<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:00:09
!startmeeting Fedora Council - 2026-02-11
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
15:00:12
Meeting started at 2026-02-11 15:00:09 UTC
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
15:00:12
The Meeting name is 'Fedora Council - 2026-02-11'
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:00:15
!meetingname council
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
15:00:17
The Meeting Name is now council
<@dcantrell:fedora.im>
15:00:27
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
15:00:29
Dave Cantrell (dcantrell) - he / him / his
<@bookwar:fedora.im>
15:00:36
!hi
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:00:36
!group members council
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
15:00:37
Aleksandra Fedorova (bookwar) - she / her / hers
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
15:00:39
Members of council: Aoife Moloney, Aleksandra Fedorova, Miro Hrončok, Dave Cantrell, jflory7 (@jflory7:fedora.im, @fca:fedoraproject.org), Jona Azizaj, Jef Spaleta, Laura Santamaria, Petr Bokoč, Peter Boy, Ryan Lerch, Akashdeep Dhar
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:00:41
!topic Intros, welcomes, hellos
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:00:45
!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>
15:00:48
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
15:00:50
Justin Wheeler (jflory7) - he / him / his
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:01:00
Howdy dcantrell, bookwar 👋
<@dcantrell:fedora.im>
15:01:07
hope everyone had a good time in Tirana, sorry I couldn't make it
<@jonatoni:fedora.im>
15:01:09
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
15:01:11
Jona Azizaj (jonatoni) - she / her / hers
<@dcantrell:fedora.im>
15:01:20
Good morning, day, or evening Justin
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:01:21
We missed you there! I hope things are going better for you now 🙏
<@nimbinatus:matrix.org>
15:01:28
!hi
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:01:29
Hey Jona Azizaj (she/her)! 👋
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:01:32
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
15:01:34
Miro Hrončok (churchyard) - he / him / his or they / them / theirs
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
15:01:40
Laura Santamaria (nimbinatus) - she / her / hers
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:01:48
Howdy mhroncok, nimbinatus 👋
<@bookwar:fedora.im>
15:01:51
I am sorry of how much reading you have to do now :)
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:01:52
Look at this, we have quite a party today! 😄
<@dcantrell:fedora.im>
15:01:54
yes, things are fine now. thank you
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:02:11
I feel a smidge guilty that I did not plan a longer discussion beyond the git forge topic, but maybe we can do a debrief and update about the plan for 25 February
<@pboy:fedora.im>
15:02:11
!hi
<@niknikovsky:fedora.im>
15:02:12
Evening
<@dcantrell:fedora.im>
15:02:12
and I thought Moby Dick was a long book :)
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
15:02:14
Peter Boy (pboy)
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:02:22
Hey Peter Boy (ServerWG, Docs) 👋
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:02:32
I know Jef Spaleta is around somewhere, I saw him lurking around 🙂
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:03:02
But you know, it is a nice problem, that we actually have a lot of updates and reading coming out of the Summit, instead of promises to make updates and generate reading 🙂
<@dcantrell:fedora.im>
15:03:14
very true!
<@bookwar:fedora.im>
15:03:15
Forge is not an easy discussion though, it may take a while )
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:03:17
Also, phew, the Fedora Discussion topic with the daily summaries has been getting a lot of traffic, I see. I am behind, but I am getting to it.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:03:40
I don't know, I think we are all ready to rain 🔥 🔥 on Pagure. With love.
<@bookwar:fedora.im>
15:03:40
Doing it right there was a really good decision :)
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:04:01
(I always feel sad that Pagure is not serving us anymore, but it did serve us well for a very long time when there was not many other viable choices in the pool.)
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:04:20
Whose idea was that? I forget. They deserve a pile of cookies.
