2025-06-18 14:02:02 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !startmeeting Fedora Council Meeting
2025-06-18 14:02:04 <@meetbot:fedora.im> Meeting started at 2025-06-18 14:02:02 UTC
2025-06-18 14:02:04 <@meetbot:fedora.im> The Meeting name is 'Fedora Council Meeting'
2025-06-18 14:02:35 <@churchyard:fedora.im> hi
2025-06-18 14:02:59 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !group members council
2025-06-18 14:03:05 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Members of council: Aoife Moloney, Aleksandra Fedorova, Miro Hrončok, David Cantrell, Jason Brooks, jflory7 (@jflory7:fedora.im, @fca:fedoraproject.org), Jona Azizaj, Jef Spaleta
2025-06-18 14:03:09 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !hi
2025-06-18 14:03:10 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Aoife Moloney (amoloney)
2025-06-18 14:03:13 <@jspaleta:fedora.im> !hi
2025-06-18 14:03:15 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Jef Spaleta (jspaleta) - he / him / his
2025-06-18 14:03:17 <@jbrooks:matrix.org> !hi jasonbrooks
2025-06-18 14:03:20 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Jason Brooks (jasonbrooks) - he / him / his
2025-06-18 14:03:48 <@bookwar:fedora.im> !hi
2025-06-18 14:03:49 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Aleksandra Fedorova (bookwar) - she / her / hers
2025-06-18 14:03:50 <@churchyard:fedora.im> !hi
2025-06-18 14:03:51 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Miro Hrončok (churchyard) - he / him / his or they / them / theirs
2025-06-18 14:06:07 <@dcantrell:fedora.im> !hi
2025-06-18 14:06:09 <@zodbot:fedora.im> David Cantrell (dcantrell) - he / him / his
2025-06-18 14:06:36 <@amoloney:fedora.im> I think were almost all here
2025-06-18 14:06:40 <@jonatoni:fedora.im> !hi
2025-06-18 14:06:42 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Jona Azizaj (jonatoni) - she / her / hers
2025-06-18 14:07:03 <@amoloney:fedora.im> Justin is on vaycay, so now with Jona here we are good to go :)
2025-06-18 14:08:15 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !topic Agenda for today 
2025-06-18 14:08:25 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !link https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/council-meeting-agenda-2025-06-18/155881
2025-06-18 14:09:49 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !info the topics for today are to discuss ticket #526, ticket #536, ticket #513, any status reports and any other business
2025-06-18 14:10:19 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !topic Ticket #526
2025-06-18 14:10:40 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/526
2025-06-18 14:12:15 <@churchyard:fedora.im> I pretty much am OK with the text in the etherpad
2025-06-18 14:12:16 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !info the Fedora council have been asked to provide guidance to the Konflux team on how best to engage with the fedora commuinity. There has already been a meeting where members of the konflux team joined the council to discuss their work, and several discussion topics on discourse. Theres been information shared informally too. Lets try close this out
2025-06-18 14:12:52 <@amoloney:fedora.im> Some feedback for a reply was captured in this pad too https://pad.sfconservancy.org/p/fedora-council-ticket-526
2025-06-18 14:13:23 <@bookwar:fedora.im> Post the text and close the ticket.
2025-06-18 14:13:35 <@amoloney:fedora.im> Is there anything we need to discuss more on this?
2025-06-18 14:13:44 <@amoloney:fedora.im> I see 2 replies to post and close :)
2025-06-18 14:13:46 <@bookwar:fedora.im> We need to move from meta conversations to the actual conversations
2025-06-18 14:14:06 <@jspaleta:fedora.im> Honestly I dont think that guidance is good enough to be actionable.  Its fine, its just not going to move the needle.
2025-06-18 14:14:53 <@jbrooks:matrix.org> What might be spelled out better in that response is this needs to be resourced -- someone from konflux needs to have time each week to stay on this
2025-06-18 14:14:59 <@bookwar:fedora.im> I think community initiative ramework is actually helping in this case. Because we need all its questions answered: scope, benefit to fedora, work plan,..
2025-06-18 14:15:32 <@jspaleta:fedora.im> Konflux legitimately doesnt know how to be an upstream project.  Not to throw them under the bus, but right now they dont even have a place for interested upstream contributors to introduce themselves. The mailinglist is private, there's no obvious async comms.
