13:01:33 #startmeeting Env and Stacks (2013-11-12) 13:01:34 Meeting started Tue Nov 12 13:01:33 2013 UTC. The chair is mmaslano. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 13:01:34 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 13:01:39 #topic init process 13:01:52 #chair abadger1999 pkovar tjanez samkottler bkabrda handsome_pirate hhorak juhp 13:01:52 Current chairs: abadger1999 bkabrda handsome_pirate hhorak juhp mmaslano pkovar samkottler tjanez 13:02:09 hi 13:02:17 hello 13:02:24 Hi 13:02:31 hey 13:02:54 we have something like quorum, let's start 13:04:33 if I look on action item from last week... 13:04:40 handsome_pirate will create wiki for our WG 13:05:03 he's not here, so skip to governance draft 13:05:16 #topic governance draft 13:06:13 the current form works for me 13:06:41 #info https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Toshio/Env_and_Stacks_Governance 13:06:48 abadger1999 wrote a draft 13:06:50 thanks 13:06:54 * samkottler is here 13:06:57 although it might cover areas like voting 13:07:35 more people on list agreed on voting instead of "filling empty slots in WG" 13:08:29 what I liked the most was that only half of the members would be elected every X months 13:10:16 yeah seems to be some consensus that elections might make more sense for this WG 13:10:43 voting vs elections :) 13:10:48 #halp 13:10:53 proposal: abadger1999 will re-work part about elections 13:11:05 sorry :) 13:11:22 I agree with mmaslano's email that said only half of the WG voting seats should be vacant 13:11:33 it's not clear to me how we should vote, but at least we can agree on general elections after a year 13:11:48 and we could finally start working on important topics :) like packaging 13:11:59 I guess there are some potential pros and cons to elections but maybe it is good 13:12:11 yes 13:12:30 1 year period seems fine 13:12:52 I'm also okay with that. 13:13:04 Maybe we'll want to revisit this part after january 13:13:09 there was suggestion that WG members would vote - though unclear about definition of members 13:13:27 juhp: Yes, a good concern 13:13:29 tjanez: that would be fine with me 13:13:45 juhp: yes, I didn't find good statement how to define member 13:13:56 I sent an email to devel ML to invite people to work on our charter 13:13:58 btw just to be sure: all WGs need to submit Charter now btw? 13:14:05 tjanez: tahnks 13:14:11 maybe I wasn't the right person 13:14:12 juhp: yeah 13:14:15 okay 13:14:19 my idea is that for the first year, all of us would stay and then we would reelect half of members every half a year 13:14:24 since no-one outside of our group participated 13:14:35 tjanez: some people subsribed into mailing list, maybe they are waiting for interesting technical topics :) 13:14:50 mmaslano: Aha, ok, didn't check that :) 13:14:58 if we need more time to define election details - perhaps we could amend that later? 13:15:35 we do need to nail down the initial governance document soon, though 13:15:41 right 13:15:43 yes 13:16:13 I suggest we put down elections after 1 year, half of the sits vacant, members of WG vote 13:16:44 and amend it later 13:16:45 tjanez: it's hard to define WG members : 13:16:50 tjanez: so the 5 remaining members vote? 13:17:09 currently, in every elections can vote people with some cla_group 13:17:14 I hope we'll have more than 5 members by this time next year 13:17:19 we had to have our own group first 13:17:27 If not, our WG is not functioning 13:17:52 tjanez: the "half the group" thing is confusing 13:18:03 I feel like this is being totally overcomplicated right now 13:18:18 samkottler, half of 8 is 4 I guess :) 13:18:32 juhp: we're not 9 people? 13:18:37 I thought all the wg's were 9 13:18:41 juhp: I'm willing to offer my place too 13:18:45 1 person is from fesco 13:18:51 "from" 13:18:53 ok, still a voting member, though 13:18:58 mmaslano: not every elections, for example fesco is at least on non cla group 13:18:58 indeed 13:19:14 anyway I agree election is complicated :) 13:19:19 I don't really think the liason should be handled differently than other voting members 13:19:49 samkottler: I agree, you should pick your own liason, it doesn't have to be a member of FESCo 13:19:57 doesn't it have to be ? 