<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:01:41
!startmeeting Fedora Council - 2026-01-14
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
15:01:42
Meeting started at 2026-01-14 15:01:41 UTC
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
15:01:43
The Meeting name is 'Fedora Council - 2026-01-14'
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:01:46
!meetingname council
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
15:01:47
The Meeting Name is now council
<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>
15:01:49
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
15:01:51
Akashdeep Dhar (t0xic0der) - he / him / his
<@nimbinatus:matrix.org>
15:01:53
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
15:01:56
Laura Santamaria (nimbinatus) - she / her / hers
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:01:58
!group members council
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
15:02:00
Members of council: Aoife Moloney, Aleksandra Fedorova, Miro HronΔok, Dave Cantrell, jflory7 (@jflory7:fedora.im, @fca:fedoraproject.org), Jona Azizaj, Jef Spaleta, Laura Santamaria, Petr BokoΔ, pboy, Ryan Lerch, Akashdeep Dhar
<@jonatoni:fedora.im>
15:02:05
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
15:02:08
Jona Azizaj (jonatoni) - she / her / hers
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:02:08
!topic Intros, welcomes, hellos
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:02:13
!info Welcome to another Fedora Council meeting! If you are present and intend to follow along with today's meeting, please identify yourself by typing `!hi` in the chat. Council members in attendance will have their attendance noted before moving to the agenda.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:02:17
Hello, folks!
<@dcantrell:fedora.im>
15:02:22
!hi
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:02:23
Good morning, good afternoon, good evening.
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
15:02:24
Dave Cantrell (dcantrell) - he / him / his
<@jonatoni:fedora.im>
15:02:29
Hello π
<@pboy:fedora.im>
15:02:31
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
15:02:33
Peter Boy (pboy)
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:02:33
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
15:02:35
Justin Wheeler (jflory7) - he / him / his
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:02:54
Six folks on time, not bad π
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:03:12
We are halfway through the first month of the new year!
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:03:17
I hope it has been a good one for folks so far.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:03:23
So, we do have a bit of an agenda triaged for today.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:03:29
You may have seen it on the Wiki already.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:03:34
It will be a packed agenda, I suspect!
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:03:45
!hi
<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>
15:03:45
Thanks the pat on the back ;P
<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>
15:03:45
I should be away from the desk on account for *Makar Sankranti*
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:03:46
So, I think this is appropriate quorum to start driving.
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
15:03:49
Miro HronΔok (churchyard) - he / him / his or they / them / theirs
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:03:54
Hi Miro!
<@jspaleta:fedora.im>
15:03:56
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
15:03:59
Jef Spaleta (jspaleta) - he / him / his
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:04:46
!info Council members present: @jflory7, @t0xic0der, @nimbinatus, @jonatoni, @dcantrell, @pboy, @churchyard, @jspaleta
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:04:53
Great quorum, actually π
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:05:03
!topic Meeting Agenda
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:05:07
!link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Council_Meetings#Next_Meeting_Agenda
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:05:43
!topic #555: Council Strategy Summit 2026 β 2-6 February 2026 β Tirana, Albania
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:05:55
!link https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/555
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:06:00
Folks! This should be a quick update.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:06:06
We are rapidly approaching the Strategy Summit!
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:06:14
You all should have booked your travel and hotels by now.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:06:34
Jona Azizaj (she/her): I don't know if you have any fast updates on hotel? Or if we should hold out with the alternate plan we have with Tirana Marriott.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:06:48
mhroncok: I'm sorry we will be missing you in-person π«
<@jonatoni:fedora.im>
15:07:00
Justin Wheeler: we will keep Marriott
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:07:17
thanks for updating the wiki
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:07:34
Akashdeep Dhar, ryanlerch, nimbinatus, mhroncok: We will be prioritizing the remote participation this year. I am playing with some hardware on my desk now to try and make this effective. I hope you will be able to dial in and join us when you can!
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:07:48
If you have time zone preferences, I highly encourage that you note them in the Wiki, as nimbinatus has done.
<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>
15:07:50
Thanks, that helps!
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:07:55
bookwar: Everything good with your flight?
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:08:01
I plan joining remotely as much as possible
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:08:24
I think Petr Bokoc is also booked on airfare, but I forget if we confirmed it specifically or not.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:08:49
Jef Spaleta and I are meeting later this US afternoon to continue narrowing down the agenda. No major topic shifts, just refining what is there.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:08:53
But I do have some asks to make of folks.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:09:10
!link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Council/2026_Strategy_Summit#Schedule
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:09:17
The schedule is becoming more complete, organized, and thorough
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:09:39
dcantrell: Could I ask you to take leadership on the Flatpak/Flathub conversation together with Jef Spaleta?
