19:00:52 <stickster> #startmeeting Flock next-gen software
19:00:52 <zodbot> Meeting started Thu Oct 22 19:00:52 2015 UTC.  The chair is stickster. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
19:00:52 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
19:00:55 <stickster> #meetingname flocksoftware
19:00:55 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'flocksoftware'
19:00:58 <stickster> #topic Roll call
19:01:05 <mizmo> .hello duffy
19:01:06 <zodbot> mizmo: duffy 'Máirín Duffy' <fedora@linuxgrrl.com>
19:01:22 <stickster> .hello pfrields
19:01:23 <zodbot> stickster: pfrields 'Paul W. Frields' <stickster@gmail.com>
19:02:08 <puiterwijk> .hello puiterwijk
19:02:09 <zodbot> puiterwijk: puiterwijk 'Patrick "マルタインアンドレアス" Uiterwijk' <puiterwijk@redhat.com>
19:02:19 <stickster> Hola Patrick
19:02:46 <puiterwijk> Hi, I'm going to break in once more :)
19:02:50 <stickster> please!
19:03:11 <stickster> jwboyer: Not sure whether you're (around && interested) but here we are, just in case
19:03:36 <mizmo> i went thru regcfp last week i think and filled out the table for it
19:03:42 <stickster> #topic Summary
19:04:09 <stickster> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Flock_2016_software#Tool_Comparisons
19:04:21 <stickster> #info In usual awesome fashion mizmo filled out the comparison table for regcfp
19:04:51 <stickster> One thing that I noted in running these is that regcfp solidly aims to be an *adjunct* to a content/marketing site
19:05:04 <stickster> whereas zookeepr is trying to be more of the all-in-one solution
19:06:05 <mizmo> puiterwijk, does regcfp send out any emails?
19:06:10 <mizmo> i didn't get any when i was poking around with it
19:06:15 <stickster> IOW, it aims to see a simple content site at e.g. flocktofedora.org/net, but then regcfp is at a desk.flocktofedora.org site where people register, submit, etc.
19:06:17 <puiterwijk> mizmo: it does with a cronjob.
19:06:21 <mizmo> puiterwijk, ah okay
19:06:42 <stickster> puiterwijk: Hm, maybe I did some misconfiguration? Let me check the mail sent out on that system
19:06:47 <puiterwijk> And yeah, regcfp does not have a full-fledged CMS, and I was not planning on adding that, but you can add it to the templates
19:08:16 <puiterwijk> Note regarding the reimbursement stuff: that's going to be added per request of the GNOME travel board, and is now in back-and-forth traffic
19:08:54 <stickster> puiterwijk: So how's that projected to work? Is it related to paper acceptance at all?
19:08:58 <mizmo> cool updating the matrix accordingly
19:09:56 <puiterwijk> stickster: People will be able to ask for reimbursement, and in the travel board page it will show the amount of budget configured, the amount of budget planned so far (will update as items get ticked/unticked), and whether the person currently has a paper accepted
19:11:03 <puiterwijk> So you can check per person whether hotel and/or travel is funded, and up to what percentage, and it will update the displayed page live
19:11:25 <puiterwijk> (before you submit it, that is)
19:12:14 <stickster> That sounds pretty darn useful for Flock planners
19:12:34 <puiterwijk> Also, volunteer management has been requested by GUADEC organization
19:12:45 <stickster> zookeepr didn't have a clear way for this to work -- and in fact mizmo and I both ran into issues with the "ask for subsidy" function itself in zookeepr
19:13:48 <stickster> mizmo: One thing that occurs to me is that the separation of the content site from the site where we do planning is actually kind of useful
19:14:13 <puiterwijk> As said, I am also willing to accept new feature requests, and having static pages display in-line from html files is fine with me. One limitation however is that I am not planning to add a full-fledged CMS. That is just out-of-scope, at least for now.
19:14:13 <mizmo> stickster, yeh because where the planning site manages the content site you get limitations on what you can do
19:14:35 <stickster> Because *lots* of people can contribute to keeping the WordPress content alive; the thing that made WP bad for us was the plugins that were trying to make it look like an all-in-one site
19:15:38 <stickster> puiterwijk: How "hard" are the ties between the regcfp app and its own voting process? I'm not saying we have to use the Fedora voting app, just want to understand options
19:15:58 <puiterwijk> stickster: what do you mean?