13:20:07 okay 13:20:09 no, it's not in Workstation and Base WG 13:20:34 I mean liason is kind of special anyway :) 13:20:38 in case everybody could become a member, then there is no reason to limit the voting and we can let it open to everyone, imho 13:20:38 anyway 13:20:46 My general idea is not overcomplicating things, be open to new people 13:20:48 hhorak: +1 13:21:26 it might be good to get feedback on the election process from FESCo 13:21:30 tjanez: my point is that we need people who can be certified to be part of *something* for inclusion n voting 13:21:33 in voting** 13:21:43 juhp: definitely, I'd like to ask about non-voting in other groups anyway 13:21:50 good 13:21:59 samkottler: yes, definitely 13:22:16 mmaslano: we have a pretty well defined document for the cloud WG - might be a good thing to take a look at 13:22:21 juhp: What sort of feedback? 13:22:30 samkottler: they are not voting either 13:22:33 I can't speak for all of FESCo (clearly), but maybe I can be helpful. 13:22:44 so what about sorting this out on the mailing list and getting to something that actually matters now? :) 13:22:46 samkottler: but in cloud it might make sense, because you know what are you doing 13:22:52 sgallagh, any other WG planning on elections? 13:23:00 mmaslano: not really anymore so than we do here :) 13:23:30 juhp: No, they all seem to be going with the plan of "we'll change members when people want to step down or FESCo intervenes" 13:23:39 right thought so 13:24:06 That's an important point to make: ultimately as these WGs are under FESCo's purview, FESCo can disband or reformulate them if the need arises. 13:24:16 sure 13:24:24 This would happen only in exceptional circumstances, of course. 13:24:40 TBH I'd like to avoid a fixed term: if things are going well then it'll interrupt progress if we have to deal with an election 13:24:58 define going well 13:25:46 mmaslano: progress is being made and everyone is working well together 13:25:59 * jreznik would also prefer similar wg charters but understand wgs suverenity 13:26:07 samkottler, I also have some such sentiment - and think it is also part of the thinking of other WGs 13:26:25 jreznik: +1 13:26:29 juhp: yep, definitely 13:26:35 samkottler: ok, so we can say we are working well, when we fulfill plans from PRD 13:27:03 samkottler, juhp: the argument for re-elections was to be inviting to new people 13:27:22 jreznik, +2 13:27:35 tjanez: +1 13:27:51 * mmaslano says 27 minutes on the topic, move on or discuss longer? 13:27:51 mmaslano: right, but we have to figure out the governance before then 13:28:00 -1 on moving on 13:28:05 we have to submit something on the 14th 13:28:22 do we need to define every small detail of the elections? 13:28:38 or just that we're planning on having elections 13:28:49 I think we need to figure out if we're gonna have elections 13:28:55 that's a pretty critical part of governance 13:28:55 we'll revisit the topic in january after we form the "what we are doing" 13:29:07 tjanez: +1 13:29:12 tjanez, right - I can see both point of views 13:29:27 so we're gonna submit a governance document that says that we don't know if we're gonna have elections? 13:29:31 that seems wrong 13:29:32 so we just keep the current draft? 13:29:32 tjanez: +1 13:29:49 does someone want to actually put out a proposal 13:29:55 this seems like it requires voting 13:29:56 samkottler: please, re-read my comments 13:30:20 tjanez: I have :) 13:30:32 samkottler: okay :) 13:30:33 what are you trying to point out? 13:30:52 sorry, I just don't see how we can decide on governance without knowing if we're gonna have elections 13:31:10 samkottler: It's not that we don't know if we're gonna have elections 13:31:17 #proposal leave proposal as is, but change the part about filling empty seats. Election should happen on january 2015. Who can vote will be worked out later. 