18:00:23 <mattdm> #startmeeting Council (2016-11-07) 18:00:23 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon Nov 7 18:00:23 2016 UTC. The chair is mattdm. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 18:00:23 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 18:00:23 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'council_(2016-11-07)' 18:00:23 <mattdm> #meetingname council 18:00:24 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'council' 18:00:25 <mattdm> #chair mattdm jkurik jwb cwickert langdon robyduck tatica bexelbie 18:00:25 <zodbot> Current chairs: bexelbie cwickert jkurik jwb langdon mattdm robyduck tatica 18:00:27 <mattdm> #topic Introductions, Welcomes 18:00:47 <langdon> .hello langdon 18:00:48 <zodbot> langdon: langdon 'Langdon White' <langdon@fishjump.com> 18:00:56 <jkurik> .hello jkurik 18:00:58 <zodbot> jkurik: jkurik 'Jan Kurik' <jkurik@redhat.com> 18:01:24 <jwb> hi 18:01:29 <mattdm> hi everyone! 18:01:42 <mattdm> not sure if bexelbie is around. robyduck already sent regrets 18:01:54 * langdon waves 18:02:09 <jwb> hello 18:02:43 <mattdm> ok, so 18:02:45 <mattdm> #agenda 18:02:52 <mattdm> ergy 18:02:55 <mattdm> #topic agenda 18:03:36 <mattdm> this is a ticket review meeting -- my proposal is to go through all the open tickets quickly and make sure they are either actively worked on, blocked only short term, or closed 18:03:46 <mattdm> anyone have any objection to that? 18:03:52 <mattdm> or want to add something else? 18:03:56 <langdon> Works for me 18:04:18 <mattdm> #info going through and grooming tickets from 18:04:22 <mattdm> #link https://fedorahosted.org/council/report/1 18:04:34 <mattdm> and let's start with trac, as per jwb's request 18:04:56 <mattdm> #topic 74: Moving off of Trac to someting 18:05:01 <mattdm> #link https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/74 18:05:10 <mattdm> I think pagure is the way to go here. 18:05:30 <mattdm> I volunteer to work with infrastructure team to make it happen as soon as convenient 18:05:32 <jwb> yes 18:05:39 <mattdm> unless anyone else wants to preempt me :) 18:06:09 <mattdm> #action mattdm will take this one 18:06:18 <mattdm> #action mattdm to send action items to list after meeting :) 18:06:19 <langdon> Change topic? 18:06:26 <mattdm> langdon: yep 18:06:29 <langdon> Duh 18:06:46 <mattdm> #topic 65. Create standard operating procedure for how treasurers interact with budget 18:06:52 <langdon> I thought we still had agemda cause i cant read 18:07:01 <mattdm> #link https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/65 18:07:18 <mattdm> Hmmm, this one looks like it needs bexelbie 18:08:23 <mattdm> so, ping bex on ticket, leave open? 18:09:00 <langdon> Yeah 18:09:08 <jkurik> ack 18:09:33 <mattdm> ok :) 18:10:06 <mattdm> #topic 1. Periodic uesr/contributor survey & 16. Periodic contributor survey 18:10:13 <mattdm> #link https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/1 18:10:16 <mattdm> #link https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/16 18:10:59 <mattdm> I propose we close these. I know Diversity has been working on a contributor survey focused on inclusion and etc 18:11:03 <jwb> i have no idea what this is or why it seems to forever be open 18:11:09 <mattdm> but I don't think anyone is working on the general survey idea 18:11:29 <mattdm> jwb is that you volunteering to do it? 18:11:32 * mattdm knows it is not :) 18:11:37 <jwb> to close them? 18:11:40 <jwb> sure, i can close them 18:11:43 <mattdm> to run the surveys :) 18:11:50 <mattdm> I can close them -- i have 'em open 18:13:05 <langdon> Doesn't really seem like a council ticket anyway 18:13:22 <langdon> And mattdm did one on hacker news :) 18:13:27 <jkurik> I am +1 to close these. These seem do not track the diversity nowadays anyway. 18:14:14 <mattdm> Oh, I think it'd be helpful data to have as we guide the project -- I definitely see it as council level. 