2025-04-29 17:00:59 <@fale:fale.io> !startmeeting FESCO (2025-04-29)
2025-04-29 17:01:03 <@fale:fale.io> !meetingname fesco
2025-04-29 17:01:08 <@meetbot:fedora.im> Meeting started at 2025-04-29 17:00:59 UTC
2025-04-29 17:01:08 <@meetbot:fedora.im> The Meeting name is 'FESCO (2025-04-29)'
2025-04-29 17:01:08 <@fale:fale.io> !group members fesco
2025-04-29 17:01:12 <@meetbot:fedora.im> The Meeting Name is now fesco
2025-04-29 17:01:13 <@fale:fale.io> !topic Init Process
2025-04-29 17:01:17 <@fale:fale.io> !hi
2025-04-29 17:01:18 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Members of fesco: David Cantrell, Fabio Valentini, Fabio Alessandro Locati, Tomáš Hrčka, Kevin Fenzi, Matthew Miller, ngompa (@conan_kudo:matrix.org, @ngompa:fedora.im, @pharaoh_atem:opensuse.org, @ngompa:kde.org, @ngompa:almalinux.im), Michel Lind, Stephen Gallagher, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
2025-04-29 17:01:23 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> !hi
2025-04-29 17:01:26 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Fabio Alessandro Locati (fale) - he / him / his
2025-04-29 17:01:26 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek (zbyszek)
2025-04-29 17:02:15 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> morning
2025-04-29 17:02:58 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> !hi
2025-04-29 17:03:01 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Neal Gompa (ngompa) - he / him / his
2025-04-29 17:04:01 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> !hi 
2025-04-29 17:04:02 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Fabio Valentini (decathorpe) - he / him / his
2025-04-29 17:04:18 <@fale:fale.io> we have the quorum, but let's wait another minute to see if someone else arrives as well :)
2025-04-29 17:05:17 <@fale:fale.io> !topic #3390 Allow "interactive gating" for bodhi updates that fail CoreOS tests
2025-04-29 17:07:30 <@salimma:fedora.im> !hi
2025-04-29 17:07:31 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Michel Lind (salimma) - he / him / his
2025-04-29 17:07:32 <@fale:fale.io> !fesco 3390
2025-04-29 17:07:32 <@fale:fale.io> I think the majority of commenter were in favor of CoreOS SIG members joining releng, but I did not saw a clear voting on this
2025-04-29 17:07:40 <@zodbot:fedora.im> **fesco #3390** (https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3390):**Allow "interactive gating" for bodhi updates that fail CoreOS tests**
2025-04-29 17:07:40 <@zodbot:fedora.im> ● **Assignee:** Not Assigned
2025-04-29 17:07:40 <@zodbot:fedora.im> ● **Last Updated:** 19 hours ago
2025-04-29 17:07:40 <@zodbot:fedora.im> ● **Opened:** 2 weeks ago by dustymabe
2025-04-29 17:07:40 <@zodbot:fedora.im> 
2025-04-29 17:08:17 <@salimma:fedora.im> do we need to vote on that? if the flow is just to join releng and nirik is OK with that
2025-04-29 17:08:29 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> yeah
2025-04-29 17:09:10 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> I don't know that we need a vote... was anyone opposed?
2025-04-29 17:09:28 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> No, a few votes in support and otherwise silence.
2025-04-29 17:09:37 <@salimma:fedora.im> if we need to vote formally I'm happy to +1
2025-04-29 17:09:52 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I'm +1 to having CoreOS folks join releng
2025-04-29 17:09:54 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> me too
2025-04-29 17:10:02 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I'm -1 to giving CoreOS a special exception to bypass releng
2025-04-29 17:10:02 <@fale:fale.io> +1
2025-04-29 17:10:03 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> sure, +1
2025-04-29 17:11:01 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> in principle, I am not particularly convinced that this should be a thing at all
2025-04-29 17:11:02 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> I was +1 in the ticket
2025-04-29 17:11:24 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> untagging things should be extraordinary, not regular
2025-04-29 17:11:42 <@fale:fale.io> !decision AGREED (+6,0,-0)
2025-04-29 17:11:49 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> right
2025-04-29 17:11:51 <@fale:fale.io> Yes, I agree with Neal
2025-04-29 17:12:12 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I'm more concerned that this was considered a sensible request at all.
2025-04-29 17:13:26 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> FWIW, I'm happy that the coreos folks are trying DTRT and engage in QA in the normal Fedora workflows. The details can be figure out.
2025-04-29 17:15:04 <@fale:fale.io> !agreed some CoreOS SIG members will join releng (6,0,-0)
2025-04-29 17:15:16 <@fale:fale.io> !topic  #3394 Add Docker Plugin RPMs to Update Policy Exception List
2025-04-29 17:15:21 <@fale:fale.io> !fesco 3394
2025-04-29 17:15:28 <@zodbot:fedora.im> ● **Opened:** a week ago by buckaroogeek
2025-04-29 17:15:28 <@zodbot:fedora.im> 
2025-04-29 17:15:28 <@zodbot:fedora.im> ● **Assignee:** Not Assigned
2025-04-29 17:15:28 <@zodbot:fedora.im> ● **Last Updated:** 20 hours ago
2025-04-29 17:15:28 <@zodbot:fedora.im> **fesco #3394** (https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3394):**Add Docker Plugin RPMs to Update Policy Exception List**
2025-04-29 17:16:12 <@fale:fale.io> I see only 3 +1s in this one
2025-04-29 17:16:40 <@fale:fale.io> and many comments, not disagreeing, though progressing the conversation
2025-04-29 17:17:30 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> I guess I can be +1...
