20:00:50 <tdawson> #startmeeting EPEL (2023-09-06)
20:00:50 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Sep  6 20:00:50 2023 UTC.
20:00:50 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location.
20:00:50 <zodbot> The chair is tdawson. Information about MeetBot at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Zodbot#Meeting_Functions.
20:00:50 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
20:00:50 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'epel_(2023-09-06)'
20:00:51 <tdawson> #meetingname epel
20:00:51 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'epel'
20:00:53 <tdawson> #chair nirik tdawson pgreco carlwgeorge salimma dcavalca dherrera gotmax23 smooge
20:00:53 <zodbot> Current chairs: carlwgeorge dcavalca dherrera gotmax23 nirik pgreco salimma smooge tdawson
20:00:54 <tdawson> #topic aloha
20:00:55 <carlwgeorge> .hi
20:00:56 <zodbot> carlwgeorge: carlwgeorge 'Carl George' <carl@redhat.com>
20:00:58 <neil> .hi
20:00:59 <zodbot> neil: neil 'Neil Hanlon' <neil@shrug.pw>
20:01:04 <pgreco> .hi
20:01:05 <zodbot> pgreco: pgreco 'Pablo Sebastian Greco' <pablo@fliagreco.com.ar>
20:01:12 <neil> hey carl, Pablo, tdawson
20:01:20 <smooge> EHLO
20:01:35 <tdawson> Hi carlwgeorge neil and pgreco
20:01:41 <tdawson> Ehlo smooge
20:01:48 <nirik> morning
20:01:50 <pgreco> smooge: why do you have to trigger people like that???
20:02:01 <tdawson> Morning nirik
20:02:20 <neil> CRLF.CRLF
20:03:08 <smooge> pgreco 250 OK
20:03:24 <michel-slm> .hello salimma
20:03:25 <zodbot> michel-slm: salimma 'Michel Lind' <michel@michel-slm.name>
20:03:31 <nirik> +++ath0
20:03:35 <michel-slm> sorry, was dealing with something urgent
20:03:47 <tdawson> Hello michel-slm
20:03:50 <rsc> .hello robert
20:03:51 <zodbot> rsc: robert 'Robert Scheck' <redhat@linuxnetz.de>
20:04:02 <tdawson> #chair michel-slm
20:04:02 <zodbot> Current chairs: carlwgeorge dcavalca dherrera gotmax23 michel-slm nirik pgreco salimma smooge tdawson
20:04:08 <tdawson> Hello rsc
20:04:08 <dherrera> .hi
20:04:09 <zodbot> dherrera: dherrera 'Diego Herrera' <dherrera@redhat.com>
20:04:12 <michel-slm> pgreco: agreed. we all know nested parens are the only proper way to annotate a block
20:04:27 <tdawson> Hi dherrera
20:05:38 <tdawson> #topic End Of Life (EOL)
20:05:39 <tdawson> RHEL 7 / epel-7 will go EOL on 2024-06-30
20:05:41 <tdawson> https://endoflife.date/rhel
20:05:42 <tdawson> CentOS Stream 8 / epel-8-next goes EOL in 2024-05-31
20:05:44 <tdawson> CentOS Stream 9 / epel-9-next goes EOL in 2027-05-31
20:05:45 <tdawson> https://endoflife.date/centos-stream
20:06:01 <smooge> I am trying to remember the language which needed nested parens to be in order of {[()]}
20:06:04 <michel-slm> I like marking which epel release goes with which OS release
20:06:12 <michel-slm> smooge: oh wow yikes
20:06:21 <neil> agreed. I like those changes
20:06:22 <neil> tdawson++
20:06:38 <michel-slm> I know they mean different things in Clojure - () for lists, [] for vectors/arrays, {} for maps
20:06:52 <neil> it's lisp, isn't it  smooge?
20:07:07 <smooge> it may have been a lisp dialect from the 1980s
20:07:22 <tdawson> #topic EPEL Issues https://pagure.io/epel/issues
20:07:23 <tdawson> https://pagure.io/epel/issues?tags=meeting&status=Open
20:07:29 <smooge> anyway.. enough triggering
20:07:33 <neil> lol
20:08:15 <tdawson> Let's start with finishing up the committee process
20:08:18 <tdawson> .epel 240
20:08:19 <zodbot> tdawson: Issue #240: Formalizing the EPEL Steering Committee member process - epel - Pagure.io - https://pagure.io/epel/issue/240
20:08:59 <carlwgeorge> after last week's meeting i added a comment about why i feel one of the cons isn't a problem
20:09:41 <tdawson> carlwgeorge: Yep, and I agree with your comment.  I was actually going to write something like that, but I figured someone would be able to write it better ... which you did. ;)
20:09:53 * carlwgeorge nods
20:10:09 <tdawson> But let's start with the first ... Lifelong vs set time
20:10:12 <michel-slm> if we only announce it in epel-announce, and also announce that voting is encouraged for people who use/contribute to EPEL, I think that should be fine
20:10:26 <michel-slm> but yes, let's discuss term length first
20:10:56 <tdawson> Do we need to discuss Lifelong vs "Set Time" anymore, or are we all going for "Set Time" ?