18:14:31 <mattdm> I just don't want to leave the ticket there if we don't have any concrete plans to do something with it 18:14:46 <mattdm> #topic 40. Enforcing the code of conduct 18:14:53 <mattdm> #link https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/40 18:14:55 * mattdm reads 18:14:58 <langdon> But it should just be part of a working group's "job"... Right? 18:15:17 * langdon leggy apparently 18:15:29 <langdon> Ha.. Laggy 18:17:01 <mattdm> (on last topic in reply to langdon: yeah, I think the WGs should do user surveys. I think the council might benefit from a regular *contributor* survey) 18:17:42 <langdon> or .. diversity or someone.. i am not say which "group" nec. but it seems like a weird thing for council.. even if there is people overlap 18:17:57 <langdon> but.. this may be a rat hole.. that we can open a ticket for! ;) 18:18:21 <mattdm> anyone else want to discuss surveys for a minute? I'm game 18:18:32 <jwb> no 18:18:33 <mattdm> but if it's just me and langdon we can do that later :) 18:18:39 <mattdm> jwb: :) 18:18:39 <langdon> jwb, :) 18:18:56 <mattdm> okay, so *this* ticket I *think* is just about the FUDCon CoC 18:19:02 <mattdm> which is different from the general Fedora one 18:19:23 <mattdm> and I don't think documented anywhere other than on a per-fudcon basis 18:19:57 <mattdm> rdieter (a council member at the time) proposed striking "and future Fedora events" 18:20:02 <mattdm> #link https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/40#comment:2 18:20:24 <mattdm> and robyduck agreed 18:21:02 <mattdm> I'm thinking close this with text like 18:21:35 <mattdm> "Please follow the proposal in comment#8 when writing the code of conduct for future Fedora events." 18:21:59 <mattdm> where "comment#8" is strike the future-events text plus add line about "council will deal with it" 18:22:14 <jwb> still dislike "report to council" without any idea what the council will actually do 18:22:27 <jwb> because by the time it gets to the council, we're already dealing with future considerations 18:22:56 <mattdm> jwb: Okay. You want something stronger? 18:23:19 <jwb> no, i want the future events text left in 18:23:33 <jwb> because we cannot deal with a current event at the council elve 18:23:35 <jwb> er level 18:24:41 <mattdm> jwb: ok. in that case, we should leave this open. do you want to take ownership of it? 18:24:58 <langdon> jwb, does that mean you think we should have a canonical CoC for events? 18:24:58 <jwb> mattdm: i can. people are unlikely to like what i come up with 18:25:03 <jwb> langdon: i do 18:25:29 <mattdm> jwb: I think you are likely to come up with *something*, which is better than nebulous proposals :) 18:25:33 <langdon> jwb, i don't disagree.. but i think that is "resolve this with new ticket to create CoC for all events" 18:26:03 <jwb> the main point is that if this is per FUDCon, by the time it gets to us that FUDCon will be over. that leaves the Council with NOTHING to actually do if we cannot consider future events 18:26:10 <jwb> which means it's an empty threat 18:26:13 <jwb> which makes it pointless 18:26:24 <jwb> and therein makes the entire CoC pointless 18:26:25 <mattdm> #action jwb to take ownership, make proposal with teeth 18:26:36 <langdon> ohh.. i didn't read it that way 18:26:59 * mattdm calls time 18:27:11 <mattdm> #topic 43 Create the Fedora Public Budget Page 18:27:13 <langdon> i took it as "council will consider further sanctions" beyond the event itself.. as in, the organizers ban or whatever, and the council decides a fedora ban or whatnot 18:27:20 <mattdm> #link https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/43 18:27:21 <langdon> :) 18:27:30 <mattdm> ooh. this is an easy one. 18:27:41 <mattdm> budget site exists. closing. :) 18:27:47 <mattdm> It needs updating but that's a separate issue. 18:28:35 <mattdm> #topic 53 privacy policy should be updated to describe the privacy of Fedora installations, not participation in Fedora events 18:28:59 <mattdm> #link https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/53 18:29:30 <mattdm> stickster and I talked to Legal a little bit. That got stuck a basically on legal wondering why we would even want that 18:30:01 <mattdm> from the lawyer pov (interpretted through me, so... take that standard grain of salt)... 