<@pbokoc:fedora.im>
15:04:35
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
15:04:37
Petr Bokoč (pbokoc)
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:04:44
Also, hi Nik Nikovsky! 👋 Welcome to the Fedora Council meeting 🙂
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:04:52
Hey Petr Bokoc 👋
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:05:11
OK, I think this is plenty good quorum. I have to assume Jef Spaleta will drop in like Spiderman soon 🕸️
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:05:17
Let's get this party started.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:06:15
!info Council members present: @jflory7, @dcantrell, @bookwar, @jonatoni, @churchyard, @nimbinatus, @pboy, @pbokoc
<@smoliicek:fedora.im>
15:06:16
hi
<@smoliicek:fedora.im>
15:06:20
!hi
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:06:21
!topic Meeting Agenda
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
15:06:22
Vít Smolík (smoliicek) - he / him / his
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:06:25
!link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Council_Meetings#Next_Meeting_Agenda
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:06:26
Uh oh
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:06:33
I am a bad meeting chair 🫣
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:06:37
I didn't formally prep an agenda
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:06:54
But as I hinted on the council-private@ mailing list, the git forge ticket is definitely in front of mind, as we come back from Tirana
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:07:26
We don't formally have "news and announcements" in the meeting agenda anymore, but I think a 4-5 minute "callouts" will be helpful for the meeting minutes
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:07:37
!topic Council news, updates, & announcements
<@jspaleta:fedora.im>
15:07:52
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
15:07:53
Jef Spaleta (jspaleta) - he / him / his
<@pbokoc:fedora.im>
15:08:06
Spider maaaaan
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:08:10
Council folks, please drop a `!info` into the chat if you have something to share. I am going to write a quick update about our Strategy Summit daily updates, the Flock CFP review process, and the plan for the next meeting on 25 Feb.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:08:16
Called it 😄
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:09:19
!info The Fedora Council drafted daily summaries of our in-person conversations for the Strategy Summit last week (something we have never done before!). Already, there is a lot of discussion. For anyone curious about what we did last week and what the Council has planned ahead for this year, the Fedora Discussion summaries are the best resource. Expect a more comprehensive overview and summary to come on the Fedora Magazine toward the end of February.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:09:21
!link https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/fedora-council-2026-strategy-summit-daily-briefings-summaries-tirana-albania/180535/4
<@jspaleta:fedora.im>
15:10:15
!info I'm doing follow up engagement with the community members who have been championing the use of a foundation structure for community provisioning events to make sure that my assigned action item from the Council summit to reach out to red hat meets their expectations in tems of engagement.
<@bookwar:fedora.im>
15:10:16
Let's announce also Feb 25 video meeting explicitly?
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:10:38
!info The Flock CFP closed on Monday morning, totaling 113 proposals. The CFP review team has until Monday, 23 February 2026 to submit final reviews. Following this, the Flock core team will review the CFP submissions and begin sending notifications. Expect CFP notifications to come in early March 2026.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:10:40
!link https://cfp.fedoraproject.org/flock-to-fedora-2026/cfp
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:11:03
This is my next one 🙂
<@jspaleta:fedora.im>
15:11:34
question for the group... have the miro board project board action items been turned into tickets yet? Do we have the correct forgejo repo in place to start that process?
<@jspaleta:fedora.im>
15:12:14
i realize we are short handed with aofie out, so if i need to cover for that work.. iill find the time to do it
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:12:31
!info Per our in-person discussion last week, we agreed to bring back a video meeting for the 25 February 2026 Council meeting. This will be an opportunity to formally present the outcomes and key topics, in a presentation organized by @jspaleta. Then, we will have time for Q&A and community input. @jflory7 will draft a Fedora Magazine article to announce this before the end of the week.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:12:34
!link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Council/Video_Meetings
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:12:45
Jef Spaleta: It's like you predicted our main agenda topic for today 😉
<@bookwar:fedora.im>
15:12:53
Jef Spaleta: Forgejo is the topic of the today
<@niknikovsky:fedora.im>
15:13:07
Could someone make a task list for which teams have migrated to Forge/Jo?
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:13:08
!action @jspaleta Create a presentation for the 25 February 2026 Council meeting about the Strategy Summit key outcomes and next steps
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:13:24
!action @jflory7 Create a Fedora Magazine post announcing the 25 February video meeting on the Strategy Summit
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:13:35
Oh, and I have one last bonus action item, one that I am personally excited about
<@niknikovsky:fedora.im>
15:13:36
Ping no worky lol
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:13:42
errr, s/action item/announcement item/
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:15:13
!info It is not yet public, but Syria is officially approved to be removed from the Fedora Export Control Policy. Syrians will be able to connect and access Fedora applications and services for the first time after many, many years. @jflory7 is working on a Fedora Magazine article and running it through Red Hat/IBM Legal, but some of the first steps are already going through. As of yesterday, the IP blocks for Syrians are lifted and there is a pending PR to change the Fedora Legal docs on the Fedora Export Control Policy.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:15:19
!link https://forge.fedoraproject.org/infra/tickets/issues/13135
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:15:24
!link https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-legal-docs/-/merge_requests/348
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:15:52
Hmmm. It is a nice idea, but I don't think this is the role of the Fedora Council to do. I think #fedora-forgejo:fedoraproject.org is probably the better place to bring this idea up.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:16:04
OK. That is all of the announcements I have 🙂
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:16:11
Also, on the Syria topic, please keep it discreet for now
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:16:30
I want to make sure the Fedora Export Control Policy gets formally updated, and make a splash with the Fedora Magazine article, before we start trumpeting that out
<@niknikovsky:fedora.im>
15:16:47
I will, but remember that this is a semi public room
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:16:48
It is not really a secret, but I'd prefer if folks don't go making public social media posts (yet)
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:17:10
Yup, but if someone really wants to go digging, they can find all of the public clues that tell the full story 🙂
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:17:21
I just want to avoid social media mass publicity just yet. At least, until next week 😛
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:17:32
Alrighty. If no other other news and announcements…
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:17:34
Let's keep going.