20:11:37 <carlwgeorge> i don't recall anyone in the ticket or in meetings saying they would prefer lifelong.  if i missed it please correct me.
20:11:48 <tdawson> nirik: I believe you were the last Lifelong person.  Are you still feeling that way?
20:12:26 <carlwgeorge> ah yes nirik was on the fence between the two iirc
20:12:30 <nirik> well, I am not thrilled by adding a bunch of process, but I should just stand out of the way at this point and let you all setup whatever you feel is best. ;)
20:12:31 <tdawson> Yep
20:12:56 <tdawson> *laughs* Sorry ... the Yep was answering carlwgeorge's comment.
20:13:14 <smooge> terms should be 2 years for representatives and 6 years for senators
20:13:21 <smooge> nirik can be a senator
20:14:14 <nirik> /nick palpatine
20:14:15 <michel-slm> 2 years seems like it's good for project committees and horrible in real life politics ;)
20:14:34 <michel-slm> (you can tell someone is recently eligible to vote for real)
20:14:42 <smooge> seriously though I would say that making them one Fedora release and 45/55 per election
20:15:23 <tdawson> Sorry, I'm not sure I get the 45/55 reference.
20:15:55 <smooge> well its an odd number of reps.. so small set one election and big set the next
20:15:59 <carlwgeorge> what's the term for fesco?
20:16:06 <tdawson> Ahh ... ok.
20:16:16 <smooge> sorry should have been clearer
20:16:31 <smooge> that is probably way too complicated and we just go with whatever Fesco does
20:16:39 <smooge> EESCO
20:17:12 <michel-slm> well given we want an odd numbers of reps, having one small and one big does make sense
20:17:17 <smooge> the committee for software past its Fedora fresh-by date
20:17:32 <michel-slm> 'we're like Fedora, but not edgy'
20:17:35 <tdawson> smooge: If I'm understanding, you are meaning have elections once per year (one Fedora release) and do 3 one year, 4 the next, and back and forth.
20:18:04 <smooge> tdawson: that was my original idea ofr 2 year terms
20:18:19 <tdawson> I think it sounds good.
20:18:32 <michel-slm> actually... shouldn't we align with centos stream releases? would that make sense as well
20:18:54 <smooge> well it could be 3/3 with senator palpa^W nirik having a 6 year term.
20:19:02 <tdawson> michel-slm: CentOS Stream doesn't have releases ... unless you include the roughly weekly ones.
20:19:02 <michel-slm> so 3 years, and have the 'smaller' election be done 18 months / 3 Fedora release after a Stream release
20:19:17 <tdawson> Ohh ... those releases.
20:19:19 <michel-slm> tdawson: ah. I mean a Fedora release that's branched into a new Stream
20:19:32 <michel-slm> yeah... terminology is hard, what are those called? ok let's just say new EPEL branches
20:19:47 <dherrera> new mayor branching?
20:19:53 <smooge> then we take over the ELN committee also. sgallagh will never see it coming
20:20:09 * neil laughs maniacally
20:20:25 <michel-slm> ELN already sounds like a rebel movement to me ;)
20:20:26 <tdawson> *laughs*
20:20:39 <michel-slm> we know how Palpatine thinks about rebels
20:21:41 <carlwgeorge> answering my own question, it looks like fesco elections are twice a year.  and they alternate 4/5 seats for their 9 total, similar to what smooge suggested for us.
20:22:42 <nirik> aligning with that will make some things easier...
20:22:50 <carlwgeorge> that's what i'm thinking
20:22:57 <michel-slm> 3 years is also a long commitment so I think we should just do the fesco thing
20:22:59 <tdawson> We wanted to have our elections correspond with the Fedora elections.  I'm thinking every 6 months is too often.  To me every 12 months (every other Fedora election) ... but it's sounding like michel-slm want's every three Fedora elections.
20:23:23 <michel-slm> well... I could go for either, just throwing that as an option
20:23:32 <tdawson> OK
20:23:33 <carlwgeorge> i could entertain the idea of six months being too fast, but 3 years is definitely too long
20:23:43 <carlwgeorge> i'm fine with 6 or 12 months
20:23:47 <michel-slm> prob with 18 months is, when do you do the other election
20:23:58 <michel-slm> so... 12 is probably ok. with 2 year terms
20:24:03 <dherrera> yeah, epel cycles are slower than fedora, so 12 months seems fine
20:24:23 <tdawson> To me, I'm like smooge's idea.  .. and it's sounding like others do too.
