18:00:52 #startmeeting Council (2016-08-15) 18:00:52 Meeting started Mon Aug 15 18:00:52 2016 UTC. The chair is mattdm. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 18:00:52 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 18:00:52 The meeting name has been set to 'council_(2016-08-15)' 18:00:53 #meetingname council 18:00:53 The meeting name has been set to 'council' 18:00:55 #chair mattdm jkurik jwb cwickert langdon robyduck tatica 18:00:55 Current chairs: cwickert jkurik jwb langdon mattdm robyduck tatica 18:00:57 #topic Introductions, Welcomes 18:01:10 hi everyone 18:01:13 .hello jkurik 18:01:14 jkurik: jkurik 'Jan Kurik' 18:01:18 hi mattdm 18:01:22 hello 18:01:31 as I noted in #fedora-council, I'm having some net issues so my connection may be flaky 18:01:49 if I stop talking for a little bit at some point, it's probably because I'm thinking REALLLY deeply on the topic 18:01:54 or else my internet has dropped. 18:01:57 one or the other 18:02:25 .hello langdon 18:02:26 langdon: langdon 'Langdon White' 18:02:49 cwickert noted that he can't make it 18:03:00 and tatica generally hasn't been able to :( 18:03:20 robyduck ? 18:07:11 mattdm, are you thinking deeply about the next person to ask about? 18:07:15 mattdm, or MIA? 18:08:02 irc 18:08:10 mia :) 18:08:12 back now 18:08:21 sorry. :) 18:08:24 ok, so, 18:08:27 #topic agenda 18:08:38 I got: 18:08:50 1. Third-party/nonfree software policy discussion 18:09:09 2. The weak deps for third-party repos thing 18:09:15 3. PRD reviews followup 18:09:35 and if jzb is around, possibly an update on action/impact lead 18:09:42 anyone have anything else? 18:10:12 nothing else 18:10:24 ok let's do it :) 18:10:38 if I vanish again someone pleaes continue without me :) 18:10:50 #topic third-party nonfree software policy discussion 18:10:56 #link https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/57 18:11:12 we've had a pretty good discussion in the ticket 18:11:42 langdon, do you have anything to add? 18:12:12 as i noted early today, we all seem agreed on the free software third party part 18:12:14 mattdm, sorry.. i was just reading the last two responses 18:12:24 yeah.. im good on that part to 18:12:25 o 18:12:33 and it seems like wer'e generally coming to a consensus on the nonfree part 18:13:03 yeah.. i am unclear from reading what the proposal is for like sort ordering/promoting free results/etc 18:13:52 aday (the designer for gnome who is working on this from that perspective) felt like that was getting too deeply into details 18:14:12 for the ticket? 18:14:23 for the council-level policy, I think 18:14:52 i don't know, personally.. isn;t this directly connected to one of the Fs (that was fun to say ;) ) 18:15:13 i would propose.. close with tentative approval, reopen when they have a strawman 18:16:03 "We think you know what we're getting at here; we'd like to have something tangible and we'll tell you if we're on the same page?" 18:16:05 but back and forth in a ticket definitely seems unlikely to get to a resolution 18:16:11 righto 18:16:28 if you could work in the word "agile" .. it would make jwb happier 18:16:59 sure, I'll put that on the backlog and we'll chart the burndown 18:16:59 yes, because i'd know for sure the ticket had jumped the shark 18:17:26 * langdon notes he is in the office so making him giggle is awkward for everyone 18:19:15 okay so 18:19:33 I'll put that proposal in the ticket and if no one objects in the next few days close it 18:19:42 I will probably word it differently :) 18:19:54 #topic weak dependencies 18:20:18 I'm kind of inclined to kick this one back down to fesco 18:20:28 * langdon was gonna do an #agreed on including "agile" in the tickket 18:20:29 why 18:20:54 #link https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/61 18:21:19 because all the suggests vs recommends stuff seems like technical implementation 18:21:31 mattdm: I think the Council needs to decide if such a thing is *desirable* and then FESCo can figure out how to implement it if so 18:21:46 You're right that the ticket has gotten too far into implementation questions 18:22:22 mattdm: yeah, but the question is whether it's allowed to have that stuff on THIRD PARTY REPOS 18:22:36 emphasis intended not to be shouting 18:22:45 lol I wondered why the yelling :) 18:23:04 /me always reads all-caps in robot voice. It's far more enjoyable. 18:23:05 personally, i am +1 on cwickerts last comment .. 18:23:12 I sent a message to legal, but if I got a reply I lost it... 18:23:45 At the risk of veering into implementation, Suggests: is meaningless. 18:24:10 But it has nothing to do with the core question: may packages depend *in any way* on non-Fedora repositories? 18:24:13 sgallagh: does Software not follow Suggests? 