<@niknikovsky:fedora.im>
15:17:56
Time to make a Fedora loves Syria sticker asap /j
<@smoliicek:fedora.im>
15:18:17
wasn't the topic also discussed in a ticket somewhere?
<@smoliicek:fedora.im>
15:18:37
i think it was in the infra/issues repo
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:18:50
!topic #540: Council Forgejo Migration Tracker
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:19:00
!link https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/540#comment-1003507
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:19:04
There is a proposal!
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:19:14
It is pending review!
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:19:16
Let's review!
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:19:19
And discuss!
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:19:21
And vote!
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:19:28
For convenience…
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:19:34
Here is the proposal, copied from Pagure to here:
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:19:49
The Fedora Council agrees to the following course of action:
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:19:49
1. A final pass on all currently-open issues on the Fedora Council Pagure.io issue tracker will be conducted from today until Wednesday, 25 February 2026. Either issues will be closed, or identified as relevant for manual migration to Forgejo.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:19:49
4. Once private issue support is added to Forgejo, this repository will be migrated to Forgejo as a "tickets-archived" repo in the Council org, with a note that the repository exists for archival purposes only, and represents Council work from ~2013 to February 2026.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:19:49
2. Effective Wednesday, 25 February 2026, all new work and tracking efforts will be done on Forgejo, in a brand-new repository.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:19:49
3. Private issues on Pagure.io will be declassified as is appropriate and ethically-responsible throughout 2026.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:19:49
<@niknikovsky:fedora.im>
15:19:55
Welp
<@bookwar:fedora.im>
15:20:00
I'd propose to vote on this statement on its own: "Effective Wednesday, 11 February 2026, all new public work and tracking efforts will be done on Forgejo, in the https://forge.fedoraproject.org/council/tickets/issues repository"
<@bookwar:fedora.im>
15:20:05
Note the date also
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:20:06
Nik Nikovsky: That too 🙂
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:20:53
if we approve this, will there be a point where we re-migrate all the pagure.io issues so we have an up to date migration?
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:21:00
bookwar: Hmmm. So, the reason I suggested 25 February was so that I can close out some old tickets, manually move the old ones to the new forge, and try to avoid having two places for simultaneous conversations. But I guess this is not blocking. I was just trying to be organized since the action item for Forgejo is on my plate.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:21:28
mhroncok: Excellent question. So, once private issues are fully supported, the intention is to migrate from Pagure to `council/tickets-archived` or something to this effect
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:21:38
I am keenly interested in the value of preserving historical comments and moving them out of the deprecated platform
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:21:43
It is a priority for me, at least 😄
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:22:06
I am confused. I thought we migrate all the public issues to council/tickets. and the private ones we can migrate to a private repo already
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:22:08
A handful of issues might be duplicated by hand from Pagure to Forgejo, the ones that are still open, I mean, but this is the exception rather than the norm
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:22:37
mhroncok: Oh, hmmm. I don't know if the private repo stuff works as we want it to on Forgejo yet
<@bookwar:fedora.im>
15:22:41
For me there are parallel tracks here. One is how to create new items, one is what to do with old ones. And for me it feels a bit hard to vote on four proposed items at once. But maybe it is just me.
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:22:48
if we start using forgejo for new tickets but in the meantime, allow new comemtn son pagure, that's just... confusing
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:22:58
Although it is not my preferred pathway, we will effectively be "starting over" with Ticket #1 on Forgejo
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:23:09
if we start using forgejo for new tickets but in the meantime, allow new comments on pagure, that's just... confusing
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:23:19
why?
<@niknikovsky:fedora.im>
15:23:33
I'm guessing you can't port over things between platforms
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:23:35
mhroncok: So, this is why I wanted to 25 February 2026 to have time for a graceful transition, instead of saying today, because… I already have so much on my plate 🥹
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:23:52
My opinion was not the popular one of having continuity across the ticket trackers 😄
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:24:11
I am happy to do this on any date, I just don't understand the technical way of doing it
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:24:34
we have the ability to move everyhting to forgejo, sans the private tickets. why not doing it?
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:24:42
The issue for the Fedora Council is that we have ~30 issues, which are private and have sensitive information, while Forgejo does not yet support private issues.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:24:42
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:24:42
Fedora Infra folks are working hand-in-hand with Forgejo upstream to make it happen, but it requires rewriting core functionality in Forgejo. So, super hard work, that does not have a firm deadline
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:25:06
Hopefully 2026, but nobody I have found will make a commitment for when private issues might be implemented in Forgejo. Which I mean, I'd rather have no commitment than a wrong commitment, I guess.