13:31:17 samkottler: my proposal was: reelect half of the WG every half a year, with the expection that the first elections will be a year from now 13:31:42 samkottler: We're planning on having them, we just aren't in the position to specify every small detail right now 13:31:53 bkabrda, half year?? 13:32:03 bkabrda: -1 to half a year 13:32:11 that's too short to get continuity and work on bigger projects 13:32:17 juhp: yes, half of the committee every half a year 13:32:22 hm 13:32:39 mmaslano: +1 13:32:47 mmaslano: +1 13:32:49 I thought the proposal was annual elections 13:33:04 * tjanez is also more for annual elections 13:33:15 samkottler: I'm proposing 1 year without elections. First elections would happend in January 2015. We will have a year for work. 13:33:18 if we're going to have elections, annual seem better 13:33:20 mmaslano: +1 13:33:51 * juhp was also hoping abadger1999 was going to update the draft based on minor comments in the ml 13:34:27 but every six months we would vote about half of member, because we need continuity in work 13:34:33 mmaslano: +1 13:34:36 I see 13:35:08 perhaps we can decide the details later? 13:35:09 I obviously +1 for me 13:35:18 mmaslano, +1 to proposal 13:35:30 it seems to my proposal was approved if I read samkottler's message correctly 13:36:33 samkottler: what did you approve? 13:36:45 mmaslano: yep, that was a vote for your once per year election proposal 13:37:06 well the proposal does say how often the elections would be :) 13:37:09 doesn't 13:37:11 #agreed leave proposal as is, but change the part about filling empty seats. Election should happen on january 2015. Who can vote will be worked out later. (+5,-0,0) 13:37:17 juhp: now we will improve it 13:37:31 :) 13:38:14 #proposal reelect half of the WG every half a year 13:38:46 +1 13:38:50 bkabrda: +1 13:39:34 how often do other elections happen? 13:40:16 bkabrda: -1 13:40:22 juhp: I would use the same approach as fesco has 13:40:45 so fesco is every 6 months? 13:40:49 every 6 months is too short to get anything done without constantly worrying about the elections IMO 13:40:53 juhp: election every six months, where half of the group is replaced 13:41:00 I see thanks 13:41:03 samkottler: but they are staying for a year there 13:41:16 right 13:41:33 hence the 1 year delay 13:42:01 mmaslano: even still, they are gonna be part of the WG every 6 months and it'll distract from the actual work 13:42:52 i think that you can still get a lot of done without being a voting member, no? i would go with #proposal 13:43:26 I'm ok with the proposal, but I hope the elections are not too much burden every half-year 13:43:41 tjanez, me too 13:44:24 maybe fesco members can tell us how much time elections consume 13:44:26 samkottler, 6 months has the advantage of giving staggered overlap of members 13:45:07 what about to stay that after every election the "next date of election" will be set up? 13:45:08 I assume voting members will remain in the WG for 1 year like FESCo then 13:45:11 jreznik: might have a document how are election done 13:45:17 juhp: I guess so 13:45:18 juhp: I've already said this above, but I'm not talking about the actual members, I'm saying the election itself is distracting 13:45:30 samkottler, ok 13:45:55 I would use the same process as fesco does (if I could find the document) 13:45:57 samkottler, what would the alternative be? 13:46:05 mmaslano: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FESCo_election_policy#Schedule 13:46:06 samkottler, I understand your concern 13:46:23 * abadger1999 had a restless night... and joins from bed. 13:46:29 * abadger1999 reads up 13:46:36 abadger1999: heyya 13:46:50 abadger1999: hi 13:47:10 * j_dulaney shows up way late 13:47:22 Forgot that the time change here would make it an hour early 13:47:25 j_dulaney: hi 13:47:39 Hmm... I like elections but I think who can vote would need to be in the gobernance charter. 