21:00:27 <tdawson> #startmeeting EPEL (2023-01-18)
21:00:27 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Jan 18 21:00:27 2023 UTC.
21:00:27 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location.
21:00:27 <zodbot> The chair is tdawson. Information about MeetBot at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Zodbot#Meeting_Functions.
21:00:27 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
21:00:27 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'epel_(2023-01-18)'
21:00:28 <tdawson> #meetingname epel
21:00:28 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'epel'
21:00:30 <tdawson> #chair nirik tdawson pgreco carlwgeorge salimma dcavalca dherrera gotmax[m] smooge
21:00:30 <zodbot> Current chairs: carlwgeorge dcavalca dherrera gotmax[m] nirik pgreco salimma smooge tdawson
21:00:31 <tdawson> #topic aloha
21:00:47 <nirik> morning
21:00:47 <smooge> here
21:01:14 <carlwgeorge> .hi
21:01:15 <zodbot> carlwgeorge: carlwgeorge 'Carl George' <carl@redhat.com>
21:01:30 <tdawson> Hi carlwgeorge
21:01:30 <davide> .hello dcavalca
21:01:31 <zodbot> davide: dcavalca 'Davide Cavalca' <davide@cavalca.name>
21:01:34 <tdawson> Morning nirik
21:01:43 <tdawson> Ahoy smooge
21:02:00 <tdawson> Hello davide
21:02:04 <michel> .hello salimma
21:02:05 <zodbot> michel: salimma 'Michel Alexandre Salim' <michel@michel-slm.name>
21:02:11 <tdawson> Hello michel
21:02:26 <michel> my chat.fp.o account is still messed up so using this
21:02:59 <tdawson> #chair michel
21:03:00 <zodbot> Current chairs: carlwgeorge dcavalca dherrera gotmax[m] michel nirik pgreco salimma smooge tdawson
21:03:41 <salimma> ok, back here too
21:03:41 <dherrera> .hi
21:03:42 <zodbot> dherrera: dherrera 'Diego Herrera' <dherrera@redhat.com>
21:05:19 <tdawson> Hi dherrera
21:05:30 <tdawson> #topic End Of Life (EOL)
21:05:32 <tdawson> RHEL 7 will go EOL on 2024-06-30
21:05:34 <tdawson> CentOS Stream 8 goes EOL in 2024-05-31
21:05:35 <tdawson> CentOS Stream 9 goes EOL in 2027-05-31
21:05:51 <tdawson> #topic EPEL Issues https://pagure.io/epel/issues
21:05:53 <tdawson> https://pagure.io/epel/issues?tags=meeting&status=Open
21:06:18 <tdawson> And there are 0 items there.
21:06:53 <tdawson> #topic Old Business
21:07:08 <tdawson> Sorry ... I seem to be just zipping through these
21:07:14 <smooge> no thats fine
21:07:15 <carlwgeorge> zip away
21:07:33 <smooge> 2023 is for zipline approved meetings
21:07:40 <tdawson> *laughs*
21:07:55 <tdawson> OK ... but I don't really have anything for old business.
21:08:25 <tdawson> The only thing I have for Old Business is to ask when we want to bring up the epel 10 proposal again?
21:08:36 <tdawson> Beginning of February?
21:08:41 <smooge> 2025?
21:09:02 <smooge> yeah February sounds god
21:09:16 <tdawson> OK ... I'll mark it for February.
21:09:22 <nirik> might be nice to have a ping on it a week before too so everyone goes and re-reads it before the next meeting?
21:09:38 <tdawson> Good idea.
21:09:40 <smooge> That would be next week's meeting
21:10:04 <tdawson> Oh ... you scared me there ... you meant the ping would be next weeks meeting.
21:10:34 <tdawson> OK, I'll do that.
21:10:42 <smooge> yeah sorry
21:10:52 <smooge> i am just full of giving people heart-attacks today
21:10:56 <tdawson> Just incase anyone wants to look early ... here it is - https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/epel-10-proposal/44304
21:11:18 <tdawson> That's all I had for old business.
21:11:29 <tdawson> #topic General Issues / Open Floor
21:11:39 <smooge> I have one
21:11:56 <smooge> I need https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2155359 revisited by the committee.
21:13:14 <carlwgeorge> it's in rhel7 extras, what's the justification to make an exception to policy to keep it in epel7?
21:13:25 <smooge> carlwgeorge, I don't see it in rhel7 extras
21:13:32 <smooge> it isn't in the copy I can get from RHN
21:13:44 <smooge> it is in CentOS extras but that is a different set of tools
21:14:01 <nirik> I didn't think extras was a channel we said we wouldn't conflict with?
