17:58:52 #startmeeting fedora-server 17:58:52 Meeting started Wed Feb 17 17:58:52 2021 UTC. 17:58:52 This meeting is logged and archived in a public location. 17:58:52 The chair is pboyHB. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 17:58:52 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 17:58:52 The meeting name has been set to 'fedora-server' 17:59:02 #topic Introduction, Quick Hello 17:59:09 hi everyone! 17:59:20 we'll give a few minutes for folks to show up 17:59:29 #info please say either .hello2 or .hello (the latter if your nick here is not your fasname) 17:59:39 I’ll post the agenda then in a second 18:00:37 hello 18:00:42 .hello smooge 18:00:43 smooge: smooge 'Stephen J Smoogen' 18:00:48 .hello kevin 18:00:49 nirik: kevin 'Kevin Fenzi' 18:01:32 .hello ngompa 18:01:33 King_InuYasha: ngompa 'Neal Gompa' 18:01:34 * King_InuYasha waves 18:02:14 .hello jwhimpel 18:02:15 jwhimpel: jwhimpel 'John Himpel' 18:03:07 #topic Agenda 18:03:11 .hello2 18:03:12 copperi: copperi 'Jan Kuparinen' 18:03:18 #link https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/server@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/RQWDTIBDAUUK63HYIHLBHGJEMROSELOE/ 18:03:25 1. Status Reboot Server Working Group 18:03:31 2. Work programme for the coming year 18:03:38 3. PRD Update (first round of discussion) 18:03:46 4. Open floor 18:04:16 Hello all, let's start 18:04:24 Any addition to agenda? 18:05:24 OK, then 18:05:34 #topic Status Reboot Server Working Group 18:05:53 Please, bear with me, I'm not yet that fit with IRC. 18:06:02 no problem you are doing well 18:06:06 Current status: 18:06:14 The open slates for by-election of WG members are now fulfilled (3 votings +1). 18:06:22 So we are now able to proced on save ground. 18:06:39 Any opinions? 18:07:12 I am good with this 18:07:43 pboyHB: Thanks to you and Matt for getting this done 18:07:44 It would be good to get this 'done' and then work on cleaning up the rules so it doesn't happen again 18:07:50 so, who did we approve? just everyone that asked? 18:07:50 OK: Both Stephen's want to withdraw from the WG unfortunatelly! 18:08:05 smooge: Agreed 18:08:36 we would be 12 active members (sithout both Stephens) 18:08:43 I will withdraw when a replacement is available and voted in. I really not have time to work on this beyond meetings 18:08:53 Membvers arelangdon Langdon White 18:09:00 abbra Alexander Bokovoy 18:09:10 salimma Michel Alexandre Salim 18:09:17 astra David Kaufmann 18:09:24 jwhimpel John Himpel 18:09:30 sghosh Subhendu Ghosh 18:09:37 jbwillia Ben Williams 18:09:44 x3mboy Eduard Lucena 18:09:50 pboy Peter Boy 18:09:57 nb Nick Bebout 18:10:04 (In order of ticket entries) 18:10:17 .hello2 18:10:18 Then there are additional : 18:10:18 nb: nb 'Nick Bebout' 18:10:25 defolos 18:10:32 mhoungbo 18:10:36 I would confirm that langdon is still 'here' i have not seen them since initial items and it might be a place for people to join in 18:10:37 fsaez 18:10:44 fcami 18:10:53 We would have to open a new slate. 18:11:03 I'm here 18:11:13 And we have ngompa 18:11:25 Sorry didn_t catch him from my list 18:11:52 .hello salimma 18:11:52 michel_slm: salimma 'Michel Alexandre Salim' 18:12:09 ngompa thinks he was already made a member in the past 18:12:16 my wording for 'langdon is still 'here'' could have been better. I had not seen him recently so thought it was an old slot 18:12:39 but i guess without being officially added inthe past, he needs voted on again? 18:12:40 .hello ngompa 18:12:41 King_InuYasha: ngompa 'Neal Gompa' 18:12:42 nb: yes, but obviously wiki was not updated. 18:12:54 nb: sgallagh made me a member when I was working on making the Fedora base snap 18:12:59 which was being done under the Server WG 18:13:00 nb So the best is, to make a new slage 18:13:30 * michel_slm has an overlapping Hyperscale meeting so will lurk 18:13:31 and I'd wind up being a WG member again anyway if we eventually merge Cloud SIG+WG and Server WG 18:13:44 yeah, I'm also overlapping on CentOS Hyperscale SIG meeting :) 18:13:50 ngompa: So OK then. It would be good, if sgallagh could send a message on our list. 18:14:14 is Cloud SIG alive ? 18:14:14 Confirmed. 18:14:37 (I’m not really here, but I saw the mention) 18:14:38 OK, so ngompa already a member! 18:14:54 I'll update our wiki list later today. 18:15:02 perhaps they are Cirrocumulus... 18:15:17 Cloud SIG is needing work. It is mostly run via the 400% energy from Dusty who is out currently taking care of a new baby 18:15:24 copperi: I tried to join the meeting yesterday, but nobody showed up. 18:15:42 pboy: same with me 18:16:37 What about the suggestion of a periodic chair? 