16:00:39 <bexelbie> #startmeeting Council (2018-03-28)
16:00:39 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Mar 28 16:00:39 2018 UTC.  The chair is bexelbie. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:00:39 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
16:00:39 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'council_(2018-03-28)'
16:00:39 <bexelbie> #meetingname council
16:00:39 <bexelbie> #chair mattdm jkurik jwb langdon robyduck bexelbie dperpeet Amita nb dgilmore pbrobinson
16:00:39 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'council'
16:00:39 <zodbot> Current chairs: Amita bexelbie dgilmore dperpeet jkurik jwb langdon mattdm nb pbrobinson robyduck
16:00:40 <bexelbie> #topic Introductions, Welcomes
16:00:44 <bexelbie> .hello bex
16:00:45 <zodbot> bexelbie: bex 'Brian (bex) Exelbierd' <bex@pobox.com>
16:00:56 <jwb> whee, a meeting
16:01:20 <robyduck> .hello robyduck
16:01:21 <zodbot> robyduck: robyduck 'Robert Mayr' <robyduck@gmail.com>
16:01:25 <bexelbie> it's meetings all day up in this channel jwb :D
16:01:53 <bexelbie> mattdm is running a few moments behind, but will be here
16:01:57 <jwb> matches my calendar in general
16:02:16 <dgilmore> hey all
16:03:10 <robyduck> hola dgilmore
16:03:46 <bexelbie> #topic Ask for topics
16:03:55 <bexelbie> any topics from folks? while we wait on mattdm
16:04:12 <langdon> .hello2
16:04:17 <bexelbie> this is an Open Floor meeting designed to solicit input from many people at our alternate meeting time
16:04:34 <bexelbie> I'll put "budget" in ...
16:04:36 <bexelbie> as a topic
16:04:42 * mattdm is here now
16:04:48 <langdon> not sure if this is a topic for here.. but do we want to do any modularity announcement for beta?
16:04:52 <zodbot> langdon: langdon 'Langdon White' <langdon@redhat.com>
16:04:55 <mattdm> I'd like "update from bexelbie on new CoC"
16:04:57 <dgilmore> ¿que pasa robyduck?
16:05:02 <mattdm> langdon: yes. that's our leading talking point
16:05:16 <langdon> mattdm: websites team is gonna be unhappy .. unless we help them
16:05:18 <robyduck> langdon: good question
16:05:19 * bexelbie hands the reins to mattdm
16:05:34 <mattdm> we can make talking points a topic too if need be
16:05:42 <mattdm> langdon: about modularity?
16:05:46 <langdon> perhaps a talking point?
16:06:02 <langdon> mattdm: about a late stage change to the websites to feature modularity in beta
16:06:25 <robyduck> can we make this a topic to discuss briefly?
16:06:31 <mattdm> yeah, let's make that a topic.
16:06:38 <mattdm> anything else, anyone?
16:06:52 <mattdm> I've got:
16:07:00 <mattdm> 1. Budget Update
16:07:04 <mattdm> 2. CoC Update
16:07:17 <mattdm> 3. Modularity as F28 talking point
16:07:23 <mattdm> 4. Talking points in general
16:07:34 <mattdm> anything else?
16:08:03 <jwb> can we talk about how people hate writing bios about themselves?
16:08:06 * jwb kids
16:08:13 <mattdm> 5. Bios!
16:08:16 <mattdm> :)
16:08:16 * robyduck hides
16:08:21 <dgilmore> jwb: that is a given
16:08:28 <mattdm> #topic Budget update
16:08:34 <mattdm> okay bexelbie :)
16:08:35 <jwb> mattdm, 6. council fad thing
16:08:42 <bexelbie> I realize that I haven't actually said this formally, so here it is
16:08:43 <dgilmore> I guess the cloud image issue mattdm raised probably needs more discussion
16:08:44 <mattdm> jwb++
16:08:44 <zodbot> mattdm: Karma for jwboyer changed to 1 (for the f27 release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
16:08:55 <mattdm> #undo
16:08:55 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Topic object at 0x7f9b0f2cf190>
16:09:02 <mattdm> wait which cloud image thing?
