18:01:20 #startmeeting Council (2016-09-12) 18:01:20 Meeting started Mon Sep 12 18:01:20 2016 UTC. The chair is mattdm. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 18:01:20 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 18:01:20 The meeting name has been set to 'council_(2016-09-12)' 18:01:22 #meetingname council 18:01:22 The meeting name has been set to 'council' 18:01:24 #chair mattdm jkurik jwb cwickert langdon robyduck tatica bexelbie 18:01:24 Current chairs: bexelbie cwickert jkurik jwb langdon mattdm robyduck tatica 18:01:26 #topic Introductions, Welcomes 18:01:29 .hello jkurik 18:01:31 jkurik: jkurik 'Jan Kurik' 18:01:31 hi 18:01:38 .hello bex 18:01:39 bexelbie: bex 'Brian (bex) Exelbierd' 18:01:46 hi everyone! 18:01:54 hi mattdm 18:01:57 .hello strikerttd 18:01:58 striker: strikerttd 'Striker Leggette' 18:02:02 sorry for the late start -- i was watching the clock at 12:58 and then got distracted :) 18:02:08 .hello langdon 18:02:09 langdon: langdon 'Langdon White' 18:02:14 welcome striker! 18:02:41 hey bexelbie -- for the record and stuff, what's your official full-time start date? 18:03:02 3 October 2016 18:03:23 however I am trying to start reading and thinking ahead of that 18:03:36 possibly even some doing 18:03:39 #info bexelbie to officially start as Fedora Community Action and Impact Coordinator on 2016-10-03 18:03:50 F-cake! 18:03:51 #info but we've tricked him into getting unofficially started earlier 18:04:02 #info FCAIC pronounced "f-cake". 18:04:27 .#info all meetings with bexelbie require cake or chocolate chip cookies 18:04:44 bexelbie++ 18:04:44 jkurik: Karma for bex changed to 8 (for the f24 release cycle): https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any 18:04:44 there are many "the cake is a lie" jokes that are unfortunate with that pronunciation 18:05:07 bexelbie: is it enought ^^^ 18:05:08 the *Fedora* cake is real 18:05:16 nice jkurik 18:05:27 http://www.christoph-wickert.de/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/2012-05-19-20.53.52.jpg 18:05:57 Okay anyway. I pinged cwickert and we'll see if he can make it... 18:06:01 #topic Today's Agenda 18:06:06 is someone getting me cake? 18:06:16 * langdon was in two meetings at once 18:06:30 1. Upcoming Budget Situation 18:06:39 2. Mockups for non-free third-party software 18:07:04 3. PRD review discussion ( <- not sure there's much to say) 18:07:11 4. IRC friendliness 18:07:33 on the mailing list, Josh suggested keeping #4 to the end for fear of not getting to the others 18:07:36 which seems fair :) 18:07:48 discussion is still ongoing on mailing lists on that anyway 18:07:55 anything else anyone wants to add? 18:08:12 I can provide Council with the current status regarding PRD 18:08:24 cool 18:08:27 jkurik: awesome thanks. I'll keep that on the list then :) 18:08:44 ok. so... 18:09:03 #topic Fedora FY17 ongoing budget and FY18 budget submission 18:09:30 This is in somewhat a state of turmoil due to personel changes... 18:09:56 Remy was really getting it geared up right when he left... 18:10:04 * langdon counts the blessing of at least it isn't the money in turmoil 18:10:09 and jzb (Joe Brockmeier) has *also* moved to a new position 18:10:18 langdon yes indeed 18:10:33 so, bexelbie is now the rodeo leader for this :) 18:10:40 yee-hah 18:11:03 bexelbie: jump in whenever here :) 18:11:08 ok 18:11:15 we have a process outlined at 18:11:19 #link https://budget.fedoraproject.org/ 18:11:31 #undo 18:11:31 Removing item from minutes: 18:11:33 #link https://budget.fedoraproject.org/#process 18:11:58 so I'd like to look at this two-ways 18:12:07 1. What do we need to do for FY18 to ensure we get a budget 18:12:12 and by the schedule outlined, we should be ratifying a budget submission, like, now. 18:12:16 * mattdm quiets up 18:12:22 2. Going through the records that exist for FY17 and bringing them into some kind of order 18:12:40 Ideally we can get RH to give us a printout of our account this time only (no precedent setting) to self-audit with 18:12:55 #2 is grunt work and finding the right people, I think 18:13:07 the regional ambassadors don't understand the process though. 