2025-04-29 17:18:22 <@salimma:fedora.im> I was going to +1 but then from gotmax's comments it does not even seem necessary?
2025-04-29 17:18:45 <@salimma:fedora.im> ah gotmax said it's fine for at least some of the plugins
2025-04-29 17:18:46 <@salimma:fedora.im> so +1
2025-04-29 17:19:22 <@fale:fale.io> Fabio Valentini: you said in the ticket that you are "generally +1", does this include this specific case?
2025-04-29 17:21:08 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> yes, I meant "in general this seems sensible request but it doesn't seem strictly necessary in this case" 
2025-04-29 17:21:18 <@fale:fale.io> oh, sorry :)
2025-04-29 17:21:20 <@fale:fale.io> !agreed update policy exception granted (6,0,-0)
2025-04-29 17:21:59 <@fale:fale.io> !topic  #3385 Change: Java25 And No More System JDK
2025-04-29 17:22:05 <@fale:fale.io> !fesco 3385
2025-04-29 17:22:13 <@zodbot:fedora.im> 
2025-04-29 17:22:13 <@zodbot:fedora.im> ● **Assignee:** jvanek
2025-04-29 17:22:13 <@zodbot:fedora.im> ● **Last Updated:** 8 hours ago
2025-04-29 17:22:13 <@zodbot:fedora.im> **fesco #3385** (https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3385):**Change: Java25 And No More System JDK**
2025-04-29 17:22:13 <@zodbot:fedora.im> ● **Opened:** 4 weeks ago by amoloney
2025-04-29 17:22:25 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> did someone rewrite this change document to be understandable yet?
2025-04-29 17:22:36 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I'm not up for another round of confusion :)
2025-04-29 17:22:45 <@fale:fale.io> this one was not in the list for today, but there has been updates so if we want to comment it we can :)
2025-04-29 17:23:05 <@fale:fale.io> I personally do not like the external link that is "required" to make more sense of the proposal
2025-04-29 17:23:35 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> can we ask someone to refresh the change document then?
2025-04-29 17:24:32 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> the only thing I remain confused about is that the two change owners seem to disagree whether packages should get proactively updated to use OpenJDK 25 or not, and whether the default should change or not ...
2025-04-29 17:25:11 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> There was some mention of 'can't change the proposal', but... why not? shouldn't have to keep adding.
2025-04-29 17:26:08 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> maybe
2025-04-29 17:26:08 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> > Being unable to remove anything from proposal
2025-04-29 17:26:08 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> this was meant to say "everything there is important, I don't *want* to drop anything"? 
2025-04-29 17:26:08 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> 
2025-04-29 17:26:08 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> 
2025-04-29 17:26:12 <@fale:fale.io> Jvanek changed the proposal multiple times today: https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Changes/Java25AndNoMoreSystemJdk&action=history so it does not seem a technical issue
2025-04-29 17:26:20 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> ah, could be I misread that yeah
2025-04-29 17:27:21 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> so, everyone please ask more questions/read the changes and we will invite change owner next week?
2025-04-29 17:28:38 <@fale:fale.io> works for me. I would prefer if the proposal is clear enough by next that we can vote it without the need of the change proposal re-explaining it to us another time, but better safe than sorry :)
2025-04-29 17:31:14 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> same
2025-04-29 17:31:23 <@fale:fale.io> !topic Next week's chair
2025-04-29 17:31:25 <@fale:fale.io> any takers?
2025-04-29 17:31:48 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> I can do it.
2025-04-29 17:31:58 <@fale:fale.io> !action zbyszek  will chair next meeting
2025-04-29 17:32:01 <@fale:fale.io> thanks zbyszek :)
2025-04-29 17:32:07 <@fale:fale.io> !topic Open Floor
2025-04-29 17:32:39 <@fale:fale.io> I have one OF topic: Do we have any info on https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3305 ? 
2025-04-29 17:33:24 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> Aoife Moloney answered that query in devel?
2025-04-29 17:33:30 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> "I have an action to write a draft of the council statement on the issue, it's in the works and I should have something to share with FESCo members and peter by tomorrow for review before we publish it"
2025-04-29 17:34:39 <@fale:fale.io> uh, missed that! Sorry
2025-04-29 17:35:03 <@fale:fale.io> no other points from my side then :)
2025-04-29 17:35:36 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> One quick plea from me...
2025-04-29 17:36:26 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> we have a number of packager-sponsor requests open. https://pagure.io/packager-sponsors/issues it would be great if folks could pick through them and find people who still need sponsoring, etc.
2025-04-29 17:36:51 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> we should close old ones, but I have not had any time to investigate if they are just old or now unwanted
2025-04-29 17:36:58 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> I am working on https://pagure.io/packager-sponsors/issue/714
2025-04-29 17:38:20 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> thats all from me
2025-04-29 17:40:26 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> Oh, and https://pagure.io/packager-sponsors/issue/702 has asked to be reconsidered. ;) please add comments...
2025-04-29 17:40:59 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> I need to go. See you next week.
2025-04-29 17:41:09 <@fale:fale.io> !endmeeting