19:16:00 <stickster> puiterwijk: also, +1 on no CMS
19:17:09 <puiterwijk> It is certainly possible to get the list of papers out of regcfp if you want voting separate, or just disable the entire CFP modules with a single boolean
19:17:09 <stickster> puiterwijk: There's a voting function directly in the regcfp app. If we don't use that, what are the consequences for other things when using regcfp?
19:18:08 <puiterwijk> Just the voting part? That doesn't matter much.
19:18:11 <stickster> So it sounds loosely coupled enough that if we care, we can use the existing voting app; or if it's more desirable to have a committee do paper voting, we could use it in the app
19:18:32 <stickster> s/care/care to keep the routine the same from 2015/
19:19:08 <puiterwijk> Yeah. Note that you can also do voting from multiple people in regcfp: unless you have the required permissions you won't be able to see the results
19:19:29 <puiterwijk> But as noted in the table: regcfp (currently) has a different style of voting based on the GUADEC paper committee
19:19:35 <stickster> #info puiterwijk is adding functionality for travel reimbursement requests, will show paper acceptance and be reflected in running budget
19:19:50 <stickster> puiterwijk: Yes, looks more like what LCA does too
19:19:55 <stickster> -2 to +2
19:20:19 <puiterwijk> Yeah.
19:22:30 <puiterwijk> But it is entirely possible to replace the voting part without rewriting the entire CFP module. It's pretty much a separate part, that could get additional methods added
19:22:52 <stickster> #info voting in regcfp is optional, uses simplified method of LCA/GUADEC (-2 to +2) -- could use Fedora voting app if desired with no cost/repercussion
19:23:40 <stickster> puiterwijk: Is there any reason you know of that a pretty standard postfix server on localhost wouldn't be sending email?
19:24:04 <puiterwijk> stickster: by default relaying is disabled.
19:24:10 <puiterwijk> So you'd have to enable relaying, or send to @localhost
19:25:03 <stickster> I think localhost is available (only to local services)... I'll check that, thanks
19:25:15 <puiterwijk> stickster: but you should make sure to only allow relaying from localhost. If not, you might end up an open relay, which is Bad(R)
19:25:35 <stickster> Correct, I've checked that and also verified that outside attempts are failing as expected :-)
19:25:51 <stickster> puiterwijk: Plenty of people were glad to help me test, it appears ;-)
19:26:20 <puiterwijk> stickster: hah. No surprise there :)
19:26:35 <puiterwijk> There's always a ton of bots always willing to help test for open relays
19:26:48 <stickster> Other apps appear to be mailing fine, so I'm not sure what the issue is
19:27:06 <puiterwijk> You mean regcfp?
19:27:27 <puiterwijk> You need to run a specific script to get emails sent out.
19:27:38 <stickster> puiterwijk: oh! do tell
19:27:58 <puiterwijk> they are queued up until that's run, because some parts send tons of email, and waiting for all those smtp requeests can take a while otherwise
19:28:48 <puiterwijk> Let me check. It's been a while since I set this up
19:28:52 <stickster> OK
19:30:32 <stickster> mizmo: So it seems to me we probably want to start a discussion about the results of the comparison
19:30:33 <puiterwijk> And seems that branch was never merged into master. So let me rephrase: It does not currently in master have email support, but code is done
19:31:52 <mizmo> stickster, seems like two options are zookeepr (probably would involve some minor devel work to get into better working order) or regcfp + a wordpress install for the front facing website?
19:32:19 <stickster> mizmo: Yes, seems like those are the two best options from the 4+ we tried
19:32:30 <mizmo> i dont think we tried ocw tho
19:32:30 <stickster> (I'm counting in that "+" the several things I tried and failed to install :-)
19:32:34 <mizmo> ah okay
19:32:35 <mizmo> hehe
19:32:44 <mizmo> well if it cant be installed not much hope!