16:09:11 <langdon> flock update?
16:09:13 <bexelbie> 1) I am sorry I haven't email a draft budget out this week.  It's been crazy.  We DO NOT HAVE FINAL BUDGET NUMBERS, however, I am going to send a proposal assuming flat funding and then limit our spend until the final numbers are in.
16:09:20 <dgilmore> flock would be good
16:09:31 * bexelbie pauses
16:09:37 <dgilmore> mattdm: ticket 198
16:09:57 <mattdm> okay hold on. let me put flock update into the list at 2.5
16:10:11 <mattdm> and we'll talk about images if we get a chance -- looks like a full hour as is
16:10:20 <mattdm> if we don't get to it, more ticket discussion please.
16:10:25 <mattdm> #topic Budget update
16:10:28 <dgilmore> mattdm++
16:10:28 <zodbot> dgilmore: Karma for mattdm changed to 10 (for the f27 release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
16:10:29 <mattdm> for real this time :)
16:10:38 <mattdm> #info We do not have final budget numbers yet
16:10:52 <bexelbie> 1) I am sorry I haven't email a draft budget out this week.  It's been crazy.  We DO NOT HAVE FINAL BUDGET NUMBERS, however, I am going to send a proposal assuming flat funding and then limit our spend until the final numbers are in.
16:10:52 <bexelbie> Numbers expected by April 15, but no promises.
16:10:52 <bexelbie> 2) I have been operating on the premise that groups can spend up to 25% of their previous year allocation now.  Do I have council consent for that until we ahve a new budget in place?
16:10:54 <mattdm> #info bexelbie to send proposal assuming flat funding but limiting spend until we have those numbers
16:11:02 <mattdm> yes this makes sense to me
16:11:18 <bexelbie> eom, barring questions
16:11:39 <mattdm> anyone disagree with that limit? We've done it before and it's uncomfortable but seems to work
16:12:01 <mattdm> it's pretty frustrating that RH doesn't get us these numbers until the FY is well underway, but... that's companies for you
16:12:01 <jwb> nope
16:12:09 <robyduck> it's fine and we need to pass something to the groups/regions
16:12:23 <mattdm> #info That limited spend will be 25% of allocation, in order to be safe
16:12:45 <mattdm> robyduck yes
16:13:03 <bexelbie> #info that is 25% of original allocation for FY18
16:13:04 <mattdm> bexelbie: when you say "send a proposal", to where will that proposal be sent?
16:13:18 <dgilmore> bexelbie: I think that it is fine to limit to 25% of previous years budget
16:13:33 <bexelbie> I will send an email to council for last minute review then post in a ticket
16:13:36 <bexelbie> sound good?
16:13:45 <bexelbie> this way I can fix obvious stuff and not distract the public debate with it
16:14:09 <mattdm> yes, sounds great.
16:14:11 <dgilmore> jwb: what is the nope for?
16:14:21 <mattdm> nope jwb does not disagree :)
16:14:24 <dgilmore> bexelbie: sounds fine
16:14:35 <jwb> i do not disagree
16:14:42 <mattdm> okay. so...
16:14:48 <dgilmore> just making sure :)
16:14:51 <mattdm> #topic Code of Conduct update update
16:14:56 <mattdm> bexelbie again :)
16:15:25 <bexelbie> Marina and I have been meeting weekly (increased cadence this year) to finish something we can put out for public review
16:15:43 <bexelbie> In the meantime Mozilla has released a lot of good informatoin so we are building a model from their components
16:16:02 <mattdm> Do you have an expected date you'll have something for us?