18:30:15 <mattdm> the privacy policy exists to fill legal obligations 18:30:32 <mattdm> and for fedora, those obligations are ultimately Red Hat's responsibility 18:30:57 <mattdm> they don't think we need one for the OS, and think that we should just point to Red Hat's for the web sites 18:31:47 <mattdm> I can push back on that, though, if we want to as a project. 18:32:17 <mattdm> From the Fedora contributor side, the policy is, I think, more meant to be a reflection of our core stated values 18:32:47 <mattdm> specifically, the "people control their content and devices" part of the Vision 18:33:05 * mattdm catches breath, wonders if anyone else has anything to say here :) 18:33:24 <langdon> i haven't read the ticket carefully and maybe this is stated.. but isn't this policy what we expect packages to comply with? not that we audit? 18:33:49 <mattdm> langdon: yeah, packages and configuration. 18:34:24 <mattdm> zbyszek offered to create a draft, which I think might help the lawyers better understand the goal here 18:34:38 <langdon> like i think stickster's proposal (#3) and a blanket expected compliance is "right"" 18:35:41 <peartown> bwalč 18:35:41 * langdon can never figure out which # the comment goes with .. so it could be #4 18:35:54 <mattdm> proposal: ping zbyszek on draft, come back to this next time around 18:36:04 <mattdm> langdon: it's the link *above* the comment, above the line. 18:36:10 <langdon> mattdm +1 18:36:10 <mattdm> die, trak, die! 18:36:24 <langdon> ahh .. so #3 is the right one 18:36:48 <mattdm> #topic 61. Fedora Packaging Guidelines: Weak Dependencies on packages from third-party repos 18:36:54 <mattdm> #link https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/61 18:37:07 <langdon> i thought this one was closed 18:37:15 <mattdm> hey langdon or jkurik -- +1 my proposal which jwb already +1d and we can move on :) 18:37:26 <langdon> ahh oops 18:37:43 <jkurik> let me check before I provide +1 :) 18:38:06 <mattdm> my proposal: "Third party repos which offer packages which add to those in Fedora proper should use the "backwards" weak deps, Supplements or Enhances (which are the partners to Recommends and Suggests, respectively). This accomplishes the same thing from a user perspective without Fedora needing to mediate or recommend specific repositories." 18:38:46 <jkurik> +1 18:39:02 <mattdm> thanks jkurik, langdon 18:39:11 <mattdm> #topic 63. Annual PRDs review 18:39:22 <mattdm> I promised to send a message to the working groups about this 18:39:25 <langdon> seems a little late :) 18:39:28 <mattdm> That is still in my drafts folder 18:39:33 <mattdm> It's late for July :) 18:39:56 <mattdm> We decided, somewhere along the line, to as for this after F25 release but before F26 planning deadline 18:39:56 <langdon> well.. server did a new one.. did the others? 18:40:09 <mattdm> server did, which will serve as example to the others :) 18:40:26 <mattdm> #action mattdm to finish and send draft on why this is important 18:40:36 <mattdm> Also, I think we should make this every two years, not annually 18:40:39 <mattdm> anyone disagree? 18:40:52 <jkurik> I can not find it now, but we have scheduled this ticket to be discussed on one of the Councils meeting after F25 18:41:11 <langdon> why? like if there is no change, it doesn't change.. but I think "we" should look at it every year 18:41:54 <langdon> i might argue doing a logic model instead of a doc may be easier.. 18:42:01 <mattdm> jkurik++ 18:42:01 <zodbot> mattdm: Karma for jkurik changed to 11 (for the f24 release cycle): https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any 18:42:04 <langdon> although harder to track changes 18:42:51 <mattdm> langdon: ok, I'm open to more frequent review, too. will leave that question open :) 18:43:06 <jkurik> here it is: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/council-discuss@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/P4KV6T7UFLQFKNNDRXFS6H7QFCTEFES5/ 18:43:12 <mattdm> jkurik: thanks! 