<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:01:38
!startmeeting Fedora Council - 2026-05-06
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
14:01:39
Meeting started at 2026-05-06 14:01:38 UTC
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
14:01:39
The Meeting name is 'Fedora Council - 2026-05-06'
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:01:41
!meetingname council
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
14:01:41
The Meeting Name is now council
<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>
14:01:42
👋
<@dcantrell:fedora.im>
14:02:02
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
14:02:04
dcantrell: Dave Cantrell (dcantrell) - he / him / his
<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>
14:02:12
!hi
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
14:02:13
!hi
<@pbokoc:fedora.im>
14:02:13
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
14:02:14
Akashdeep Dhar / আকাশদীপ ধর: Akashdeep Dhar (t0xic0der) - he / him / his
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
14:02:15
mhroncok: Miro Hrončok (churchyard) - he / him / his or they / them / theirs
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
14:02:15
Petr Bokoc: Petr Bokoč (pbokoc)
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:02:19
!group members council
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
14:02:21
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>
14:02:25
!topic Intros, welcomes, hellos
<@jspaleta:fedora.im>
14:02:27
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
14:02:29
Jef Spaleta: Jef Spaleta (jspaleta) - he / him / his
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:02:32
!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.
<@gordonmessmer:fedora.im>
14:03:28
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
14:03:29
Gordon Messmer: Gordon Messmer (gordonmessmer)
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:03:34
Howdy howdy, folks 👋
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:03:38
I hope your weeks are going well.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:04:08
Not sure if bookwar, Jona Azizaj (she/her), nimbinatus, and/or Peter Boy (ServerWG, Docs) are around…
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:04:22
Welcome back!
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:05:44
Well, we are five minutes past, and I see five tickets triaged on the project board.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:05:53
Plus, we had a new ticket come in proposing a legal policy!
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:05:58
So, let's not dilly-dally.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:06:02
!info Council members present: @jflory7, @dcantrell, @t0xic0der, @churchyard, @pbokoc, @jspaleta
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:06:09
!topic Meeting Agenda
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:06:13
!link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Council_Meetings#Next_Meeting_Agenda
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:06:17
Err, or more accurately…
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:06:22
!link https://forge.fedoraproject.org/council/-/projects/2
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:07:21
I think we can go from top to bottom. Plus, I see Gordon Messmer is here, so seems like the right opportunity to follow up on the proposal and discuss.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:07:29
So, let's do it.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:07:55
!topic #565: F44 Council Interview Questions (due: 21 May 2026)
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:08:00
!link https://forge.fedoraproject.org/council/tickets/issues/565
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:08:11
'tis the season, to make ballots, fa la la la la, la la la la
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:08:22
Our questions feel super stale
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:08:25
IMHO
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:08:37
And too many
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:08:42
I think FESCo had the right idea with three
<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>
14:09:10
We do have one more Council meeting before 21st so maybe we can homework this on a shared Google Doc file?
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:09:26
Akashdeep Dhar / আকাশদীপ ধর: Sounds like a raised hand? 😉
<@jspaleta:fedora.im>
14:09:29
must refrain form making Holy Grail movie quote concerning questions on a bridge
<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>
14:09:57
Gives enough time for us to think about this than to make it a +1 obligatory exercise.
<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>
14:09:57
We can then use the meeting on 20th to finalise thing and be done with it.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:10:19
I think it is a good plan
<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>
14:10:20
Sure (What have I gotten myself into?)
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:10:40
Akashdeep Dhar / আকাশদীপ ধর: Could I give you the action to take our questions, fork them off into a Google Doc, and send a prompt to council-private@ to ask us to weigh in and edit?
<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>
14:11:06
Sure.
<@jspaleta:fedora.im>
14:11:11
google doc with a deadline.. we all vote for our top 3.. and we see what shakes out as consensus
<@jspaleta:fedora.im>
14:11:32
thats the starting point for discussion
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:11:34
!action @t0xic0der Create a Google Doc with the Council interview questions and share with all Council members for edits
<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>
14:11:51
Vote and heck, if people wanna add their contenders or discuss the existing ones, sure.
<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>
14:11:51
The deadline should be able to drive action here.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:11:57
!action @t0xic0der Send a mail to council-private@lists.fp.o with the Google Docs link when ready, prompt Council members to weigh in and provide feedback
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:12:26
!agreed Deadline for feedback is by 19 May 2026, preceding the next Council meeting. On the 20 May 2026 meeting, we take a formal ticket-driven vote.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:12:42
!idea We have too many questions and they also feel too abstract/outdated. Suggested to narrow it down to three critical questions.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:13:07
!idea @jspaleta suggests we all make votes for our top three questions and see what has the most appeal to the whole Council
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:13:34
!info We will table this topic until the next meeting but ask all Fedora Council members to provide async feedback on Ticket #565
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:13:50
I think that's all.
