<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:18:35
!startmeeting Fedora Council meeting - 2024-110-23
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
14:18:36
Meeting started at 2024-10-23 14:18:35 UTC
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
14:18:36
The Meeting name is 'Fedora Council meeting - 2024-110-23'
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:18:43
!meetingname council
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
14:18:43
The Meeting Name is now council
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:19:01
!topic Intros, welcomes, hellos
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:19:03
!info Present: @amoloney @ffmancera @dcantrell @mattdm @jonatoni @jflory7 @jbrooks
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:19:09
!topic Team announcements & news
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:19:15
!info Flock 2025 update: After careful review of the attendee survey feedback, we have decided to target June 2025 in Prague, CZ for the next Flock to Fedora conference. We are targeting the week before DevConf CZ. We will work with the DevConf CZ organizers to thoughtfully share user, developer, and contributor content types. We are currently exploring bids but no contracts are signed yet. More updates to come.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:19:27
!info In 2 weeks: I invited Gwmngilfen to present at the next Fedora Council meeting as a video meeting. He will analyze and share findings from the Flock 2024 attendee survey. He has already contributed an early look at the data which was helpful in making our initial decisions for Flock 2025.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:19:36
!info F41 go/no go is tomorrow @ 1700 UTC on #meeting:fedoraproject.org
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:19:46
Better late than never.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:19:48
:P
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
14:19:56
thank ypu!!
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:20:02
OK, last call for announcements/updates?
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
14:20:15
thank you!!
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:20:20
# Council announcements & news: Going once…
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:20:35
# Council announcements & news: Going twice…
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:20:46
# Council announcements & news: Going thrice…
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:21:01
💥
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:21:06
Let's get to these tickets 😎
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:21:12
!topic Ticket-driven discussion
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
14:21:32
could we go with this KDE one now?https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/504
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:21:40
Sure 👍️
<@mattdm:fedora.im>
14:22:20
So.... straw poll... is anyone _opposed_ to this?
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:22:22
!topic Ticket #504: Request to upgrade Fedora KDE Desktop Spin to Edition status under the Personal Systems WG
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
14:22:23
Im in favour so have voted +1. Is there anything we need to discuss further as a council before voting?
<@mattdm:fedora.im>
14:22:26
is anyone _strongly_ opposed?
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:22:33
!link https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/504
<@mattdm:fedora.im>
14:22:46
I have two concerns:
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
14:22:47
not me
<@mattdm:fedora.im>
14:23:31
1. Quality Team (as represented by Kamil Páral) has expressed concerns about added work.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
14:24:12
This is not a net change for Quality vs prior state. KDE is already release-blocking, we already go through all the same motions that other Editions do.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
14:24:50
We aren't changing the criteria for them either, so no scope growing vs the current state as of F41.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
14:25:30
There was some confusion that we'd change the quality guardrails on them, and I clarified with them that is explicitly not changing.
<@mattdm:fedora.im>
14:25:41
2. We don't have a marketing or presentation story. How do we guide people to the best choice for them? How do we make it simple? One of the biggest complaints I see in the wild is that Linux makes people make bewildering choices up front. This affects Marketing Team, Websites, and the release announcement -- as well as people providing help in Ask Fedora or on #fedora here, and of course the teams themselves.
<@mattdm:fedora.im>
14:26:42
Conan Kudo: I feel like no matter what we _say_, with us confidently expressing that this represents the best of Fedora, we _are_ raising expectations
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:27:11
🖐️
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
14:27:15
The mismatch has been that people feel no matter how much work we put in, we suck _because_ we're not an Edition.
<@mattdm:fedora.im>
14:27:20
For the second thing, I think we can figure something out by F42 -- or in the meantime, if before. But I think we've missed the boat for F41.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
14:27:45
FWIW, I aimed for F42 specifically because I need time to start moving things in the right directions.
