13:00:40 #startmeeting Council (2017-09-20) 13:00:40 Meeting started Wed Sep 20 13:00:40 2017 UTC. The chair is mattdm. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 13:00:40 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 13:00:40 The meeting name has been set to 'council_(2017-09-20)' 13:00:41 #meetingname council 13:00:41 The meeting name has been set to 'council' 13:00:43 #chair mattdm jkurik jwb langdon robyduck bexelbie jwf 13:00:43 Current chairs: bexelbie jkurik jwb jwf langdon mattdm robyduck 13:00:45 #topic Introductions, Welcomes 13:00:49 .hello bex 13:00:50 bexelbie: bex 'Brian (bex) Exelbierd' 13:00:59 good morning or afternoon everyone! 13:01:24 i am actually here 13:01:31 nice :) 13:01:48 robyduck noted that he probably can't make it due to family commitments 13:01:49 .hello2 13:01:50 langdon: langdon 'Langdon White' 13:02:06 so that leaves jwf and jkurik ... 13:02:07 .hello2 13:02:08 jkurik: jkurik 'Jan Kurik' 13:02:11 aha! 13:02:51 * mattdm will wait one more minute for jwf and then go to the agenda... 13:03:39 Hi Council people 13:04:05 okay, agenda... 13:04:09 #topic Today's Agenda 13:04:15 #info 1. Approval for Fedora internationalization group FAD in Nov, 2017 13:04:17 #info 2. New wording for diversity advisor 13:04:19 #info 3. Should we require interview questions to be completed before the election starts? 13:04:21 #info 4. Preliminary approval of new Fedora Playground concept (logo tk) 13:04:50 and we'll do open floor if there's time. 13:04:55 #topic Approval for Fedora internationalization group FAD in Nov, 2017 13:04:57 #link https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/136 13:05:16 This has gone through some revision 13:05:44 bex is +1 in ticket with revisions, and jwb was originally 13:05:55 Anyone have further resevations or should we approve this? 13:06:29 still +1, though i lost how it went from $5k to $6800 13:06:39 did you want to talk about the free-software/govt money thing? 13:06:42 they added at least one if not two more people 13:06:59 langdon: I'll stick that at the end if we have time 13:07:00 oops.. i missed the "more agenda " bit cause of misreading 13:07:04 mattdm: ack 13:07:09 I believe the organizers provided sufficient justification, so I am +1 13:07:48 one of our initial criticisms was "hey this seems like a bunch of red hat people having a team meeting", so they made sure to include other fedora contributors as well 13:08:10 I'm +1 too. Anyone -1 in the next minute, or I'm gonna mark as approved. 13:08:28 (because this has been open for a month) 13:09:05 ok sold :) 13:09:34 #topic New wording for diversity advisor 13:09:36 #link https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/137 13:09:53 note this was a private ticket and I just now made it unprivate because I don't think we're doing anything particularly sensitive 13:10:20 We have general consensus on the plan (make this position be appointed by the diversity team) 13:10:48 but there is an open question over whether it should be a minor rewording or basically made parallel with the engineering and mindshare reps 13:11:12 the later of which would elevate the role to full council member rather than advisory 13:11:34 er auxiliary 13:12:04 what would be gained by doing that? 13:12:30 bexelbie, that's your suggestion. go. :) 13:12:50 I believe it shows that we consider diversity to be an important part of our project and puts equal to other reps 13:13:00 I guess, I don't understand what we lose by doing this 13:13:53 I *do* consider it to be important, for the record 13:14:40 My concern is that the current mindshare / engineering division lends itself naturally to an org chart, with fesco and releng and qa and fpc and etc. under engineering and famsco, design, docs, etc. under mindshare 13:15:00 whereas in that picture diversity would have one tiny team 13:15:23 rather than being responsible for diversity/inclusion efforts across the project 13:16:23 mattdm: which "picture"? full council or aux? 13:17:10 langdon: "picture" as "map of the overall project", and putting diversity advisor at the same place on the map 13:17:14 bexelbie: logistically, it doesn't make sense 13:17:26 At the time the position was created it was appointed and logically fit next to the more limited influence theory that guides the program manager 13:17:29 the position is no longer appointed 13:17:57 bexelbie: well, the plan is for it to be appointed still -- all of these positions are 13:18:03 but by the team rather than by me. 13:18:16 bexelbie: and i think making it a liaison position sets it up for failure. as mattdm says, diversity isn't a separate, concrete thing. it is something that needs to be done across groups 13:18:32 but we don't limit the impact of other appointed positions like mindshare 13:18:37 and fesco rep 13:18:45 s/impact/influence/ 13:18:48 eng rep 13:18:55 eng rep goes beyond fesco 13:18:58 yes, eng rep - sorry 13:19:54 i'm not for or against either