20:25:52 <tdawson> Do we want to decide this week?  (How often the elections are?)  Or wait one more week for that to see what sounds good?
20:26:44 <tdawson> I know it feels like I'm dragging this out, but I'd also like to get to Carl's topic, which is also about voting.
20:26:45 <carlwgeorge> for a transition to this process, i'm thinking among the current members we can just get 3 or 4 volunteer to give up their legacy seat to run in the first election, and everyone else gives up their legacy seat to run in the next election.  lacking volunteers for the first round, we pick at random.
20:27:15 <michel-slm> 12 months seem the consensus, so... maybe we can have a show of hands of who does /not/ agree with that cadence, and otherwise we can call that settled?
20:27:18 <pgreco> I'm ok with being on the first list
20:27:25 <nirik> well, pick from who? do we even have a list of current? ;)
20:27:35 <michel-slm> nirik: good point
20:27:39 <carlwgeorge> nirik: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL_Steering_Committee#Members
20:27:41 <tdawson> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL_Steering_Committee
20:27:42 * michel-slm does not know if he's on the committee or not
20:27:58 <michel-slm> apparently I am :)
20:28:06 <neil> lol
20:28:24 <carlwgeorge> tdawson, nirik, carlwgeorge, pgreco, michel-slm, dcalvalca, and ngompa
20:28:40 <nirik> ok. alternately we could just elect a full slate and the top vote getters get a 1 year term and the rest get a term to the next election
20:29:02 <michel-slm> I like that, I think neil suggested that last week too?
20:29:31 <carlwgeorge> nirik: i think that would involve more explanation during the election, rather than just saying "x number of seats are up for election"
20:29:41 <neil> (might've been Neal (Gompa), but wasn't me, I don't think)
20:30:02 <nirik> sure.
20:30:49 <neil> I think having the whole steering committee for the first year might not be a bad thing, per se
20:30:57 <neil> provides stability during the transiation
20:31:01 <neil> transition, even
20:31:08 <tdawson> I would feel better if we managed to get 3 volunteers ... it doesn't mean you have to step down ... just that you are willing to be voted upon.
20:31:51 <smooge> How about this for simple. On the spring Fedora election cycle, 7 EPEL steering commitee will be up for election. If there are not 7 candidates, the committee will shrink to whoever does show up plus nirik
20:31:57 <carlwgeorge> yeah for the first election we can do the smaller 3 seat election, then a year later do the 4 group
20:32:19 <nirik> no need to special case me. ;)
20:33:00 <smooge> sorry the plus nirik was more about a joke of forced membership :)
20:33:02 <michel-slm> if we do the 3 one first, I volunteer. could use the experience
20:33:18 <michel-slm> plus I'm probably the last one to join? (maybe pgreco and dcavalca are in the same boat)
20:33:28 <tdawson> So ... then next Fedora election is in the Spring?  That's plenty of time for 3 people to volunteer.
20:33:48 <carlwgeorge> and we're already 2 out of 3 it sounds like
20:34:18 <tdawson> I'm willing to volunteer ... cuz otherwise I'll be against nirik and carlwgeorge an Neal.
20:34:24 <nirik> I'm happy to volunteer too... although I might consider if I should run or not. I am busy and I know epel is in good hands with you all and I can always come yell about something I have a opinion on even if I don't vote. ;)
20:34:55 <smooge> ah nirik gets the emeritus flag like me
20:34:57 <carlwgeorge> tdawson: haha now you're strategizing
20:35:02 <tdawson> That's true ... just because you aren't on the committee, doesn't mean you can't keep doing the stuff you do.
20:36:22 <tdawson> I think it's starting to sink in that it's possible to actually step down for a year ... though I will admit I'm not at that point right now ... but it's interesting to think about.
20:36:24 <carlwgeorge> and of course once https://pagure.io/fedora-badges/issue/829 gets completed we'll award it to all current and emeritus members
20:37:12 <michel-slm> OT: is there a separate badge for people who stepped down from any elected position? e.g. a generic 'Emeritus' or 'Retiree' badge
20:37:24 <tdawson> Why is it so hard for us to get badges in :(
20:37:43 <nirik> badges is getting a rewrite... hopefully things will open up again more after that
20:37:58 <tdawson> Let's hope.
20:38:05 <michel-slm> wow, 2 years old ticket
20:39:23 <carlwgeorge> it's tagged as "AW (artwork) needs improvement", so if anyone has an eye for design feel free to jump in
20:39:51 <tdawson> So, I believe we've agreed on a bunch of stuff.  "Set Time"  "Use Fedora Elections" "Once a year, almost half the committee"  "Start in the Spring" ... does that summarize it?