16:16:04 <bexelbie> our goal is to have something that can be reviewed by the end of April.  It is slow going because most of the material is not described in detail, but only in theory
16:16:14 <bexelbie> so we actually have wordsmith it all
16:16:18 <mattdm> #info goal is to have something that can be reviewed by the end of April
16:16:28 <mattdm> thanks bexelbie
16:16:30 <mattdm> bexelbie++
16:16:32 <langdon> bexelbie: and doc'ing as you go so the next group that comes along can have an easier time?!?! ;)
16:16:38 <jwb> are we expecting people to sign this?
16:16:54 <bexelbie> langdon, my goal is, unless barred from doing so, to publish it all so people can fork and adapt and submit suggestions/fixes
16:16:58 <mattdm> jwb: I would like that, yes
16:16:59 <bexelbie> especially for mechanical issues
16:17:11 <langdon> bexelbie++
16:17:11 <zodbot> langdon: Karma for bex changed to 16 (for the f27 release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
16:17:11 <bexelbie> I would like people to sign this document as well
16:17:15 <dgilmore> mattdm: and if someone refuses to?
16:17:28 <jwb> mattdm, for the general population?
16:17:37 <mattdm> jwb: for contributors
16:17:38 <dgilmore> we do not need to get into it here.
16:17:50 <mattdm> dgilmore: same as if you haven't agreed to the contributor agreement?
16:17:58 <dgilmore> just something taht will need to be considered and planned for
16:18:20 <mattdm> Richard Fontana would like us to move on from requiring explicit opt-in to the contributor agreement
16:18:36 <dgilmore> mattdm: okay, So I assume we will amke it clear fas accounts will be marked inactive without acceptance
16:18:44 <mattdm> dgilmore: yes, that's my thinking
16:19:36 <mattdm> more on that as we get closer to april... let's move on to Flock now
16:19:40 <mattdm> #topic Flock update
16:19:44 * robyduck agrees too, specially as we are going to enforce CoC we need to have contributor's agreement on something we can take as argument
16:19:55 <mattdm> robyduck: yes
16:20:01 <mattdm> My understanding on Flock is...
16:20:09 * bexelbie listens closely :D
16:20:09 <mattdm> 1. We have an EU location that will work
16:20:17 <dgilmore> w00t
16:20:17 <mattdm> 2. But the budget is really tight
16:20:25 <jwb> ?
16:20:27 <mattdm> So we have to decide between one of:
16:20:38 <mattdm> a. 3 days instead of 4
16:20:55 <mattdm> b. don't schedule evening events and hope sponsorships wills how up to cover them
16:20:57 <mattdm> or
16:21:01 <mattdm> c. allocate more money
16:21:08 <mattdm> bexelbie, is that right? and is there more you can share?
16:21:16 <mattdm> and jwb, what's that "?"
16:21:18 <langdon> i would vote b..
16:21:36 <bexelbie> that's pretty much it.  I am concerned about budget and we are researching alternatives for evening activites that may make it work but don't have promises yet
16:21:36 <dgilmore> is C feasable?  and what would the tradeoffs be?
16:21:51 <jwb> location?
16:21:54 <bexelbie> dgilmore, C will be reflected in the budget proposal I'll send RSN (sorry again)
16:21:55 <mattdm> dgilmore: less money to spend on hackfests/fads, swag, etc.
16:21:56 <robyduck> naybe: 3) have RH people try to use more RH team budget to attend?
16:22:06 <bexelbie> robyduck, that is a given
16:22:08 <mattdm> jwb: I'm not going to say the location out loud until bexelbie says it is safe
16:22:11 <bexelbie> but we would just use the travel budget on others
16:22:12 <dgilmore> I am leaning towards B. it may be easier for sponsors to just organise an event for us
16:22:32 <langdon> and we could all do with less alcohol ;)
16:22:50 <bexelbie> on that note, with regards to sponsors, I'd love to grow our sponsorship base this year.  If you know of companies using Fedora that we should approach, please ping me directly
16:22:54 <jwb> mattdm, uh... you just said it will work and now we're discussing having people use their team budgets.  they're going to need to know where that location is in order to do estimates
16:23:03 <mattdm> robyduck: we did a good job on #3 last year (and as i recall the year before that)
16:23:09 <robyduck> option b) makes sense, having just 3 days not so much
16:23:15 <mattdm> jwb: I know. bexelbie should hurry up and tell us we can tell people where it is :)
16:23:25 <robyduck> mattdm: yes I know, let's keep us doing that :)
16:23:52 <bexelbie> robyduck, we ask that of all attendees.  Ask your $dayjob first
16:23:57 <bexelbie> without regards to who $dayjob is with
16:24:28 <jwb> bexelbie, i would love to.  my $dayjob is going to want a trip estimate.  google doesn't give flight prices to "Europe"
16:24:29 <dgilmore> bexelbie: so what can we as the council do to help you say its okay to say?