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
14:27:45
my 2c on the 2nd point, because I see the point of view here, is that KDE Sig *meets* the promotion criteria, and if the council approves the promotion, we should support them then in order to succeed in this new space
<@dcantrell:fedora.im>
14:27:47
for marketing we could have an animated GIF of Conan Kudo spinning a KDE sign on a street corner
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:27:53
This is meant to be *raise hand* not *stop* lol, to clarify
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
14:27:56
😆
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
14:28:00
that, to me, includes helping craft this story
<@mattdm:fedora.im>
14:28:01
For the first, I'd like to hear Quality Team's take, as we have a practical case before us right now in F41 validation.
<@mattdm:fedora.im>
14:28:50
Yeah, Aoife Moloney -- that makes sense.
<@mattdm:fedora.im>
14:29:16
Does anyone else in this meeting have an objection?
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
14:29:44
the validation part, that really is super important, but I guess I was less 'concerned' - and thats NOT the right word, but whatever - because I see the testing already hppening with KDE and how responsive and involved KDE is t o resolve blockers that are found wth it
<@mattdm:fedora.im>
14:30:12
To be clear, I am personally in favor, but we need to represent various groups that this will affect.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:30:51
My vote is undecided as a +1 or -1. The sensitivity around this topic shows that there are mismatched conceptions about this topic. We need more cross-group collaboration and expression of goodwill to build strong connections here. I believe strongly we need to be prepared to evolve past the perception noted in #2. What would make me +1 is seeing a new Council Initiative for the launch and stewarding of the Personal Systems WG.
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
14:30:52
I understand
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:31:05
I believe an Initiative supported by the Council could be highly impactful here.
<@mattdm:fedora.im>
14:31:25
I guess technically that means "-1 but I would flip to +1 if Quality Team feels good about it"
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:31:32
I could vote +1 on the policy today if there were a real multi-stakeholder effort to run an Initiative for 12-18 months.
<@dcantrell:fedora.im>
14:31:45
FWIW, that's where I am
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:32:35
I am cautiously -1 if there is not more communication with important stakeholders before making a decision.
<@mattdm:fedora.im>
14:32:51
Justin W. Flory (he/him): That might indeed be a path forward. However... that's a lot of work, and I'm not sure anyone but Neal (sorry Conan Kudo) is bought into that. Particuarly, we'd _need_ meaningful participation from Workstation WG in general.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:33:05
I would read this as a commitment to "if Quality Team feels good about it"
<@mattdm:fedora.im>
14:33:14
Justin W. Flory (he/him): Personal Systems WG might indeed be a path forward. However... that's a lot of work, and I'm not sure anyone but Neal (sorry Conan Kudo) is bought into that. Particularly, we'd _need_ meaningful participation from Workstation WG in general.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:33:22
mattdm: It needs to be multi-stakeholder.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
14:33:27
Frankly, no. I am not interested in adding more hoops to jump after having my goalposts constantly moved.
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
14:33:46
the criteria is the criteria
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
14:33:54
they either meet it or they dont
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
14:33:58
I already have plans for more stakeholders, I do *not* want to run it as an initiative because I do not feel Council particularly wants to track what we're doing.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:34:15
I mean, my point I am trying to make is, I would be sold on supporting this change and having it be something supported by the Council. We have spent a lot of time refining our structure for managing change through Community Initiatives. I think this is a perfect example of a place where it would be helpful.
<@mattdm:fedora.im>
14:34:19
Right, Conan Kudo, I sympathize with that. I don't think we should _require_ the Personal Systems WG, because currently that seems like a long climb to dubious success.
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
14:34:19
I dont see the need for this as an initiative eitehr
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
14:34:23
Initiatives so far have been used to drive things that are external to the Fedora community, and I don't want to use that mechanism for a community effort.
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
14:34:27
I dont see the need for this as an initiative either
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
14:34:50
And so far, initiatives have not demonstrated a success bar that I would be confident in the mechanism either.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:34:59
Maybe I am off-base with the Initiative. But the challenge I see is that communication in a large, broad community like ours is difficult and challenging to do well
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:35:16
Not that I know from experience or anything 🌚
<@mattdm:fedora.im>
14:35:23
I don't think that's really the case, about initiatives. The external/internal thing, at least. Whether Initiatives are working as intended is another topic.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
14:35:40
I am creating the Personal Systems WG because I have plans to grow it beyond just one SIG since y'all asked for it.