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:25:12
my undesrtending is that the private tickets will be skipped if we do it this way
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:25:34
I guess, whenever we potentially migrate private issues, it will get messy with the old and new? *shrug*
<@niknikovsky:fedora.im>
15:25:41
So I guess public tickets goes to website A and private tickets go to website B
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:25:42
I think so, yes
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:25:58
and we agreed that that is ok
<@niknikovsky:fedora.im>
15:26:01
This might be the way we need to take for now
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:26:07
We can revise any of the four points. I think the four points make a clear proposal for how we are putting down Pagure for Forgejo.
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:26:08
but let's not not migrate the publci tickets becasue of that
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:26:26
but let's not not migrate the public tickets becasue of that
<@bookwar:fedora.im>
15:26:48
It is confusing because it is a migration and we should try to clear that up. But creating new items on Pagure right now already doesn't make sense to me. that's why I am trying to push it already. If we are not agreeing to the point i highlighted, we are effectively putting stuff on hold saying that "no new items willl be created anywhere until the migration is done"
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:26:53
So, my personal preference is we make one clean hop from Pagure to Forgejo. I would prefer starting over, migrating the pending open issues by hand to Forgejo, and later migrating the Council Pagure repo once private issues are ready
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:27:07
Mixing the streams gets complicated, and then ticket numbers are potentially messed up
<@bookwar:fedora.im>
15:27:30
I would personally prefer a little bit of confusion over a freeze
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:27:33
Part of the value for me is being able to say, "See this conversation in ticket #352 from July 2019 when we decided XYZ" and have the ticket numbers be useful and meaningful, even if archived
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:27:41
3. start usign forgejo
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:27:41
1. freeze the tickets in pague
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:27:41
2. migrate the public tickets from pagure to forgejo
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:27:54
2. migrate the public tickets from pagure to forgejo
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:27:54
3. start using forgejo
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:27:54
1. freeze the tickets in pague
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:28:06
Hmm, if private issues are skipped, do we know how this affects the numbering of old issues?
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:28:16
This is my concern. I want the numbers to actually _mean_ something
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:28:31
my understanding was this: if it's skipped it is skipped. the number is skipped. all numbers are rpeserved
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:28:32
I don't want ticket #352 on Pagure.io to become ticket #324 on Forgejo because private issues are skipped
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:28:40
my understanding was this: if it's skipped it is skipped. the number is skipped. all numbers are preserved
<@niknikovsky:fedora.im>
15:28:42
Could always be referred as private ticket [number] and public ticket [number]
<@niknikovsky:fedora.im>
15:28:57
Up to y'all to be honest
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:29:01
absolutely, nobody wants that
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:29:31
ticket 352 on pagure will be 352 on forgejo. when pagure.io goes EOL, we can even setup redirects
<@bookwar:fedora.im>
15:29:38
My point is - i need to create a new ticket now. Should I 1) wait till Feb 25 2) create it on Pagure 3) create it on Forge? It seems we are leaning to "wait till Feb 25"?
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:29:57
(if I am misunderstanding the migration, do correct me)
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:30:08
So, if it helps, I could commit myself to a clean break on the February 25th meeting. We continue using Pagure up to that date, I spend intentional time of cleaning completed tickets up, closing out some things which do not need to be carried over, and then starting on February 25th, we are officially Forgejo-exclusive
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:30:23
I could try to do it sooner, but y'all might make me shed a tear and burn some midnight oil to do that 😄
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:30:50
IMHO, I'd rather you put it in today to Pagure, and then I can commit to making sure it gets carried over to Forgejo by 25 Feb.
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:31:17
I don't understand why is cleaning the tickets and closing them relevant for the migration. sorry, this is all confusing to me. when we were first presented with https://forge.fedoraproject.org/council/tickets it had all the tickets moved over
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:31:21
I can take full accountability for anything useful and meaningful being hand-migrated from Pagure to Forgejo on 25 Feb.
<@bookwar:fedora.im>
15:31:31
I don't want to push it. I thought that it can be done now at zero cost. If we decide that it is not - then we should allocate enough time for it
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:31:50
I am not sure what happened to the old one. jednorozec did some stuff during the Summit and I am not 100% sure if he blew away what was there before or not.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:32:24
Well, there are at least 2-3 tickets on Pagure that I wanted to close out. And before we start filing new business into Forgejo, I want to transition completed/done things in Pagure first
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:32:28
For example, the Syria ticket
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:32:33
And the Strategy Summit ticket itself too
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:32:46
my understanding is that migratin all the non-private tickets to forgejo, with all the commentsd and numbers and whatnots preserved, is a techncially solved thing
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:32:54
I guess we can start doing Forgejo right now, but my brain will hurt a bit because we will be splitting conversations in two places
<@niknikovsky:fedora.im>
15:33:00
I vote for pushing this until the 25th even though I'm not part of the council
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:33:18
mhroncok: I am not 100% sure on that. Private issues are just messy right now.