<@dcantrell:fedora.im>
15:10:02
yes? I will reach out to Jef
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:10:09
bookwar: Could I ask you to take a leadership role on the Konflux conversation together with Jef Spaleta, particularly as it interacts with git forge?
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:10:52
dcantrell: Sorry if this seems abrupt, but really just trying to surface what the pain points we'd like to get through together as a Council in the Summit. I'm not asking for a big, detailed thing in 15 days, but I trust you and Jef to be able to articulate our challenges and what can unblock us on this shift we are seeing.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:11:05
bookwar may not be here today, so I can follow up offline with her later.
<@dcantrell:fedora.im>
15:11:23
sure, that's fine. Jef and I have been talking about the topic, so I will work with him on that item for the summit
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:11:24
Jona Azizaj (she/her): You and I can coordinate on the lunch planning and the Wednesday evening dinner plan
<@bookwar:fedora.im>
15:11:42
Sorry folks, I am in but partially
<@bookwar:fedora.im>
15:11:48
Let me check the logs..
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:12:25
OK, understood! So, all Red Hat travelers should have an Egencia booking at the Tirana Marriott for the days of travel. Jef Spaleta, bookwar, dcantrell, Petr Bokoc, jednorozec
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:12:53
bookwar: Let's follow up offline together with Jef on the idea of scoping the Konflux topic for the Summit.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:13:01
OK, so, those are the formal updates!
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:13:03
Anyone have questions?
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:13:05
Comments?
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:13:08
Concerns? π
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:13:47
!info The hotel for the Council Strategy Summit is the Tirana Marriott. All Red Hat employees should have a booking made in Egencia for the days of travel. Non-Red Hatters must work with Justin on the hotel arrangements.
<@bookwar:fedora.im>
15:14:02
Thanks Justin. I will be making the final decision on remote vs in person on Monday after FOSDEM based on my health situation, but I am preparing to travel currently.
<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>
15:14:10
I went ahead and added my timezone preference onto the sheet. Thanks!
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:14:19
!info Remote participation will be prioritized this year. Remote participants are encouraged to put their time zone availability on the Fedora Wiki page to prioritize remote engagement times.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:14:49
!info All airfare should be booked by now. Work with Justin if you have not yet booked roundtrip travel to Tirana.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:15:12
bookwar: Oh no, I hope all is well π« Keep us posted and if we can do anything to help.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:15:20
Thank you, sir!
<@bookwar:fedora.im>
15:15:38
It is well now, my main worry is FOSDEM flu which I always get :)
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:16:01
!halp @dcantrell and @jspaleta to collaborate on the Flatpak/Flathub topic priorities for Council Strategy Summit
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:16:18
!halp @bookwar and @jspaleta to discuss more about Konflux and git forge integration for Council Strategy Summit
<@nimbinatus:matrix.org>
15:16:38
Just a quick note that I noted preferences based on UTC+1 (afternoons are really my mornings)
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:16:47
!action @jflory7 Work with @bookwar to confirm travel/airfare plans
<@nimbinatus:matrix.org>
15:16:48
Just wanted that to be clear
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:16:59
nimbinatus: Understood, and made sense to me for the local time!
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:17:07
Last call for Strategy Summit topics?
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:17:20
## Strategy Summit, going onceβ¦
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:17:34
## Strategy Summit, going twiceβ¦
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:18:01
## Strategy Summit, going thriceβ¦
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:18:15
πͺ
<@nimbinatus:matrix.org>
15:18:17
lol I still notice people typing
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:18:22
Throwing the boomerang, it will come back eventually π
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:18:31
nimbinatus: Sometimes I find the Matrix typing indicators are unreliable!
<@jspaleta:fedora.im>
15:18:33
im always typing
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:18:43
I have had folks say they aren't typing when Matrix says they are
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:18:47
But maybe Jef Spaleta has a speech π
<@nimbinatus:matrix.org>
15:18:49
it's just a keyboard bird :p
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:18:56
He can save it for the next ticket π We have a full agenda!