16:25:01 <mattdm> I think we're generally leaning towards b. bexelbie, do you need more from us?
16:25:07 <langdon> jwb: uhh its google.. have you tried "flight to flock in europe"? ;)
16:25:13 <jwb> i like option B myself as well
16:25:30 <bexelbie> dgilmore, I am conservative on this and like to have a signed contract first
16:25:44 <bexelbie> I can disclose our dates/location as I don't think it will affect pricing, but if there is a change, there is a change
16:25:52 <jwb> langdon, About 4,690,000 results (0.42 seconds)
16:26:06 <langdon> jwb: /me disappointed by google ;)
16:26:12 <bexelbie> the contract is being pursued by not just me .. so my being busy is not the blocker on that
16:26:18 <bexelbie> we have the help of two event planners
16:26:26 <jwb> langdon, the most interesting one is drone insurance.
16:26:36 <langdon> jwb: lol
16:26:51 <dgilmore> bexelbie: that is fair. is there decisions we need to make like 3 or 4 days that we can make to help?
16:26:51 <mattdm> jwb: one of those results is probably right!
16:27:02 <langdon> buy em all!
16:27:05 <bexelbie> I am hearing consensus aroudn staying at 4 days
16:27:14 <bexelbie> that mirrors mattdm and my thoughts so I don't think so
16:27:18 <dgilmore> bexelbie: I think so yes
16:27:18 <bexelbie> dgilmore, ^^
16:27:29 <mattdm> bexelbie: yeah. the rough content plan I put to the flock-planning list got good response
16:27:35 <mattdm> and I think that's a 4-day schedule.
16:27:52 <dgilmore> bexelbie: just wanting to make sure we can announce it ASAP and that "We" and not a blocker to any of it
16:28:00 <bexelbie> dgilmore, council is not a blocker
16:28:48 <bexelbie> and we have an actual actionable plan to present to community, post announce, about how to get ahead of this for next year
16:28:57 <bexelbie> stretch goal is to announce 2019 in 2018
16:29:02 <bexelbie> at Flock
16:29:08 <jwb> bexelbie, do we have guidance on dates?
16:29:09 <mattdm> I think this highlights that we need to really start this process much earlier next year. And the bid process we have isn't well-suited towards that
16:29:54 <bexelbie> mattdm, yep.  That is what I hope to work with the community on
16:30:30 <bexelbie> date guidance in a moment
16:30:33 * bexelbie wants to get it right
16:30:58 <nb> hi
16:31:12 <mattdm> nb welcome!
16:31:19 <bexelbie> date guidance: August 8-11 for the conference days
16:31:19 <mattdm> we're discussing flock
16:31:42 <bexelbie> I believe I have that right it was shifted slightly, so I may be off a day in either direction
16:31:48 <bexelbie> but I don't think so
16:31:48 <dgilmore> bexelbie: that is good, I will be in Australia until July 27
16:31:52 * bexelbie has had a long day
16:32:04 <nb> do we know where flock will likely be yet?
16:32:05 <bexelbie> dgilmore, in that case, July 25-27 :P
16:32:06 <bexelbie> j/k
16:32:12 <dgilmore> :(
16:32:13 <mattdm> bexelbie, do you know when the event people will likely nail things down?
