17:00:10 #startmeeting Council (2015-04-27) 17:00:10 Meeting started Mon Apr 27 17:00:10 2015 UTC. The chair is mattdm. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 17:00:10 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 17:00:14 #chair mattdm jreznik jwb cwickert rdieter langdon sgallagh decause 17:00:14 Current chairs: cwickert decause jreznik jwb langdon mattdm rdieter sgallagh 17:00:17 #topic introductions, welcome 17:00:21 hello! 17:00:26 .hello sgallagh 17:00:26 i am present 17:00:30 sgallagh: sgallagh 'Stephen Gallagher' 17:00:39 however, i will be afk for 30 seconds. brb 17:00:54 heh. 17:01:09 jreznik mentioned being a few minutes late 17:01:32 ok, back 17:01:33 .fasinfo decuase 17:01:34 decause: User "decuase" doesn't exist 17:01:37 .fasinfo decause 17:01:38 decause: User: decause, Name: None, email: decause@redhat.com, Creation: 2008-10-01, IRC Nick: None, Timezone: None, Locale: None, GPG key ID: None, Status: active 17:01:41 decause: Approved Groups: fi-apprentice gitcivx cla_done freemedia cla_fedora gitmoksha @gitopenvideochat gitfortune_hunter @gitgamesforscience @gitfossrit ambassadors cla_fpca 17:01:42 .hello rdieter 17:01:45 lol 17:01:46 rdieter: rdieter 'Rex Dieter' 17:02:42 cool. missing cwickert and langdon still... 17:02:45 * gholms takes a seat in the bleachers 17:03:55 * roshi joins gholms 17:04:26 imma go ahead and get started. others can join in when they show up :) 17:04:31 #topic agenda 17:04:35 http://etherpad.osuosl.org/fedora-council-042715 17:04:40 1. Objective proposals 17:04:41 ehterpad with agenda is here 17:04:41 - overview of current candidates 17:04:43 - what we need council-level to move on them 17:04:45 2. Status of FOSCo proposal 17:04:47 3. Metrics and stuff 17:04:49 whoooo decause 17:04:57 :) 17:05:28 let's make sure stuff gets marked as #info here too so that people can find it all in one place int he future if need be though 17:05:37 #topic objective proposals 17:05:48 Okay, so, we've got several of these brewing, I think 17:06:07 sgallagh, decause -- any more on the university one? 17:06:13 mattdm: I've got some updates 17:06:53 i see some notes in the etherpad. I guess we can start by pasting that in here? :) 17:06:55 OSAS unversity relations team has created a doc that includes existing involvment with universities 17:07:06 mattdm: yes 17:07:20 .hello langdon 17:07:21 langdon: langdon 'Langdon White' 17:07:41 Working with EDU Outreach team in OSAS, we now have generated an internal list that matches up Universities with existing sales/recruiting relationships, as well as a list of "light house" universities that would be ideal for trend-setting for FOSS campus involvement. 17:07:43 there is... a lot in the etherpad 17:08:41 decause, is that list strategic/confidential to osas or is it something we can use in Fedora? 17:09:13 mattdm: /me is figuring out where those boundaries are, but I will def redact whatever is sensitive for us to use as best as we can 17:09:44 #action decause get light-house list posted to council-discuss 17:10:11 oh, also, should probably include this for reference 17:10:14 #link https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/22 17:10:38 mattdm++ 17:11:22 so, actually, without going too much more into the details, what do other council members think of this as a Fedora Objective? 17:12:06 /me is obviously broadly in favor. 17:12:19 I'm glad to see that decause has got the gears turning here. 17:12:20 +N (decause is horribly biased) 17:12:24 * rdieter likes a lot. probably biased though being at .edu institution myself 17:12:33 Or, to put it another way: is anyone _opposed_ to using one of our current Objective slots for this? 17:12:33 * jreznik is here 17:12:46 mattdm: Do we have other candidate Objectives? 17:12:52 not opposed. hook 'em while they're young, etc 17:13:00 #agree 17:13:06 We've previously stated that we planned to keep the high-level Objectives limited. 17:13:20 sgallagh: langdon is working on one. but we're not exactly bursting at the seams with them right now 17:13:58 mattdm: Yeah, from what I know about that one, it might actually supplant my existing Three-Product one anyway. 17:14:11 Which is sailing along mostly on its own at this point. 