<@jspaleta:fedora.im>
15:19:14
no i can talk with dcantrell outside the meeting
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:19:15
!topic #452 Proposal: Mailing list retirement plan
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:19:25
!link https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/452
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:19:45
!link https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/fedora-council-tickets-ticket-452-proposal-mailing-list-retirement-plan/82079/21
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:19:51
So, this may not require much _discussion_ right now
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:19:55
But we can, if there are questions
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:20:06
mhroncok: FWIW, as I was looking back at this ticket, I realized the same thing.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:20:19
The original context was that it came to FESCo, and then it was redirected to Council
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:20:29
But honestly, this is a Fedora Infrastructure policy
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:20:41
So, the new draft I wrote was with it becoming a Fedora Infrastructure SOP or the like
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:20:53
And then handing over to the Fedora Infrastructure team if they will run with that
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:21:10
Honestly, I am not sure why it is something we are doing, but we have been kicking around a policy draft for 2-3 years now π
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:21:30
Anyways, we can take questions and discussion if there are any. But otherwise, I wanted to call out the ask for eyes and participation on the Discussion topic
<@nimbinatus:matrix.org>
15:22:01
So, forgive me as I'm still reading the Discussion topic, but this seems to touch on a larger aspect of governance than the infrastructure question.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:22:01
!action @council Review Ticket #452 proposal and add comments/thoughts to help drive this ticket discussion to a close on mailing list retirement/archival
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:22:11
nimbinatus: Oh?
<@nimbinatus:matrix.org>
15:22:22
When does a group become inactive?
<@nimbinatus:matrix.org>
15:22:35
and what's the policy around that, beyond just their mailing list
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:22:37
A mailing list per this policy, or like, ever? π
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:22:46
Heh, this is an undocumented question
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:22:55
And probably ties into a lot of our contributor metrics conversations, actually
<@nimbinatus:matrix.org>
15:23:34
Maybe! I'd just say that an inactive mailing list is symptomatic of a larger problem
<@nimbinatus:matrix.org>
15:23:46
and that is the group that was using said mailing list is no longer active
<@nimbinatus:matrix.org>
15:24:31
so archiving a mailing list doesn't address whether the group's presence overall is still active. Does that make sense?
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:24:59
nimbinatus: So, I think for the purpose of _this ticket_, the ask is really about mailing lists only. It is a fervent topic because of the slow march to Discussion we have been doing. That's why the first version of a draft I gave was way more hardcore on ending mailing lists. My latest draft is softcore π And just focuses on clear metrics of inactivity and how to confirm
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:25:07
Since the old mailing lists do have a footprint on resources and spam
<@nimbinatus:matrix.org>
15:25:16
Fair enough
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:25:24
I think the wider conversation about engagement and healthy measures for this will be a Strategy Summit topic
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:25:26
A major one, actually
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:25:31
It is already in the agenda π
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:25:40
!link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Council/2026_Strategy_Summit#2._Initiatives_&_Engagement_Metrics
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:26:12
For me, if this is not controversial, I'd like general feelings on the draft I put forward
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:26:18
If we like it, I'll put the draft text on Pagure
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:26:34
Then we can officially do a ticket vote and try to close this out after three years, with some coordination with CLE/Infrastructure
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:26:40
Any other questions here?
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:26:43
We have the spicy topic next
<@bookwar:fedora.im>
15:26:49
I am sorry to be that person, but it is controversial to me :)
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:27:14
bookwar: Heheh. Is it okay if we discuss this async in the Fedora Discussion topic? I'd be happy to hear your inputs
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:27:20
And this ticket is not urgent
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:27:32
But I was trying to blow off dust on old bones in our ticket queue
<@bookwar:fedora.im>
15:27:44
I believe that clear definition of the contributor is one of these questions where having an answer is actually worse than not having it.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:28:20
Now, this is a topic I could totally debate, if we are looking beyond mailing lists here π
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:28:28
But I will save it for the Strategy Summit
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:28:36
Because I know we are going to talk a lot about engagement measurements there
<@bookwar:fedora.im>
15:29:02
Right, scoped to mailing lists discussion, I don't have anything, we can move on :)
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:29:07
ACK.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:29:46
!info The topic of how to measure contributions and whether someone is a contributor came up, which is a much larger topic than just about archiving old mailing lists. We expect intense discussion around measuring engagement in a few weeks during the Fedora Council Strategy Summit!
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:30:20
!info For now, the main priority for this ticket is identifying an Infrastructure SOP/policy that we can "handover" to the likes of Fedora Infrastructure & Red Hat Community Linux Engineering to implement.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:30:23
Moving forward!
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:30:27
Here comes the πΆοΈ
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:30:41
!topic #557: Guidance necessary: Join SIG and temporary memberships for the sole purpose of voting in FESCo election
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:30:49
!link https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/557
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:30:58
!link https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/fedora-council-tickets-ticket-557-guidance-necessary-join-sig-and-temporary-memberships-for-the-sole-purpose-of-voting-in-fesco-election/179126
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:31:10
OK. This is a long one. I had slow mode turned on until today, when we could discuss it officially.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:31:16
I confess I still have not had a deep dive here.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:31:20
But the concern is about elections.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:31:28
And the requirements to be a voting Fedora contributor.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:31:34
A familiar theme here: what is or is not a contributor?