16:32:13 <bexelbie> nb, city is not being disclosed at this time
16:32:21 <mattdm> nb: we're waiting for a contract to be signed
16:32:34 <langdon> dgilmore: it's gonna be at your house in aus.. so it will be easy ;)
16:32:37 <bexelbie> given the upcoming holiday that affects many countries, I expect next week late
16:32:39 <mattdm> I was too chatty last time around and shouldn't have been. counting chickens and all that.
16:32:42 <dgilmore> langdon: perfect
16:32:54 <mattdm> next week early would be better :(
16:32:57 <dgilmore> langdon: I will pack my smokers so we can feed everyone BBQ
16:33:13 <mattdm> #info we expect concrete info by the end of next week
16:33:17 <bexelbie> dgilmore, I can't wait to see your ticket counter agent
16:33:21 <langdon> dgilmore: OK.. whatever bex has in mind, cancel it, i want bbq in AUS
16:33:29 <mattdm> and let's get to the modularity thing
16:33:37 <mattdm> #topic Modularity as f28 talking point
16:33:45 <mattdm> langdon, robyduck -- what's the concern here?
16:33:53 * sgallagh lurks
16:34:02 <mattdm> wording for the website, or looking for blurb refreshes, or something else?
16:34:07 * robyduck also spoke with mboddu
16:34:17 <nb> yes, 4 days i think
16:34:23 <robyduck> the main problem we as websites team have is time
16:34:40 <mattdm> time for what, though?
16:34:49 <langdon> and.. we don't know what to say.. i suspect the content we have will just be the ~4 modules we have now at start of beta..
16:34:59 <langdon> and packagekit and microdnf probblems
16:35:04 <robyduck> if we want to add a link or something to the Server website, then we need some text on it, which also needs to be translated
16:35:08 <langdon> mattdm: time to edit and update sites
16:35:16 <robyduck> doing this in 5 days is rather impossible
16:35:36 <jwb> langdon, the primary edition for this is Server, right?
16:35:40 <robyduck> we were planning to make it for GA
16:35:42 <mattdm> I think we want to replace the block that says "server roles" on https://getfedora.org/en/server/
16:35:47 <mattdm> but for final release
16:35:57 <mattdm> I don't _think_ we need anything special for beta
16:36:08 <mattdm> We can cover that in the release announcement
16:36:10 <dgilmore> saying it is not dead might be good
16:36:18 <langdon> i wonder if we should get some more content in post beta.. and then do a 2nd annc..
16:36:18 <langdon> jwb: correct.. cause pk and microdnf issues
16:36:21 <dgilmore> but that can be covered elsewhere
16:36:41 <jwb> langdon, eh, i understood Server to be the target even before microdnf and packagekit came to light.
16:36:42 <langdon> we could do magazine and/or commblog annc..
16:36:46 <mattdm> But, langdon, can you look at my message to the marketing list from yesterday and update https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_28_talking_points#Fedora_Server with that kind of template?
16:36:48 <robyduck> just for the record: we already have so many changes right now, time is something we don't have (docker --> container for example, and other path changes)
16:37:09 <jwb> langdon, so while microdnf/packagekit issues need to be fixed, i'm not sure it changes much for f28
16:37:15 <langdon> jwb: "primary interesting edition" .. but there are/were interesting use cases for workstation as well.. firefox comes up a lot
16:37:22 <mattdm> jwb: The key point is "you can't really enable this on your development workstation, because doing so will mess things up" :(
16:38:00 * nb is looking forward to having modular repos available
16:38:07 <nb> langdon, what modules do we have now?
16:38:20 <langdon> welll.. how many developers use gnome-software for updates? it requires a reboot.. which is a non-starter for 99% of devs
16:38:31 <langdon> nb: it is available now..
16:38:32 <mattdm> I think our firefox story is looking to be modules -> flatpaks, rather than direct modules
16:38:39 <nb> langdon, oh nice!