18:16:45 I think that is a good idea 18:16:50 (Its subtoppic (a) 18:17:01 it makes sure that it isn't just one person's job which gets tiring and thankless quickly 18:17:21 yeah, switching it seems like a good idea. 18:17:38 (for reasons smooge said) 18:17:42 i would follow the FESCO method where the person who is to run the next meeting and keep track of todo's between those times is agreed on in the last meeting 18:18:14 s/would follow/suggest to follow/ 18:18:18 with periodic i meant: the same team for perhaps 6 months to ensure continuity. 18:20:03 Any additional opinions about half year term? 18:20:21 Doing a new chair per meeting keeps everyone involved and makes sure everyone knows how to run a meeting. I think 6 months is a pretty long commitment for one person. 18:20:37 so do I 18:21:00 nirik: yes, but I think a team of 2 persons 18:21:07 I think the term chair may have different meanings to you and me nirik versus others 18:22:18 Suggestion by Chris Murphy was: keep chair constant for some time, according to experiences of workstation WG. 18:23:16 ah so different kind of chair. Person who runs the show/is the final decider versus person who runs the meetings and keeps them on track 18:23:18 .hello 18:23:18 fsaez: (hello ) -- Alias for "hellomynameis $1". 18:23:19 But, there a objections, so we should switch chair from meeting to meeting and evaulate after some time 18:23:32 .hello fsaez 18:23:33 fsaez: fsaez 'None' 18:23:59 yeah, might be our terms are different. I was thinking just the person who collects the agenda and runs the meeting... 18:24:56 For our own last meetings it was a bit "difficult" with the agenda. 18:25:18 #agreed Change of chair from meeting to meeting 18:25:48 Subtopic (b): contact out 4 inactive members so far 18:26:14 (Suggestion of Chris Murphy to clean up) 18:26:33 sounds good 18:27:01 #agreed We'contact inactive members 18:27:16 #action Current chair will make contact. 18:27:36 Net subtopic:What about SIG? 18:28:08 suggestion: We should form the SIG anew together 18:28:25 so I was going to say I have enough time to be part of a SIG to help on things in WG when possible 18:28:31 and I agree on that 18:28:47 So at first: WG and SIG might be the same person and differentiare according to time resources. 18:29:16 whatever org gets things done. :) 18:29:20 We wourk primary as SIG, use WG when nedessary 18:29:35 the WG could actually have SIGs underneath it 18:29:41 we might actually need to do that anyway 18:29:52 since there's Cloud and traditional Server 18:30:13 I wopuld like to avoid the "underneath" 18:30:27 we already are going to have that today 18:30:39 rather WG as formal subset of SIG 18:30:54 I think we need to define what is meant by underneath 18:31:20 as to me that (WG as formal subset of SIG) is underneath but that isn't universal 18:32:05 I would consider it the other way around, as WGs structurally report to FESCo and Council directly 18:32:31 According to our current govermance there is no underneath, at least not in terms of voting and power to decide. 18:33:16 working groups were intended to be more formal and have actual known members that could vote on things, etc... but really I don't think we should get too hung up on all this. A active SIG is still better than a defunct Working Group. Lets try and do things and adapt after that. 18:33:29 [council]->[fesco] <-> (WG) <- (SIG) 18:33:53 but yeah.. agreed with nirik. 18:33:53 smoog: +1 18:33:56 SIGs only requirement is that they say they exist. 18:34:06 pretty much 18:34:37 WGs are likely to lose their extra formal requirements anyway, since bcotton has seen them not really work out in practice 18:35:13 Proposal: lets restart a SIG with us as all as members and let's see how it works out. 18:35:15 so the only material difference will be that WG deliverables have top billing on getfedora.org and are effectively required for Fedora releases 18:35:41 so really, there's not a meaningful difference between a WG and a SIG anymore 18:36:22 we could also just kill the WG thing entirely and put them back to being SIGs, but... people like differentiated terms :) 18:36:42 bcotton: there will be. Not all members can spent so much time as WG requires. But nevertheless are valuable contributors. 18:36:47 WGs are currently the only thing allowed to produced Editions 18:37:02 pboyHB: you can call it whatever you want 18:37:15 pboyHB: WGs won't have extra time requirements soon anyway 18:37:18 King_InuYasha: not true (although there are probably a lot of places that's said) 18:37:36 bcotton: that's good to know, as I was under that impression 18:37:51 From https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org/fedoras-strategic-direction-an-update-from-the-council/ (although not clearly stated), Fedora has Teams. Teams can call themselves whatever they want and can basically self-organize 18:38:24 there's just so much old documenation out there and no one has ever really sat down to clean it up :-( 18:38:30 right, so we should just not worry about what we call it... just try and get a group that can get things done. 