21:14:15 <tdawson> ACtually, I just found it   ... and I think our working is off, it's in rhel-7-server-extras-rpms
21:14:41 <tdawson> /working/wording/
21:14:46 <carlwgeorge> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-policy/#_policy
21:15:02 <nirik> hum.
21:15:31 <tdawson> According to the policy ^^ that one ... we h ave rhel7-rhel-extras and rhel7-server-ha and rhel7-server-optional  as repos we won't conflict with.
21:15:47 <nirik> ok.
21:15:56 <tdawson> I never really liked that we had server-ha myself.
21:16:27 <smooge> so looking in what we get from RHN rhel-7-extras-for-x86_64-server-rpms, it hasn't been copied down to batcave
21:16:53 <smooge> i don't kow why it hasn't if it is somehow there, but looking at what that points to on the CDN I don't see it
21:16:56 <nirik> smooge: I see it in repo/rhel/rhel7/x86_64/rhel-7-server-extras-rpms/Packages/c/
21:17:23 <smooge> well I need to f*ing learn how to use find and grep today
21:17:43 <tdawson> *laughs*
21:18:00 <smooge> ok so my complaint is crap.
21:18:40 <nirik> extras was confusing to me due to ansible... ;(
21:19:12 <smooge> my apologies carlwgeorge I screwed up.
21:19:31 <carlwgeorge> no worries
21:19:49 <nirik> it's a twisty maze of repos... easy to get confused
21:19:55 <tdawson> smooge: You weren't alone ... I wasn't seeing it either.
21:20:26 <carlwgeorge> iirc we made an exception for ansible for some reason
21:20:32 <tdawson> *sigh* So much for the drama ... now we need something else to talk about or the meeting will be really short.
21:20:55 <nirik> carlwgeorge: because it was added, then removed... but rhel never removes anything... so the one in there is 'dead'
21:20:55 <tdawson> carlwgeorge: I believe that was because ansible was ... complicated.
21:21:52 <carlwgeorge> I had a thing for open floor related to fedora discourse
21:22:16 <tdawson> carlwgeorge: Go for it
21:22:40 * carlwgeorge searches for the tab
21:23:14 <carlwgeorge> https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/about-the-epel-tag/35533/5
21:23:59 <nirik> just some dumb history:
21:24:36 <nirik> "working groups" were specificailly for groups working on Editions. They had to be approved by the council and have PRD's and specific membership/voting requirements.
21:25:00 <nirik> sigs were groups... that could have anything fedora related. no specific members or voting, etc
21:25:18 <nirik> so epel is...kinda neither.
21:25:40 <nirik> the wiki calls epel a 'subproject'
21:25:41 <tdawson> Cheers for ambiguity ... if that is the right word.
21:26:08 <nirik> so... 🤷
21:26:18 <nirik> I agree epel-sig is confusing tho
21:26:40 <tdawson> carlwgeorge: I think just leave it as #epel ... cuz that's what people will probrubly tag things with anyway.
21:26:56 <carlwgeorge> i do think the "working group or no" part is a bigger discussion we can eventually have
21:27:21 <carlwgeorge> the question at hand is indeed do we need two separate tags in discourse to separate user discussions and project discussions
21:27:36 <carlwgeorge> i.e. #epel and #epel-sig/wg/team or just #epel
21:27:41 <tdawson> Oh .. ok.  That wasn't clear from that post.
21:27:55 <carlwgeorge> it's the context of the thread it's in
21:28:11 <davide> I think just #epel would be enough
21:28:28 <carlwgeorge> it seems a few other teams are saying the same thing
21:28:37 * nirik nods. I agree.
21:28:37 <carlwgeorge> in the other thread that matthew links
21:28:47 <nirik> we can always add a tag later it f we start getting a bunch of posts...
21:29:09 <carlwgeorge> yeah the #epel tag already exists and it's pretty quiet, so i think it's enough
21:29:25 <smooge> so before 'working groups' there was a different thing which didn't have PRDs and such but required 'elections' and 'regular reports to the board'
21:29:32 <smooge> EPEL was in that scope
21:29:49 <smooge> ah yeah I think that was what a 'sub-project' meant
21:30:24 <tdawson> carlwgeorge: I agree ... if it's fairly quiet, just have the one.  If it get's to be a problem, then have a discussion.
21:30:24 <smooge> anyway.. just call it #epel
21:30:46 <carlwgeorge> sounds good, i'll let matthew know in the thread
21:31:27 <tdawson> Anything for open floor?
21:31:45 <carlwgeorge> for the bigger discussion of becoming a working group, do we want to have that convo now or later?
21:32:33 <nirik> is there some gain from that?
21:32:38 <tdawson> What would the working group give us?   What would we gain and/or loose?