17:14:34 sgallagh: making sure that sails along was basically the point :) 17:14:42 (I'd actually planned to suggest that it might not need to occupy a full Objective slot after F22 release) 17:15:00 +1 on edu objective, however, I still want "named owners" on objectives... so I would also move that we sucker decause in to be "named" with regular updates to council.. 17:15:02 Maybe just keep someone assigned to make sure it doesn't fall off the rails and turn our focus elsewhere. 17:15:10 langdon: :) 17:15:12 sgallagh, maybe you could give us an update on it before we go and decide that :) 17:15:16 sgallagh: makes sense, sounds largely feature complete by f22 17:15:36 Hackademics++ 17:15:37 jwb: Reasonable. I can throw something together for the next meeting 17:16:05 #action sgallagh to put together update on Fedora Editions, Phase 2 objective for next meeting 17:16:32 And, since there seems to be broad support for University Involvement objective... 17:16:48 #action decause assign #22 to decause 17:16:52 * langdon network particularly flaky today so, if I lag.. you will know why 17:16:54 #agreed University Involvement objective accepted as one of our current high-level objectives 17:17:21 decause, I take it you're volunteering (or accept having been volunteered) as the Objective Lead for that slot? 17:17:32 mattdm: yes 17:17:46 anyone opposed to that? 17:17:50 no 17:17:52 note that you don't get double votes. :) 17:17:56 nope 17:17:57 :P 17:17:58 no, sounds lovely 17:18:24 #agreed Remy DeCausemaker to be Objective Lead for University Involvement 17:18:42 #action mattdm to update objectives wiki 17:18:59 okay, so, langdon, do you want to talk about what you're working on? 17:19:14 * jreznik is ofcourse yes for decause leading (I don't want to say no :D) 17:19:16 sure.. i have a draft.. let me put it up... 17:20:31 sorry c/p is looking terrible.. one sec 17:21:10 ok, incomplete draft (should have specified :) ) http://piratepad.net/FedoraNextWhatsNext 17:21:27 #link http://piratepad.net/FedoraNextWhatsNext 17:21:40 (I don't think zodbot links urls not at the start of a line, does it?) 17:22:19 * mattdm reads 17:22:19 mattdm: I think it got smarter in the recent past, but nothing wrong with doubling-up 17:23:20 langdon: so, quick summary here is "let's make some focus groups"? 17:23:35 so.. basically.. proposing that we start some "focus groups" to really try to understand the requirements of the various constituencies in fedora for delivering content.. 17:23:56 #info langdon is proposing that we start some "focus groups" to really try to understand the requirements of the various constituencies in fedora for delivering content 17:23:58 * langdon mutters "cause someone took working-group" 17:24:05 langdon lol 17:24:08 :P 17:24:29 how *do* these groups differ from the working groups? 17:24:43 are we setting up Yet More Fedora Organizational Chaos? 17:24:56 ™ 17:25:04 mattdm: I was reading this as more survey groups of *users* 17:25:21 mattdm, i was struggling with that a bit myself at first.. 1) short lived (~6 months) 2) actually sub-strata of the "real" WGs 17:25:40 i'd suggest we just ask the chairs of the existing WGs to actually get together and meet 17:25:44 really just to get a list together ... that we can all agree on 17:25:45 bunch-of-peoples-working-toward-a-common-goal group 17:26:08 because the entire idea behind the existing WGs was to work together from the start. and they kind of didn't do that 17:26:38 jwb: yeah -- idea was for FESCo meeting to be the touchpoint but that didn't work 17:27:05 possibly this goes into sgallagh's current objective :) 17:27:05 that's a good place to seed membership 17:27:23 mattdm: Yeah, I suppose it does at that 17:27:57 sgallagh: maybe a meeting of wg representatives for f23 planning is a good idea? 17:27:59 jwb: Well, they worked together up to a point. They agreed on their particular fiefdoms and then tried to avoid breaking each other 17:28:07 Which was a major improvement in and of itself 17:28:09 actually, unquestionmark that. I think it *is* a good idea. 17:28:28 well.. i think what i was really trying to get at was "we need a list of requirements" .. and I think envs&stacks is too broad to get a unified one easily... 17:28:33 I'd not say WGs do not work together, I'd say last few months everyone works pretty well together 17:28:35 mattdm: I'm wondering if we might want to put "update PRDs" as a major planning item for F23 17:28:41 I know the Cloud one is rotting a bit 17:28:43 sgallagh yes, definitely. 