18:13:09 It'd be great if I could see last year's submission to help create a plan for building a submissoin for this year 18:13:22 jwb, I'll need to probably help them a lot through the process 18:13:42 I'd also like to use the opportunity I have with travel coming up to talk to the regional treasurers and card holders about what is a minial effective process 18:13:49 I don't want to just reinvent the wheel though 18:13:57 I do wnat to hear where the challenges are though 18:14:06 bexelbie: well... the listed process was reinventing the wheel a bit 18:14:12 was it messaging, process, what? 18:14:14 and i think people are behind it, but they need more clarification 18:14:22 exactly - so let's clarify it 18:14:26 which is what tickets 64 and 65 are about 18:14:33 which trac 18:14:34 ? 18:14:48 https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/65#comment:2 18:14:50 sorry, 65 and 66 18:14:57 bexelbie: council trac 18:15:17 yep 18:15:35 I'll take ownership and work on this if that is good with everyone 18:15:44 I can't promise it will be solved tomorrow though 18:16:01 bexelbie: There was no public/Fedora submission last year -- we just had the continuing number from previous years 18:16:20 bexelbie: yes, I think that is *very* good with everyone. thanks! 18:16:22 mattdm, do we want to push for a higher number this year? If so, we need a plan 18:16:45 bexelbie: 1) I don't know, but probably. 2) Yes. 18:16:45 will RH do a continuing budget without a submission? 18:17:04 bexelbie: to clarify: Ruth submitted something 18:17:18 but internally. 18:17:18 Can the council make a decision about activities it would like to fund and we can ask the regions to do the same - even broad brush strokes is a start 18:17:29 can I get a copy of her internal submission? 18:17:44 It will help me inform what a public document could look like (or shouldn't) 18:17:58 She has basically held the budget from decreasing even with the lack of a clear plan from Fedora side 18:18:34 bexelbie: yes to the broad strokes plan 18:18:42 Also, can someone get me commit access to the budget repo? 18:18:53 bexelbie: afaik, the only public information from the RHT side is the final budget amount. everything else is private 18:19:08 jwb, ok 18:19:17 but we can develop a plan for the money in public, aiui 18:19:21 bexelbie: but our justifications can and likely should be public. i can't see a reason those need to be private 18:19:24 regardless of how RH derives it 18:19:24 bexelbie: jinx 18:19:30 bexelbie: are you FAS "bex"? 18:19:35 .hello bex 18:19:36 :) 18:19:36 bexelbie: bex 'Brian (bex) Exelbierd' 18:19:41 yes mattdm 18:19:56 Do we have a budget committee or working group? 18:19:58 I don't think we do 18:19:59 you are in now 18:20:14 Does the council have a process to develop budget requests for council-level tasks? 18:20:20 nope 18:20:27 do we have a list of groups outside of ambassador regions we want to have submit requests/suggestions? 18:20:35 the only Council level tasks we have are Flock and FUDCon funding 18:20:40 nope to the first two 18:20:49 to the third, I am aware of a request from Diversity 18:20:59 can you point me at that mattdm ? 18:21:12 do we want to go to the official sigs and working groups and projects and ask for requests? 18:21:19 and possibly translations, although maybe that should be connected with the regions 18:21:38 bexelbie: no sorry I didn't mean to mislead - it was verbal request not formal 18:21:57 do we have parameters on the budget from RH? when the request is do? things we are prohibited from using the money for (like maybe we can't buy hosting or equipment or other restrictions?) 