<@dcantrell:fedora.im>
14:35:58
can we back up for a minute here....what is the main reason to do the KDE promotion?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
14:36:12
But I am not going to take on that work up front if I have no chance of anything progressing. I just don't have the ability to do that.
<@dcantrell:fedora.im>
14:36:12
like what do we not have right now based on where it sits
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
14:37:00
I believe its recognition for hard work the KDE Sig are doing
<@mattdm:fedora.im>
14:37:12
Right, Neal -- I like the Personal Systems idea; I just don't think it should be a blocker. And I think it will require getting people who are upset with each other to reconcile -- which can't be forced
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
14:37:13
Conan Kudo: will give more technical depth to that statement though :)
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:37:34
# Time check: 18 minutes until Open Floor
<@dcantrell:fedora.im>
14:37:37
ok, so it's to give the same level of recognition to part of the community that we give the rest of the community? and their SIG is happy with their work?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
14:37:50
dcantrell: There are two problems:
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
14:37:50
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
14:37:50
* The perception that Fedora KDE isn't good or supported in the project because it's merely a spin.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
14:37:50
* The ceiling of marketing and visibility by not being on the front page.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
14:37:50
Both of these are essentially fixed by being an Edition, as it aligns with Fedora's messaging about Editions and it aligns the visibility with effort that the Fedora KDE community puts in.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
14:37:50
<@dcantrell:fedora.im>
14:37:52
if that's the case, can we stop treating the KDE SIG like American Samoa and just promote it?
<@mattdm:fedora.im>
14:37:59
I think it will help increase Fedora marketshare.
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
14:38:38
I had to google what that is...but yes :D
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
14:38:47
point proven :)
<@bookwar:fedora.im>
14:39:13
I think Edition status alone will not fix it. We need work items for Marketing, Design, QA folks to support that. So I am not sure what we should be voting on right now.
<@dcantrell:fedora.im>
14:39:30
(sorry, yes, anyone born in American Samoa is a US National, not a citizen. they have to naturalize in order to vote, but they can join the military. it's weird and not fair)
<@bookwar:fedora.im>
14:39:43
Like "If KDE folks submit a new design for the getfedora.org we will accept it" ?
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:39:49
I am in support of resolving both of these two problems.
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
14:40:00
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/council/policy/edition-promotion-policy/
<@bookwar:fedora.im>
14:40:06
This doesn't look like a correct Council statement
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
14:40:12
There are _already_ efforts to ramp up those things. And those are being done by us rather than the other teams because nobody else wants to care about us.
<@mattdm:fedora.im>
14:40:23
Not to stir up drama, but... it has been expressed to me by someone on the Workstation WG that having two different desktops (I think they may have actually meant _at all_, let alone as an Edition) shows lack of vision from project leadership, and that we're abdicating our responsibility to make clear choices.
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
14:40:28
this is what KDE SIG should meet. If they do, we should approve the promotion. If they dont, ok
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:40:33
# Time check: 15 minutes remaining to open floor
<@mattdm:fedora.im>
14:40:57
And I _do_ see that we have a hard time making clear choices. :)
<@bookwar:fedora.im>
14:41:02
I am not questioning that. I am thinking what kind of support from Council will help with that at this moment?
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
14:41:15
the only thing we *might* be missing is an ack from QA
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
14:41:24
design is AFTER we approve or not
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:41:45
I would be +1 today for "Fedora Workstation GNOME" and "Fedora Workstation KDE" as two Editions
<@dcantrell:fedora.im>
14:41:54
I disagree. We're supporting what the community wants as long as it fits with the rest of the project. I don't think Fedora needs to land on a single desktop. It could, but why force that?