17:28:44 sgallagh, that's not working together to improve fedora overall. 17:28:47 sgallagh: yep 17:29:28 jwb: Yeah, I agree. But not actively interfering with each other was a big step in the right direction. 17:29:44 do the working groups properly represent all the "factions" (best word i could think of, ignore neg connotation) 17:29:46 ? 17:29:50 jwb: or maybe we improve fedora overall if groups do what they think is the best for them... that was a goal of groups 17:30:11 langdon: Do you mean factions as represented by your focus groups? 17:30:17 langdon -- so, on the _user_ group question. The WG members are by definition contributors. Should your proposed groups consist of _actual representative users_ instead? 17:30:23 If so, I'd say "no" 17:30:33 langdon: a good start at some of the biggest factions 17:31:25 so.. do the WGs represent all the factions? are contributors to WGs sufficient "user" representation? 17:32:05 * langdon said "user" meaning both contribs and users assuming that contribs are users as well but not specifically "just users" 17:32:29 k 17:32:37 langdon: I'd like to say that the ideal case is for that user representation to be engaging with the WGs 17:33:00 In reality, we're not there yet. I think that's something that we need to be working on with more contributor outreach 17:33:52 langdon: WGs + SIGs are good representatives of our user base 17:34:31 sgallagh, perhaps we need some more documentation on the expectations of the WGs... like "a WG will have a user targeted meeting once a month which will be completely open floor" or "user survey at least once every 3 months" or what not? 17:35:13 * decause is interested with helping on user surveys 17:35:20 langdon: Maybe we should arrange a monthly Reddit mini-AMA for our users? 17:35:31 (or something like it hosted on free software, etc.) 17:35:37 sgallagh, not sure if you are kidding, but that would be awesome 17:35:47 I wasn't kidding. 17:36:14 sgallagh: how do you see Fedora Server users fitting into the Fedora user groups in the draft? 17:36:28 quote: 17:36:30 A proposed list of focus groups are, Fedora users who: 17:36:32 Wish to primarily run Fedora approved applications for the full lifecycle of a given release (or longer) 17:36:34 Develop applications based on frameworks provided by Fedora but will ultimately be deployed to a server (i.e. web apps) 17:36:36 Develop applications based on frameworks provided by Fedora which will be deployed on desktops (e.g. gnome-boxes) 17:36:38 Develop components of Fedora itself or the frameworks Fedora provides (e.g. kernel, apache, python) 17:36:40 mattdm: Line 18 and 21 17:36:40 endquote 17:36:55 (eg the first and last of those) 17:36:58 Yes 17:37:03 More the first than the last 17:37:20 (pedantic to myself ie not eg) 17:38:14 What about "wish to run applications other than Fedora-approved ones"? 17:38:22 mattdm, disagree... first should be i.e because it is "in other words" ... e.g. is examples :) 17:38:53 Is that a missing group, or an intentional omission? 17:39:13 mattdm, re: wish: which one are you "editing" or do you think that is missing? 17:39:29 ohh ic 17:39:47 well, there's "wish to run fedora approved applications". Is there a "wish to run third-party applications"? 17:39:57 i think bullets 2&3 are the output = what you mean.. but i didn't capture the "users" of those apps 17:40:22 by accident.. or at least "not intentionally" 17:40:35 langdon: *nod* got it. 17:40:37 i'm lost 17:40:42 okay not trying to get too much in the weeds on this. :) 17:41:09 jwb: It reads like this list is only interested in the development and deployment of Fedora-blessed applications 17:41:18 It seems like a fundamental decision is whether to form all new groups here or to ask the wgs to provide the feedback. 17:41:37 Where mattdm was asking for clarification on where third-party applications belong. 17:41:45 (Am I translating that properly?) 17:41:52 jwb, so.. i captured "people who make 3rd party" and "people who make fedora approved" but not people who want to *use* "3rd party" (maybe) 17:42:06 Guess not... 17:42:20 mattdm, why wouldn't you ask the existing groups to provide feedback? not doing so seems really silly, given that thsoe groups are the groups actually _producing_ fedora. 17:42:31 sgallagh I think that was proper 17:42:42 ok 17:42:46 jwb: +1 17:42:47 it seems we're circling around an elephant 17:42:58 line 19? 