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:33:19
we should not start creating tickets in forgejo before the migration
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:33:49
private issues are not relevant to what I am saying, we agreed we'll sacrifice them (archive them elsewhere, etc.)
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:34:36
> 1. A final pass on all currently-open issues on the Fedora Council Pagure.io issue tracker will be conducted from today until Wednesday, 25 February 2026. Either issues will be closed, or identified as relevant for manual migration to Forgejo.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:34:36
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:34:36
So, pulling forward the proposal from the ticket one more time:
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:34:36
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:34:36
Are there specific points here that we want to amend?
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:34:36
> 4. Once private issue support is added to Forgejo, this repository will be migrated to Forgejo as a "tickets-archived" repo in the Council org, with a note that the repository exists for archival purposes only, and represents Council work from ~2013 to February 2026.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:34:36
> 3. Private issues on Pagure.io will be declassified as is appropriate and ethically-responsible throughout 2026.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:34:36
> 2. Effective Wednesday, 25 February 2026, all new work and tracking efforts will be done on Forgejo, in a brand-new repository.
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:34:41
we hit a mgaic button that does this for us and we move on to forgejo. there is no manual labor, migrating "only some relevant" tickets. please don't
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:35:12
we hit a magic button that does this for us and we move on to forgejo. there is no manual labor, migrating "only some relevant" tickets. please don't
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:35:22
1. is moot
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:35:24
mhroncok: Per the above proposal, what do we do for #4? I don't think private issues can go into a private repo yet. Or I don't think it works like how we might imagine
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:35:25
it is not required
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:35:42
2. effective <any date>, we migrate all issues and close pagure
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:36:01
3. I don't see a value in, but I don't mind it.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
15:36:18
realistically, you're going to have to defer migration because there are private code of conduct issues in the Council tracker
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:36:19
4. we can migrate the private issues to a private repo in forgejo already
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
15:36:31
those can't ever be made public
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:36:37
no, we'll not migrate them
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:36:38
mhroncok: #1 is not required if we use the automated migration tool, but I don't think we can use the automatic migration if we want to have a graceful migration of private issues. The goal, in my mind, is to have a repo where private issues can eventually be accessed by members of the Fedora Council, but if I am putting too much value in private issues, I can abort and we just use the public issues
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:36:48
But then we have two repos with the same data "eventually"
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:37:01
Except one repo will have net-new tickets, and one repo will have old private tickets, and then my head will hurt
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:37:11
And there will be duplication between the two repos
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:37:36
if the private repo only has the private tickets, there will be no duplication
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:37:43
IMHO, we do need to migrate private issues like CoC ones, because they have historic value that we need to document. For example, some FAS account suspensions which are in effect to this day…
<@niknikovsky:fedora.im>
15:37:48
I think we should host a poll
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:37:51
mhroncok: I am not sure the importer works like that though
<@niknikovsky:fedora.im>
15:38:07
Whether to use 2 systems or delay it until the 25th
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:38:26
I think we need soembody to tell us what's actually possible
<@pboy:fedora.im>
15:38:51
I think the sooner we start with Forego, the better. But the 11th might be a little too abrupt for a well-organized transition.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
15:38:58
it seems like nils is actually working on private issues support: https://codeberg.org/nilsph/forgejo/commits/branch/forgejo--private-issues
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:39:01
Could we take a temperature check on what people think about the proposal, as written?
<@pboy:fedora.im>
15:39:03
So: 25.