18:22:20 mattdm, ok, then I'll need to reach out to whomever reached out to you and formalize the request :) 18:22:23 bexelbie: it might be good to set up a meeting with ruth and paul frields 18:22:29 ok 18:22:30 jwb +1 to that 18:22:41 it is to be spent on community needs 18:22:46 bexelbie: ruth handled the public budget, stickster has typically done infrastructure HW stuff 18:22:52 ok cool 18:22:53 ^ what jwb says 18:23:08 bexelbie: feel free to add me as well if you do set up that meeting 18:23:21 #action bexelbie to organize meeting with stickster and Ruth and jwb and mattdm 18:23:27 bexelbie++ 18:23:27 mattdm: Karma for bex changed to 9 (for the f24 release cycle): https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any 18:24:06 I believe hte council should make a call on how much it wants to force budget through the ambassador regions and how much it wants to look at alternative methods of disbursement 18:24:25 For example, should we retain a FAD budget at some level for non-region specific activity? 18:24:32 bexelbie: do you *want* there to be a budget committee separate from the council? 18:24:45 I think we should maintain a global FAD budget 18:24:49 bexelbie: remy had some of that discussion with council approval right before he left 18:24:56 mattdm: do you remember the ticket we did that on? 18:24:58 but I would also like the regional planning FADs to be part of the regional budgets 18:24:58 jwb, can you point me to that 18:25:12 I don't know that we need a budget committee 18:25:21 however, I think we need to identify who is allowed to submit a budget request 18:25:36 https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/58 18:25:43 in terms of which parts of the project (not specific people) and we get the request from their leadership 18:25:44 that was some of the regional activity 18:25:53 * mattdm also found ticket but too late 18:26:51 * langdon notes we still have faith in mattdm as fpl even if jwb is better at it :) 18:26:58 I would be inclined to say that any formalized subproject can submit a request 18:27:04 i was pretty sure we had a breakdown that included the total budget too if it isn't in that ticket 18:27:05 langdon: thanks, I think.... ? 18:27:07 :) 18:27:15 langdon: i'm not better at it. not at all. 18:27:21 Ha 18:27:38 is this canonical? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Subprojects 18:27:38 there are also tickets and files at 18:27:40 https://pagure.io/fedora-budget/ 18:27:46 +1 to the budget request suggestion 18:27:50 * bexelbie has trust issues with wikis 18:27:55 bexelbie: NO 18:28:00 bexelbie your trust issues are well-founded 18:28:03 and that is my reason :) 18:28:04 just... just don't trust the wiki 18:28:13 where is the official official list? 18:28:21 * bexelbie hopes it is not in the back of a passport 18:28:22 Ha 18:28:26 * bexelbie knows no one gets that joke 18:28:43 I guess I'd read "formalized" as ... "organized and active" 18:28:56 Please state your answer in the form of a list :) 18:28:58 bexelbie also made a funny about their being a list 18:29:04 One of our (council) responsibilities is to update that list to reflect reality :-/ 18:29:16 *there 18:29:42 but that can be another topic sometime 18:29:57 well ... we do need a list in the end 18:30:01 but we can start without a net :) 18:30:16 list for what purpose? 18:30:29 to know which groups to ask for budget requests? 18:30:35 I'd like to make sure that everyone who should be allowed to submit a request for FY18 knows they can 18:30:39 you don't like "we know it when we see it?" 18:30:40 yes 18:30:50 mattdm, we are not the Supreme Court 18:30:54 we are the Council 18:30:56 bexelbie: so... that would totally be a new thing 18:31:12 jwb, good or bad? 18:31:19 I also don't believe there have been requests 18:31:29 bexelbie: to be decided? either way, i'd recommend the Council approving the overall budget requests BEFORE we sent to RHT 18:31:34 jwb: having a list of subprojects, or asking some for budget requests? 18:31:37 jwb 100% required 18:31:42 jwb: oh yes 18:31:51 mattdm: both(ish) 18:32:08 * bexelbie envisions the requests coming together to a package council can edit and approve for submission 18:32:18 i'm fine with that 18:32:22 then council gets to decide what to do if there is a shortfall or overage in the actual granted budget :) 18:32:41 that sounds good 18:32:46 though the guidance on requests should be "this is not a wish list, and you should realistically expect to get no funding" 18:32:47 no touching hte cake and cookie line item 18:32:48 .hello robyduck 18:32:49 robyduck: robyduck 'Robert Mayr' 18:32:55 oh hi robyduck! 