<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:02:48
!startmeeting Fedora Council - 2025-03-26
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
15:02:49
Meeting started at 2025-03-26 15:02:48 UTC
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
15:02:49
The Meeting name is 'Fedora Council - 2025-03-26'
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:02:52
!meetingname council
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
15:02:53
The Meeting Name is now council
<@mattdm:fedora.im>
15:03:09
Hi!
<@mattdm:fedora.im>
15:03:13
I am joining this meeting from the MBTA
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:03:22
public_transit++
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
15:03:24
Sorry, but Fedora Accounts user 'public_transit' does not exist
<@jonatoni:fedora.im>
15:03:30
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
15:03:31
Jona Azizaj (jonatoni) - she / her / hers
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:03:32
!topic Roll call & welcomes
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:03:34
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
15:03:35
Justin W. Wheeler (jflory7) - he / him / his
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
15:04:03
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
15:04:04
Aoife Moloney (amoloney)
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:04:09
Good morning, good afternoon, good evening!
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:04:19
I confess that I have not checked what the agenda is for today.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:04:24
Although I do remember there is an agenda.
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
15:04:37
yes there is, I have it under control :)
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:04:51
OK, I'll let you be in the driver's seat today then 🙂
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:05:15
!info Present: @jflory7, @mattdm, @jonatoni, @amoloney
<@bookwar:fedora.im>
15:06:17
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
15:06:18
Aleksandra Fedorova (bookwar) - she / her / hers
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:06:33
!info +Present: @bookwar
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
15:06:48
K we can kick on
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
15:06:56
!topic Agenda
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
15:08:18
!info Today's agenda will cover ticket #502 which requires council votes, follow ups on Konflux and Git Forge (where appropriate), and a discussion on the recent community initiative - GitOps for Fedora Packaging
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
15:08:31
!topic Council Vote Required
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
15:08:38
!link https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/502
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:09:14
!link https://pagure.io/fork/misc/Fedora-Council/council-docs/blob/1a958b3861e2ca89c379a86425554bab3ccf7cf3/f/council/modules/ROOT/pages/policy/event-location-policy.adoc
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
15:09:21
This proposal is passed the feedback timeframe. Suggestions have been incorporated into the docs, so can council members please vote on this by the end of this week to either pass or reject it
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:09:54
ACK
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:10:20
`* placeholder criteria (to be added later)`
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:10:25
Is that supposed to be in the policy draft?
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
15:11:25
yes, at the hackfest it was agreed to propose the draft, with that section coming later when the policy beds in and what kind of criteria we need becomes more clearer
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:11:57
ACK
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:12:05
`Criteria Addition Process` seems like the heart of the current draft
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:12:14
i.e. these are things we should include in the Flock location planning process
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:12:27
I think we have workshopped it for quite a while, and I am happy with it
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:12:28
+1 from me
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:12:33
I'll put that in the ticket and the PR
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
15:12:49
this is a formal vote to approve this policy
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:13:22
Voted ✅️
<@mattdm:fedora.im>
15:13:23
+1 here and in the ticket
<@jonatoni:fedora.im>
15:13:25
+1
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
15:13:44
thank you, please make sure you record your votes in the ticket by the end of the week
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:14:04
Can also ACK the PR: https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/council-docs/pull-request/234#
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:14:06
Can also ACK the PR: https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/council-docs/pull-request/234
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
15:14:14
!action all council members to record their votes in this ticket by end of their respective day on March 28th
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:14:27
Aye aye.