19:33:18 <stickster> I know I'm not the wizard some of us are (looking at you puiterwijk) but I'm not devoid of all skill
19:33:40 <stickster> So if I can't figure out from the site, docs (sometimes nonexistent), other code or list threads how to get it running... feh
19:34:17 <mizmo> it doesnt bode well
19:35:04 <stickster> #info mail support in regcfp is coded, just needs merge
19:35:08 <mizmo> i think maybe the one thing regcfp doesnt do that might be worth a feature request is tagging the talks into categories
19:35:31 <mizmo> the other candidates we looked at did that, i think suehle and jwboyer brought that up specifically as a want at flock
19:35:47 <mizmo> (dont know if need or nice-to-have)
19:35:53 <stickster> Yeah, that could be super useful
19:35:58 <puiterwijk> mizmo: well, that's pretty easy to add. How about code for that in an hour or two?
19:36:02 <stickster> haha
19:36:05 <mizmo> puiterwijk, lol that sounds good to me
19:36:36 <mizmo> puiterwijk, specifically i think they were hoping to set up some tracks and have submitters suggest a track when submitting that their talk would belong to, but could be edited later if needed
19:36:51 <puiterwijk> Sure. That's just one more field in the form
19:37:05 <stickster> That makes sense, and is pretty much at parity with what zookeepr offered iirc
19:37:41 <mizmo> yep, and itd be better than osem bc osem didnt let submitters self-select tracks
19:38:56 <stickster> puiterwijk: is https://github.com/puiterwijk/GUADEC-regcfp/issues the right place to submit issues here?
19:39:18 <puiterwijk> stickster: yup. I will be making that repo the master repository from now on
19:39:45 <puiterwijk> (I had moved it to git.gnome.org mostly because that was a lot easier for GUADEC because of how the GNOME infra is setup)
19:39:56 <stickster> So as we come across gaps, we should probably think about the desired use, and then file an issue there we can link from our comparisons
19:40:09 <puiterwijk> That would be great
19:40:36 <stickster> What I'm thinking is we should at least have a list of "things needed" and if possible to estimate work, then we have a fair comparison
19:40:43 <mizmo> yeh
19:41:07 <stickster> i.e. fixes needed for zookeepr vs. fixes needed for regcfp
19:41:14 <mizmo> i think the emails was another pain point; i think another feature tha tmight be useful if not already present is to dump some csvs or whatever of registrant email addys
19:41:32 <mizmo> i think for flocks thus far that kind of thing had to be done manually and was slow and painful
19:42:18 <mizmo> i think it would be good to write up little mini specs for each feature with suehle and/or jwboyer to make sure we're capturing what they need correctly
19:42:54 <stickster> mizmo: That's a good idea
19:43:18 <stickster> mizmo: One other thing was the custom fields
19:43:27 <mizmo> oh right
19:43:29 <mizmo> for registrants
19:43:33 <stickster> correct
19:43:41 <mizmo> for food prefs and stuff like that
19:43:48 <stickster> That's a little more tricky but probably not horrible
19:44:47 <stickster> Basically: ability to add a field with a choice of text, enumerated value multi-choice, or enumerated value single-choice, and include this in the registration/signup
19:46:03 <mizmo> yep
19:46:15 <stickster> mizmo: How about co-speakers?
19:46:31 <mizmo> stickster, that didnt seem to be a make or break thing
19:46:44 <stickster> agreed
19:46:54 <mizmo> just my little pet issue lol
19:47:07 <stickster> And I think anything having to do with venue or general info, or pages that could be covered in a content site, aren't really relevant
19:47:31 <mizmo> yep
19:47:31 <stickster> that could be handled by the content site
19:47:42 <mizmo> they're more there because at least one of the apps had that as a feature
19:48:18 <stickster> So, next actions here... sounds like we should gather up these RFEs and file... let me read backlog and #info them here
19:48:42 <stickster> #topic regcfp RFEs
19:48:56 <stickster> #info tagging/categorization of talks
19:49:29 <mizmo> i guess the other thing with the custom form fields is that some need to be admin/individual user visible only
19:49:38 <stickster> #info ability to dump CSVs of email addresses for subscriptions
19:49:42 <stickster> good point mizmo
19:49:47 <mizmo> eg they wanted to add visa and flight info as points of info to gather
19:49:55 <mizmo> and i guess some of that would be post reg, so we might need post reg custom fields
19:50:18 <stickster> #info custom fields of various types, with configurable visibility, and ability to add post-registration if needed
19:50:31 <stickster> #info NTH: co-speakers
19:50:43 <mizmo> (i'm going thru the reqs at the top of the wiki page that we gathered at flock)
19:50:56 <stickster> thanks mizmo
19:51:16 <mizmo> would be good to pull a list of funded travelers emails so they can be emailed to ask for their volunteer content (blogs, photos, etc) to get the funding finalized
19:51:36 <stickster> mizmo: That confirmation of attendance feature sounds important too
19:51:44 <mizmo> yep
19:53:03 <stickster> mizmo: It seems like some of the content problems, like pulling in curated feed items, is something we could *easily* solve in WP without the need to "fix" the reg s/w
19:53:11 <mizmo> yep
19:53:38 <stickster> puiterwijk: If this app sits in the fedorainfracloud site, is it possible to use HTTPS properly?