18:24:20 sorry.. i guess i meant -1 on requiring from remote; +1 on "any other indication that something might be useful from remote" 18:24:23 mattdm: Not to my knowledge. 18:24:31 #action mattdm to follow up with legal 18:24:41 this is a relatively binary question. do we allow weak-deps against non-Fedora repositories or is that forbidden 18:24:50 everything else is up to FESCo 18:24:56 mattdm: Right now, Suggests: really only functions as a cue for when two packages would otherwise both satisfy a dep (e.g. MariaDB vs MySQL) 18:25:12 jwb Ok, I can get behind that. 18:25:18 Do you have an opinion? 18:25:26 jwb, to be clear... the ticket actually only asks about "suggests".. isn't requires currently disallowed? 18:25:42 langdon: It's asking about "Recommends:" really 18:25:43 langdon: yes, which is why i said "weak-deps" 18:25:49 Requires is not weak 18:25:58 sgallagh, yeah.. my bad 18:26:00 Requires is presently explicitly disallowed (and should clearly remain that way) 18:26:02 jwb, right 18:26:12 mattdm: my opinion is we should not 18:26:40 i guess i was saying.. poorly.. is i wouldn't want to change requires but don't see any problems with weak against remotes 18:26:53 grrrrr 18:26:58 jwb, :) 18:26:58 sorry, message got truncated 18:27:04 I guess my inclination is "No; this is what Enhances and Suppliments are for" 18:27:14 mattdm: my opinion is we should not disallow this 18:27:15 langdon: There are plenty of problems with it. The question is whether the benefits outweigh them, really 18:27:28 jwb Oh -- that's important phrasing :) 18:27:29 sgallagh, what problem? 18:27:48 mattdm: yeah. though i have no idea what you mean by Enhances and Suppliments 18:28:07 like the only one i actually see is the political one.. and i don't think weak-deps imply endorsement 18:28:07 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:WeakDependencies 18:28:10 like... are those RPM things? have i totally forgotten what they do vs. Suggests/Recommends? 18:28:11 Supplements 18:28:14 langdon: Well, one cited example was if two unrelated 3rd-party repos both decided to offer something that Provides: the same thing we Recommends: 18:28:24 jwb: Those are the reverse deps 18:28:57 sgallagh: oh... so 3rd party repos would put those in their RPMs against Fedora packages? 18:29:23 jwb: Yes, so for example you could have "kmod-nvidia Supplements: kernel" 18:29:28 (As a horrific example) 18:29:35 mattdm: i guess i could get behind that 18:29:49 sgallagh, i guess i am thinking about it from a logical perspective.. but, in fact, it should really be from a user perspective... where we don't want to break end user experience.. (esp. with things that are hidden from most end users) 18:30:12 langdon: i don't think we're breaking anything, since precedent says DO NOT DO THIS 18:30:24 I mean, technically we can't prevent them from doing this (which is why I don't love reverse-deps in the first place) but I suppose we could decide to make a clear statement that we won't try to prevent it. 18:30:46 langdon: if anything, either Recommends/Suggests or Enhances/Supplements are ... er... enhancing user experience 18:30:50 jwb, no.. i meant... allowing it.. potentially breaks an end user experience .. which is bad.. but from a logical perspective, i don't think it implies endorsement 18:31:28 langdon: if you're breaking an end user experience that is currently "crap doesn't work", then i'm not sure that's really all that bad 18:31:36 jwb, :) 18:31:48 Is there a use for this which is going to be other than "Suggests: forbidden-patented-package"? 18:31:56 sgallagh: I do not think "a statement" will help. Once we allow this it starts to be "fragile" by design 18:32:22 mattdm: Sure: "Recommends: forbidden-patented-package" :-P 18:32:43 sgallagh: the statement on the backwards deps is superfluous and they're going to ignore it anyway 18:32:57 sgallagh: lol sigh 18:33:10 mattdm: i'm sure our developers can come up with all kinds of strawman cases 18:33:12 mattdm: I think the core of the issue is that if people have made the choice to install $repo-that-must-not-be-named, then that step has already absolved us of the major question about whether the user believes they are at risk 18:33:29 and patents are terrible and not equally applicable 18:33:44 jwb: So far they have not (partly because the packaging guidelines say not to use them except in individually approved cases) 18:34:21 I don't know; I think I have to defer to legal on that as to whether that puts *us* and/or Red hat at risk too 18:34:32 sgallagh: if you ask a group of engineers explicitly "can we come up with uses for $THING" they will ALWAYS come up with uses for $THING. we haven't asked them 18:35:25 anyway, i'm fine with deferring to legal but we shouldn't sit around waiting to come to a conclusion until they reply 18:35:39 mattdm: For a less dubious answer: a package that has experimental loadable modules. 