16:38:40 <mattdm> langdon: yeah, except it's on by default
16:38:42 <langdon> django, reviewboard, nodejs:6,8,9
16:39:01 <jwb> mattdm, i disagree with the severity here i guess.  you can enable it on the workstation as long as you don't use gnome-software
16:39:39 <mattdm> jwb: ... which is on by default.
16:39:54 <mattdm> if you check "apply pending updates" when shutting down sometime, you will get bit.
16:39:55 <dgilmore> mattdm: I think the entire story for flatpack is modules -> flatpacks
16:39:58 <jwb> mattdm, but if someone is going to add the modular repo outside of Server edition, they're going to do that manually
16:40:05 <sgallagh> Right, GNOME software will prompt you about updates
16:40:07 <mattdm> Yeah, we just need to make that clear
16:40:19 <sgallagh> There's still a problem *within* the Server use-case thoguh
16:40:20 <langdon> in short, i think having it disabled by default on everything besides server is fine.. so.. i would rather focus on our story for beta/ga
16:40:23 <sgallagh> But I think we can work around it
16:40:24 <jwb> mattdm, which ALSO means they can read an article about this, since they'd probably have to do that to discover the repo anyway
16:40:28 <mattdm> Anyway I don't think we need anything in particular from websites on this.
16:40:38 <sgallagh> Currently, we ship cockpit-packagekit by default, IIRC
16:40:39 <jwb> mattdm, which means we have a venue for saying "DONT DO THIS THING"
16:40:44 <mattdm> jwb: yes, indeed.
16:40:46 <sgallagh> So people can use Cockpit to trigger updates
16:40:52 <sgallagh> And that uses PackageKit under the hood
16:41:17 <nb> I just looked at cockpit for the first time, it is great
16:41:25 <jwb> sgallagh, propose not shipping that
16:41:31 * nb wishes you could link multiple servers together so it would show them all
16:41:40 <sgallagh> jwb: Yeah, I'm planning to strike that from the default install
16:41:49 <sgallagh> But it's something people may opt back into, because it's convenient
16:41:54 <langdon> nb: try ovirt
16:42:02 <sgallagh> So we likely need to communicate that it doesn't work fully at the moment
16:42:03 <jwb> sgallagh, Conflicts: dnf-<whatever>
16:42:19 <langdon> nb: well.. you can add more than one machine to a single pane.. but you look at each machine individually
16:42:27 <nb> langdon, oh ok
16:42:28 <sgallagh> jwb: Insufficient, but I don't want to rat-hole on it
16:42:50 <mattdm> okay, but... limited meeting time here, y'all.
16:42:57 <mattdm> Do we have robyduck's concern answered?
16:42:58 <jwb> neither do i.  my whole point is there are still issues.  that doesn't mean we need frowny faces and doom and gloom.  perfect is the enemy of good
16:43:05 <mattdm> jwb++
16:43:14 <sgallagh> agreed
16:43:16 <robyduck> mattdm: no, I am not arguing technically
16:43:41 <mattdm> robyduck: I want to make sure there's no surprising demands put on you at the last minute :)
16:43:56 <mattdm> I *think* we don't need anything special from websites in order to make modularity a talking point
16:44:05 <jwb> mattdm, those demands should be in the form of pull requests ;)
16:44:11 <mattdm> but there *are* some website refresh things we will will want for final
16:44:14 <dgilmore> mattdm: +1
16:44:15 <langdon> however, i am not sure i understand the plan.. just "no websites changes" is what i am hearing.. or, perhaps, a link to the f-mag article when it realses
16:44:18 <mattdm> jwb: :)
16:44:22 <robyduck> then we just offer the normal server image and don't add anything, right?
16:44:30 <mattdm> langdon: link from what?
16:44:43 <langdon> server page? post beta launch
16:44:43 <mattdm> robyduck: yes. with this new plan, the normal server image _is_ modular server
16:44:54 <robyduck> hmm
16:45:04 <langdon> jwb: the problem is it is unlikely one PR could have the translations
16:45:07 <mattdm> For final, we want to use (sgallagh, right?) the new modular server logo instead of the old one
16:45:11 <robyduck> mattdm: do we need a change of the name of the image?
