second your proposal -- we should open this up to the community 18:32:52 Thanks 18:33:02 +1 18:33:16 0 18:33:19 The sooner "Release Names" die the better 18:33:44 evilbob: that is a long shot..ha ha...people are pretty passionate about those. 18:33:58 EvilBob: you're not alone ;) 18:34:17 frankieonuonga: If that's the case then with this proposal someone could present a new plan. 18:34:20 * tengel is with EvilBob 18:34:53 The only people that use release names are a select few and those that wish to rub their F17 in other people's faces. 18:35:08 s/F17/BM 18:35:10 gholms: i always look at it from the point of "the community decides" 18:35:40 is there enough board members here to reach quorum ? 18:35:46 There are. 18:35:47 frankieonuonga: Large parts of the community has been speaking out about this for years 18:35:59 yes, we have a quorum but not enough voters yet 18:36:21 EvilBob: The majority of people who voted about this last time said they wanted to keep the names (although some wanted some modification of the way we go about it). 18:36:29 evilbob:I am not choosing sides , personally not bothered by what happens in naming. as long as i get the features 18:36:44 EvilBob: not true, see Sparks 18:37:03 That's right a "vote" was taken 18:37:06 LOL 18:37:39 someone should make sure o-umlaut works with grub2-mkconfig before choosing a name :) 18:37:48 mhayden, jreznik, gholms? +1/0/-1 18:37:59 inode0: i already seconded, i'm +1 18:37:59 0 18:38:06 nice, tengel ;) 18:39:03 +1 18:39:33 three +1/two 0/zero -1 18:40:17 * gholms is trying to figure out what has changed since the vote 18:40:36 i guess we need to wait next week given that there is several missing people :/ 18:40:48 +1 18:40:58 four +1/two 0/zero -1 18:41:18 the coming structure or a project with multiple products possibly not even on the same release cycle 18:41:21 Looks like it passes to me, thank you all 18:41:36 With four out of nine? 18:41:47 * inode0 notes jwb +1'ed this out of band 18:41:48 evilbob: then count me as zero 18:42:01 and it didn't pass 18:42:26 ? 18:43:20 So with jwb it's five +1/two 0/zero -1 unless misc is changing their vote 18:43:22 so we're saying that a +1 means "the community should propose reformation of release names going forward (if they want)" ? 18:43:46 mhayden: +1 means "We're dropping names until convinced otherwise." 18:44:01 I'd say it's what gholms says 18:44:11 gholms: as in eradicating release names? or just not talking about it until later? 18:44:15 mhayden: Kill the names now, if segments of the community want them they can do the work is how I read it. 18:44:19 so terminate and let community to decide 18:44:19 mhayden: The former 18:44:19 evilbob: i confirm my 0 and i think jwb had a different view on the topic as expressed on the ticket 18:44:28 holy mackerel, can i go +6? :) 18:44:37 misc: how? 18:44:39 just kidding, i'm a +1 :) 18:44:48 * anshprat thinks names are not too bad.. good for blogging and posting.. but that was pretty much it.. 18:45:06 jreznik: he was againt dropping as is, afaiu 18:45:31 misc: I understood it he's +1 to drop, going to re-read 18:46:08 jreznik: that was on the mailing list rather than in the ticket 18:46:25 jreznik: but i may be wrong and so given the way the vote is made merging 2 proposal, i would prefer to have his ( and others ) vote rather tham doing when they are nit here 18:46:52 How about we avoid drawing conclusions from ambiguous data when we can just ask him later? 18:46:58 feel a bit like a stealth move on something that seems to matter to people 18:47:09 well, what we did is combine 1 and 3 18:47:20 drop and delegate to community 18:47:40 i think delegating to community is the best way forward 18:47:42 he said of these two, so I still consider it as +1 18:47:56 jreznik: again, i may be wrong, i am on mh phone :/ 18:48:03 that way whatever happens we are not blamed for being dictators 18:48:16 but sure, let's count current votes, put it to the ticket and let him vote (and also let FPL to vote) 18:48:22 * gholms nods 18:48:27 frankieonuonga: You are not blamed for anything, you are not on the board 18:48:52 If it passes we can note so; we don't need to discuss it in another meeting unless something changes. 