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:31:39
And what earns the privilege to vote?
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:31:46
What does FPCA+1 _even mean_ in 2026? π
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:31:55
This is the heart of the issue.
<@nimbinatus:matrix.org>
15:31:55
Well, wait, this is more about confusion on who gets to vote where, I think
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:32:12
nimbinatus: Another way of saying the same thing, right? Or no?
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:32:27
Or maybe you were just more articulate π
<@nimbinatus:matrix.org>
15:32:27
I don't think people were arguing about what counts as a contribution
<@nimbinatus:matrix.org>
15:32:46
I think people were confused as to which contributions merit voting in FESCo
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:32:51
Hmm. Well, I think that was a _part_ but not the whole
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:33:31
I think there were also some weird feelings for folks, because on the surface level, someone asked to become a voter and was given temporary basis to cast a vote in the election.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:33:38
And a whole slew of other things followed.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:33:42
It got a bit heated!
<@bookwar:fedora.im>
15:33:55
It is connected. We try to build some, not very strong, but still barrier for FESCo election, so we actually hear from teh community and not vulnerable to things like "Reddit folks decided to turn Fedora upside down". ANd part of this is what is the good definition for the barrier.
<@dcantrell:fedora.im>
15:34:10
(brb...nature calls)
<@bookwar:fedora.im>
15:34:13
It is connected. We try to build some, not very strong, but still barrier for FESCo election, so we actually hear from the community and are not vulnerable to things like "Reddit folks decided to turn Fedora upside down". ANd part of this is what is the good definition for the barrier.
<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>
15:34:18
What counts as a contribution is kinda the foundational question to this.
<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>
15:34:18
A more direct question would be - how do you know when to give someone an access to vote? i.e. When they ask for how they can or when we know they can etc.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:34:20
I see Jef Spaleta is engaged on the Discussion topic
<@nimbinatus:matrix.org>
15:34:58
Right. I'm saying that I didn't see anyone saying that "someone is not a contributor if they help with the forum." It was definitely more about which contributors vote in FESCo
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:35:17
I'm going to sit back a bit and let other folks do some typing, because I honestly want to hear what others have to say here, since I am not closely embedded in the issue yet myself
<@nimbinatus:matrix.org>
15:35:26
I read it as which elections count in which contributors
<@bookwar:fedora.im>
15:35:39
Yeah, but then should we really be grading different types of contributions against each other?
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:35:55
I think the current formalized requirement for voting is 1) not reflecting the reality, 2) easy to check for
<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>
15:36:00
We defaulted to "Yes", sure - but how do we know if the access is not exploited or gamed...
<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>
15:36:00
I see that a group of folks requested for the temporary group membership (quite a lot of them to actually become a noticeable thing) for the voting purpose.
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:36:12
and if we want to change 1, we must make it in a way that does not change 2
<@nimbinatus:matrix.org>
15:37:18
Everyone who contributes in some form gets to vote for Council because all fall under that layer.
<@nimbinatus:matrix.org>
15:37:18
<@nimbinatus:matrix.org>
15:37:18
Everyone who does work (and has done work) that falls under FESCo votes for that group.
<@nimbinatus:matrix.org>
15:37:18
Everyone who does work (and has done work) that falls under Mindshare votes for that group.
<@nimbinatus:matrix.org>
15:37:18
^^ That's what I thought was the confusion. And it's very hard to create buckets for those areas with the way things are set up, so exception systems got set up to try to balance what's there.
<@jspaleta:fedora.im>
15:37:22
Im going to counter this with... I appearently had voting rights for 10+ years without doing one single thing that should be counted as contribution. Your worried about gaming.. I'm worried about something else.
<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>
15:38:11
Like I said, the "group of folks" requesting for the temporary group membership was large this time around to be noticed
<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>
15:38:11
I do think, that we should sit on this for the next election term to see if it is indeed that big a problem that needs fixing
<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>
15:38:11
If it happens again, I think we would have enough information to work on it - rather than "preemptively" attempting to solve it
<@bookwar:fedora.im>
15:38:40
I don't like it. Because it separates FESCo and Mindshare into different silos, while we are all working on the same project. And iput from user facing support groups should be accounted for when we do engineering decisions and vice versa
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:38:50
I think the issue will happen again if we don't do anything. But I do think advancing on the contributor engagement measurements will help a lot to drive clarity.