<@bookwar:fedora.im>
14:42:03
The choice to not make a clear choice in this case is ours, though :)
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:42:18
I think our role as a distribution is to integrate. We pull the various upstreams together into one place. So, our deliverables should reflect the upstreams with whom we share commits with.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:42:27
I think we need to evolve beyond that mindset
<@dcantrell:fedora.im>
14:42:51
why not just make Fedora Workstation as a single release with both GNOME and KDE? say we make the default GNOME so something comes up, but KDE is right there
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:43:10
Do they share the same installer? Anaconda?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
14:43:21
they do but not the same configuration of Anaconda
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
14:43:22
they can't
<@mattdm:fedora.im>
14:43:24
dcantrell: Because Workstation WG doesn't want to do that, and I'm not sure KDE would really like that either.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
14:43:50
Fedora Workstation WG has strongly vetoed the idea of indicating what desktop is shipped in the name because they feel the desktop is an implementation detail of the Workstation experience. I personally disagree, but that's how it is.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:43:54
So, I see the value in having separate images, not a single Fedora Workstation flavor that can install both.
<@mattdm:fedora.im>
14:43:59
I mean, _they could_. It's a thing Anaconda can do. However, it's really messy with the way livecd installs work today.
<@ffmancera:fedora.im>
14:44:00
IMHO, I am +1 mainly because there is some people working into this and moving it forward. I personally know several Fedora KDE users that are happy about how it works and also, I have the feeling we moved the goalpost a couple of times. The issues that Conan Kudo mentioned won't be fixed by being an edition but it would help for sure.
<@dcantrell:fedora.im>
14:44:01
so this is where I think Council leadership is needed. we don't want Fedora to have 50 Workstation choices on the download page. you get one. figure out how make that work
<@dcantrell:fedora.im>
14:44:08
we've done it before, so there is not a technical limitation
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:44:33
But we are not saying fifty. We are saying two.
<@mattdm:fedora.im>
14:44:34
dcantrell: I'm not sure pushing the choice into Anaconda really solves anything.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:44:39
I think two is reasonable.
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
14:44:48
I think we might be going too deeply into this. The 'default' Fedora workstation doesnt need to change. We can still ship GNOME. But for those who like KDE more, they can get it from getfedora.org the same way as those who like fedora server or fedora coreos can...
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:44:51
They are distinct enough to appeal to different users.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
14:44:55
As it is, I already have tentative interest from an external community to join the Fedora Personal Systems WG as soon as it exists.
<@mattdm:fedora.im>
14:44:57
Plus it will destroy my ability to distinguish in stats, unless we introduce `SUBVARIANT` :)
<@dcantrell:fedora.im>
14:45:09
we're saying 2 today, but we talked about this before suddenly you start getting others with the same reasoning and it's hard to say no
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:45:40
dcantrell: Perhaps this is a space where we should consult more with the Fedora Marketing Team, maybe by way of an Initiative.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
14:45:42
We're already in this boat with Fedora Cloud and Fedora CoreOS and Fedora Server.
<@mattdm:fedora.im>
14:45:49
Yeah. But I think it's clear that the level of support and involvement from KDE is higher than anything else -- and that it is quite a bit more popular, too.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:46:03
We are not marketing experts. There are folks in our Marketing Team who have a very good ear for what our community is talking about.