18:32:56 jwb, yes 18:33:02 (and sorry for being late, just came home from work) 18:33:07 hi all 18:33:08 ^ above, half an hour of discussion of budget future plans 18:33:25 and, speaking of which -- bexelbie is there more we should cover in this meeting before moving on? 18:33:32 I don't want to rabbit hole hte whole meeting on this - I feel like we have this covered for now 18:33:36 +1 for moving on 18:34:15 Propose a special budget meeting to recap all the thinking for bex 18:34:22 * robyduck reading but feel free to move on, can read the backlog later 18:34:27 * I propose 18:34:33 langdon: +1 18:34:46 okay cool. should we do that next week? 18:34:49 I think this is worth a dedicated meeting 18:34:54 I meant as a one off 18:35:02 Not a normal council meeting 18:35:27 If we do that, let's do it post my meeting stickster and the rest 18:35:58 bexelbie: okay, sounds good. so... to be scheduled in the future. 18:36:04 * cwickert is late, sorry 18:36:26 cwickert: hi! just finished a quick update on budget -- there will be a future meeting dedicated to it 18:36:31 hi cwickert 18:36:34 nothing controversial currently i think 18:36:42 ? 18:36:42 jkurik: can you do the PRD update next? 18:36:46 ok 18:36:52 cwickert: yeah? 18:37:01 will the process remain the same now that decause is gone? 18:37:21 cwickert: bexelbie is going to figure it out 18:37:36 because that process didn't necessarily have all of its kinks worked out.... 18:37:43 I mean, not bexelbie alone 18:37:51 ack 18:37:52 thanky 18:37:54 but he's taking ownership :) 18:37:54 thanks 18:37:58 yep :) 18:38:02 #topic PRD update 18:38:07 jkurik: go :) 18:38:13 Server WG: 18:38:26 Discussion in the WG is driven by Stephen Gallagher 18:38:43 Currently there are two mail threads on the Server WG mailing list: 18:38:44 #link https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/server@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/R7X5SSMR3MRELNR7AZ4M5ZR4YNTSN3N4/#R7X5SSMR3MRELNR7AZ4M5ZR4YNTSN3N4 18:38:46 #link https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/server@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/DZQ5FSGBUYVWWU5CMTJDV75D2BWSVQIF/#DZQ5FSGBUYVWWU5CMTJDV75D2BWSVQIF 18:38:58 The PRD seems to be on its way to be updated using the Kellogg Logic Model 18:39:09 Cloud/Atomic WG: 18:39:21 We have a ticket 18:39:23 #link https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/170 18:39:29 and it has also been discussed on Cloud/Atomic WG meeting 18:39:38 #link https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/teams/fedora_cloud_wg/fedora_cloud_wg.2016-09-07-17.00.html 18:39:49 I think this is worth a dedicated meeting 18:39:51 No outcomes so far, the WG probably needs a help with it. It seems to me like the WG is not sure what is expected. 18:39:51 that cloud ticket looks a little sparse 18:40:18 mattdm: yes 18:40:24 Workstation WG: 18:40:24 robyduck: agreed -- I was thinking we'd do that once they were done 18:40:59 Briefly discussed on Workstation WG meeting on Aug-17 18:41:09 #link https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/teams/workstation/workstation.2016-08-17-14.00.html 18:41:10 No outcomes so far 18:41:26 So, the Server WG is OK 18:41:42 Cloud/Atomic and Workstation WGs needs probably some help 18:41:59 that is the current update I have 18:42:01 What kind of help, do you think? 18:42:27 mattdm: expectation on what we'd like to see 18:42:46 jwb Okay, that's fair 18:42:46 mattdm: guidence 18:43:00 I can work on drafting a message about that. 18:43:06 more than help, we could set (as Council) a deadline for them to get done with this topic? 18:43:14 it's odd this time around. originally FESCo needed these for basic justification of the WG 18:43:23 now the Council is asking for a revisit 18:43:26 so... 18:43:37 jwb: initially, we'd asked for them to be periodically refreshed 18:43:53 so that's this. because they are marketing documents and markets chang4 18:43:57 change. 18:43:59 yes, but that doesn't really say why or how or what 18:44:15 yeah, again, fair. I'll write something up to help explain. 