2025-06-18 14:15:55 <@bookwar:fedora.im> I think community initiative framework is actually helping in this case. Because we need all its questions answered: scope, benefit to fedora, work plan,..
2025-06-18 14:16:43 <@churchyard:fedora.im> Honestly, I don't think we should be doing this for them. I mean, I appreciate they are trying, but it feels like their idea for Fedora invovlement is to go to the Council. That's not going to work.
2025-06-18 14:17:11 <@churchyard:fedora.im> Honestly, I don't think we should be doing this for them. I mean, I appreciate they are trying, but it feels like their idea of Fedora involvement is to go to the Council. That's not going to work.
2025-06-18 14:17:39 <@amoloney:fedora.im> I feel the same. Theres a saying 'you can lead a horse to water, but you cant make them drink' I feel like Konflux is not ready to drink the water yet. And thats ok! But we cant keep pushing on them if theyre not
2025-06-18 14:18:01 <@bookwar:fedora.im> It seems to me that they don't know _if_ _they_ _want_ to be an upstream project. And even who _they_ are in this case.
2025-06-18 14:18:23 <@bookwar:fedora.im> And this is not something Fedora project can decide or help with
2025-06-18 14:18:38 <@amoloney:fedora.im> So Im +1 to *our* guidance being whats in the pad, and to work towards submitting a community initiative 
2025-06-18 14:18:39 <@jspaleta:fedora.im> I wouldn't go that far.  I just don't think they know how.  I've already asked for the mailinglist to be opened. 
2025-06-18 14:19:21 <@amoloney:fedora.im> Is that  recommendation in the pad? If its not, we should add it in. Thats legitimate guidance
2025-06-18 14:19:40 <@jspaleta:fedora.im> i dont want to be prescriptive from "The council"
2025-06-18 14:19:46 <@bookwar:fedora.im> Jef Spaleta: I think closing the ticket doesn't mean we can not continue talking about this topic or trying to help (as experienced FOSS people) in some of our capacity. But it doesn't seem valuable to have the meta conversation open on the Coucil level
2025-06-18 14:19:54 <@amoloney:fedora.im> but thats what theyre asking for....
2025-06-18 14:20:02 <@amoloney:fedora.im> how come you dont want that?
2025-06-18 14:20:06 <@jspaleta:fedora.im> bookwar: agreed
2025-06-18 14:20:16 <@bookwar:fedora.im> Jef Spaleta: I think closing the ticket doesn't mean we can not continue talking about this topic or trying to help (as experienced FOSS people) in some of our capacity. But it doesn't seem valuable to have the meta conversation open on the Council level
2025-06-18 14:21:25 <@jspaleta:fedora.im> because individual projects will make specific decisions.    The council could make a more general recommendation that is evergreen like "be a functioning open source project"
2025-06-18 14:22:03 <@jspaleta:fedora.im> but mandating specific comms or how they onboard new contributors.. is overly prescriptive
2025-06-18 14:22:37 <@bookwar:fedora.im> I think we agree on that.
2025-06-18 14:23:12 <@churchyard:fedora.im> we are not mandating specific comms, are we? we give advice 
2025-06-18 14:23:23 <@amoloney:fedora.im> I agree, but also kind of disagree because Im not seeing this as us mandating anything. however you are 
2025-06-18 14:23:44 <@amoloney:fedora.im> I agree, but also kind of disagree because Im not seeing this as us mandating anything. however you are seeing it like that so maybe we need ot be more careful with the wording
2025-06-18 14:23:50 <@amoloney:fedora.im> sorry pressed enter too soon :)
2025-06-18 14:24:31 <@jspaleta:fedora.im> the fact that the only having a private mailinglist right now... is just an implementation detail of their situation.  Having a communicated way for interested contributors to get involved would be a more evergreen recommendation
2025-06-18 14:25:16 <@jbrooks:matrix.org> They need help, and that's not something the council is set up to give. The suggestion of the initiative process is really the whole answer
2025-06-18 14:25:37 <@jbrooks:matrix.org> This is something that RH's OSPO could help with, though
2025-06-18 14:25:50 <@churchyard:fedora.im> I also think that maybe they expect to get a list of things and then if they do them and Fedora contributors still don't seem interested, they will point fingers at that list and say "we did everything Council told us, why are you not intesrted?"