<@dcantrell:fedora.im>
14:46:18
or another idea, just have the download site advertise Fedora Workstation and have mixed screenshots of KDE and GNOME. when the user downloads the image, the download option is randomly selected. they don't get to choose, we give them either KDE or GNOME
<@bookwar:fedora.im>
14:46:55
I want to circle back to the question: Council vote will not automatically make you an edition because you still have work to do for that. Council has stated already that we are not against having a second desktop edition. So do we need any more Council votes now or can we just bless people to do teh work they want to do? :)
<@bookwar:fedora.im>
14:47:10
I want to circle back to the question: Council vote will not automatically make you an edition because you still have work to do for that. Council has stated already that we are not against having a second desktop edition. So do we need any more Council votes now or can we just bless people to do the work they want to do? :)
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
14:47:15
thats why we approved the edit to the editions promotion policy. to give us the flexibility to approve or reject something that falls into this popularity bracket, which KDE does
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
14:47:17
We've already _done_ the work. I need Council to let me call it an Edition.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:47:40
Part of the point we introduced Editions was to have a higher bar than what a Spin had to meet. If we have multiple images that satisfy the policy linked previously, we should vote on that policy. We have to vote using our interpretation of the edition approval policy.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:47:46
It was written for this purpose
<@mattdm:fedora.im>
14:48:00
I know you've done _a lot_ of work, but I don't think that the marketing and presentation problem is solved.
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
14:48:12
this comes after the approval
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
14:48:38
And come on, I just went on the Fedora Podcast last week, which published yesterday
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
14:48:45
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
14:48:45
After the change proposal is approved, the following additional tasks should be completed no later than the Beta freeze, which should be considered the contingency deadline for the change. Note that these tasks should be started as early as possible.
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
14:48:45
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
14:48:45
Provide updated website content. The Edition team should send text, graphics, and screenshots to the Websites & Apps Team as soon as possible to ensure fedoraproject.org will be up-to-date on release day.
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
14:48:45
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
14:48:45
Request design deliverables. If customized graphics for the website, stickers, et cetera are needed, the Edition team should contact the Design Team as soon as possible.
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
14:48:45
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
14:48:45
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
14:48:45
Notify Documentation and Translation teams. The Edition team should let the Documentation team know of any updates or new documentation required. The Edition team should also inform the Translation team of incoming website and documentation updates so they can prepare to translate it in advance of the release.
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
14:48:45
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
14:48:45
Provide marketing blurbs. The Edition team should send basic promotional text to the Marketing and Magazine teams. This will allow the release announcement, et cetera to include meaningful information about the new Edition. The Edition team may consider writing one or several full Fedora Magazine articles in support of the Edition.
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
14:48:45
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
14:48:45
Approval from the Fedora Council. File a ticket and participate in related discussion.
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
14:48:45
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
14:48:45
Review test cases and release criteria with the Quality Team. The Quality Team will draft test cases and release criteria based on the PRD. However, the Edition team must verify that these are valid. The Edition team may choose to assign a person to be the liaison with the Quality Team.
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
14:48:45
Work with Release Engineering. The Edition team should work with release engineering on how they are planning on composing the new edition, release process, mirrors sync locations, any changes needed to koji, bodhi or autosigning.
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
14:48:45
Prior to submitting the Change proposal, the following tasks should be completed:
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
14:48:45
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
14:48:50
I go to conferences, we have people in our community presenting and writing articles
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
14:49:03
what more do you want from us?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
14:49:17
to put it bluntly, we do more than all the _existing_ WGs
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
14:49:18
smack bang in the middle of that is 'After the change proposal is approved'
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:49:50
> After the change proposal is approved, the following additional tasks should be completed no later than the Beta freeze, which should be considered the contingency deadline for the change. Note that these tasks should be started as early as possible.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:49:50
From the policy doc:
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:49:50
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:49:50
>
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:49:50
> * **Request design deliverables**. If customized graphics for the website, stickers, et cetera are needed, the Edition team should contact the Design Team as soon as possible.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:49:50
> * **Provide updated website content**. The Edition team should send text, graphics, and screenshots to the Websites & Apps Team as soon as possible to ensure fedoraproject.org will be up-to-date on release day.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:49:50
> * **Notify Documentation and Translation teams**. The Edition team should let the Documentation team know of any updates or new documentation required. The Edition team should also inform the Translation team of incoming website and documentation updates so they can prepare to translate it in advance of the release.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:49:50
> * **Provide marketing blurbs**. The Edition team should send basic promotional text to the Marketing and Magazine teams. This will allow the release announcement, et cetera to include meaningful information about the new Edition. The Edition team may consider writing one or several full Fedora Magazine articles in support of the Edition.