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
15:14:30
!topic Follow ups
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
15:15:11
!info Git forge work is progressing well with an additional open meeting now set for Wednesday @ 10am UTC to accomodate more APAC contributors
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
15:16:10
Do we want to talk more about the Konflux discussion last meeting, or skip? Im not sure how useful it would be today and @bookwar has a discussion topic, plus I have something we need to find an owner for
<@bookwar:fedora.im>
15:17:37
I don't think there is something actionable to discuss on Konflux atm
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:17:43
I don't have a lot of context on the last Konflux discussion, so it will be like starting new for me
<@jonatoni:fedora.im>
15:17:48
+1 to skip it
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:17:50
I don't know if I can make a meaningful contribution there today
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:17:52
+1 to skip
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
15:18:18
!info Skipping discussions on Konflux today as there is not enough to talk about to make the conversation meaningful
<@mattdm:fedora.im>
15:18:21
Afk for a few minutes
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
15:18:50
!topic Community initiative Proposal - GitOps for Fedora Packaging
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
15:18:53
!link https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/rfc-new-community-initiative-gitops-for-fedora-packaging/146990
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:19:01
Ooohhhhh
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:19:05
A new Initiative proposal
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
15:19:22
bookwar: you have the mic it as this is something your proposing :)
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
15:19:30
bookwar: you have the mic as this is something your proposing :)
<@bookwar:fedora.im>
15:20:02
This is not new, rather it is a next step for the initiative - to write everything we discussed at the hackfest
<@bookwar:fedora.im>
15:20:24
I did the job of putting the thing in a document, and I think the document is as complete as I can get now.
<@bookwar:fedora.im>
15:21:03
So the main question is - what is next? Can we approve at as an initiative, and how do we get the work going, mainly someone from CLE working with me.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:21:31
This looks like some of the most important part of the proposal
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:21:41
A big goal for Flock!
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:21:46
Seems ambitious, but I like it.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:21:48
Is it realistic?
<@bookwar:fedora.im>
15:21:59
So maybe the question number one - do we need more time for Council members to become familiar with the proposal?
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
15:22:04
Has this been discussed with anyone from CLE? Or is this something you would need council support and/or driving this to gain support?
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
15:22:34
I would def need more time to read it, but I would like to try to support this so knowing what you need from us outside of acceptance would be helpful too
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:22:36
The theory behind the proposal looks nice and makes sense to me, but I don't feel like I am the right subject-matter expert to review.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:22:44
I would really like dcantrell's perspective as the engineering rep.
<@bookwar:fedora.im>
15:22:49
If mattdm counts as "Anyone from CLE" then yes :)
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
15:23:05
So is mattdm deploying this? :D
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:23:07
Who is the current lead maintainer of Bodhi?
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:23:10
Is that Aurelien?
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:23:25
Seems to me like we need a Bodhi stakeholder here
<@mattdm:fedora.im>
15:23:32
Yeah, plan is to come to CLE with "we need resources"
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
15:23:49
Mattia Verga is one of the lead Bodhi maintianers as well, if not the main maintainer
<@bookwar:fedora.im>
15:23:50
I think I need to make one point clear: I am not proposing to deprecate Bodhi interface. I am proposing to add a new interface, and run it side by side.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:23:51
Although the proposal seems to be largely about GitOps, when I read it, it feels more like implementing Bodhi CI into Forgejo
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:24:02
I wonder if the title of the proposal is not as clear as it could be
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
15:24:12
this makes a big difference
<@mattdm:fedora.im>
15:24:23
I can see bodhi becoming a lightweight does-one-job app — collect user feedback on updates
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:24:30
Converting the entire packaging workflow to GitOps workflow seems like a huge ambition, and I'm not sure I see that represented in the existing proposal
<@bookwar:fedora.im>
15:24:33
Evaluating the differences between new interface and Bodhi and actual deciding of in what form and how the Bodhi interface could be the phase 2 of the project
<@bookwar:fedora.im>
15:24:38
But not necessarily
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:24:43
I just see Bodhi updates integrated into dist-git, which seems much more narrow
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:24:47
Is my interpretation correct?
<@bookwar:fedora.im>
15:25:02
Evaluating the differences between new interface and Bodhi and actual deciding of in what form and how the Bodhi interface should work in the future could be the phase 2 of the project
<@mattdm:fedora.im>
15:25:07
Justin — that is correct and intentional
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:25:22
OK. Well, I am -1 to the name of the proposal, but +1 to the proposal content itself.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:25:31
I think the name really needs to narrow down into exactly what is being worked on
<@bookwar:fedora.im>
15:25:48
`dist-git` - is a git reposirtoy of rpm-spec files. This proposal introduces `compose-git` - repository which describes the content of the distribution
<@mattdm:fedora.im>
15:25:54
Proposal?
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:25:54
I don't have a helpful suggestion at the top of my mind, but if we can avoid jargon, I like that best 🙂
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:26:02
jargon meaning, GitOps, to be clear
<@mattdm:fedora.im>
15:26:22
GitOps for package updates?