<@pboy:fedora.im>
14:13:52
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
14:14:01
Peter Boy (ServerWG, Docs): Peter Boy (pboy)
<@pboy:fedora.im>
14:14:02
Sorry being late
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:14:07
!info +Present: @pboy
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:14:32
!topic #562: Community Initiative Proposal: Fedora AI Developer Desktop Initiative
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:14:40
!link https://forge.fedoraproject.org/council/tickets/issues/562
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:14:45
Peter Boy (ServerWG, Docs): Howdy!
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:14:51
OK, so. Gordon Messmer, this one is you.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:15:15
I confess that being out last week plus RH Summit next week is totally shattering my bandwidth, along with Flock in less than a month… I haven't had time to organize the discussion here on the ticket
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:15:24
So, I think I'd turn to Gordon Messmer and Jef Spaleta to drive this topic
<@gordonmessmer:fedora.im>
14:16:30
The proposal is here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Initiatives/AI_Developer_Desktop_Initiative_2026
<@gordonmessmer:fedora.im>
14:18:25
In short: we'd like to begin with an atomic desktop system with out-of-the-box support for accelerated AI/ML applications, and move on to expanding support for AI development in other areas.
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
14:20:36
are we exploring the “Machine Learning Developer Desktop Initiative” rename, or was that a rhetorical question in the discussion?
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
14:21:52
I am 100 % in favor of the goals here, but I am too a bit concern if "jumping on the AI bandwagon" won't hurt the project
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
14:22:02
I am 100 % in favor of the goals here, but I am too a bit concerned if "jumping on the AI bandwagon" won't hurt the project
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
14:23:18
(I am receptive to that kind of feedback and I don't want to dismiss it entirely.)
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:23:28
Just read the proposal top to bottom. I don't see anything that would be a -1 blocking vote for me today. I am still concerned about the LTS kernel stuff after I saw Justin Forbes' comments, but I didn't get to keep up with the discussion before it took off.
<@gordonmessmer:fedora.im>
14:23:38
I am neutral on the naming. I generally favor avoiding anything that triggers a brigade, but I am unsure a different name would effectively prevent it.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:23:49
I am interested in giving a green light here for the work to actually begin, because…
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:24:26
There is nothing that stops anyone from _doing this on their own right now_, but Gordon has come to us to do it as an Initiative, with the guidance of a Council Executive Sponsor, and I think the details won't ever be 100% perfect at the start. No Initiative ever is 😛
<@gordonmessmer:fedora.im>
14:24:33
The LTS kernel is one proposal for hardware enablement, but I know that Neal is interested in reviving work on kernel modules and I will be working with him on that as well
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
14:24:33
the work to begin no matter what :)
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:24:36
Something something, best plans of mice and men, something something
<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>
14:24:44
For what its worth, I think that, if anything, we are late to the party here with enabling people to build AI stuff on Fedora Linux.
<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>
14:24:44
It is anyway proposing to be an addition atop the existing options and not a replacement so... 🤷
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
14:24:59
the work can begin no matter what :)
<@gordonmessmer:fedora.im>
14:25:02
If we find a path forward that doesn't rely on the longterm kernel, that's also good.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:25:08
I really don't care but if you use AI, it will attract the search engine juice that does exist around AI and not so much ML. But I don't have a strong opinion here either way TBH
<@jspaleta:fedora.im>
14:25:13
I think the name change would be dishonest. If there is batter term.. that encompasses all workloads that use local compute hardware... sure.. but i dont know of that term
<@jspaleta:fedora.im>
14:26:21
the industry doesnt refer to the hardware as ML accelerators afaict
<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>
14:26:22
Like, lets focus on whether or not we support the goals of the initiative and maybe we can revisit the naming problem later, off the meeting time?
<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>
14:26:22
IMHO isn't the naming a little too much of an implementation detail?
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:26:26
I guess I have two questions to figure out what to do here
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:26:29
Yes, it is
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:26:38
Naming is the most famous bike-shed of all bike-sheds
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:26:48
Here are my two questions:
<@dcantrell:fedora.im>
14:26:55
Naming things is one of the 3 most difficult computer science problems ever
<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>
14:27:13
Just pick a Japanese name to sound cool, come on
<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>
14:27:13
How difficult can that be huh
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:27:27
1. For Gordon Messmer: At this time, pre-approval, is there guidance, insight, or specific support that you want from the Council while undergoing this Initiative? I think the ask is more for mentoring and guidance, I don't see anything that looks like budgetary or resource asks from Fedora.