2025-06-18 14:26:07 <@jspaleta:fedora.im> yes that is a vibe 
2025-06-18 14:26:34 <@churchyard:fedora.im> so we should probably not give them a list, to prevent that :D
2025-06-18 14:26:45 <@amoloney:fedora.im> I hadnt seen this perspective 🤔
2025-06-18 14:27:10 <@amoloney:fedora.im> ok then so are we recommending the community initiative framework altogether then?
2025-06-18 14:27:35 <@bookwar:fedora.im> I am with Jason on this. So I think the initiative framework as the answer, the everything else on that etherpad is a recommendation, and generally we are open for asks for help, but there is no silver bullet or a sliber buller list which gives you a path to success.
2025-06-18 14:27:38 <@churchyard:fedora.im> (but I tend to always expect the worse outcomes)
2025-06-18 14:27:48 <@jspaleta:fedora.im> but that's a problem we/I have to solve with RH discussions.  There's a goalpost already setup here which fedora technical leadership feedback will rub up against.
2025-06-18 14:27:49 <@bookwar:fedora.im> I am with Jason on this. So I think the initiative framework is the answer, the everything else on that etherpad is a recommendation, and generally we are open for asks for help, but there is no silver bullet or a sliber bullet list which gives you a path to success.
2025-06-18 14:28:05 <@jbrooks:matrix.org> The guidance in the pad is find, I would just underline that it'll take some actual person-time to make this stuff happen
2025-06-18 14:28:14 <@amoloney:fedora.im> and have the suggestions like 'have a matrix room, send some kind of frequent comms, have an open repo, etc' included as well as kind of best practices?
2025-06-18 14:28:18 <@jbrooks:matrix.org> The guidance in the pad is fine, I would just underline that it'll take some actual person-time to make this stuff happen
2025-06-18 14:28:41 <@bookwar:fedora.im> I am with Jason on this. So I think the initiative framework is the answer, the everything else on that etherpad is a recommendation, and generally we are open for asks for help, but there is no silver bullet or a silver bullet list which gives you a path to success.
2025-06-18 14:29:03 <@jspaleta:fedora.im> oh matrix room is problematic 
2025-06-18 14:29:14 <@amoloney:fedora.im> they have one already
2025-06-18 14:29:27 <@jspaleta:fedora.im> upstream hosting in our matrix.. given the restrictions right now...
2025-06-18 14:29:48 <@amoloney:fedora.im> #konflux:fedora.im
2025-06-18 14:29:50 <@bookwar:fedora.im> they have a matrix room and a SIG, so there is no controversy in that part 
2025-06-18 14:29:56 <@jspaleta:fedora.im> its not clear how non-fedora contributors.. in a viable upstream project sense.. would get in
2025-06-18 14:30:14 <@jbrooks:matrix.org> federated
2025-06-18 14:30:17 <@jspaleta:fedora.im> the invite situation is a mess
2025-06-18 14:30:32 <@jspaleta:fedora.im> we have restrictions in place right now
2025-06-18 14:30:42 <@bookwar:fedora.im> I think we are going to deep into details
2025-06-18 14:30:47 <@jbrooks:matrix.org> This is getting a bit afield...
2025-06-18 14:31:06 <@jspaleta:fedora.im> as i said.. making specific recommendations.. is not something i want the council statement to get into
2025-06-18 14:31:29 <@amoloney:fedora.im> ok proposal: use the content in the pad to address the ticket, and underline the need for someone(s) in the Konflux effort to drive this work towards and then through as a Fedora Community Initiative
2025-06-18 14:31:33 <@bookwar:fedora.im> The recommendation is to have an open channel for communications. Matrix is an example, and they already have it
2025-06-18 14:33:07 <@amoloney:fedora.im> any other objections to agreeing to that? I will put an agreed statement on it then if we are all a-ok with the pad, with a little tweaking
2025-06-18 14:33:25 <@churchyard:fedora.im> What if wa said: Therefore, we advise the Konflux *as individuals from the Council*. -- to stress out that the Council as a body does not (and cannot) give advices like that?
2025-06-18 14:35:23 <@jspaleta:fedora.im> no objection from me. I'll probably end up getting involved in the Initative process if/when they are ready to commit to it.