18:48:59 * nirik notes infrastructure meeting is in here in about 11 min. ;) Let us know if we need to move. 18:49:04 ok, I'll add a summary of this to the ticket and give people some time to add their votes 18:49:15 i am saying as a team, board or no board...as i said i am not voting..clearly i cant...but it is an opinion. you would not want to be blamed for something like that 18:49:17 jreznik: except vote would not be public anymore :) 18:49:21 in order to do the summary can misc restate his vote once more? 18:49:59 lol 18:50:04 nirik: we should be able to wrap it up. 18:50:24 misc: we can go out with these votes once they vote 18:50:36 perhaps someone should clearly state what the +1 and -1 mean for this proposal -- that's where i was confused earlier 18:50:40 yes, we can make the vote public 18:51:02 mhayden: +1 is agree with the proposal 18:51:02 inode0 : well i am in favor of the proposal i made in the ticket, ie the idea + proposal and timeline 18:51:09 mhayden: -1 is against 18:51:13 +1 means you support the #idea, -1 means you oppose the #idea 18:51:29 haha, i know that much... but the idea itself was difficult for me to understand 18:51:33 mhayden: 0 is no opinion or abstain from sticking your neck out 18:51:35 inode0: so that plus 1 more or less 18:51:49 ok, you can clarify as needed in the ticket later 18:52:10 inode0: except i want to really give a chance to community, not just drop 18:52:44 mhayden: Most of the time 0 is very popular for those that are noncommittal or don't want to be held accountable. 18:53:01 sure, look at what the community is doing right now? don't you think they can create release names if they want them? :) 18:53:20 EvilBob: hah, i like accountability ;) 18:53:20 inode0: Honestly? If we approve this I don't think we would let them. 18:53:29 mhayden: "You killed our names" "I did nothing, just stood there and watched" 18:53:41 gholms: I don't think it will be our call to make. 18:53:50 EvilBob: the carnage 18:53:53 I'd normally be -1 to this, but with the world turning upside down and all that changes things a bit. 18:53:54 EvilBob: Why are you trying to put words in other people's mouth? 18:54:07 If Fedora 21 Server wants a release name they can ask legal for guidance on how to have one 18:54:07 EvilBob: I think you should stop pretending to speak for me. 18:54:15 mhayden: That is the way I have always seen it anyhow 18:54:17 Either they work it out or not. 18:54:32 inode0: they can but we would still need to check them, and that my main gripe 18:54:54 we won't need to check them 18:54:56 ie the reliance on board while a subgroup is enough 18:55:47 we are a convenience sitting between release name voters and Red Hat legal and we are saying here we are no longer doing that 18:56:19 at least that is what I am saying here 18:56:29 inode0: that seems like non-value added work for the board to be doing, honestly 18:56:39 inode0: (so i agree with you) 18:56:41 if they can arrange something else with legal that works for them I don't have any objection to them doing so 18:56:47 guys we need to wrap it up, the other crew comes in less than 4 min now 18:56:55 take this to a ticket? 18:57:14 frankieonuonga, the other crew waits 18:57:14 yes, I'll update the ticket and ask other board members to vote 18:57:21 thanks, inode0 18:57:46 mhayden: If other groups can realistically get legal to commit to reviewing names on a regular basis, sure. 18:57:56 * gholms is out of things to say 18:58:11 Anything else, or shall we call it a day? 18:58:23 * mhayden seconds calling it a day :P 18:58:32 a day 18:58:32 * inode0 is ready to adjourn 18:58:44 what about Josh's proposal? 18:58:58 for later Viking-Ice 18:59:14 continued discussion on the mailing list though 18:59:33 openfloor ? 19:00:02 if there is nothing urgent from the public I think we should get out of the way :) 19:01:01 thanks everyone 19:01:16 #stopmeeting 19:01:21 Heh 19:01:26 mhhh 19:01:33 #terminatemeeting :P 19:01:36 #endmeeting