<@gordonmessmer:fedora.im>
14:27:41
The work has begun. I've built infrastructure to build and sign kernels and/or modules with an HSM. I have longterm kernel builds with NVIDIA OpenRM modules, and I have a Respin that uses those and provides the CUDA runtime. That work is pretty well underway. But the initiative provides the appearance of legitimacy that working on this on my own doesn't.
<@dcantrell:fedora.im>
14:27:57
Just whatever we pick as the name, make sure everyone pronounces it correctly (for a fail, see "quay")
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:28:02
2. For Council: Do we feel ready to vote on this now? If not, when? We are dragging this out for months. I want to make a decision and move on with life. I have other things to do than debate this all day, and I think we have iterated enough IMHO
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:29:21
Personally, _I_ feel ready to vote
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
14:29:39
I am ready as well, I was just asking a clarifying question :)
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:29:51
I have concerns, of course, but we will work through them. I would rather someone work with Council on this with care and concern, than drive through the Fedora jungle on their own
<@gordonmessmer:fedora.im>
14:30:03
/me nods
<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>
14:30:08
Same here, I'm ready to vote
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:30:26
Gordon Messmer: I am going to give you an `!idea` and you can do it if you want to make me happy 🙂
<@gordonmessmer:fedora.im>
14:30:45
I love idea
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:30:45
!idea Address Justin Forbes' LTS kernel feedback specifically in the Fedora Wiki proposal for the Initiative
<@gordonmessmer:fedora.im>
14:30:47
I love ideas
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:31:14
I was looking for it, but didn't see it. I am not blocking on it, but I trust jforbes on kernel stuff more than any other Fedoran, for obvious reasons 🙂
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:31:30
!group members council
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:31:35
Voting time?
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:31:44
I will write a proposed:
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:32:28
!proposed The Fedora Council approves the AI Developer Desktop Initiative as a 12-month Initiative, led by @gordonmessmer and sponsored by @jspaleta.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:32:30
+1
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
14:32:52
+1
<@pbokoc:fedora.im>
14:32:54
+1
<@dcantrell:fedora.im>
14:32:56
+1
<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>
14:33:00
+1
<@jspaleta:fedora.im>
14:33:10
+1
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:34:28
Wow. Was it that easy? I know we are missing some Council members… Jef Spaleta, as our executive leader and in lieu of formal policy on how to handle this situation, do we want to wait until Friday for absent Council members to vote, or do we want to ratify this right now on the basis of lazy consensus?
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:35:03
(If we had not been discussing this for so long, I'd want to wait, but… this is getting old and the work is already happening)
<@mattdm:fedora.im>
14:35:17
Have any of the non-present members expressed concerns?
<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>
14:35:29
Assuming we are timegating their votes, and have them recorded explicitly under the ticket.
<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>
14:35:29
If we have waited so far, I'd say there's no harm in waiting until this Friday.
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
14:35:31
not publicly
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:35:44
Not in the ticket, that I saw, but I confess Fedora Discussion was too much for me to crawl through. I know some community members have made public exits over some of this discussion 😕
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
14:35:54
not publicly (that was a reply to mattdm)
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:36:28
`+!proposed` And on the basis of lazy consensus, the vote will be ratified and final by Friday, 8 May
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:36:28
So, what about this:
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:36:28
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:36:30
+1
<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>
14:36:41
The last thing we would want is to look hurrying even though that's not the intention
<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>
14:36:41
The Discussion thread felt very livid every now and then, to say the least
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:36:42
(to be clear, appending that^^ to the previous !proposed)
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:36:57
Good point
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:37:06
It is a sensitive topic and should be handled delicately
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:37:29
Friday feels fair. I'll wait maybe a minute or two for any objections, but otherwise, I will compile the final agreed statement
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:38:39
Oh my.
<@jspaleta:fedora.im>
14:38:57
im fine with a short wait. However, this is the 2nd meeting and I am wary of holding a process open forever.
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
14:39:02
I hope you meant "vivid" and not "livid" there?
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:39:12
Sounds like "yes, Friday works" to me 🙂
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:39:34
Maybe both TBH 👀
<@gordonmessmer:fedora.im>
14:39:45
It is a sensitive topic, and I would like to believe that the initiative provides space for interested people to work on something without pushing it on existing desktops or users who don't opt in to working on it or using its work.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:40:22
The non-goals were sensible to me, and provide the assurances I was looking for that this won't be a raging dumpster fire. Fundamentally, there is nothing happening in this proposal that simply could not be done by someone with the resources, time, and energy to do so
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:40:36
I'd just prefer to do it with support from Council
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:40:56
Anyways… not seeing objections to Friday… and it is more than two minutes… so, I assume the appended part of the proposal is valid.