13:47:40 mmaslano: for elections, abadger1999 is the best person to contact (for setting up elections) 13:47:48 * drieden I am late too 13:48:41 abadger1999, yeah 13:48:55 abadger1999: we agreed to mmaslano's proposal about revisiting the filling-in part later 13:49:18 abadger1999: I meant who can vote 13:50:58 I have 10 minutes to another meeting, so... 13:51:03 tjanez: yeah -- I don't think I would affirm a governance charter in fesco that didn't include who could vote. 13:51:14 It's an important piece. 13:51:30 Indeed 13:52:01 abadger1999: it's hard to say how recognize WG member, so I would say all who can vote for fesco 13:52:02 two proposals that spring to mind: 13:52:06 maybe more 13:52:11 is it better to amend the charter later to elections? 13:52:14 * j_dulaney is +1 for same eligibility as fesco 13:52:18 mmaslano: yep, that's my first idea. 13:52:23 WHich I believe is cla + 1 13:52:30 okay 13:52:42 yeah that is probably the simplest way 13:52:43 abadger1999: but we have also pkovar from docs, and j_dulaney from QA 13:53:01 second idea is create a new fas group for people interested in env and stacks wg. 13:53:18 but how to add people to that group is where the detail then shifts. 13:53:21 mmaslano: So? 13:53:26 what would be the criteria for joining that? 13:53:36 right 13:53:58 Have some proof of involvement in Fedora? 13:54:12 afaik, docs and qa have fas groups that count as the +1 in "cla +1". 13:54:14 abadger1999: exactly, how :) 13:54:40 so cla+1 is ok? 13:54:44 abadger1999: The qa fas group really isn't used for anything 13:54:55 ah 13:55:05 yes, docs has a fas group, docs_writers it is i think 13:55:15 is it used? 13:55:16 j_dulaney: we spoke about it many times, how to differentiate who does something. 13:55:22 juhp: what's cla+1 13:55:23 I'm not even in the qa fas group, and I've been around for a while 13:55:43 juhp: for those who want to push commits, yes 13:55:46 j_dulaney: I think we ran into this at last fesco election though -- there was a question on a candidate not belonging to another group if I remember right. 13:55:56 .fasinfo j_dulaney 13:55:57 abadger1999: User "j_dulaney" doesn't exist 13:56:03 mmaslano, cla + one more group 13:56:10 .fasinfo jdulaney 13:56:14 abadger1999: Yeah, that was me 13:56:16 j_dulaney: User: jdulaney, Name: John Dulaney, email: j_dulaney@live.com, Creation: 2010-06-28, IRC Nick: handsome_pirate, Timezone: US/Eastern, Locale: en, GPG key ID: 20100628, Status: active 13:56:19 j_dulaney: Unapproved Groups: gitbeefymiracle 13:56:21 abadger1999: I wasn't a packager 13:56:23 j_dulaney: Approved Groups: arm-qa aarch64 gitfedora-qa gitdrupal6-authfas +proventesters packager fedorabugs gitfedora-insight-theme cla_fedora cla_done cla_fpca ambassadors 13:56:42 j_dulaney, you're a proventester :) 13:56:55 All of those other groups would count (including the fedorahosted ones) 13:56:57 Admin for it, even 13:57:01 indeed 13:57:18 Like I said, I've been around a while :) 13:57:33 the fedorahosted ones might be a bug... but "fixing" that bug would be hard. 13:57:45 But, yeah, cla+1 is my vote 13:57:45 Well, I don't see any problem to let to vote everyone with FAS account.. 13:58:03 abadger1999: could you finish the meeting, I need to join a call 13:58:10 abadger1999: fedorahosted ones? I have those for various reasons 13:58:11 +1 cla+1 seems fine as well 13:58:14 mmaslano: Am I chaired? 13:58:24 +1 for cla+1 13:58:38 I'm also ok with cla+1 13:58:38 +1 for cla+1 13:58:40 mmaslano: Looks like I am. I can finish the meeting. 13:58:53 abadger1999, yes 13:58:55 +1 for cla+1 13:59:08 * pkovar has to reconnect 13:59:14 Probably only those who will be interested in our WG will vote 13:59:46 Looks like we have enough +1s for cla+1 14:00:26 tjanez: yeah, that seems probably 14:00:54 perhaps we could revisit it later 14:00:59 #info Voting group to be cla+1 approved (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) 14:01:20 what's missing from the governance charter? 14:01:50 abadger1999: we still didn't agree on how often to have elections/how many members to reelect 14:01:52 j_dulaney: I forgot to ask about wiki pages for WG 14:02:15 mmaslano: Ah, apologies, I completely forgot about that 14:02:28 It will get done by this afternoon 14:02:53 bkabrda: Thanks. 