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:39:08
I am strongly opposed to starting a fresh ticket tracker with issue 1 if we don't technically have to do that and I belive we don't need to do that
<@niknikovsky:fedora.im>
15:39:14
I vote for the 25tg
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:40:05
> 3. Private issues on Pagure.io will be declassified as is appropriate and ethically-responsible throughout 2026.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:40:05
> 4. Once private issue support is added to Forgejo, this repository will be migrated to Forgejo as a "tickets-archived" repo in the Council org, with a note that the repository exists for archival purposes only, and represents Council work from ~2013 to February 2026.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:40:05
> 2. Effective Wednesday, 25 February 2026, all new work and tracking efforts will be done on Forgejo, in a brand-new repository.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:40:05
> 1. A final pass on all currently-open issues on the Fedora Council Pagure.io issue tracker will be conducted from today until Wednesday, 25 February 2026. Either issues will be closed, or identified as relevant for manual migration to Forgejo.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:40:05
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:40:05
@Council folks: Could you either drop a +1/-1 or give a 👍️/👎️ reaction on the proposal? I am trying to sift through where the disagreement is here.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:40:09
!group members council
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
15:40:12
Members of council: Aoife Moloney, Aleksandra Fedorova, Miro Hrončok, Dave Cantrell, jflory7 (@jflory7:fedora.im, @fca:fedoraproject.org), Jona Azizaj, Jef Spaleta, Laura Santamaria, Petr Bokoč, Peter Boy, Ryan Lerch, Akashdeep Dhar
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
15:40:14
my opinion doesn't matter (as I'm not on Council), but I think you're going to be doing the various stakeholders a disservice if you proceed with your current plan
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:40:22
-1
<@niknikovsky:fedora.im>
15:40:31
This could be dropped into the bot I think
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:40:31
I think our situation with private issues is prohibitive for doing this
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:40:46
mhroncok: Could you propose an amendment to the proposal?
<@niknikovsky:fedora.im>
15:40:47
+1
<@niknikovsky:fedora.im>
15:41:07
This could be added into the bot I think
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:41:08
That's not how I understand things. I might be wrong, but let's not assume I am wrong and make a decision based on that
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
15:41:27
niknikovsky gave a cookie to churchyard. They now have 180 cookies, 1 of which were obtained in the Fedora 43 release cycle
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
15:41:41
ultimately, it's just going to create a bigger mess and it would result in lowering the priority in the work already being done on supporting private issues
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:41:43
I am okay spending more time getting info, and I am not trying to imply you are wrong either. But bookwar said we should start using Forgejo today 😄
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:42:01
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:42:01
I could. let me try. And we can start usign forgejo today
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:42:01
> Could you propose an amendment to the proposal?
<@nphilipp:fedora.im>
15:42:09
I am, but the feature is in a very early stage, how long it will take depends a great deal how upstream likes the implementation
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
15:42:29
having Council blocked on this is very useful because it assures that it's a top priority effort
<@pboy:fedora.im>
15:42:41
+1
<@niknikovsky:fedora.im>
15:42:44
Hi Nils the bard from fire emblem the blazing blade on the GBA
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
15:42:51
Council isn't the only one that needs it, but it's by far the most important one
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:43:04
nils: Could you comment on this question about private issues in Pagure today going to Forgejo? Are we able to move all private issues into a new repo that match the numbering on Pagure.io, while also have a separate repo with public issues that skips the private issues and does not alter the original numbering from Pagure.io?
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:43:33
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:43:33
2. On DATE, we migrate all the public issues to the forgejo tracker.
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:43:33
In the meantime, the private issues are still there on pagure. We did not loose them. We optionaly archive them to a private forgejo tracker if neccessary.
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:43:33
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:43:33
3. On date, we start using the forgejo tracker.
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:43:33
1. On DATE, we turn the pagure.io council ticket tracker read only.
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:43:33
Proposal, with DATE TBD based on people availability.
<@nimbinatus:matrix.org>
15:43:54
So, are we waiting for the amendment before voting here?
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:44:10
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:44:10
In the meantime, the private issues are still there on pagure. We did not loose them. We optionaly archive them to a private forgejo tracker if neccessary.
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:44:10
Proposal, with DATE TBD based on people availability.
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:44:10
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:44:10
1. On DATE, we turn the pagure.io council ticket tracker read only.
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:44:10
2. On DATE, we migrate all the public issues to the forgejo tracker.
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:44:10
3. On DATE, we start using the forgejo tracker.
<@nphilipp:fedora.im>
15:44:25
I’m not intimately familiar with Pagure => Forgejo migration and whether or not that preserves issue IDs (including gaps from skipped private issues)
<@pbokoc:fedora.im>
15:44:26
That's what I'm doing. Amendment or resolution
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:44:57
Conan Kudo: I partially disagree actually. I don't mind starting over with Ticket #1, but whenever we migrate the old data, I really need/want the old numbering to match up. If we delay a full migration to once private issues are done, I'd rather do that and have historical parity with past discussions/Fedora Discussion topics than have everything be mismatched and incredibly difficult to search through
<@nimbinatus:matrix.org>
15:44:57
(apologies; I'm in two other meetings and trying to keep up)
<@humaton:fedora.im>
15:45:09
Hello o/
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:46:01
Pagure.io is going to be converted to static HTML pages once it is sunset. Or this is what jednorozec said at FOSDEM
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:46:01
I'd like to see dates in this amendment. And also, my concern over CoC decisions in private issues being carried over for historical reference is not covered in this proposal, as far as I can see.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:46:01
<@humaton:fedora.im>
15:46:29
SO what is holding you back guys? We had agreement back in September, that you will go and play with the forge and migrate your public tickets...