16:45:25 <mattdm> robyduck: I don't think so. sgallagh?
16:45:26 <sgallagh> mattdm: Do we have a finalized one? If so, then yes.
16:45:34 <mattdm> sgallagh: I believe so.
16:45:39 <langdon> image == iso? or == png?
16:45:43 <sgallagh> I'd actually prefer to have at least the prototype on the Beta pages.
16:45:45 <robyduck> I mean, if this is Modular Server (which is just adding a repo IIRC), then we should also make that official with a F28 Modular Server" name, or?
16:45:49 <sgallagh> But if that's impossible, so be it
16:45:53 <mattdm> sgallagh: prototype?
16:45:57 <sgallagh> No, the name is still Fedora Server
16:46:10 <langdon> sgallagh: +1
16:46:21 <sgallagh> We dallied with the idea of saying "Powered by Fedora Modularity" in  additional text, but not as part of the formal name
16:46:23 <langdon> i am not sure what the prototype is either
16:46:38 <sgallagh> mattdm: That was a follow-on to my question of whether the design was final
16:46:49 <sgallagh> I was suggesting to use the WIP design for Beta if we could
16:47:10 <sgallagh> I had typed it before you replied with "I believe so"
16:47:18 <mattdm> robyduck: does the beta page have the phrase "The latest technology. A stable foundation. Together, for your applications and services." at the top?
16:47:22 <mattdm> Or is that just on the final one?
16:47:31 <robyduck> mattdm: no
16:47:43 <langdon> yes it does "The latest technology. A stable foundation. Together, for your applications and services."
16:47:44 <robyduck> we would like to make tect changes for final
16:48:01 <mattdm> langdon: the _beta_ page. which isn't up yet.
16:48:03 <langdon> https://stg.getfedora.org/en/server/
16:48:11 <langdon> that is the beta page
16:48:16 <langdon> and i was told it is current
16:48:17 <mattdm> that's the staging site for the _final_ page.
16:48:24 <langdon> ohh i see
16:48:28 <robyduck> mattdm: langdon: if we have this on the final page, then we will add it to beta too, no problem
16:48:30 <mattdm> yeah :)
16:48:34 <robyduck> we can use the same string
16:48:45 <langdon> definitely need to axe "server roles"
16:48:57 * robyduck adds this to his todo list
16:49:03 <mattdm> langdon: can you take care of putting together update requests for the final pages?
16:49:06 <langdon> sgallagh: right?
16:49:28 <langdon> mattdm: i am not sure what the requests are yet.. my image q from ^^ isn't even answered :/
16:49:39 <sgallagh> langdon: Yeah, I think we need to stop talking about those
16:49:55 * langdon still expresses sadness
16:49:55 <sgallagh> Even if we haven't entirely excised them from the release, we can stop advertising them
16:49:58 <mattdm> most of the page talks about that, so it needs a pretty big rewrite.
16:51:05 <mattdm> langdon: I know, but can you figure out what the requests are so I don't have to? :)
16:51:05 <langdon> well.. i think a convo with sgallagh could make it so i could do a rewrite (maybe) ... but that doesn't help with a) testimonials b) translations
16:51:31 <langdon> well.. my q is.. what do we want to say?  or should we leave that to server-sig?
16:51:34 <mattdm> and sgallagh -- the iso image is the same as it has been for traditional server, right?
16:51:41 <sgallagh> mattdm: Yes
16:51:57 <mattdm> langdon: ideeeeallly you would help server sig with this, since server sig is mostly sgallagh
16:52:08 <mattdm> why aren't you taking my bus-shoving here? :)
16:52:18 <langdon> mattdm: i meant i would "be there"
16:52:25 <langdon> ha
16:52:27 <robyduck> proposal: can we go without changes for beta, and I will sync out with sgallagh (Server SIG) about rewording for final and get this in time to L10n on zanata?