<@mattdm:fedora.im>
14:49:52
I am okay with that if we make sure to put it in the proposal specifically, and that we make sure it's on track so we don't have a mess in May.
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
14:50:22
yes that makes sense, 100%
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:50:27
This is what we currently gate behind this vote.
<@mattdm:fedora.im>
14:50:30
Conan Kudo: You have absolutely put in a lot of amazing effort. You are awesome and I appreciate it.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:50:35
The Council approval blocks these activities.
<@bookwar:fedora.im>
14:50:50
Conan Kudo: Just to be clear, we are not fighting against you. You basically already got the support. We just planning the logistics.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:50:59
# Time check: 5 minutes to open floor
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
14:51:02
this discussion does not sound like that at all
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
14:51:14
well can we vote then to approve and THEN argue about logistics?
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:51:22
+1
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:51:31
Well, to Aoife
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:51:32
I mean
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:51:39
I think any vote should be taken with this in mind: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/council/policy/edition-promotion-policy/
<@mattdm:fedora.im>
14:51:44
Yeah, I'm okay with that. I'll update the ticket with a note.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:51:54
This is the process we have documented, adopted, and agreed as our process for doing this.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:52:01
So we should only vote with this policy in mind.
<@bookwar:fedora.im>
14:52:05
Aoife Moloney: that is the question I am trying to figure out actually, and yes, the link you posted helps :)
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:52:09
Can we take a quick vote poll please?
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:52:14
I can write a !proposed
<@mattdm:fedora.im>
14:52:54
sure, write it.
<@bookwar:fedora.im>
14:52:59
So, we vote to call the KDE Spin the Edition candidate?
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:53:23
# VOTE: The Fedora Council approves the request of the Fedora KDE Working Group to create a Fedora KDE Edition. This empowers the KDE WG to request design deliverables, provide updates website content, notifying the Docs and Translations teams, and provide marketing blurbs.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:53:25
+1
<@kparal:matrix.org>
14:53:40
sorry, I saw your ping just now. Is it still relevant for me to join this discussion? I can't read all the scrollback in a minute
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
14:53:42
We are the Fedora Personal Systems WG
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:53:43
## VOTE: The Fedora Council approves the request of the Fedora KDE Working Group to create a Fedora KDE Edition. This empowers the KDE WG to request design deliverables, provide updates website content, notifying the Docs and Translations teams, and provide marketing blurbs.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
14:53:49
explicitly not called KDE WG
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
14:54:01
the KDE SIG is _within_ the WG
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:54:06
## VOTE: The Fedora Council approves the request of the Fedora Personal Systems Working Group to create a Fedora KDE Edition. This empowers the Personal Systems WG to request design deliverables, provide updates website content, notifying the Docs and Translations teams, and provide marketing blurbs.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:54:12
### VOTE: The Fedora Council approves the request of the Fedora Personal Systems Working Group to create a Fedora KDE Edition. This empowers the Personal Systems WG to request design deliverables, provide updates website content, notifying the Docs and Translations teams, and provide marketing blurbs.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:54:22
Conan Kudo: Updated the vote, my +1 remains
<@ffmancera:fedora.im>
14:54:24
+1
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
14:54:26
thanks
<@mattdm:fedora.im>
14:54:26
I think creating a Personal Systems WG _without_ the buy-in of Workstation WG members is... hostile.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:54:28
Conan Kudo: Updated the vote text, my +1 remains
<@dcantrell:fedora.im>
14:54:44
quick question, what's KDE?
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:54:50
!group members council
<@dcantrell:fedora.im>
14:54:51
(j/k) +1
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
14:54:51
Members of council: Aoife Moloney, asamalik, Aleksandra Fedorova, bt0dotninja, David Cantrell, FAS Fernando F. Mancera, Jason Brooks, jflory7 (@jflory7:fedora.im, @fca:fedoraproject.org), Jona Azizaj, Matthew Miller, Robert Wright, smeragoel, Akashdeep Dhar
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:55:07
Please cast your votes.