18:38:35 bcotton: but an edition needs a formal WG 18:38:42 nirik++ 18:38:42 bcotton: Karma for kevin changed to 26 (for the current release cycle): https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any 18:38:45 Ben Cotton: no 18:38:52 grr 18:38:56 pboyHB: no. that's not correct 18:39:14 nirik +1 18:39:32 bcotton: Matthew tells otherwise. And Fedory doc as well. 18:39:54 pboyHB: i''ll talk to matthew about that. because that's not a distinction the council draws anymore 18:40:12 i spent two days locked in a room with him and bex to come up with what we whittled down to the blog post linked above 18:40:48 Proposal: we delete current content from SIG and tell the world, we work all together in WG vor now. 18:40:51 bcotton: that's how I thought it was still the case too 18:40:56 pboyHB: +1 18:41:56 #agreed. We outdate SIG wiki and tell the world we work together under the label WG. 18:42:14 well, how about noting/archiving the old stuff? just deleting it before we have anything to put there seems hasty... 18:42:17 phoyHB +1 18:42:26 but otherwise +1 18:42:31 #action. pboyHB changes SIG wiki page 18:42:33 pboyHB +1 18:42:56 nirik: of course, we archive, just as I did with WG page. 18:43:14 cool 18:43:29 #topic Work programme for the coming year 18:43:40 Floor is open. 18:43:56 until now we had: dicumentation and cloud cooerpation 18:44:16 there were some ideas about IPA, too 18:44:35 any additional ideas? 18:44:43 There was some talk about revisiting defaults... filesystem/partitioning 18:45:05 nirik:+1 18:45:32 The initial WG charter talked about base installation with approved "roles" as add-ons. I would be interested in working on the add-ons. 18:46:05 yeah, we had a thing that deployed roles... but it's no longer developed. 18:46:13 roles are off. what do you mean by ddd-ons ? 18:46:46 sorry, my keyboard is dump. :_) 18:47:01 known working installation and configurations for mail servers, dhcp, database servers, ldap, etc 18:47:16 trying to push more people on using Fedora on server ? (like blog post on how that's great, etc) ? 18:47:23 jwhimpel: +1 18:47:28 misc: +1 18:47:53 and trying to understand why people don't, so kinda like use the future shiny survey platform commops is preparing 18:47:54 misc: +1 18:48:01 jwhimpel: the problem with most of those is... there's 10,000 ways to set it up, so if you set it up one way people will complain that they wanted it another way. Or needs information from them to setup, etc. 18:48:07 jwhimpel: I'm working on some ddocumentation about that. probably we can team up? 18:48:27 hey y'all... i just wanted to pop in and say the timing of the server sig "coming back" also coincided with me being incredibly busy.. i expect to be able to participate more starting in a couple weeks 18:48:50 well that answers my question from above 18:48:53 Agreed there are 10,00 ways to set it up. But perhaps sticking to a simple SOHO setup for starters. 18:48:57 langdon, *1. missed you 18:49:04 smooge: you made my phone light up :) ... 18:49:26 ... is in many people's filters today 18:49:59 nirik: yes 10.000, but it would be fine to have tutorials and playboks for some specific use cases. 18:50:00 mhh, organising a podcast/meeting where people fight about best mail configuration (and then get a shadyy underground bookmaker business) 18:50:16 misc: +1 18:50:41 we should get with x3mboy and ComputerKid about having a Fedora Server podcast episode 18:50:43 misc, you are born to become a Server ambassador 18:50:50 sure, you can do that... it's just hard to ship and test a specific thing like that. docs and such are great 18:51:10 I'm not suggesting there is only one way to do things. Just "this way is known to work - if you are a newbie" 18:51:17 Sure, I'm up to it 18:51:28 pboyHB: well, i already keep telling to people to use more fedora servers :p 18:51:38 quick docs type are good for tasks 18:52:32 Do we agree about documentation, cloud cooperation and default partiioniong? (you know, our goals) 18:53:40 #agreed. goals are documentation, cloud cooperation, default partitioning 18:53:52 +1 18:53:56 #topic PRD Update first round of discussion 18:54:20 It'sa quite late now how can we proceed? 18:55:09 Can we talk about the first to sections Vision and Mission? 18:56:19 Alternativly, does someone commit to write a review abot those two for next meeting? 18:57:33 Well, maybe we should postpone this topic to next meeting. 18:57:53 #topic open floor 19:00:09 Well, before closing: who will take chair for next meeting? 19:00:16 i need ot head to other meetings. I would say move things to the next meeting. when is it? 19:00:24 1 or 2 weeks from now? 19:00:37 Next meeting in 2 weeks. Annojuncment on list 19:00:55 I will take it 19:01:33 Nobody for chair? I propose I'll continue before we don't know. Any objections? 19:02:10 #agreed: next chair smooge 19:02:27 #endmeeting