16:52:37 <mattdm> robyduck: +1
16:52:47 <langdon> but blog post, yes?
16:52:52 <sgallagh> ok
16:52:59 <mattdm> yes, we need a magazine post
16:53:22 <jwb> +1
16:53:38 <langdon> however.. .should we axe beta-server-webpage down to be basically just "check out server" ?
16:54:00 <langdon> or deal with the "incorrectness"?
16:54:08 <mattdm> if i remember, the beta page is pretty bare by design
16:54:17 <mattdm> robyduck: is there anywhere that the f27 one can be seen?
16:54:18 <langdon> do we have any examples up?
16:54:26 <langdon> mattdm: what you said
16:54:57 <robyduck> mattdm: what do you mean with F27?
16:55:26 <langdon> like f27-beta-webpage
16:55:36 <robyduck> the old one?
16:55:43 <jwb> time check?
16:55:50 <mattdm> yeah
16:55:52 <jwb> this sounds like it could be handled between Server and Websites
16:56:25 <robyduck> we will have f28-beta on staging tomorrow
16:56:29 <robyduck> or later today
16:56:46 <mattdm> robyduck: okay, then we'll look at that and figure out if we need any changes asap. sound good?
16:56:50 <langdon> ok... robyduck ping me when live? so i can have something to work from?
16:56:55 <robyduck> for f27-beta you probably need to clone the repo and build it with the f27-beta branch locally
16:57:09 <robyduck> langdon: sure, will do
16:57:21 <mattdm> ok cool. three minutes for last three things :)
16:57:26 <robyduck> ok, works for me
16:57:30 <mattdm> #topic Talking points in general
16:57:49 <mattdm> In short, these are in sad shape and we're having a hard time getting WGs to respond helpfully.
16:58:02 <mattdm> robyduck, can you take this to mindshare as something we need to improve?
16:58:17 <langdon> i know i have like 8 different emails asking for content.. but I wanted this conversation first
16:58:24 <robyduck> mattdm: yes
16:58:34 <mattdm> In the go/no-go meeting, I'd love to see Ambassadors say "Wait, we can't release! We don't know our talking points!"
16:58:39 <mattdm> and then there's https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/marketing@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/55N5RPYUHHBG3D2TMY2HJT5QDWNMSA4G/
16:58:42 <langdon> mattdm: +1
16:58:44 <mattdm> #link https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/marketing@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/55N5RPYUHHBG3D2TMY2HJT5QDWNMSA4G/
16:58:51 <mattdm> thanks robyduck
16:58:53 <mattdm> next topic
16:58:57 <mattdm> #topic Biographies
16:59:03 <robyduck> mattdm: we don't have talking points for beta
16:59:03 <jwb> i did mine.
16:59:06 <mattdm> I know it's hard. Please write. :)
16:59:08 <robyduck> for final it would be correct
16:59:15 <jwb> PRs for this kind of suck
16:59:15 <mattdm> Submit as PRs, put in the ticket, or send to me or bex.
16:59:22 <langdon> mattdm: did the ticket get updated to say "how"?
16:59:30 <mattdm> #info Submit as PRs, put in the ticket, or send to me or bex.
16:59:31 <robyduck> jwb: yeah
16:59:32 <mattdm> :)
16:59:37 <langdon> there seemed to be some dithering in the ticket
16:59:41 <langdon> about using user pages
16:59:50 <jwb> langdon, i just did it directly in the members page
17:00:06 <jwb> because it's the easiest and a page per person seems pointless
17:00:15 <mattdm> jwb yes that was my expectation
17:00:21 <mattdm> and we're at time.
17:00:39 <bexelbie> +1
17:00:40 <mattdm> please continue conversation about trademark guidelines for hosting providers / cloud in the ticket
17:00:46 <mattdm> thanks everyone!
17:00:47 * langdon noticed mattdm had just dropped in a pic for mine.. you can guess of what
17:00:50 <bexelbie> thank you all
17:01:01 <mattdm> #endmeeting