positioning. i simply think or diversity to work, they need to be empowered to work across all groups. however that plays out best is what i'll support 13:20:11 jwb, +1 in agreement to that 13:20:20 We can always draw it up out of Auxillary Seats to full council without putting it in parallel with those other positions 13:20:22 I don't want us to get stuck painting the shed on this one either 13:21:16 i suspect it will have more to do with how "we" treat the position and person than any text.. we can always change the text.. 13:21:57 I'd get rid of "Auxiliary Seats" entirely as a heading, and list Diversity [Bikeshed term] and FPgM at the higher level, and just move the wording around auxiliary to the FPgM description 13:22:34 * langdon having expansion fail.. FPgM? 13:22:46 Fedora Program Manager 13:22:52 duh.. right 13:23:06 Also, we may need to note that the FCAIC is hired by Red Hat ... 13:23:11 we should have a zodbot acronym extender 13:23:15 we could even group FCAIC, FPL and FCAIC on that basis :) 13:23:21 no mattdm we should not :P 13:24:00 zodbot: what does mean FCAIC ? 13:24:00 jkurik: No such package exists. 13:24:01 bexelbie: yeah, that's a good point. I'll do that while I'm rearranging 13:24:07 lol 13:24:23 * bexelbie exists 13:24:52 does anyone want to keep the diversity advisor at the auxilliary level? 13:25:37 *crickets* 13:25:41 in case there will be any auxiliary position, then it makes sense to me; otherwise no 13:26:00 I'll move it up, and I'll move FPgM to be next to FPL and FCAIC 13:26:17 #action mattdm rewriting for council page 13:26:19 i am only qualified to say Diversity is important. do whatever you need to do to reflect that 13:26:42 In the spirit of lazy consensus and action and stuff, I'm going to just do the edits in the wiki live and then if there are things we need to change we can. 13:27:06 ok next. 13:27:08 #topic Should we require interview questions to be completed before the election starts? 13:27:10 #link https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/135 13:27:44 what, possibly, could be the argument against this proposal? 13:28:08 langdon ++ 13:28:10 jkurik's argument was that it's already hard enough to find candidates for some positions 13:28:30 oh hi stefw! 13:28:35 #chair stefw 13:28:35 Current chairs: bexelbie jkurik jwb jwf langdon mattdm robyduck stefw 13:28:37 langdon: my argument was it depends on the committee 13:28:49 * mattdm needs to update the meeting template. sorry about that stefw! 13:28:51 in general though, it's a good idea 13:28:53 hey mattdm ... thanks 13:29:17 * langdon totally did not see all the replies in the ticket.. my bad 13:29:18 almost every elections we have a problem to find nominees, this might put the bar even higher 13:29:41 I am in favor of just making it a general rule rather than making every group be different 13:30:34 Groups that are concerned about it being a barrier could work with the elections wrangler to make the interview questions for that body short and easy 13:31:04 If I'm the only one who thinks this, though, I'll go along with what the rest of you are saying 13:31:17 or "generatable" .. like if fesco thinks "package count" or something matters, just gen the answer 13:32:09 On the one hand I am very in favor of "you shouldn't be elected if you won't spend a few minutes telling us why ..." 13:32:27 on the other hand, I dno't want to be so parochial that we refuse to let people vote in "black boxes" 13:32:47 who may not be opaque in particular parts of the project 13:33:07 maybe the rule is that if there is no specific group requirement beyond FPCA+1 then you have to do the interview 13:33:17 otehrwise it is up to the group(s) electing the position? 13:33:35 i would also point out, for the last few cycles, i think we have had a fair number of candidates for every position.. so the argument about the "barrier to entry" may be less valid these days 13:33:37 that seems a lot more complicated than a simple policy of "do the interview". 13:33:54 and yeah, I agree, we've had a decent number of candidates in the last few years of elections 13:33:56 mattdm, the policy is more complex, I believe the implementation is not 13:35:12 need to switch networks. brb 13:35:18 bexelbie: Can you put that policy in the form of a proposal? 13:37:05 #proposal - Positions elected by generally by the Fedora community (FPCA+1 voting requirement) are required to complete an election interview article which will be linked in the elections application. Positions elected by a subset of the Fedora community (FPCA+specific group(s)) must complete an interview or whatever other requirements are put forward by their electing groups. 13:37:10 there is a first draft 13:37:35 sure, fine with me 13:37:40 anyone hate that? 13:38:01 +1 13:38:49 should the interview be published before the candidate is considered as "accepted" ? 