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:26:28
"Community Initiative to Integrate Automatic Bodhi Updates for dist-git PRs"
<@bookwar:fedora.im>
15:27:04
The narrow scope part is "Phase 1: Represent a Bodhi update as a Pull request to a Git repository"
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:27:20
We name Bodhi and Dist-git in the title, which very clearly names the exact components in scope of the Initiative
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:27:30
I guess I want an Initiative title that uses "Bodhi" and "dist-git" in the name
<@bookwar:fedora.im>
15:27:32
Bodhi and dist-git concepts are too specific for a community initiative title, I think.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:27:41
But I think that is what the community will recognize
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:27:48
GitOps for packaging updates seems extremely vague to me
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:27:54
And will mean different things to different people
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:28:14
I recall a reaction Neal had once to GitOps for package updates, I can't remember if that was in the Discussion topic itself for this Initiative
<@mattdm:fedora.im>
15:28:18
GitOps for packaging is the bigger goal
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:28:37
"GitOps for Packaging, Phase 1: Bodhi and Dist-git Integration"
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:29:10
If we are not touching things like Koji and Jenkins and Bugzilla, then we should name the more specific tools being touched by this proposal IMHO
<@bookwar:fedora.im>
15:29:20
It is the same as having "Git Forge" a community initiative, isn't it?
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:29:37
Git forge is a tangible thing, GitOps is a theory
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:29:45
Or practice/methodology
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:30:00
There is more or less a single, narrow definition of what a git forge is
<@bookwar:fedora.im>
15:30:01
Eventually we may touch everything. In phase 1 we don't touch anything.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:30:23
But this proposal, as it stands now, is not touching anything but Bodhi and Dist-git, right?
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:30:27
Do I understand this correctly?
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:30:46
Proposal == entire Community Initiative text drafted in Fedora Discussion
<@bookwar:fedora.im>
15:31:08
Yes, but the reasons why we do phase 1, is so that it provides the exploratory phase for the global change.
<@mattdm:fedora.im>
15:31:15
I guess the fundamental question is: are we approving Phase One as an initiative, or are we approving Larger Concept in Theory which currently only has a Phase One
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:31:26
I think this question touches on my confusion here
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
15:31:32
fly on the wall: i really like the idea behind this! Excited to see where it can go
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:31:49
I would prefer only Phase One as an Initiative, because we don't have the Larger Concept in Theory in writing yet
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:31:58
And I don't think we _should_ write the larger concept into something concrete yet
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:32:05
I mean, good to talk about it, yes
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:32:09
But we don't need to define the details yet
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:32:41
To be clear, despite my hesitation on naming, I am excited by this too.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:32:58
I want this effort and Initiative to succeed, I just want to be mindful of how we communicate this work over time.
<@bookwar:fedora.im>
15:33:23
We need both concepts. Because the reason why we need phase 1 is the global vision. But essentially it is a given that at the end of teh phase 1 we evaluate the state and we do not automatically proceed to phase 2 which is not even defined yet.
<@mattdm:fedora.im>
15:33:33
My heart leans towards "bigger concept, but going with the more specific smaller one seems like a decent experiment in our "do initiatives better" goal
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:33:44
Yes.
<@bookwar:fedora.im>
15:33:49
SO if Council wants to vote on Phase 1 - that's fine, but I still need a place where the grand vision is also being discussed
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:34:06
The grand vision feels like something that _should_ be part of Phase 1
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:34:21
Like, talking about it, posting on Devel, moderating Discussion topics, that is all very real work that takes time and effort.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:34:26
This kind of comms work seems apt for Phase 1
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:34:36
Maybe we should incorporate some deliberate comms milestones into the proposal too.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:34:48
So we make sure we are communicating the big picture details to people, as the Bodhi/dist-git work moves forward
<@mattdm:fedora.im>
15:35:00
I kind of think "get something concrete" is important _before_ the big talks
<@mattdm:fedora.im>
15:35:25
Otherwise it gets lost in opinions and theory and seems impossible to
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:35:35
Then let's map out the comms work and what should happen when and where
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:35:46
Because it is also not a good idea to wait until the work is done to start talking about it
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:36:08
Needs balance with getting stuff done and making sure we are communicating early and often
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:36:19
I think the resolution I want is some specific communications goals/milestones in the proposal
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:36:22
Because I don't see that now
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:36:42
How can the Fedora Marketing team be an ally for this effort? Can we promote certain updates on social media? I do see a Magazine post mentioned, but not much more than that.