14:03:46 So reading back I see a proposal for 2 year terms with elections of half the members every January and a second proposal for 1 year terms with elections of half the membets matching the fesco election schedule. 14:04:15 abadger1999: correct 14:04:31 Everyone seems to be onboard with electing half the seats at a time. 14:04:35 I think on reflection 1 year terms sounds reasonable 14:05:13 +1 1 year 14:05:14 or should it be 2 releases? 14:05:23 Yeah, that sounds better 14:05:29 I'd use the term 2 releases because that matches fesco 14:05:36 okay good 14:05:44 so, +1 two releases 14:05:44 I'm also fine with that 14:05:48 So proposal: 14:05:50 +1 14:06:04 +1 seems fine 14:06:32 +1 14:06:52 Elections for half the seats will be held afer every fedora release (approximately 6 months) to match with fesco. Elected members serve for 1 year before needing to stand for re-election 14:06:56 +1 14:07:13 ack 14:07:22 +1 14:07:50 Unless anyone wants change their vote after seeing the actual wording, we have more than enough to pass :-) 14:08:10 abadger1999: +1 14:08:14 +1 14:08:41 abadger1999: Didn't you intend to put 2 releases instead of 1 year? 14:09:02 * juhp thinking same 14:09:06 +1 abadger1999 14:09:10 * pkovar is back 14:09:17 abadger1999: +1 14:09:27 tjanez: "after every fedora release" 14:09:36 oh I see.. 14:09:38 Yeah, 14:10:04 * Elected members serve for 2 fedora releases before[...]" 14:10:18 good 14:10:21 abadgere1999: +1 14:10:21 abadger1999: um, we don't how long will be fedora releases ;-) 14:10:26 but good for now 14:11:02 mmaslano: that is correct -- fesco is suffering the same problem :-) but tieing to release cycles just makes sense in terms of people's busyness 14:11:15 and continuity 14:11:18 and also... continuity 14:11:24 well, does it make sense to base election terms on fedora releases, especially in the time, we would probably not have one universal release? 14:11:40 hm 14:12:01 jreznik: there's a few reasons I think it still works: 14:12:19 I thought the tentative plan was to have releases at the same time for now 14:12:44 1) I don't think we're going to see decoupled releases for a while -- different release schedules will require sorting out how that interacts with different communities: packagers, qa, rel-eng, etc. 14:12:47 jreznik: We can revisit that after that develops into something 14:12:53 juhp: base wg is not thinking about releases model, server is planning different release model... 14:13:02 I see 14:13:12 juhp: different releases could happend later 14:13:17 right 14:13:24 * j_dulaney knows that from a qa standpoint, having different release times would suck 14:13:45 right 14:14:06 jreznik: Ooh, I didn't know it has come so far already 14:14:26 2) By mentioning matching fesco in the wording, we are providing an indication of how we'd like to see things change if releases gget thrown out. (we'll adopt whatever fesco moves to) 14:15:05 jreznik: Someone should tell base that that's something they should not be changing just yet. 14:15:27 (I'm thinking at least a year so that we get a release or two of the three products out the door first) 14:15:34 pknirsch: did you hear? ^ ;) 14:15:47 abadger1999, +1 14:15:51 sec 14:15:54 reading 14:15:55 jreznik: I think jwb's fesco ticket to be talked about this week should talk about that. 14:16:08 abadger1999: that's another topic I have for your group - we, especially as base, have to somehow be in touch with other groups... but I let it until your open floor 14:16:14 * j_dulaney is about to have a heart attack over the different release schedules thing 14:16:26 err... fesco should discuss it in the context of jwb's fesco ticket (about what just how much autonomy WG's have) 14:16:51 * tjanez thinks we should move on with our meeting 14:17:15 abadger1999: I guess we have data for governance charter, which is needed 14:17:19 what is Base changing? :) 14:17:32 abadger1999: well, we would have to prepare base releases in the way upper wgs could consume them... bit OT now, just it was my note regarding elections based on releases 14:17:40 Here's the fesco ticket that people should look at for continued discussion: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1195 14:18:05 And yeah, I think we should move on in this meeting to other things now 14:18:24 abadger1999: I think your proposal was accepted 14:18:46 abadger1999: I would use the amended wording. 