<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>
14:40:57
I know folks are passionate about how they want to see Fedora Project grow so I understand where everyone was coming from.
<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>
14:40:57
The latter. I wish things would have gone a little better there. :(
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:40:58
Here goes:
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:40:59
!agreed `+6`/`0`/`-0` — The Fedora Council approves the AI Developer Desktop Initiative as a 12-month Initiative, led by @gordonmessmer and sponsored by @jspaleta. On the basis of our documented lazy consensus voting model, the decision will be ratified and final by Friday, 8 May in the ticket.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:41:28
!action Update Ticket #562 with the meeting discussion, change due date on issue to Friday, 8 May
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:41:39
Errrr… that was for me…
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:41:44
!action @jflory7 Update Ticket #562 with the meeting discussion, change due date on issue to Friday, 8 May
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:41:50
Better
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:42:10
!action @jflory7 If no -1 votes by Friday, onboard Gordon Messmer as a new Fedora Council member next week
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:42:40
!action @gordonmessmer @jspaleta Create a recurring 1:1 meeting to discuss Initiative progress as Executive Sponsor/Initiative Lead
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:43:01
Obviously some of these actions are tentative for Friday, but the path forward seems likely IMHO
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:43:06
Anyways, let's move on
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:43:54
Oh, and thanks Gordon Messmer for showing up and repping the work in the meeting!
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
14:43:54
it almost did
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:43:58
Appreciate you being here
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:43:59
!topic Ticket #564: Adopt Fedora Innovation Lifecycle as Council Policy
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:44:07
!link https://forge.fedoraproject.org/council/tickets/issues/564
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:44:16
Jef Spaleta: You're back at the mic
<@jspaleta:fedora.im>
14:44:51
hey! so really this is just a head check to make sure council gets a chance to weight on the draft I want to take for public discussion
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:45:12
!link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Jspaleta/Drafts/FedoraInnovationLifecycle
<@jspaleta:fedora.im>
14:45:15
i want to get this out for public feedback as required leading to a council vote
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
14:45:42
do it :)
<@jspaleta:fedora.im>
14:46:02
roger that. I have some feedback from nimbinatus I have to integrate
<@jspaleta:fedora.im>
14:46:25
well the straw draft was step 1
<@jspaleta:fedora.im>
14:46:27
this is step 2
<@jspaleta:fedora.im>
14:46:43
the straw draft was all done in public
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:47:02
I think going public is fine, but it is tricky to actually understand what the Sandbox offers beyond a strategic framework to think through. And lots of questions. For the entry phase, this feels like the most important, most critical part for the Fedora Council:
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:47:12
!info For Entry phase: "Inclusion into the Sandbox stage explicitly confers a time-limited use of the Fedora trademarks during participation in sandbox and curation stages. On exit from the lifecycle via an alternative pathway, it is expected that the technology team will need to transition to standard Fedora Remix branding guidance, unless Council grants continued trademark use under its authority via a separate trademark usage proposal request."
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:48:55
!halp Proposal appears to miss any gating/pre-reqs for how to request infrastructure, or who is on the hook for providing that infrastructure. (At least, in the Review phase, since it mentions Fedora Infrastructure being provided but not how someone gets it or what they are supposed to get)
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:49:14
Maybe this is intentional, and the Sandbox project needs to propose that, but I'd like to see more shape of what a possible proposal example would look like
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:49:26
Actually, I think examples for each phase would help me a _lot_ to process this better
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:50:03
Jef Spaleta: Not sure if you want to set a deadline or time-box anything here. I imagine folks need time to process, but I think you need to be firm and set a deadline
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:50:36
I guess this will look like a policy proposal in the end, and we can figure out how to actually policy-ify this, since we will have to do the 2-week Policy Change Policy anyways
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:50:57
I'm just not sure what is being sought right now on this ticket
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:51:43
Hmm, maybe Jef Spaleta stepped away, and I see Emmanuel Seyman here reading the chat. So I know he wants us to cover his ticket 🙂
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:51:58
I'm going to punt this to Jef to write something for us to either vote on, or to come with the policy draft
<@jspaleta:fedora.im>
14:52:06
i hope to have a public draft before I leave for Summit
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:52:19
Policy proposal draft?