18:44:21 * jwb nodes 18:44:25 nods even 18:44:52 #action mattdm to write a message explaining rationale and expectations for PRD updates 18:45:01 okay, so then 18:45:29 #topic update on third-party software policy (mockups for non-free software activation design) 18:45:37 #link https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/57 18:45:54 we marked the above as approved, with a note that we'd like to see implementatin 18:45:57 ion 18:46:03 (jeez, keyboard) 18:46:08 so.. i am mildly confused by this 18:46:24 i have f24 installed.. with rpmfusion.. and i get "nonfree" in gnome-software now 18:46:40 I have some mockups for GNOME Software from designer Allan Day 18:46:54 are the mockups for something elsE? 18:47:04 langdon: right, this would be for specific repos which might contain non-free software which different editions or spins could approve 18:47:36 * jwb notes he has another meeting in 13min 18:47:37 so that they could be activated by the user without going out and configuring a third-party repo manually 18:47:45 mattdm, so .. like "available but disabled"? 18:47:46 #link https://mattdm.fedorapeople.org/nonfree-mockups/ 18:47:51 langdon: yes 18:47:54 langdon: yes 18:48:24 the *specific* wording there is open to change, of course 18:48:40 mattdm: i like those 18:48:50 well.. i will say.. the current impl (not the mockups) was very confusing for me the other day (/me knows NOTHING about video codecs and could make neither heads nor tails over what g-s wanted me to do) 18:48:52 there's some discussion on this in the desktop list too 18:49:08 langdon: yeah, this might be less confusing 18:49:11 ? 18:49:19 cwickert: go ahead! 18:49:22 Will the infobar pop up automatically? 18:49:31 ? 18:49:57 cwickert: I believe it is shown to someone running Software who has not gone through the initial setup question 18:50:04 i only like the infobar if i searched for something and i might have a nonfree result 18:50:08 for example, existing users upgrading 18:50:24 and I suppose only the first time but I don't know. 18:50:27 bexelbie: yes? 18:50:29 will there be information around non-free options when they are presented to make it clear which are which? 18:50:30 seems to be encouraging it pretty strongly 18:50:43 like in a list or display view 18:51:00 mattdm: I don't like the idea that it pops up everywhere, but langdon's idea is nice 18:51:21 bexelbie: i believe the individual applications will have a label indicating that, yes 18:51:34 bexelbie yes — hmmm, let me see if I have a screenshot of that 18:51:39 bexelbie, i believe it would look like this: http://imgur.com/a/GyVfU 18:51:54 no, not a current one 18:51:56 that is in f24 right now 18:52:09 and i don't have rpmfusion.. so i am not even sure where those are comingfrom 18:52:25 langdon: linking to imgur during a meeting should be forbidden 18:52:29 I'd like to have it popping up every time you install a non free application. Not once, and then never anymore. 18:52:43 langdon: I think it's evolved from that 18:52:44 jwb, lol.. it does have uses BESIDES the one everyone assumes :) 18:52:56 I am not sure that just saying "non-free" is good enough - that implies "I have to pay money" to many folks - not that the software is proprietary 18:53:09 langdon: which is "massive time sink?" 18:53:20 bexelbie, as i said to mattdm the other day, i looked for where i had to put my cc 18:53:24 robyduck: the page for each proprietary application clearly indicates that it's non-free 18:53:27 jwb, riiiigghhht... 18:53:46 bexelbie: yes, the current mockups use "proprietary" instead of "non-free" 18:54:19 mattdm: I see, just want to see we make sure to communicate the 3d party repo and even more if non-free, to the end user. 18:54:19 * langdon lost in cats 18:54:27 robyduck: agreed 18:55:10 I'll put forward the suggestion of only showing the infobar when results show proprietary software 18:55:17 * mattdm looks at time 18:55:21 but the way we are going actually is very nice, +1 to the mockups 18:55:32 robyduck: *nod* 18:55:45 hmmm. sooooo... IRC friendliness next week? 18:56:05 except hte info bar asks to enable 18:56:12 if we don't show the info bar how to do they enable? 