<@jonatoni:fedora.im>
14:55:07
+1
<@mattdm:fedora.im>
14:55:32
Quick tl;dr -- from a Quality Team workload perspective, can we take on KDE Edition.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:55:35
# Time check: 5 minutes before meeting close
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
14:56:11
+1
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:56:34
bookwar, Jason Brooks, mattdm?
<@mattdm:fedora.im>
14:56:39
Justin W. Flory (he/him): I think we need to follow the decision-making process here https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/council/#decisions
<@bookwar:fedora.im>
14:57:00
I am waiting for Kamil to finish typing :)
<@kparal:matrix.org>
14:57:03
mattdm: if the quality bar stays where it is, nothing really changes for us. My concern is/was that KDE will want to up the bar to the Workstation level (because so far, even though both desktops were blocking, we spent more time on GNOME as it was the primary desktop).
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
14:57:46
we are not changing the quality bar
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:57:46
mattdm: What we are doing now does not seem to contradict this?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
14:57:52
it's quite fine where it is
<@mattdm:fedora.im>
14:58:02
I know that seems like more painful slowness, but that's deliberate. We don't want anyone on the Council to feel like they didn't have a chance to share their view, and we don't want anyone at large to feel like the decision is rushed.
<@jbrooks:matrix.org>
14:58:11
+1
<@mattdm:fedora.im>
14:58:32
We need to give time for people not in the meeting to vote.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:58:36
Folks, we only have two minutes, and then we do need to yield to the next meeting in this hour. I am chairing it :P
<@mattdm:fedora.im>
14:58:43
And as a reminder, this is a consensus vote.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:58:50
mattdm: OK. We are not finalizing today. But we are voting for those present.
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
14:58:54
we are +6 (including Justin)
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:58:56
Time starts… now ⏲️
<@mattdm:fedora.im>
14:59:13
Hmm, this is more than a two-minute conversation, but I think we _should_ have the same high bar for both.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
14:59:18
what does that mean? and where is this stated?
<@mattdm:fedora.im>
14:59:30
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/council/#decisions
<@bookwar:fedora.im>
14:59:33
Aoife Moloney: +1 from me too
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
14:59:46
+7 then :)
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:59:52
(Aside, we need to amend the decision-making policy to timebox our full consensus decisions)
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:00:03
2025 problems :P
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
15:00:12
Conan Kudo: mattdm is probably referring to this part of the decision making process
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
15:00:13
More significant decisions are made through a process of full consensus. In order to pass, these decisions need three positive votes (+3) and no negative votes (-1). A negative vote immediately halts the process and requires discussion. Therefore, in order to remain valid, negative votes must be supported with a specific concerns about the proposal, and suggestions for what could be changed in order to make the proposal acceptable. A vote of “0” is sometimes used to indicate a disagreement but willingness to stand aside; this should also be accompanied with an explanation.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:00:19
mattdm: I am going to mark you as +0 without a vote.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:00:22
We are at time.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
15:00:32
the main difference is we have some apps explicitly excluded from blocking status (merely FE status)... some games and such... most of the other things that fell under this bucket have been stripped from the image over the years
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
15:00:33
We probably consider this a 'significant decision' :D
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:00:43
!agreed +7/1/-0 VOTE: The Fedora Council approves the request of the Fedora Personal Systems Working Group to create a Fedora KDE Edition. This empowers the Personal Systems WG to request design deliverables, provide updates website content, notifying the Docs and Translations teams, and provide marketing blurbs
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:00:52
Thanks folks for being here.
<@bookwar:fedora.im>
15:00:56
Kamil Páral: What I am understood is that we keep the quality requirements. But it may need more work from the new edition to get into tracking/debugging and dealing with release blockers. Fedora QA folks may have less possibilities to dive deeper into the cases than they currently do on Gnome variant.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:01:02
mattdm: You can amend your vote in the ticket 👍️
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:01:05
!endmeeting