17:43:09 which is: does Fedora wish to condone, and to a degree, support 3rd party applications and development. 17:43:11 jwb: I think I agree but this proposal as exists seems to be about making new groups 17:44:02 historical note: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ISV_Special_Interest_Group 17:44:16 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_for_ISVs 17:44:25 mattdm, jwb i don't think the two things are exclusive... we can ask the WGs to develop requirements for the fedora.next (in whatever method they deem appropriate but recommend a focus group) that cover the users of types lines 18-22 17:44:25 however these focus groups pan out, it would be great to keep a general list of Fedora users/contributors who like to provide feedback/input on questions and surveys, and would be willing to participate in future discussions. 17:46:17 /win 46 17:46:42 or.. perhaps to bring all these things together... should we change the WG guidelines to add some "things you must do" 1) have user feedback on X basis 2) provide feedback on requirmeents for packaging on Y basis 3) provide lists of responsive contribs/users on Z basis .. or some such 17:46:49 mattdm, so i don't think those historical artifacts are irrelevant, but comparing old-school ISV approaches to what is happening today seems... wrong 17:47:53 I'm still not sure how we want to get feedback from users... or if we even can get that feedback (except ditch systemd from Fedora) 17:48:03 jreznik, i'm skeptical as well 17:48:23 or better that would be meaningful 17:48:34 all our past attempts have literally been rants or negative things from a relatively small set of people, and then we wave that away with "happy silent majority" 17:48:48 jwb I agree (re historical ISV stance). I think that part of the goal of this objective is to articulate clearly _how_ what is happening today is different 17:48:54 jwb: exactly 17:48:57 mattdm, fair! 17:50:00 Just a quick timecheck: we're at 10 mins remaining in the meeting FYI 17:50:00 mattdm: but that's different thing than users feedback and I can agree with this part 17:50:10 ok.. so .. not to beat a dead horse, but I think we all want to see faster/more progress on what the next step of fedora.next looks like.. what should we do? 17:50:16 The historical answer to your elephant is: We support third-party development by encouraging it to stop being third party. 17:50:41 * mattdm looks at clock 17:50:55 Perhaps we can tie this into the University Engagement project? As part of our install-fests and follow-up work, try to get surveys from a reasonable variety of end-users? 17:51:18 okay, so, I think immediately: do we think this info-gathering idea is _in general_ a constructive move in the right direction? 17:51:40 * decause has pipe dreams of using fedmsg to get real-time feedback on particular questions 17:51:41 mattdm: Getting information: Good. Process of getting information: indeterminate 17:51:45 mattdm, which is at odds with a lot of today's trends. 17:51:54 decause: Maybe we can leverage twitter instead? 17:52:13 jwb: Sorry, can you clarify "today's trends"? 17:52:16 we're definitely not going to solve the info problem in the next 8 minutes :) 17:52:21 :) 17:52:36 Man, if only that super-spy hadn't destroyed my telepathy lab... 17:52:40 sgallagh, read mattdm's presentations on how the distro isn't cool anymore. encouraging 3rd party to no longer be 3rd party isn't working. 17:52:52 jwb, +1 17:53:05 * decause is interested in info gathering and metrics, and would be happy to dive deeper into the how off-meeting 17:53:06 jwb: OK, I think I read that as responding to something else mattdm said and got confused. 17:53:09 I'm basically asking: while this draft isn't done, is it going in the right direction, or should langdon not waste his time and try something else? 17:53:14 general q, does marketing monitor "the social medias" for impressions? 17:53:16 sgallagh, sorry, i was late on that reply 17:53:28 langdon: to some degree. 17:53:30 langdon: ish 17:53:41 * decause is new here, so trying to figure that out too 17:54:01 langdon: If they do, they aren't sharing their findings well. 17:54:05 * mattdm pings decause about that bitergia thing 17:54:12 Which is something concrete we could improve upon 17:54:20 interesting post from media are forwarded to marketing list 17:54:30 mattdm, i have the impression that the consensus is that the WGs should be gathering this information.. so, (to all) should I rewrite it in those terms? 