<@mattdm:fedora.im>
15:37:06
Can you give an example of what those milestones might look like?
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
15:38:06
I think one thing I'm not really seeing specifically is what problems were specifically trying to solve. That might help identify the milestones?
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:38:50
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:38:50
- ✅️ (Distro DevRoom would be _awesome_)
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:38:50
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:38:50
February, FOSDEM 2026 - Collect feedback, present the result, and propose next steps at CentOS Connect or Distribution Devroom.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:38:50
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:38:50
- ✅️
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:38:50
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:38:50
August 15, 2025 - Announce the work on Fedora Magazine and start the feedback gathering
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:38:50
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:38:50
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:38:50
Apr 1, 2025 - Get the approval for the initiative
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:38:50
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:38:50
- Announce on Community Blog
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:38:50
- Set up an issue tracker / feedback location for planning the work
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:38:50
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:38:50
Apr 10, 2025 - Get the people and access to the infrastructure resources for them
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:38:50
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:38:50
- Post to devel@ or devel-announce@ to recruit volunteers
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:38:50
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:38:50
May 1, 2025 - Run the initial implementation of the service reading Bodhi messages
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:38:50
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:38:50
- Probably devel@ post is enough
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:38:50
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:38:50
June 1, 2025 - Implement Open PR/Merge PR functionality by Flock
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:38:50
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:38:50
- Speak about it at Flock? Work on it at Flock?
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:38:50
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:38:50
July 1, 2025 - Add the Update the PR with karma votes and comments and CI results
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:38:50
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:38:50
- Test Day? Inviting people to test or participate in the early functionality?
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:38:50
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:38:50
August 1, 2025 - Add tags for some of the composes.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:38:50
- ??
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
15:39:18
sorry i said I was a fly on the wall and then started buzzing really loud 😃
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:39:46
I do feel like this is aptly explained here? https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/rfc-new-community-initiative-gitops-for-fedora-packaging/146990#p-388205-why-6
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:40:00
a Git Forge user can watch the state of a pull request and get notifications about it
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:40:00
downstream consumers of Fedora packages will be able to setup their own actions on the changes in the state of the repository.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:40:00
a Git user can compare the states of the distribution and easily get a diff between the branches or list of changes landing into a distribution in a last week.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:40:00
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:40:09
- a Git Forge user can watch the state of a pull request and get notifications about it
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:40:09
- a Git user can compare the states of the distribution and easily get a diff between the branches or list of changes landing into a distribution in a last week.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:40:09
- downstream consumers of Fedora packages will be able to setup their own actions on the changes in the state of the repository.
<@bookwar:fedora.im>
15:41:01
I can add this, but I was laos assuming that some of those steps are included in "Approve as a COmmunity Initiative" kind of process
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:41:03
I could be wrong, as a packager of something that was originally written in the 1970s 😛
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:41:44
bookwar: I missed the Council Hackfest discussion about Initiatives, so I am lacking context. But in the scope of achieveable and more realistic Initiatives, I think we need to make sure communication work is planned and prepared up front
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:41:57
In my reflection from Mentored Projects and CommOps, I wish we had done that better
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:42:15
The more we talked about those efforts and communicated about them, I also found more help and people ready to climb aboard
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:42:23
Neil Hanlon being one of those for CommOps 😛
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
15:42:34
I think it does, but in a roundabout way. It answers why and tells me what I'll be able to do, but not why I'd want to do it.
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
15:42:34
To your point, we've got a lot of packages and things that _are_ old and not really moving, along with some stuff that is. I think if there's a strong problem statement that folks can get behind, it may help show the overall vision
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
15:42:34
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:42:54
Hmm, that is fair feedback
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
15:44:03
So I like the idea of not replacing workflow, but offering an alternative for phase 1 as a potentially better way to do packaging long term. So I am +1 to supporting that investigation. What happens after the other workflow is in place? How will we (Fedora project) know that this alternative is the right choice long term? So I am fine backing this initiative as it is, and would love to come back to this decision after the git based workflow is available and in use
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:44:10
I feel like I am taking up a lot of the oxygen, so I am going to step back and let others weigh in.