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:46:37
make it today if you need it
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:46:37
> I'd like to see dates in this amendment.
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:46:37
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:46:46
exactly
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:46:58
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:46:58
nimbinatus: I will take full accountability here as an agent of chaos, not having an organized meeting discussion, and probably typing too much to allow even-handed discussion. 🫣
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:46:58
Maybe this meeting should have a video meeting, in hindsight. I didn't think it would be so contentious! 😄
<@humaton:fedora.im>
15:47:10
CoC has nothing to do with your COuncil tracker... just migrate and use email for private issues as we discussed on multiple, occasions.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:47:17
jednorozec: See the private issues concern^^
<@pboy:fedora.im>
15:47:20
I wonder why we are spending so much time discussing the technical side of things. What we want is clear. The person doing the work should decide how best to achieve it.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:47:25
This is my concern
<@humaton:fedora.im>
15:47:58
So you concer are issue ID's?
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:48:14
sorry if I am making this last long, but what Justin Wheeler is proposing is in direct contradiction to what was agreed before
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:48:20
If I had to summarize what I absolutely want, above all else, is for private issues to be archived in our main `$FORGE`, but also have parity with issue numbers for both public and private issues. I have things with Red Hat Legal and stuff that match specific Council tickets, like for certain CoC cases, and it will really be a pain for me not to have matching issue numbers
<@humaton:fedora.im>
15:48:26
Why please? What difference does it makes if they are or are not preserved? for private issues?
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:48:39
jednorozec: I have legal reasons for preserving some private data
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:48:44
Not all of them, for sure
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:48:47
But a few, I need them
<@humaton:fedora.im>
15:48:56
TIcket ID are you sure?
<@humaton:fedora.im>
15:49:02
for legal reasons?
<@jspaleta:fedora.im>
15:49:12
i think the concerning being stated is... breaking linkages in historic discussion. In some respect the council tickets are important from an "open governance" pov.
<@humaton:fedora.im>
15:49:16
DO you understand that any sysadmin can change data in that issue at will...
<@dcantrell:fedora.im>
15:49:19
I think preserving the data is fine, but that can be anywhere. I don't think we should be hung up on it being specifically preserved in Forgejo
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:49:23
Maybe I was not clear in the first place about what we were planning to do. I'm sorry if I am disrupting this but I really have some firm requirements that I need to be represented here somehow ☹️
<@niknikovsky:fedora.im>
15:49:26
There's private information in private tickets usually
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:49:52
Yes, this is the underlying concern for me
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
15:49:54
and trail and record stuff that people expect to continue working
<@humaton:fedora.im>
15:49:58
SO what is holding council back from migration of the public tracker?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
15:50:09
e.g. a redirect should point you to the right place, and that gets hard if they're not the same
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:50:13
jednorozec: See my requirement, having parity of issue numbers on the old and new thing
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:50:36
I don't mind starting over with Ticket #1 on Forgejo, but I need the old tickets to have parity with the numbers they have on Pagure, and some private ticket data, I cannot throw away
<@humaton:fedora.im>
15:51:01
If you guys took the oportunity 6 months ago and tryed it you would know that the issue ID from the source of the migration are preserved.
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:51:21
I did and I do
<@niknikovsky:fedora.im>
15:51:24
No private ticket support though
<@humaton:fedora.im>
15:51:26
If we migrate and archive the private issues to private repo they will be there as well
<@pboy:fedora.im>
15:51:27
Folks: The requirements are clear. Private for legal reasons and numbering for a clear history. There's no need to mix things up!
<@niknikovsky:fedora.im>
15:52:01
I vote to delay this until the 25th for the 3rd time
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:52:20
jednorozec: This irritates me a bit, because I have been raising feedback on private issues for some time, and I _have_ been working with the tool with several other teams for some time ☹️
<@pboy:fedora.im>
15:52:44
Justin should decide on the details and implement them together with a Forego expert.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:52:45
But I am getting a bit too frustrated. I guess we do not have a clear proposal
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:52:55
I will step back on the ownership of this if someone else wants to drive it
<@humaton:fedora.im>
15:52:56
Its really sad to see this project body as dysfunctional as it is in such simple question.
<@niknikovsky:fedora.im>
15:53:04
Let's regroup on the 25th
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:53:08
jednorozec: It is not.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:53:14
It is not simple.
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:53:30
1. Today, we turn the pagure.io council ticket tracker read only.
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:53:30
4. Today, we start using the public forgejo tracker.
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:53:30
3. Today, we migrate all private issues to a private forgejo ticket tracker,
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:53:30
2. Today, we migrate all the public issues to the forgejo public tracker.
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:53:30
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:53:30
Does someone want to take over this action item from me?