<@bookwar:fedora.im>
15:38:53
I don't like it. Because it separates FESCo and Mindshare into different silos, while we are all working on the same project. And input from user facing support groups should be accounted for when we do engineering decisions and vice versa
<@nimbinatus:matrix.org>
15:39:17
When I commented on the Discussion topic, I noted that all contributions are valid and useful. I don't think there should be any kind of "one contribution is more valuable than another." I can see saying that the people affected by one group's decisions should vote on the members of that group
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:39:27
I don't think it is about grading and comparing contributions. But we do need some framework for what is legitimate and what is not. It doesn't mean that one way is more supreme than another way. There doesn't have to be only one door to get inside.
<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>
15:39:41
Hmmm... I didn't see it from that perspective tbh. I assumed that someone who prolly contributed like 10 years back should prolly retain the bare minimum access to choose. Prying the access to choose from their "inactive" hands could be perceived as controlling unless we know it for a fact that the access is "exploited".
<@nimbinatus:matrix.org>
15:39:52
I can see that. I'm just noting that it seems the current system is set up that way
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:39:53
But we do, in fact, gate a little bit for elections in these two groups. Which we do not do for Council.
<@dcantrell:fedora.im>
15:39:57
(ok, that took longer. I was walking back and noticed we have a barista in the office today, so I had to get a latte)
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:40:03
Not separately, but collectively
<@bookwar:fedora.im>
15:40:07
But FESCo and Mindshare decisions affect the entire project. These are project wide governing bodies, not SIGs
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:40:24
FWIW I think it's Ok if we have a SIG that has the ability to add folks based on a track record, to be able to vote. I don't think the addition should be temporary and I think it needs to be transparent.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:40:29
I agree and disagree simultaneously
<@nimbinatus:matrix.org>
15:40:39
Right. I agree with you. I'm noting what's currently the case. I don't know how to fix that, either
<@jspaleta:fedora.im>
15:40:45
this is a doacracy.... emeritus status is a great.. but leaning on that.. means stagnation... and it will kill projects.
<@pboy:fedora.im>
15:41:22
> group of folks requested for the temporary group membership (quite a lot of them to actually become a noticeable thing) for the voting purpose.
<@pboy:fedora.im>
15:41:22
<@pboy:fedora.im>
15:41:22
That sounds like intended manipulation and questions the legitimacy of this election.
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:41:30
E.g. I have voting rights in the Python Software Foundation, based on my application as a contributing member. I had to apply and somebody had to review it. Perhaps we can have that sort of thing if we have volunteers willing to process such requests
<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>
15:41:38
I suspect that this one off event does not provide us with enough details to work on this matter
<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>
15:41:38
At least, in a way that could potentially solve it without having to go to the foundational question of "what counts as a contributor" and "how do we tell if a contributor is active - and hence, should have the voting rights" etc.
<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>
15:41:38
And then, on the basis of that, use that information to work on how we can prevent it
<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>
15:41:38
Fair, but then I think, we would be able to draw a pattern on what it looks like when it happens
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:41:45
I'm seeing two problem streams emerge: one of onboarding next generation contributors, and one about a stagnant and fixed pool of contributors in a voting pool
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:42:01
GNOME Foundation does something like this, in effect
<@bookwar:fedora.im>
15:42:08
I feel like there are couple of separate issues here: 1) formal rules for elections 2) the culture we promote through the Join SIG and other initiatives
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:42:25
Could you explain why the perceived manipulation is malicious?
<@jspaleta:fedora.im>
15:42:38
If membership was the intented bar.. instead of active contribution.. sure. But its a different bar.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:42:40
I think this is another good summary of the core issues, yeah
<@nimbinatus:matrix.org>
15:42:49
I will note that the interest in the election is a great problem to have, by the way. Converting people to contributing more is doable from here :)
<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>
15:44:38
Sure, not leaning onto it - but also, not prying things away from their hands too (unless its the `sysadmin-main` right or something similarly critical).
<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>
15:44:38
Maybe we can make use of the Datanommer stats to evaluate a contributors activity "automatically" and "objectively" before we could decide if they can vote or not?
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:44:45
to me there is a difference in perception between "I will add you to this group temporarily, so you can vote, only to remove you later, to formally follow the rules" vs. "you are clearly a contributing member of Fedora, apply via this documented mechanism to be added to a voting group"
<@pboy:fedora.im>
15:44:59
> Could you explain why the perceived manipulation is malicious?