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:52:22
(to clarify)
<@jspaleta:fedora.im>
14:52:22
there's a 2 week period in which we can talk in public discussion before it comes up for vote
<@jspaleta:fedora.im>
14:52:36
yep formal policy proposal draft... the follow up to the modest proposal
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:52:39
ACK
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:52:53
!info @jspaleta is working on a public Fedora Project policy draft to share before Red Hat Summit next week.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:53:12
!info Note that until the Policy Change Policy is initiated, this is only for discussion and nothing is being decided… yet.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:53:42
!action @jspaleta Share the Sandbox policy draft with Council on council-private@lists.fp.o for a round of Council early feedback/editing before moving ahead to the public Policy Change Policy process.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:53:51
I think that covers it for now…
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:54:01
Not much time left, and Emmanuel Seyman's ticket is a bit thorny, so let's change over
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:54:15
!topic Ticket #563: public ticket with a summary of the provenpackager revocation discussion
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:54:20
!link https://forge.fedoraproject.org/council/tickets/issues/563
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:54:44
(on a side note, I do love our issue template, because it makes it super easy for me to understand what is being requested/asked for here)
<@eseyman:fedora.im>
14:55:05
it does make filing these very easy
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:55:05
This seems like the fundamental ask:
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:55:05
- Publish the summary to the devel mailing-list (and maybe other places as well)
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:55:05
- Ensure it contains the voting record for FESCO's decision
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:55:05
- Ensure everything in it can be published
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:55:05
- Take the summary of FESCO's discussion that was made available to the Council
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:55:05
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:55:31
I feel a bit uneasy about all of this though…
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:55:43
There was a bit of CoC involvement on this issue, and we were able to eventually resolve that
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:55:51
But I feel like this is going to rip up an old wound
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:56:00
And I feel like the _real_ answer is the Conflict of Interest Policy
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:56:20
Which we all probably forgot about because… well, a lot of stuff is happening all at once to keep our attention in other places.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:56:26
I saw Peter's comment of disappointment there 😕
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:56:34
Anyways, this is my opinion…
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:56:38
Any other thoughts here?
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:57:23
!link https://forge.fedoraproject.org/council/tickets/issues/513
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:58:07
^^that is the ticket I was referring to, and I think _that_ is the real answer to this whole debacle. Ripping open the old wound again, without at _least_ having this policy done, is probably going to make a lot of emotions. Livid, as the word of the day we used earlier 😛
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
14:59:02
I don't see how "Conflict of Interest Policy" will solve the fact that all the "provenpackager incident" was kept private
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:59:06
Emmanuel Seyman: Not sure if you have seen this Conflict of Interest ticket or not, or whether it resolves any of your desires/needs here
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:59:39
It doesn't, to be frank. but the point is to avoid thorny situations like what happened in the first place
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
14:59:55
I think one approach focuses on the past, another approach focuses on the future
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:00:07
I am not sure which has a heavier weight in the community mindset
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:00:11
hard to get a read on this one for me
<@eseyman:fedora.im>
15:01:25
I consider FESCO elections since then to not be fair because we do not know how the members voted at the time
<@eseyman:fedora.im>
15:01:25
I really want the voting record of the FESCO members on the decision.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:02:05
Fair
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:02:35
Well, I think we need a real decision here, and unfortunately we are out of time. I think the most appropriate thing might be for the Council to schedule a live video call to discuss this, and then make sure we get a discussion shared on the ticket with an outcome
<@jspaleta:fedora.im>
15:02:45
this one is difficult for me to weigh in on... because its pre-history for me.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:03:19
!info The original request remains for a desire to know the FESCo voting record on the provenpackager incident. The Council needs to discuss further, but we ran out of time to discuss further today.
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:03:39
I don't agree with disclosing a people-related private vote after the fact. there is retribution, expectations in the time of the vote etc.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:03:44
!action @jflory7 Schedule an internal Council video call to discuss this sensitive ticket in high bandwidth, relay outcomes of that discussion into the public ticket
<@t0xic0der:fedora.im>
15:03:51
Or at least push it to the next meeting...
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:04:02
I think we have to take the "L" on getting resolution today, and make sure we get an outcome soon
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:04:12
I'll take the action to make sure we _do_ discuss this, and in a timely way
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:04:22
I will choose to schedule this week because next week is Red Hat Summit and AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:04:29
!topic Open floor
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:04:37
!info Over time today! We must yield the meeting room.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:04:48
Thanks folks for being here and for being engaged in the discussions.
<@churchyard:fedora.im>
15:04:49
Close floor
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:05:00
!action @jflory7 Post meeting summary on Fedora Discussion
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:05:12
!action @jflory7 Update tickets with comments based on meeting discussion today
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
15:05:14
!endmeeting