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:53:35
Or am I still on the hook to own this?
<@humaton:fedora.im>
15:53:35
People actually building the distribution are working from the place for weeks some months... so yeah its sad...
<@nimbinatus:matrix.org>
15:53:49
I think that was an inappropriate way to express your frustration. Just saying.
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:54:19
look: https://forge.fedoraproject.org/council/tickets-migrate-test/issues
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:54:27
I really don't want to touch this until 25 February any more, I have way too much on my plate and I feel like I am causing more problems here than it is necessary
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:54:34
Someone else can drive this
<@niknikovsky:fedora.im>
15:54:35
+1
<@niknikovsky:fedora.im>
15:54:35
Also, maybe they meant something different but their English is not good
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
15:54:54
well, fwiw I had to audit all of my projects to figure out if I even can migrate to forgejo
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
15:55:06
and I still can't for everything because some private issues exist
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:55:09
mhroncok: I would like to know if the private issues in the private repo preserve the old numbering, but we don't have time to do this now I guess
<@pboy:fedora.im>
15:55:14
In my view, the Prosal is crystal clear in terms of requirements.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
15:55:16
so I think this statement is grossly unfair
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:55:26
Peter Boy (ServerWG, Docs): From the discussion, evidently, it is not 😄
<@niknikovsky:fedora.im>
15:55:35
I could be assigned purely for show with someone else calling the shots I guess
<@niknikovsky:fedora.im>
15:55:52
This statement causes a lot of stir
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:55:56
So, who is going to own this?
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:56:03
Do we have an owner?
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:56:34
I can own this
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:57:04
Well, I think any action items given need to be accepted with consent. I think I get your point, but it is better to make sure there is two-way consent, not one-way dictation. It is not how we do things in Fedora.
<@niknikovsky:fedora.im>
15:57:13
Either way we should pick this up on the 25th with "new eyes"
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:57:16
Usually this works very well! Sometimes, it gets tricky.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:57:43
!action @churchyard Create a new proposal in Pagure Ticket #540 about how to sunset/migrate off of Pagure to Forgejo
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:58:07
!info @jflory7 is stepping back from owning the Forgejo migration task, and will defer to @churchyard on owning the task
<@niknikovsky:fedora.im>
15:58:09
How you handle this is not in my control
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:58:16
Justin Wheeler: https://forge.fedoraproject.org/council/private-tickets-from-pagure/issues
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:58:55
mhroncok: So, this looks workable for me. I would be happy to review a revised proposal with this in mind!
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:59:04
If I just rename https://forge.fedoraproject.org/council/tickets-migrate-test/issues and set pagure tracker to read only, it is done
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:59:06
We are at the end of the hour, though.
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:59:13
I posted the proposal
<@nimbinatus:matrix.org>
15:59:15
Something to consider, if it comes to it, is whether we could do cold storage on the OSPO-provided Fedora infra for these if it will unblock motion forward. Preserve the data. I imagine this has been discussed already, but if not, I'm noting that here.
<@nimbinatus:matrix.org>
15:59:15
<@nimbinatus:matrix.org>
15:59:15
I want to note that, as a fellow Red Hat Community Architect, I'm backing Justin up here in that I know what Legal will want, and it might not necessarily match the technical understanding that things could get changed form the sysadmin side.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:59:21
mhroncok: I think we need to pitch a proposal in the ticket and make a vote for building consent
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:59:23
4. Today, we start using the public forgejo tracker.
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:59:23
1. Today, we turn the pagure.io council ticket tracker read only.
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:59:23
2. Today, we migrate all the public issues to the forgejo public tracker.
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:59:23
3. Today, we migrate all private issues to a private forgejo ticket tracker,
<@niknikovsky:fedora.im>
15:59:27
This really was the mainest point of this meeting
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:59:38
I don't feel comfortable actioning something in one minute and I have four more hours of meetings to go today
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:59:48
sure
<@niknikovsky:fedora.im>
15:59:59
Gl
<@dcantrell:fedora.im>
16:00:02
Justin Wheeler: tjat
<@dcantrell:fedora.im>
16:00:06
that's too many meetings
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
16:00:26
if I put the proposal to the ticket, what is the workable date for the migration?
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
16:00:28
A day in the life of the Community Architect, I suppose 😉 One might wonder how I get actual work done sometimes
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
16:00:33
Anyways, we need to yield the channel
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
16:00:39
Let's continue discussing in #council:fedoraproject.org
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
16:00:43
I have to drop for my next meeting.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
16:00:45
See ya folks.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
16:00:47
!endmeeting