18:43:44 <jkurik> lets postpone for now :) 18:43:50 <mattdm> jkurik: I see that I failed to make that definite :) 18:44:00 <mattdm> #action mattdm schedule PRD review meeting for Dec or so 18:44:28 <mattdm> #topic 66 What is a storyteller? 18:44:59 <mattdm> I vote to throw bexelbie under this particular bus 18:45:33 <mattdm> it's already part of his work with ambassadors and famsco/fosco on the budget 18:45:33 <langdon> +1 18:45:40 <mattdm> and they can work together to see if they want to keep this 18:45:52 <langdon> it is a role in the budget process 18:45:58 <langdon> so it is definitely appropriate 18:46:39 <mattdm> #action bexelbie To help deterimine if this role concept is still useful/functional, and further developit if so 18:47:12 <mattdm> #topic 68 Trademark request (for selling tshirts in columbia) 18:47:13 * langdon notes bexelbie should avoid skipping these meetings ;) 18:47:22 <mattdm> #link https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/68 18:47:28 <mattdm> so, no answers to my questions. 18:48:13 <mattdm> I'm going to ping for an update but also mark "declined" in the meantime so it is clear 18:48:17 <mattdm> any objections? 18:49:01 <langdon> not from me.. but i feel like i am doing a lot of talking 18:49:25 <jkurik> no objection 18:50:05 <mattdm> #topic 70 need official list of subprojects 18:50:16 <mattdm> #link https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/70 18:50:53 <mattdm> Okay, so rather than more bus-throwing, since bex is not here.... 18:51:15 <mattdm> he said "It is a goal of mine to write it [a thing that might help] after I tame the budget process." 18:51:24 <mattdm> I propose closing this as "deferred" 18:51:25 <langdon> he threw himself! 18:51:36 <mattdm> exactly! 18:51:53 <jkurik> poor bex :) 18:52:20 <langdon> im down with deferred 18:52:23 <mattdm> #topic 75 Channel Fedora Brazil on Youtube 18:52:29 <mattdm> #link https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/75 18:52:38 <mattdm> lots of enthusiasm from the brazilian community here 18:52:56 <mattdm> uh, how about: 18:53:07 <mattdm> #action everyone-on-council comment in ticket 18:53:25 <jkurik> ack 18:53:25 <langdon> will do.. i have some thoughts 18:53:32 <langdon> can i ask a quick sidebar/related q 18:53:52 <mattdm> langdon: yes :) 18:53:57 <jwb> mattdm: why are you marking these deferred? 18:54:13 <mattdm> jwb you mean as opposed to "closed forever"? 18:54:14 <langdon> should we have official permission for the fedora-modularity youtube channel? we got it from the fedora channel owners but not from council (/me didn't realize i should ask) 18:54:48 <jwb> mattdm: yes 18:55:00 <mattdm> langdon: probably? we've been lax about it. 18:55:14 <jwb> mattdm: particularly since anything in trac left unclosed is kind of silly when we are migrating off of trac 18:55:24 <langdon> mattdm, ok.. so i should file a ticket? 18:55:28 <mattdm> jwb: i'm marking most of them as accepted or declined 18:55:47 <mattdm> langdon: probably. and maybe another ticket for "create SoP for youtube channels" 18:55:49 <mattdm> :) 18:55:55 <langdon> mattdm, :) 18:56:04 <mattdm> I marked this as deferred because I presume it will be reopened 18:56:07 <langdon> that is basically what i am saying in the comment on the ticket 18:56:45 <mattdm> two more ticket. three more minutes :) 18:57:07 <mattdm> #topic Don't increase fingerprint by adding "Fedora" to user agent 18:57:21 <mattdm> proposal: close this as a subset of the tbd privacy policy 18:58:35 <langdon> this hasn't been implemented yet, right? this is a request to "add to the UA"? 18:58:53 <mattdm> langdon: it's currently implemented in firefox 18:59:13 <langdon> so i don't think it can be deferred if it is an active impact... 