14:18:57 * j_dulaney has to go to work 14:19:07 See y'all later 14:19:11 #info Proposal Elections for half the seats will be held afer every fedora release (approximately 6 months) to match with fesco. Elected members serve for 1 year before needing to stand for re-election Passed (+1:8, 0:0, -1:0) 14:19:16 j_dulaney: See you later. 14:19:31 Okay, we also need candidates. 14:19:39 * juhp doesn't follow the example in the fesco ticket... 14:19:58 juhp, the one i opened? 14:20:00 Proposal: Candidates for the Env and Stack WG are anyone in cla+1 14:20:15 jwb, well chrome is not 100% foss :) 14:20:27 but anyway 14:20:29 +1 14:20:40 abadger1999, +1 14:20:53 abadger1999: +1 14:21:08 +1 14:21:14 abadger1999: +1 14:21:14 abadger1999: Did you revert "Elected members serve for 2 fedora releases before[...]" intentionally? 14:21:19 juhp: I don't follow either. 14:21:22 #undo 14:21:22 Removing item from minutes: 14:21:45 #info Proposal Elections for half the seats will be held afer every fedora release (approximately 6 months) to match with fesco. Elected members serve for 2 release cycles before needing to stand for re-election Passed (+1:8, 0:0, -1:0) 14:21:54 tjanez: Thanks. It was a cut and paste error. 14:22:08 abadger1999: No problem :) 14:22:40 #info Candidates for the Env and Stack WG are anyone in cla+1 Passed (+1:5, 0:0, -1:0) 14:23:48 sounds still good, giving late +1 ;) 14:23:50 Member stepping down early... 14:23:53 #undo 14:23:53 Removing item from minutes: 14:23:58 #info Candidates for the Env and Stack WG are anyone in cla+1 Passed (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) 14:24:24 special election, next highest vote getter from last election, just choose someone. 14:25:33 I think just choose someone would be best (it is certainly the simplest). fesco uses next highest vote getter. 14:25:36 abadger1999: I fine following FESCO election process on these special details 14:25:41 okay. 14:25:50 yes 14:25:59 +1 for following fesco 14:26:07 Proposal: We'll follow fesco election process on other details (members stepping down early, etc) 14:26:09 +1 14:26:10 "next highest" seems the easiest.. 14:26:12 +1 14:26:14 +1 14:26:15 +1 14:26:18 +1 14:26:20 +1 14:27:07 #info We'll follow fesco election process on other details not mentioned here Passed (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) 14:27:40 Okay, anyone think of anything else that needs to be done to the governance document? 14:28:24 If there's nothing else we can either move on to the charter or end the meeting (we're over the 1 hour mmaslano talked about but we still have quorum) 14:28:26 regarding "lazy voting" -- "few days" seems ambigous, as mentioned in the mailing-list 14:28:47 can we change it to say 5 days? 14:29:08 sounds reasonable 14:29:20 hhorak, agreed, or maybe 1 week? 14:29:35 yeah 14:29:40 five days is a little long in terms of getting things done. but it is reasonable from a "everybody had a chance to see it" standpoint. 14:30:11 +1 for 5 days 14:30:24 * abadger1999 takes another look at what cloud wg is doing. 14:31:42 Hmm... 14:32:02 So it looks lke both cloud and server are using "few days" terminoloy. 14:32:31 until +5 votes? ;) 14:32:45 +1 for 5 votes 14:32:49 eh days 14:32:49 It seems a little odd that we'd be making it harder/longer to get a change enacted than they are. 14:32:49 juhp: +1 14:33:13 abadger1999: it seems to be the correct thing 14:34:03 I don't know that it's correct -- we're supposed to be faster moving then they are due to dealing with more experimental stuff by nature. 14:34:11 assuming we are going by majority voting 14:34:46 hmm and no abstentions 14:35:29 and things that aren't going to affect a product directly in a small timeframe (what we're doing should be fruitful on the scale of multiple releases rather than less than a release) 14:35:37