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