13:38:55 * langdon reads 13:39:19 jkurik: Interview should be sent in, at least. Not necessarily published since that's out of their control 13:39:21 I think the interview is a gateway for getting on to the ballot 13:39:21 couple comments 13:39:44 "Positions elected by the general Fedora community" and 13:40:11 "interview questions will be available before nominations are started" or something 13:40:21 my problem with it was timing.. 13:41:13 langdon, I think that is a calendar issue - we need to get the questions out sooner 13:41:26 or is there something that is a blocker to having the interview be required by the time voting starts? 13:41:44 bexelbie: yes.. but.. i don't want to "sign up for a position" w/ required interview questions w/o knowing what they are 13:42:09 bexelbie: no.. i agree with mattdm above.. i want the *questions* available before nominations start 13:42:19 jkurik, could we update the elections timeline to require the questions be finalized before the nominations start 13:42:32 bexelbie: yes, we could 13:42:37 and if we do nominations by wiki (I think we do??) can we add the questions to that page to make it clear (or at least a link)? 13:43:51 I might prepare a new schedule reflecting the need for an early questionaire and we can revisit it the next Council meeting 13:44:41 +1000 for review of that schedule :) even in a ticket only form 13:44:45 +1 to all of this :) 13:45:20 one more comment 13:45:56 okay, so bexelbie can you put the proposal with whatever rewordings make langdon happy in the ticket? and jkurik, new schedule proposal for next week? 13:46:01 i think the interview "answers" should *not* be posted until immediately before the election, preferably at the same time (or close to each other).. no matter when the answers come in.. 13:46:31 langdon, +1 13:46:44 i just saw this problem in a local election where someone who got on the interview questions early was hurt by the early publication and the later people publishing right before the actual election 13:46:58 #actio jkurik to prepare election schedule reflecting a need for an early questionaire 13:47:03 #action jkurik to prepare election schedule reflecting a need for an early questionaire 13:47:12 mattdm, you want to do ticket voting on this? 13:47:58 bexelbie: Yeah, let's do that. because, clock. 13:48:34 ready for next topic? 13:48:49 as i am always the late typer +1 13:48:51 :) 13:49:02 topic Preliminary approval of new Fedora Playground concept 13:49:04 #link https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/129 13:49:10 langdon, and others see https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/135#comment-467116 please 13:49:29 jwb says he still doesn't know what this is for 13:49:36 i don't 13:50:18 do we have other candidates for this than Boltron? 13:50:21 i remember talking about it with you at devconf long ago, but i've lost why we need a separate distinguishing identifier and how it would actually work vs. e.g. Spins 13:50:28 When I was doing Fedora Cloud stuff, multiple times I ran into "that stuff you just made, with Fedora bits in Fedora infrastructure, cannot be called REALLY FEDORA, because you didn't go through $hoops" 13:50:55 Spins, for example, require a certain level of hoop-jumping. there's a formal process and they're rather restricted in what they can do 13:51:08 Some of that is for good reason. Like, you can't have a spin with SELinux off 13:51:24 I don't know if this is still the case, but I remember someone presenting that COPR slowed down the onboarding of new packages as people stopped at COPR ... do we create that risk here? 13:51:42 a big part of the hoops are for HOSTING that content 13:51:54 is playground going to be hosted on fedora infrastructure/mirrors? 13:52:23 I think playground things could be hosted in the "alt" section of the mirrors. 13:52:27 because in the past, those $things that people made were always "look! i did this. host it and promote it!" 13:52:38 and ... we're not a hosting service 13:53:11 is playground constrained to an artifact type? e.g. containers? 13:53:30 because COPR covers RPMs. spins covers isos. 13:53:34 No, it shouldn't be. It should be able to adapt to the next artifact type we haven't even considered yet. 13:53:46 still not making sense to me. 13:54:08 hmm. 13:54:15 Does it make sense to *anyone* besides me? :) 13:54:23 maybe a concrete example will help? 13:54:42 the old incarnation of playground was a repo of selected COPR packages. it went nowhere 13:55:19 I think Atomic in its first incarnation would have been a great example. 