21:32:47 <carlwgeorge> i'm not sure, that's why i wanted to talk about it
21:33:04 <carlwgeorge> the membership and voting are things we are already doing basically
21:33:55 <smooge> well the original was  voting members like FESCO. You would set aside a specific sized board and fill it with elections
21:34:32 <carlwgeorge> the confusion between epel as a sig and the epel packagers sig is a problem.  does switching the former to a wg fix that confusion?  (i'm not sure)
21:35:25 <salimma> is epel-packagers-sig the only "SIG" under EPEL?
21:35:27 <nirik> I think it's not worth it... but If folks want to try and clarify things more they could I guess...
21:36:02 <tdawson> I sorta like the term "sub-project" ... it feels like we are doing things under the table, all secret like.
21:36:04 <carlwgeorge> another option could be to just drop the epel sig phrasing and consistently call it a fedora sub-project throughout the docs
21:36:14 <tdawson> Ha!
21:36:36 <nirik> being a working group would currently mean we would need to write up a PRD and report to FESCo...
21:36:48 <carlwgeorge> forgive my ignorance, what's a prd?
21:36:49 <tdawson> Yuck
21:36:56 <salimma> from seeing the cloud SIG try and get reinstated as a WG... seems like a lot of boilerplate, as nirik said
21:36:58 <nirik> Product requirements document
21:36:59 <salimma> Product Requirement Doc
21:37:03 <bcotton> nirik: i don't think that's accurate
21:37:13 <smooge> Product Requirements Documentation.
21:37:32 <bcotton> FWIW, the Council doesn't make a meaningful distinction between a SIG, Working Group, etc
21:37:32 <carlwgeorge> a wild bcotton appears
21:37:43 <nirik> "Each product will be guided by a Working Group, which will function as an independent subcommittee of FESCo,"
21:37:54 <nirik> https://lwn.net/Articles/569799/
21:38:05 <smooge> bcotton, it may have changed but when I looked at it a while ago what nirik says was brought up
21:38:57 <bcotton> i'm looking for the citation, but you can take this as a Trust Me™ for the moment. i was in the room when we talked about this
21:38:59 <smooge> EPEL did not fit under working group either because we aren't building an edition
21:39:15 <nirik> anyhow, I'm not sure we need to do more organizing... but if others disagree, go ye forth. ;)
21:39:59 <tdawson> Does anyone mind if we take SIG out of our documentation, except for the EPEL-Packagers-SIG ?
21:40:20 <carlwgeorge> that would be a good first step i think
21:40:28 <nirik> I think thats fine, because SIGs can organize however they want... even to not calling themselves sigs. :)
21:40:29 * nirik runs
21:40:57 <tdawson> I like that thinking. :)
21:41:09 <smooge> i think that is fine
21:41:11 <carlwgeorge> bcotton: so if i understand you correctly, what you're saying is that a prd is not required to become a working group?
21:42:50 <bcotton> carlwgeorge: correct. the short version is that we have "Teams" which make "Solutions". And Teams can call themselves whatever they want
21:42:52 <bcotton> a PRD is required for your Solution to be promoted to Edition status, but not for how you call yourself
21:43:20 <bcotton> sadly, we did a poor job of documenting this and a worse job of trying to remove the older terms from usage (e.g. we still have spins and labs as a practical matter). ask me about it over beer sometime. i don't want to derail this meeting any more than i already have
21:43:49 <carlwgeorge> i think the meeting is just about over, so we could either keep talking about this or table it
21:43:52 <salimma> EPEL team sounds good
21:44:19 <nirik> If you have an enterprise server... and a package you need on it... and you can find them... you can call.... THE EPEL TEAM
21:44:28 <carlwgeorge> i think epel team would be confusing if you're talking about people that work on epel or the cpe epel team
21:44:34 <smooge> nirik, perfect
21:44:56 <tdawson> I'm going to change the documentation a bit, but other than that, how about we table this for now.
21:45:28 <salimma> the People's Front of Judaea seconds this motion
21:45:45 <nirik> splitter!
21:45:55 <tdawson> Anything else that needs  ... *laughs* ... to come up in the meeting?
21:46:01 <smooge> I am sorry but now I must be against it
21:46:22 <smooge> no just ping us to read the docs next week
21:46:25 <salimma> "what has EPEL ever done for us"
21:46:27 <bcotton> salimma++
21:46:27 <zodbot> bcotton: Karma for salimma changed to 3 (for the current release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
21:47:54 <tdawson> Looks like we are out of items.  Thank you all for comming, and for the good discussions.
21:48:03 <smooge> night
21:48:03 <dherrera> thanks
21:48:04 <salimma> thanks tdawson and everyone
21:48:08 <smooge> and thanks tdawson
21:48:13 <tdawson> Talk to you next week, if not sooner.
21:48:22 <tdawson> #endmeeting