18:56:13 * robyduck would like to see this *solved* for the next 10 years 18:56:20 (IRC I mean) 18:56:40 robyduck: yeah. let's make it the main topic and lead with it. 18:56:56 bexelbie: yes, that's a very good point. 18:57:10 langdon: what bexelbie says. because, yeah, how's that going to work otherwise? 18:57:20 I believe that we should consider not asking the user during installation or having hte info bar 18:57:24 bexelbie, "enable" does not nec. == "not aware of" 18:57:39 but instead make enabling a setting they choose explicity and not one offered by default 18:57:58 langdon, I read "enable" as meaning should they be offerred in the list of results 18:58:09 we don't prompt people to add a whole bunch of "free extra repos" why would we do it with nonfree? 18:58:20 exactly 18:58:33 500 infobars for copr repos sounds suboptimal 18:59:04 langdon: well, the policy we approved allows the WGs to enable select third-party free repos *by default* 18:59:05 ignoring COPR, a gui setting to enable repos that ;may be desired but are not default seems reasonable 18:59:43 We could add to the wording "free software repos are already available! no need to do anything to get those!" 19:00:06 mattdm, ahh i see.. so "eidtion-x wants to enable 3 free + 3 non-free but asks the user before enabling the nonfree ones" 19:00:42 langdon: yeah. 19:00:50 Does edition X need to disclose the additional free enabled repos? 19:01:17 bexelbie: they're not disclosed in a list, but before you install that application the page for it makes it clear 19:01:35 in the current/new design, there is no "install" button on the list -- you click to the more info page first 19:02:10 mattdm, in my screen grab there isn't an install button for non-free either 19:02:37 langdon: ah okay. 19:02:46 althoguh hmmm that is "visit website". that's...weird. 19:03:14 so.. i think the infobar wording needs to be clearer that "the edition designers think you might like the stuff over here, unfortunately we havent convinced them to be OSS yet" 19:03:37 mattdm, yeah... but i can click on the software and get the info page.. 19:03:50 hmmm. 19:03:51 its a little clunky but it does sorta make sense 19:04:31 langdon: I do like that wording 19:04:55 There is an active discussion about this on the Desktop list right now (titled something about "command line access", but it veered) 19:05:02 that's probably where we should take this next 19:05:06 ok 19:05:22 any last words, anyone? 19:05:28 ha 19:05:49 ! 19:06:11 cwickert: go! 19:06:26 sorry, I thought we were already at open floor 19:06:41 let's do it 19:06:46 #topic Open Floor 19:06:56 cwickert: now go :) 19:07:03 ok :) 19:07:07 I am going to step down soon 19:07:18 I only want to finish this FOSCo thing 19:07:29 hu? 19:07:40 we have worked out a proposal that is hopefully going to be ratified by FAmSCo tomorrow 19:07:42 * langdon well.. thats an argument to make it keep dragging out :) 19:07:50 erm, on Wednesday 19:07:53 nice langdon :) 19:07:53 link? 19:08:05 cwickert: having a proposal ratified is awesome 19:08:10 and afterwards, I'm going to step down from FAmSCo and the council 19:08:25 mattdm: but getting no feedback from the other FAmSCo members is not ;) 19:08:39 #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User_talk:Mailga 19:09:06 so, let's hope everything goes well and we get this ratified and then I can finally step down 19:09:15 cwickert: I hope you'll be staying around Fedora in general! 19:09:17 that will be sad 19:09:29 I don't have the the time and energy to work on Fedora to the extent that I would like 19:09:35 but I'm confident others take over 19:09:44 and of course I will still be around and use Fedora 19:09:45 I sincerely appreciate all your help and the time you have been able to put in 19:09:46 cwickert: did you sleep over this? 19:10:10 thanks everybody for your work, your trust and your patience! 19:10:32 I also understand being more busy and not having the personal time and energy to do everything one would like 19:10:36