19:54:39 <puiterwijk> stickster: yup
19:54:50 <puiterwijk> Regarding CSV of email addresses: https://github.com/puiterwijk/GUADEC-regcfp/commit/f1312673f28665bf5762b4371f85184f49643c49
19:54:53 <stickster> right now flocktofedora runs on openshift, which is part of the admin performance issue... so it would be good to know if that would be movable too
19:54:57 <stickster> puiterwijk: nice
19:55:07 <mizmo> puiterwijk, lol you are fast
19:55:55 <puiterwijk> mizmo: custom fields are going to take a little bit longer though. I guess a day or two :)
19:56:04 * stickster could see, again, having 'flocktofedora.org' and 'desk.flocktofedora.org' (or whatever, don't care about 3rd level name)... ideally they'd feel a little more seamless
19:56:12 <stickster> puiterwijk: UNACCEPTABLE
19:56:15 <stickster> lol
19:56:18 <stickster> j/k
19:56:29 <mizmo> hehe
19:56:42 <stickster> Uh oh, HR just called and wants to talk to me :-(  bad manager, no cookie
19:56:48 <puiterwijk> Heh :-)
19:57:15 <stickster> So #action -- mizmo do you feel OK filing those issues?  Need help with any?
19:57:36 <mizmo> stickster, i can file them but wont be able to do until tuesday
19:57:50 <mizmo> then could send to the list and ask for verification / sanity checking on the details
19:57:50 <stickster> mizmo: I will see if I can get a start next hour, to pitch in
19:57:54 <puiterwijk> mizmo: well, you might want to file some fast... Or they might be fixed before you can file them :)
19:57:59 <mizmo> i have to run shortly for a dr's appt
19:58:03 <stickster> mizmo: np
19:58:06 <stickster> #action stickster start on issue filing for regcfp
19:58:20 <stickster> #action mizmo check in with stickster & issue queue next week to see what, if anything, remains to be done
19:58:48 <stickster> #action stickster send notice to list that we are down to just zookeepr vs. regcfp and based on the speed at which puiterwijk is looking at issues we might want to wait a few weeks to do a final comparison
19:58:53 <stickster> ^ sound reasonable?
19:59:04 <mizmo> yep
19:59:16 <stickster> puiterwijk: congratulations, the reward for good work is more work :-)
19:59:20 <stickster> puiterwijk++
19:59:20 <zodbot> stickster: Karma for puiterwijk changed to 2 (for the f23 release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
19:59:26 <mizmo> puiterwijk++ :)
19:59:28 <zodbot> mizmo: Karma for puiterwijk changed to 3 (for the f23 release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
19:59:34 <stickster> EVERYONE GETS A COOKIE
19:59:43 <puiterwijk> Heh, lots of people figured out how to get me to do stuff :)
19:59:45 <puiterwijk> stickster++
19:59:45 <zodbot> puiterwijk: Karma for pfrields changed to 2 (for the f23 release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
19:59:47 <puiterwijk> mizmo++
19:59:48 <zodbot> puiterwijk: Karma for duffy changed to 2 (for the f23 release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
20:00:51 <stickster> Sounds like we're good to go then!
20:00:55 <stickster> Thanks everyone!
20:00:57 <puiterwijk> The master of getting me do things so far would be pingou though, so ask him for hints. For some reason his methods works very well ^^
20:01:02 <stickster> haha
20:01:06 <stickster> #endmeeting