18:36:00 I'll send email as soon as meeting is over. 18:36:11 next topic? 18:36:16 one more thing 18:36:23 can i propose an idea? 18:36:29 langdon: yes :) 18:37:14 what if we "allowed it" .. but if any bugs were filed about any misuse (or conflicts or whatnot) .. that would trigger an immediate package review and potential "denial by exception" (wording rough).. 18:37:49 assuming legal is down with it (this is how i refer to all legal rulings..) 18:37:50 Hmmmm. 18:38:55 That seems like details :) 18:39:38 well.. as i read above.. the only "arguments against" are technical.. i didn't see any philosophical arguments aside from "endorsement".. 18:39:39 mattdm: A better phrasing might be: "Under what conditions would it be acceptable to do so?" 18:39:46 it looks for me like we are just postponing the denial of it 18:40:03 so .. in my mind.. legal say +1 then council says +1 then it is kicked to fesco/fpc 18:40:36 jkurik, if legal approved, what would be the "non-technical argument" against it? 18:41:18 fesco/fpc could still say.. this is terrible technically.. but that doesn't make it any more or less philosophically correct.. and the council is responsible for the latter not the former 18:42:00 langdon: I feel it like it opens a door for a misuse more than we would like to 18:42:36 jkurik, so let fesco kick it to the curb.. that is a technical reason.. and a valid (potentially) one.. but that isn't a council decision, right? 18:42:41 Other than the legal concern I don't really have a strong opinion, I guess. 18:43:41 next thing? 18:43:42 i don't know.. table? move on? 18:43:45 yeah :) 18:43:57 #topic PRD refresh 18:44:16 jkurik: do you want to update on this? 18:45:56 I have not read all the responses as I was on PTO the previous week 18:46:32 jkurik: ok, so maybe do this next week? :) 18:46:41 so, there was a workshop on FLOCK and we put together some draft PRDs 18:46:58 * cwickert_mobile lurks from his mobile 18:47:24 now these PRDs are under review back on WGs 18:48:07 I have seen discussion on Server WG, but not read it yet 18:48:24 jkurik: do we need to press the WGs, or should we wait? 18:48:33 mattdm: I will be on PTO the next week as well, but I might update the ticket before I leave 18:49:02 i've not really seen anything on the WG lists at all aside from Server 18:49:20 mattdm: how critical the PRDs are ? 18:49:35 jkurik: I think keeping them up to date is an essential exercise 18:49:36 maybe it's post-Flock deflate, but i was at least expecting some kind of email kickoff 18:49:44 particularly for cloud 18:49:45 jwb agreed 18:49:57 * langdon also notes there are a lot of people on PTO in august 18:50:10 like all of france 18:50:30 langdon: true 18:51:04 well, let's see what happens in this week 18:51:16 so, is it ok to review the state of PRD during september ? 18:51:44 do they have a deadline 18:52:06 ?? 18:52:11 langdon: no. should we set one? what are the consequences of missing? 18:52:21 mattdm flies to your house? 18:52:29 budget? 18:52:30 you are no longer an Edition. 18:52:36 The Server WG is changing its leadership post-flock, so it'll be a couple weeks before they're really able to tackle the PRD 18:53:00 jwb=+ 18:53:02 how about f25 drop date? 18:53:04 ++ that is :) 18:53:21 with drafts due 1 month before? 18:53:27 that seems like plenty of time 18:53:40 and gives time to make adjustments for f26 18:53:44 which is kind of the point anyway 18:53:48 so yeah. 18:53:50 right.. thats what i was thinking 18:53:57 jkurik does that sound good to you? 18:54:01 could make it a definitive rule.. 18:54:06 mattdm: yes 18:54:10 like always due at the halloweed release 18:54:22 langdon: I like that 18:54:22 * langdon wonders "freudian slip"? 18:54:54 what was the budget deadline again? 18:54:58 should they "align" 18:55:06 or, actually, be opposite? 18:55:18 e.g. budget by easter release (ish), right? 18:56:27 well, we need to submit a budget proposal to RH sometime in september 18:56:42 ohh right.. nm 18:56:57 I think these things are _largely_ different parts of the project, so I don't think overlap is necessarily bad 18:57:17 the primary overlap problem is with people working to actually get stuff tested and out the door 18:57:24 true 18:57:40 maybe 2 weeks after drop.. 18:57:55 but.. no idea.. im just thinking out loud now 18:58:03 aka "during the chance people have to catch a breath" :) 18:58:06 yeah :) 18:58:10 * mattdm looks at clock 18:58:22 let's come back to this next week, hopefully with good news 18:58:28 #topic anything else real quick? 18:58:43 yay flock 18:58:45 was great 18:58:47 yay! 18:58:56 it was! it was amazing! 18:59:03 thanks flock team for being awesome 18:59:21 #info thanks flock team for being awesome 18:59:22 mattdm, #agreed? 18:59:28 yeah :) 18:59:37 okay. now, to dig through mountains of email! 18:59:41 #endmeeting