<@pboy:fedora.im>
15:44:59
<@pboy:fedora.im>
15:44:59
It reads as if the aim is to deliberately change the balance of power. A group at precisely this moment does not sound like a coincidence.
<@pboy:fedora.im>
15:44:59
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:45:31
[@dcantrell:fedora.im](https://matrix.to/#/@dcantrell:fedora.im) We are talking about voting in your election, after all π Curious if you have an angle here.
<@bookwar:fedora.im>
15:45:33
On the second part i feel like there were couple of things I have noticed over the years. I do not want them to trigger some punishment or whatever, but some kind of reflection and discussion is needed. One issue for example is how we are hunting for FAS accounts at Fedora events. Where we basically take the clueless passerby, and say - do you want a badge, the passerby says yes, and then we say - do register to Fedora account system right now, the person registers, and then we say - you got a badge. I believe it is a bad pattern, and I try to talk about it when I see i, but I never had this as a wide discussion.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:46:14
Any automated process needs a way to have a manual appeal mechanism
<@dcantrell:fedora.im>
15:46:40
trying to catch up on comments here
<@bookwar:fedora.im>
15:46:48
I think that what happens with Join group sometimes, is that they are overly eager to turn everyone into a Fedora Contributor, and we need to communicate maybe that quantity is not everything, we need also quality.
<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>
15:46:59
A good example to follow
<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>
15:46:59
How do we make it objective though? Like sure, the best case scenario is to have contributors who help us with the vetting but when we don't, we could prolly use some automation in place that does the evaluation for us. Of course, it is something we might have to review as our definition of activity changes with time.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:47:04
I guess this depends on how conspiratory we might feel. The original topic came up because the user was active on Fedora Discussion for a short while, I guess.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:47:27
Keep sipping that latte! ππ
<@jspaleta:fedora.im>
15:47:58
disagree. Its only bad because fas accounts are being used as a proxy for voting elibibity. Fas accounts and badgers are a perfectly fine mechanism for reach out and engagement.. if we had progrmmatic reachout and engagement
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:48:00
There is something here, yeah. The "how" is the tricky part
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:48:25
## 12-minute time check, 7 minutes remaining for this topic
<@bookwar:fedora.im>
15:48:29
And it is hard to come up with easy formal rule for this, but in practice it is mostly rather clear from the specific situation which case it is. We, I think, just need to communicate to Ambassadors and Join folks that their responsibility and power includes making differentiation like that.
<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>
15:48:38
With you on that. Like I said while responding to mhroncok's message, our definition to what an activity looks like might change with the passing time and hence, this automation, while it would try to be foolproof, would most definitely not be. I am still leaning on to the work the #data:fedoraproject.org folks are getting up to so we can definitely add atop it.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:48:48
Akashdeep Dhar: I'll slot you for a one-line `!info` on #550 in open floor, be ready! π
<@dcantrell:fedora.im>
15:49:04
in fesco yesterday we were discussion modifying membership rules. I proposed members being limited to no more than two consecutive terms before needing to sit one term out. but after that former members could run again. there would be no limit on the total terms people could be on fesco. everyone seemed amenable to that
<@jspaleta:fedora.im>
15:49:17
again ill point out that im currently sitting in a fas account that I sponsored as the only member... that s like a decade+ old...that retains me voting rights.. if that's not manipulation... then nothing is.
<@dcantrell:fedora.im>
15:49:23
I also want outgoing fesco members to find and mentor potential replacements
<@pboy:fedora.im>
15:49:40
We should not confuse two different issues here. One is attracting contributors. Another is protecting the legitimacy of our elections.
<@dcantrell:fedora.im>
15:49:53
but as far as who can vote on fesco items, I think that should be limited to fesco members
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:49:55
Huh, really? I am curious about this β I don't see the negative impact of getting someone to sign up into our contributor ecosystem with an account. All activations in the community start from there
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:50:13
+1
<@bookwar:fedora.im>
15:50:22
That is why I actually want Join and Ambassadors to not be just implementers of the Fedora Council policies, but recognize themselves as owners of these topics. Their job is not to follow the formal process the Council writes according to some formal metrics. The job is to be the people who feel that process in their bones.
<@pboy:fedora.im>
15:50:32
And a third may be whether our current protective measures are reasonable and effective.