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
15:44:18
(same)
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:46:02
🦗🦗
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
15:46:20
we took all the O2 and everyone passed out ☹️
<@mattdm:fedora.im>
15:47:07
I want to find the right balance here between "support" and "require more paperwork"
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
15:48:09
Yeah, i wanted to also say the RFC as written is really great as it is
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
15:48:11
Heres my proposal: Council will need some additional time to review this proposal, but do support the investigation into an alternative git-based workflow for packaging. We will make a formal decision on this at the next council meeting on April 9th and engage with the proposers for additional context in the discussion thread in the meantime
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
15:48:33
Yeah, i wanted to also say the RFC as written is really great
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:48:53
The technical work is sound to me, but the missing comms pieces sticks out like a sore thumb to me, especially since we have discussed that there is a grand vision that we do want to articulate and share.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:49:16
Without that, unfortunately I am -1. But I don't think it will be very hard to change my vote, I just want some details about how/when communication about changes will happen
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:49:58
Although we are not officially voting now, my vote will not change on April 9th without this represented in the timeline somehow.
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
15:50:32
Proposal with edits: Council will need some additional time to review this proposal, but do support the investigation into an alternative git-based workflow for packaging, however we are reluctant to approve it yet without a clearer understanding of the 'grand end goal' of this work and need more communication milestones to exist as part of the proposal. We will make a formal decision on this at the next council meeting on April 9th and engage with the proposers for additional context in the discussion thread in the meantime
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:50:42
+1
<@jonatoni:fedora.im>
15:51:47
+1
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:52:03
bookwar, mattdm?
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:52:13
I am aware Aoife wanted to find an owner for something too
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:52:20
And we have eight minutes left 😉
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
15:52:40
!agreed Council will need some additional time to review this proposal, but do support the investigation into an alternative git-based workflow for packaging, however we are reluctant to approve it yet without a clearer understanding of the 'grand end goal' of this work and need more communication milestones to exist as part of the proposal. We will make a formal decision on this at the next council meeting on April 9th and engage with the proposers for additional context in the discussion thread in the meantime
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
15:52:50
Time is of the essence :p
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:52:58
Yeah, let's just keep going
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
15:53:33
!topic Owner required to draft Fedora Councils Statement to conclude the proven packager incident of Dec 2024
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
15:53:45
Who wants to take that one?? :)
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:54:09
I feel like ffmancera was doing really excellent work here, but I am aware he is deep in Mentored Projects right now and also is not officially part of Council anymore…
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
15:54:33
It will probably need to be me, mattdm or dcantrell
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:54:34
Unfortunately, I know I don't have bandwidth for this right now 😕
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
15:54:37
Fernando is not council
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:54:40
Happy to be a reviewer, though
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
15:55:33
it will be all council members responsibility to review this statement before we publish it, and I think we can offer a review to Peter Robinson and members of FESCo too before it becomes public
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:55:41
Good idea
<@mattdm:fedora.im>
15:55:48
I also don't feel like I have bandwidth.... but who does?
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
15:55:55
I can do it
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
15:56:08
Ill likely rope dcantrell in too :)
<@mattdm:fedora.im>
15:56:10
Awesome
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:56:14
As you should 😉
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:56:16
Thanks Aoife.
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
15:57:29
!action @amoloney to draft the councils statement on the proven packager incident and share it with Fedora council, FESCo and Peter Robinson for review before we publish it. The draft will be ready to be approved by next council meeting, April 9th
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
15:57:36
thats all I had
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
15:57:41
any last minute items?
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:57:52
Hmmm… nothing from me
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:57:56
Other than, I missed y'all 🙂
<@mattdm:fedora.im>
15:58:25
My lunch is here now. Will grab that and find somewhere for the Flock call
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:58:43
I'll drop here too to prep for aforementioned Flock call 🙂
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:58:48
Thanks Aoife for chairing!
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
15:59:00
No problem, welcome back Justin!
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
15:59:03
!endmeeting