13:55:58 To address bexelbie's question: the alternative is generally that people do the thing not in Fedora at all 13:56:14 I am not seeing this come up enough to warrant creating structure for it -- maybe the problem is that those people are already self-selecting out 13:56:15 and possibly try to get it back in later, which is harder than incubating it inside the project 13:56:20 mattdm: what does "in fedora" mean 13:57:04 I could be +1 to this if it came with a review in a year and the opportunity to remove the infrastructure if not needed/used ... that way we don't have ot have this around forever if it isn't used 13:57:15 we have a few ghosts around ... let's not let anymore get created 13:57:22 bexelbie: i don't even know what the infrastructure is supposed to be 13:57:31 the logo, process, approvals, etc 13:57:31 jwb: Largely, it means "in association with the Fedora name", and for it to be considered a Fedora thing in mailing list and whatever else discussions 13:57:46 It's not meant to be heavyweight. That's kind of the point. 13:57:56 mattdm, you didn't #topic I think 13:58:01 mattdm: well, the bar there has been the ability to download it off of fedoraproject.org 13:58:09 jwb, I understand this to be content that passed licensing, philosophy, and was built by us but didn't necessarily pass QA and isn't ready for reliable use 13:58:11 smooge: ugh 13:58:15 #topic Preliminary approval of new Fedora Playground concept 13:58:31 #info oops forgot to start the topic. scrollback for more. 13:58:45 mattdm: and rel-eng refuses to host artifacts that aren't built from fedora infra for obvious reasons 13:58:56 bexelbie: "built by us" is where the hoops come in 13:59:12 I'd be curious if langdon, stefw, robyduck, jwf, jkurik (and smooge and anyone else) see where I'm going with this or are as unclear as jwb 13:59:21 I have no clue 13:59:25 jwb, are we not able to build something that doesn't pass tests? 13:59:32 jwb, ... so the Fedora requirements for CI/CD explicitly allow stuff to be built elsewhere 13:59:40 bexelbie: this has nothing to do with tests 13:59:46 * jkurik is a bit lost in the discussion 13:59:47 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_requirements_for_CI_and_CD 13:59:50 yeah FESCo just okayed that. 13:59:50 * bexelbie read $hoops as tests 13:59:53 * langdon got distracted by other meeting... reading scrollback 14:00:04 what other hoops are there? 14:00:07 i look at anything with alt and see a mostly unmirrored mess of data that causes people trouble if they 'rely' on it 14:00:15 bexelbie: no, hoops generally means rel-eng commits to building $thing and infra commits to hosting $thing 14:00:21 * bexelbie wonders if we need an official Cooper for all of our hoops (that was funnier in my head) 14:00:30 bexelbie: no hoops can be a lot more than tests. It can be "built in koji" or "built by a releng person not by you" or can be non-releng related things 14:01:07 mattdm: if playground is supposed to be an arbitrary service that lets people produce RPMs/isos/containers from fedora content... that's a pretty large undertaking 14:01:07 Q1: I wonder where the overlap is with non-Released Fedora content ... such as developer content or the Fedora Atomic Host Developer Stream that FESCO approved here: 14:01:12 https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1774 14:01:31 jwb: No, it's not supposed to be that at all. 14:01:38 mattdm, so is this a short cut to hosting? (going back to jwb's hosting point ...) 14:01:47 mattdm: then i'm back to not knowing what this is at all 14:02:00 I would expect okayed projects to have some hosting available 14:02:12 okay, i clearly have more homework here. I'll come back with more concrete examples. 14:02:20 stefw: That's a good question :) 14:02:55 i would think if it was something like boltron it might make sense.. as in, a number of projects want to ship a preview release.. so we have a potentially borked version of the distro.. but anyone can apply to get in.. so you can use it for user feedback but not have to make it "real" yet 14:03:31 langdon: yes! 14:03:41 boltron would definitely be a Fedora Playground Thing. 14:03:53 i was kinda saying boltron == fpt 14:03:54 i think that's somewhat dumb 14:04:11 i also wonder if arb branching and modularity may make this kinda moot.. if you can ship your previews as just a preview stream.. and it "just works" 14:04:14 I have to run off, y'all. jwb quick tell me why I'm dumb and then we'll close the meeting :) 14:04:33 generalizing cases like boltron and atomic developer stream to "playground" under the premise that there are less hoops is a lie 14:05:00 both of those are specific deliverables that solved their own hoops questions separately 14:05:44 and even under a playground moniker, we're still evaluating and approving on a case by case basis 14:05:49 so there's 0 need for a new moniker 14:06:09 because it doesn't apply to things like you originally described with your cloud images 14:06:50 I think there's a use because having the moniker makes it clear that we're open to that. But possibly we could make that more clear in other ways. 14:07:01 propose an Objective. 14:07:05 I do have to go. I'll think more about this. Thanks jwb. 14:07:09 we want more of those, right? 14:07:11 and, yes, maybe that's where it goes. 14:07:34 (do you all want me to endmeeting or do you want to go on without me?) 14:08:19 okay then 14:08:21 #endmeeting