<@nimbinatus:matrix.org>
15:50:50
I'll give a different example: In Kubernetes, voting in the steering election is based on org membership on GitHub. To get org membership, you need to demonstrate contributions and commitment, as established with links to things like meeting notes and commits (so any contribution is counted, including running meetings or being active on issues answering questions), and then get sponsored by two different current org members with reviewer+ status
<@nimbinatus:matrix.org>
15:50:50
<@nimbinatus:matrix.org>
15:50:50
If I may ask, is there a reason a FAS account is the lowest bar for voting? It seems that it does not indicate a level of contribution as it stands; I could sign up for an account and vote within 10 minutes.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:51:04
Jef Spaleta: The other challenge there is that there can only be so many graybeards mass-spamming Fedora Elections at once π
<@jspaleta:fedora.im>
15:51:26
I also want to point out that because I'm a sponsor for a fas group of historic vintage.. i could choose to pull people in..to the group with abssolutely no oversight from anyone else....
<@bookwar:fedora.im>
15:51:37
Bringing passerby into FAS is the same as collecting e-mail addresses from random resources and then using them to send Fedora spam.
<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>
15:51:44
Ehhh, can't say I agree or disagree. But I do get what you're saying. While badges could be a good starting point with us being over enthusiastically looking for folks we can loop into start with contribution - a lot many times, these just end up being dormant accounts with accesses to vote. Hence, they take decisions while not knowing much about what they are deciding on.
<@jspaleta:fedora.im>
15:52:33
even if Join group was.. enjoined....from doing what they did... nothing stops me as sponsor for my group to pull in as many people as i want to my group for any reason.
<@bookwar:fedora.im>
15:52:37
They are not our users, they haven't showed any interest in the project, they hoped to get a material swag for free, and we trick them into signing. It is grey-area marketing schema.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:52:39
I get your rationale there, but I also think from my experience, we need to have something that gives them a foundation to build on. It is tough to be a volunteer in these shoes and feel like you are taking on such a huge, project-influential task like defining contributions and impact. I also don't think this is the role of Ambassadors at all, but more the Join SIG part of things. But even then, I still think there needs to be a root-level guidance provided
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:53:09
Except we don't send Fedora spam π
<@jspaleta:fedora.im>
15:53:09
would it be considered malicious for me to start using my authority as a fas group sponsor to collect the world in my group?
<@jspaleta:fedora.im>
15:53:30
the wrong proxy is being used
<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>
15:53:42
This, basically! Spammer or not, this is what we end up doing as a consequence even if that was not the intention. There is no point in increasing our Fedora Accounts database entries if they do not end up contributing even a little or just sticking around by the end of the day.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:53:55
Jef Spaleta: Your use case here feels narrow and specific, and unlikely to bear much significant weight in influencing an election in the short-term, and it underscores why the onboarding piece is important
<@jspaleta:fedora.im>
15:54:08
I can make it my mission to have 1 million users in the fas group I sponsor...
<@jspaleta:fedora.im>
15:54:24
and that will impact voting elibility... without me being malicious
<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>
15:54:24
This, basically! Spammer or not, this is what we end up doing as a consequence even if that was not the intention. There is no point in increasing our Fedora Accounts database entries if they do not end up contributing even a little or just sticking around by the end of the day. (EDIT. If they seek us out, sure - nothing wrong with that, but enthusiastically hunting those to receive badges does us no good.)
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:54:30
Hmmm. I guess I understand, but also, nobody is going to stick around and see the things we offer in our open source kingdom of self-hosted things if you don't have the keys to the castle (FAS)
<@bookwar:fedora.im>
15:54:35
Yes. Because honestly speaking the reason why we did it was that the community arechitect of those times was able to report the rising metrics for FAS accounts to their management. And it is misleading
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:54:44
Everything flows through FAS, and we ultimately do need some sort of metric to better measure impact at our events.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:55:18
Otherwise, I could say that we spend $25,000 on Open Source Conference Albania in 2026 and all of you have to believe me that it is the most wildly impactful event that we will ever do in Fedora. Just trust me! π
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:55:32
./s
<@bookwar:fedora.im>
15:55:45
Justin Wheeler: We need a metric to measure the impact, that is exactly _why_ we shouldn't game that metric and make it rise artificially
<@dcantrell:fedora.im>
15:55:54
maybe we should get a dunk tank. those are impactful
<@nimbinatus:matrix.org>
15:55:58
I get the point Jef's making, though. It's an example. FAS membership is fairly easy and quick to get. It doesn't necessarily indicate active work (any kind of work), so we're using it as a proxy for voting when it's not necessarily indicating interest in the project
<@jspaleta:fedora.im>
15:56:04
Okay so here we go.. I start collecting every single person I meet to join the pydarn fas group as a way to measure my reach as FPL...