2025-06-18 14:35:57 <@jflory7:fedora.im> Post the pad, move on 😉
2025-06-18 14:36:04 <@jflory7:fedora.im> There are more valuable discussions to be had 
2025-06-18 14:37:32 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !agreed The council will tweak the pad content to reflect that we do not wish to prescribe any mandatory steps to the konflux team, but we will suggest ways in which they can be more involved in the Fedora community, and request they drive their work towards proposing a community initiative
2025-06-18 14:37:44 <@amoloney:fedora.im> done
2025-06-18 14:38:07 <@bookwar:fedora.im> Thanks Aoife Moloney 
2025-06-18 14:38:21 <@amoloney:fedora.im> thank you all too for your discussion and input!
2025-06-18 14:38:25 <@zodbot:fedora.im> churchyard gave a cookie to amoloney. They now have 97 cookies, 20 of which were obtained in the Fedora 42 release cycle
2025-06-18 14:38:41 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !topic Ticket #513
2025-06-18 14:38:45 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/513
2025-06-18 14:40:12 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !info Following the proven packager incident of Dec 2024, this ticket which was previously private is now public. One of the action items for the Fedora Council is to establish a set of guidelines that our community teams can use when faced with making decisions that can impact another contributors ability to contribute to Fedora
2025-06-18 14:40:21 <@amoloney:fedora.im> I think that sums it up a bit :(
2025-06-18 14:40:59 <@amoloney:fedora.im> This came up at the council f2f in Feb too, but we need an owner on this now officially to put pen to paper
2025-06-18 14:41:07 <@churchyard:fedora.im> the ticket seems to cover a more general case, doesn't it?
2025-06-18 14:41:27 <@amoloney:fedora.im> it does, and the ask, or expectation, is that these guidelines can be used generally
2025-06-18 14:41:27 <@jflory7:fedora.im> I thought it was me
2025-06-18 14:41:37 <@churchyard:fedora.im> e.g. I know at FESCo, voting +1 to your own proposal is considered allowed
2025-06-18 14:41:39 <@amoloney:fedora.im> this is not exclusively for pp
2025-06-18 14:42:01 <@bookwar:fedora.im> Yes, I think the goal is to create a project-wide guidance, not just FESCo/Council
2025-06-18 14:42:07 <@churchyard:fedora.im> I meant it isn't exclusively for "impact another contributors ability to contribute" either
2025-06-18 14:42:55 <@amoloney:fedora.im> Its assigned to me because I was liasing with Peter, but the actual guidelines I think were assigned to you Justin Wheeler (away until 2025-06-26) but you already have a lot of these tickets mounting up so is this one you want to keep? Or collaborate with others on?
2025-06-18 14:42:58 <@churchyard:fedora.im> do we assume that just because the pp incident?
2025-06-18 14:43:29 <@amoloney:fedora.im> sorry thats the wording we used to capture the main point of the guidelines
2025-06-18 14:44:19 <@amoloney:fedora.im> this has come about because of the pp incident, but we should have some kind of framework or guidelines in place for the very rare cases like this one
2025-06-18 14:44:36 <@jspaleta:fedora.im> im going to hate myself for this... but does it make sense for me to pen a first draft if the intent of this is to go beyond the pp stuff?  Since I was not involved, I'm not biased by what transpired.
2025-06-18 14:44:39 <@amoloney:fedora.im> it doesnt have to be particularly heavy either
2025-06-18 14:45:03 <@bookwar:fedora.im> This would be helpful
2025-06-18 14:45:11 <@amoloney:fedora.im> I would prefer you lead that Jef, tbh. As FPL, this is a project-wide thing so it would fit better imo
2025-06-18 14:46:05 <@bookwar:fedora.im> I am not big fan of such policies, so i would probably only write something like: in case of concerns - escalate here. And deal with it on a case by case basis. But I would be interested to see other proposals.
2025-06-18 14:46:07 <@jspaleta:fedora.im> then people who were involved with the unpleasantness can see if the language would have retroactively helped the situation.