18:59:16 <mattdm> and somewhat controverially, by a chrome plugin we ship even though we don't ship chrome 18:59:48 <mattdm> but it's been that way for a long time, and as noted in the ticket, there's a LOT of leaky network information coming out of any fedora system 18:59:52 <mattdm> why single out this one? 19:00:16 <jwb> because it is an easy target 19:00:37 <jwb> if security and privacy are increasingly important, low hanging fruit is easier to start with 19:00:51 <mattdm> jwb: ok, that's fair. 19:00:58 <jwb> see bresser's recent blog post on people wanting security but not wanting to pay for it. 19:01:01 <mattdm> so where do we want to go with this ticket? 19:01:07 <mattdm> jwb got that link handy? 19:01:13 <jwb> sure, sec 19:01:35 <jwb> http://sobersecurity.blogspot.com/2016/11/free-security-is-only-security-that.html 19:01:36 <langdon> i wonder if we could propose a "publicize-fedora" package that had some of these things in it.. and people could install it ... and we could promote intalling it on the download page or whatnot 19:01:42 <jwb> it's tangential, but it reminds me of this conversation 19:02:03 <mattdm> langdon: eh, opt-in is basically useless unless you're counting the number of opt-outs in some way 19:02:24 <mattdm> but let me repeat, as I look meaningfully at the clock, where do we want to go with this ticket? 19:03:03 <langdon> i think either open or explicitly addressed in a bigger ticket of all the privacy things 19:03:22 <mattdm> jwb, jkurik, thoughts? 19:04:28 <jkurik> I am thinking of reassigning this to FESCo as, for me, it more a technical decision than a "political" one 19:05:10 <jwb> not sure that would go over well in FESCo 19:05:19 <langdon> jkurik, really? i don't think so at all.. the impl is tech but there is serious value to the project in collecting this info 19:05:22 <mattdm> I think the larger "how much do we prioritize privacy and do we care about easy but probably just symbolic changes" part is a council-level issue. 19:05:31 <jwb> the inclusion of the patch/package are technical, sure. but they'll want guidance on whether we should carry them 19:06:01 <mattdm> I'm not sure there's lot of value, tbh. 19:06:04 <langdon> personally, i would like to see an "opt out package".. that disables this sort of thing that we just keep adding too.. 19:06:33 <stickster> Then measure how many people install it. Quandary! 19:06:35 <mattdm> we barely show up as a rounding error in the wikimedia numbers 19:07:08 <langdon> but it is the year of the linux desktop! ;) 19:07:23 <mattdm> hey langdon, you haven't been thrown under any busses this meeting.... 19:07:32 <langdon> thats because I am HERE! 19:07:51 <langdon> i may be able to poke at this bear a bit 19:08:16 <mattdm> #action langdon to poke at advancing this 19:08:19 <mattdm> thanks :) 19:08:21 <mattdm> okay, last one 19:08:28 <langdon> who is working the "privacy policy" one? i forget 19:08:45 <mattdm> langdon: it's me 19:08:52 <langdon> ugghhh.. 19:08:52 * mattdm drives bus over self 19:09:05 <langdon> :) 19:09:16 <mattdm> #topic 71 IRC SIG reform 19:09:33 <mattdm> okay, so, we had some good ideas, and threw them back to the ticket, and... now what? 19:11:11 * mattdm counts crickets 19:11:49 <langdon> i meant to write a comment about how i thought the "non-anon reporting" was about the operator who did the banning.. not the banned 19:11:52 <langdon> but.. yeah 19:12:18 <mattdm> proposal... leave this open for now, keep discussion going around kevin's proposal with commops 19:12:30 <langdon> bex?!?!??! ;) 19:12:34 <langdon> mattdm, +1 19:12:37 <mattdm> which is kind of a cop-out, but i am at meeting fatigue :) 19:12:43 <langdon> but .. we need it to get osme traction 19:12:59 <langdon> can we ask ambassadors to write up a proposal? 19:13:17 <mattdm> #action langdon to ask ambassadors to write up a proposal 19:13:20 <mattdm> lololol 19:13:24 <langdon> ha 19:13:37 <langdon> i think mattdm meant bwahhahahaa 19:13:49 <mattdm> thanks everyone for helping slog through this 19:14:30 <mattdm> #endmeeting