17:54:37 jreznik: Rarely for Fedora and only internal to Red Hat. 17:54:47 langdon I think so. 17:54:51 jreznik: For Fedora, it's usually only Alpha/Beta/Final release feedback 17:55:02 Can everyone else answer the "is langdon wasting his time" question? :) 17:55:18 * langdon notes: in this particular case :) 17:55:18 sgallagh: yep it is and often after first paragraph you know, they even didn't boot it 17:55:25 langdon: I think there's rough edges that should be smoothed, but you're on the right track. 17:55:26 lol 17:55:39 mattdm: I'm for focus-groups, pariticularly if they can be pinged again for non-WG related questions later 17:55:45 so it's questionable how useful source it is - there are some good but many reviews are just trash :) 17:55:54 okay cool. let's move on to a couple of other things then real quick? 17:56:18 I mean, not all will, but those who ar ewilling, we should start keeping track of who wants to contribute opions that are outside of "burn systemd with fire" 17:57:06 jwb, we talked a little bit about making an rpm-ostree-based demo system for base+cloud/server/workstation. do you think that in itself might be an objective? 17:57:35 * randomuser thinks focus groups would be a great thing for marketing to drive 17:57:50 * rdieter has hard-stop, another meeting at 1 17:57:56 * rdieter waves bye 17:58:02 rdieter bye! 17:58:24 mattdm: That seems more like a smaller project feeding into a bigger objective to me. 17:58:31 mattdm, maybe.... i'd like to follow up on that some more before we dive in official. 17:58:46 sgallagh, jwb okay :) 17:58:51 (Related: I'd like to see about having an OSTree server role to allow users to manage and distribute their own A/B setups). 17:59:00 sgallagh, the idea wasn't "do this for fun." it was "change the entire way we deliver fedora" 17:59:06 jwb++ 17:59:06 mattdm: You have already given 1 karma to jwboyer 17:59:11 lol zodbot 17:59:15 sgallagh, which... is pretty big. 17:59:36 jwb: OK, I guess I didn't get that from the summary line. 17:59:43 yeah, hence more follow up :) 17:59:51 decause you have a bunch of other stuff in the etherpad which I think is partly related to the fosco proposal, yeah? 18:00:27 I do 18:00:40 can you bring that to the mailing list? 18:00:51 mattdm: council-discuss? 18:01:03 decause: yeah, at least in high level 18:01:07 kk 18:01:09 plus wherever else. 18:01:26 #action decause post FOSCO proposal to council-discuss 18:01:38 and I guess "metrics and stuff" kind of collided with our discussion about objectives (in a not-bad way) 18:01:51 #topic quick open floor 18:01:57 I know we're late, but we built a couple of cool things since the last council meeting :) 18:02:09 decause quick, share. :) 18:02:15 Anyone else have anything urgent? 18:02:26 http://decause.github.io/cardsite 18:02:43 this is a prototype visualization, inspired by http://emojitracker.com 18:02:59 it is a real-time separated grid of fedmsg traffic 18:03:14 General reminder: Flock CFP closes this week. 18:03:19 it is a bit crude, but proves the websockets work, and querying datagrepper for assets works 18:03:54 there is more to come from this, but for now, not a bad PoC 18:04:05 #info General reminder: Flock CFP closes this week. 18:04:29 #info https://github.com/decause/fedora-stats-tools is trying to gather "long-tail" metrics on fedmsg activity 18:04:50 blogpost (high-level-ish) here: http://decausemaker.org/posts/grokkingfedmsg.html 18:05:53 #info https://github.com/decause/word_cloud - library for creating dataviz based on text corpus 18:06:14 https://github.com/decause/word_cloud/blob/master/examples/pycon.png 18:06:32 ^^^ good example of result of putting word-cloud into an image mask 18:06:47 got stack running locally, can use to build more dataviz/metrics in Fedora-Specific contexts 18:07:10 one of the FUDCon shirts had a word-cloud in the shape of the fedora logo on the back a few years ago for example 18:08:15 decause: want to start running that automatically on, say, all the mailing lists every month? (possibly with some automated messages filtered out) 18:08:23 mattdm: yes def :) 18:08:39 anyway we are about 10 minutes over. time to end meeting. thanks everyone! 18:08:42 #endmeeting