2025-06-18 14:46:32 <@churchyard:fedora.im> I would like to state up front that I am not much inclined to put something like "remove yourself from the discussion/ticket when the change or proposal is yours" into that
2025-06-18 14:47:44 <@jbrooks:matrix.org> The pp situation was more conflict prone, I'd say
2025-06-18 14:47:59 <@jbrooks:matrix.org> Akin to a coc enforcement
2025-06-18 14:48:12 <@churchyard:fedora.im> obviously, if I propose "mhroncok is the new FPL starting now" me voting for that might be a conflict of interest. but if I propose a new policy about something I also stand by my own proposal and want to be able to support it :/
2025-06-18 14:49:09 <@amoloney:fedora.im> ^^ This is it exactly in an example form, so Jef Spaleta if you can pen something generic and lightweight that captures this then I think we'd be in a good spot for feedback 
2025-06-18 14:51:02 <@jspaleta:fedora.im> mhroncok: counter proposal...  with regard to any decision process not coucil.. there's a mechanism to request coucil review of conflict of interest that gives council the authority to remove the confict of interest 
2025-06-18 14:52:05 <@amoloney:fedora.im> Could that be bookwar 's suggestion of 'escalate here'?
2025-06-18 14:52:14 <@jspaleta:fedora.im> yes that speaks to that
2025-06-18 14:52:50 <@churchyard:fedora.im> that kinda begs the question: what about council itself
2025-06-18 14:52:57 <@churchyard:fedora.im> but we don't have to solve that here
2025-06-18 14:53:20 <@bookwar:fedora.im> I think we think in the same direction, so once we have that draft going, we will be able to iterate on it
2025-06-18 14:54:05 <@jspaleta:fedora.im> ugh.. action me i guess
2025-06-18 14:54:14 <@amoloney:fedora.im> hurray :p
2025-06-18 14:54:20 <@bookwar:fedora.im> Is it the first one? :)
2025-06-18 14:55:16 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !action Jef Spaleta will draft an initial generic <thing> that covers how to navigate conflict of interests
2025-06-18 14:55:37 <@amoloney:fedora.im> I said thing because Im not sure if it wll be a policy or guidelines or a picture :D
2025-06-18 14:55:58 <@amoloney:fedora.im> with the last few mins, Im going to defer the set agenda in favour of open floor/AOB
2025-06-18 14:56:03 <@jspaleta:fedora.im> my prefered policy medium is interpretive dance
2025-06-18 14:56:14 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !topic Open Floor
2025-06-18 14:56:14 <@churchyard:fedora.im> not curling?
2025-06-18 14:56:34 <@amoloney:fedora.im> anything pressing for discussion in the last few mins?
2025-06-18 14:56:51 <@jspaleta:fedora.im> oh open floor.  I got something
2025-06-18 14:57:36 <@jspaleta:fedora.im> So the Cisco codec package situation.  Which was mentioned at Flock.  Its been noticed in the tech ecosystem, and we've havent said anything
2025-06-18 14:58:16 <@amoloney:fedora.im> is there something we could or should say on it?
2025-06-18 14:59:40 <@jspaleta:fedora.im> Its.. complicated.. because my understanding is they are signed/built by us.. but distributed by Cisco.. for software patent liability reasons.. dont quote me on that.. thats my current understanding.
2025-06-18 14:59:56 <@churchyard:fedora.im> that is my understanding as well, yes
2025-06-18 15:00:27 <@churchyard:fedora.im> what is "the situation"?
2025-06-18 15:00:36 <@jspaleta:fedora.im> If it was clear to me that its okay to talk about the situation. i would have already talked about it.
2025-06-18 15:00:41 <@churchyard:fedora.im> that it's CVE riddled and nobody fixes that? we have plenty of such packages in Fedora
2025-06-18 15:01:00 <@jspaleta:fedora.im> CVE fixed.. waiting... but not distributed
2025-06-18 15:01:02 <@churchyard:fedora.im> oh, ok, let's not talk about it then, if it's not clear :D
2025-06-18 15:01:27 <@churchyard:fedora.im> however, that kinda makes it harder to discuss it
2025-06-18 15:01:46 <@bookwar:fedora.im> I feel like we don't have enough time for this discussion, I am also not aware of the details. Should we get a ticket to look into it?
2025-06-18 15:01:48 <@jspaleta:fedora.im> its sort of a public secret.... except we dont have a narrative on what the breakdown is
2025-06-18 15:02:08 <@amoloney:fedora.im> were at time so we can move this to the council matrix room if theres more to talk about?
2025-06-18 15:02:43 <@amoloney:fedora.im> thanks everyone for all the contribution today!
2025-06-18 15:02:46 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !endmeeting