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:56:11
bookwar: But the measure is not "FAS group registrations", it is what comes after that. We are not measuring impact by registrations.
<@bookwar:fedora.im>
15:56:14
And just collecting sign ups from people without spending even a minute on explaining what Fedora is to them - is gaming
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:56:18
## 4-minute time check
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:56:23
OK folks, we do need to have a quick open floor.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:56:27
How can we wrap this topic up?
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:56:34
Obviously, there are a lot of opinions!
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:56:44
And I can confirm this topic will likely NOT show up on the Strategy Summit agenda.
<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>
15:56:54
How about we use a FAS group participation (i.e. a functional one - not a placeholder one or an inactive SIG) as the barrier of entry? That could help us understand, that they are not only participating but where exactly it is that they are participating in. Of course, that would require us to look into groups more specifically but that is a much easier thing to do, than looking into all the contribution activities etc.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:57:00
Can I action folks to weigh in on the Fedora Discussion topic, please?
<@nimbinatus:matrix.org>
15:57:00
Sounds like there needs to be more discussion
<@bookwar:fedora.im>
15:57:11
I assume by "meet" you are not saying you go to a supermarket and harass everyone to sign up :)
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:57:14
nimbinatus: For sure
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:57:25
OK, I am going to write some action items out π
<@jspaleta:fedora.im>
15:57:42
that is fair assessment... and looks great on my quarterly metrics as an employee
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:58:01
Jef Spaleta: you seem to be convinced that using FAS groups as a base for voting is bad. And I get your argument. But do we have an alternative?
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:58:14
!action @bookwar Reply to Ticket #557 Fedora Discussion topic with feedback on formal rules for elections and the culture we promote through the Join SIG and other initiatives
<@nimbinatus:matrix.org>
15:58:21
Gets back to my question of how do we know a group is active ;) And we need to make a value judgement on what groups are functional, which I think is difficult to do
<@jspaleta:fedora.im>
15:58:27
im in the discussoin thread trying to figure out what that is...
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:58:34
!action @t0xic0der Reply to Ticket #557 Fedora Discussion topic with a perspective as Contributor Recognition lead from the Mindshare Committee
<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>
15:58:39
Depends? Is your group active? Does it have deliverables that people can make use of? If we can find a way to evaluate this, then we can easily discern between groups and SIGs that are active and worth having around versus inactive or just being there for the sake of it. How to ensure that the evaluation remains objective is yet another question to answer though.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:58:56
!action @jspaleta Reply to Ticket #557 Fedora Discussion topic with how participation is possible with old, dormant accounts and potential for election system abuse
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:59:12
!action @council Reply to Ticket #557 Fedora Discussion topic with other points of feedback and discussion
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:59:19
That's probably all I have time to action π
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:59:24
We are going to have to postpone this topic, folks!
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:59:27
!topic Open floor
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:59:32
Akashdeep Dhar: Go!
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:59:36
I have some quick announcements too
<@jspaleta:fedora.im>
15:59:57
but without an alternative.. we live with the what the fas group usage implies... we do not the level of control necessary to actually deal with issues of gaming it.. because its non a dediced elibility process... fas groups exist and are managed without regard to voting.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
16:00:07
!info Flock 2026 CfP open now until Feb 2nd 2026: "Apply now for the Flock to Fedora 2026 Call for Proposals (CfP) at cfp.fedoraproject.org. This year, the submission deadline for the Flock CfP is Monday, February 2nd, 2026."
<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>
16:00:07
Justin Wheeler: Could you drop the title to #550 and I can follow it up with the updates as `!info`?
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
16:00:09
!link https://fedoramagazine.org/flock-2026-cfp-open-now-until-feb-2nd-2026/
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
16:00:40
Akashdeep Dhar: Ahhh, I don't have the time, we need to yield the channel!
<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>
16:01:01
No worries, lets keep it for the next time then - I can provide updates async.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
16:01:02
!action @t0xic0der Follow-up on progress on Ticket #550 and request for feedback to the Fedora Council on the existing draft
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
16:01:06
Thanks!
<@jspaleta:fedora.im>
16:01:16
I assure you my group is vestigal... But even if infra kills this group.. I'll get a friends of fpl group.. for the epxress purpose of collecting all the people I talk to about fedora...there's no policy prohibiting it.
<@bookwar:fedora.im>
16:01:16
We actually did, at some point.
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
16:01:16
could you please announce this on the devel annoucne mailing list as well?
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
16:01:17
Let's yield over the channel. Thanks folks for being here, it was a feature-packed meeting!
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
16:01:20
See you next time π
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
16:01:25
!endmeeting