20:40:28 <michel-slm> I think that's a good summary
20:41:09 <tdawson> OK, I'll put that in the ticket.   And let's timebox this.
20:41:30 <tdawson> carlwgeorge: Are you up for your ticket?  Or should we move that to next week?
20:43:39 <carlwgeorge> sure
20:44:14 <carlwgeorge> i haven't seen any comments on the ticket, does anyone have any feedback on what i've written there?
20:44:14 <tdawson> Sure ... move to next week?  Looking at the time I'm not sure we'll have enough time to discuss it.
20:44:48 * nirik looks for the ticket
20:44:50 <carlwgeorge> the sure was to go ahead and discuss, but if we need to punt to next week based on time that's fine too
20:44:56 <carlwgeorge> https://pagure.io/epel/issue/242
20:44:57 <tdawson> .epel 242
20:45:00 <zodbot> tdawson: Issue #242: Formalizing the EPEL Steering Committee voting process - epel - Pagure.io - https://pagure.io/epel/issue/242
20:45:36 <carlwgeorge> if people have open floor items we can punt, if there is nothing for that section we can go ahead i think.
20:45:58 <nirik> following the fesco rules seems fine. The only difference is 7 vs 9 I guess, but that shouldn't matter.
20:48:27 <neil> I think FESCo maintaining authority over votes sorta hedges against some of the concern around which votes count, and in which cases. But I'm not hugely stuck on that point. I just think that EPEL is a bit more approachable if the voices in the community are counted as votes, even knowing that decisions could be vetoed by FESCo, although I suspect
20:48:27 <neil> that wouldn't really happen ever
20:48:30 <tdawson> I was initially opposed to this, I like the fuzzy voting, but there is a point that once something becomes controversial, it's almost too late to say it's controversial and that only the committee can vote on it.
20:49:47 <tdawson> That didn't come out right ... but once something is controversial, if that is the time that it's committee only, then it becomes even more controversial. ... ya, I think that soundsl ike what I'm thinking.
20:49:48 <pgreco> I'm ok with only counting member votes, as long as people have the opportunity to voice (respectfully) their dissidence
20:49:56 <carlwgeorge> i think there is a big range of outcomes between "controversial/contentious vote" and "fesco override", and that makes me nervous
20:50:23 <neil> IMO first 'controversial/contentious vote' needs to be defined
20:50:46 <carlwgeorge> and it's not defined in the current rules, which is part of the problem
20:50:52 <neil> we can't be worried about ambiguous definitions. Or, at least, we can't share worries about ambiguous definitions
20:51:04 <tdawson> I think pgreco said what I'm really thinking.  I'm leaning toward "committee only" but I really want to keep the committee aproachable and allow good discussion.
20:51:39 <nirik> well, the bullet points are the current setup right? and would be replaced with fesco voting rules?
20:51:49 <tdawson> neil: I believe your being a bit abmiguious there. :)
20:51:49 <carlwgeorge> nirik: correct
20:51:59 <nirik> or did I misread that and we are keeping those?
20:52:17 <carlwgeorge> neil: ambiguous definitions are a ticking time bomb of conflict, imo
20:52:46 <michel-slm> we can always ask for non-binding inputs, right? when we announce things in epel-devel, those are specifically to solicit community feedback but then we decide
20:52:57 <neil> What I'm saying is that we first need to agree on what supposeded "ticking time bomb" we're worried about
20:53:00 <nirik> can and should. ;)
20:53:07 <carlwgeorge> michel-slm: exactly, like fesco does
20:53:12 <michel-slm> FWIW in fesco, every participant can vote, it's just that non members' vote don't actually count
20:53:34 <michel-slm> so yeah, exactly the same. I think defaulting to fesco rules and marking the exception (like election frequency / term limits) is easier to maintain / justify
20:53:43 * smooge would usually make a contentious/controversial proposal as an example but has hit his limit of bad jokes today
20:54:01 <carlwgeorge> neil: near 50/50 vote, with disagreement on whether it's contentious or not
20:54:58 <carlwgeorge> for example, group 1 thinks it's not contentious and the measure would pass with non-member votes included.  group 2 thinks it's contentious and it would not pass with only member votes included.
20:56:45 * nirik has to run for a few. will read back later.
20:57:42 <tdawson> So, for curiousity sake, how many are leaning towards "fuzzy" and how many are leaning towards "fesco" ?
20:57:53 <michel-slm> fesco
20:58:03 <dherrera> fesco
20:58:16 <tdawson> fesco for me as well.
20:58:22 <carlwgeorge> goes without saying since i raised the issue, but fesco for me as well
20:58:38 <michel-slm> fwiw I've not felt excluded as a non-member at fesco meetings
20:58:43 <smooge> fesco
20:59:01 <pgreco> fesco, yeah
20:59:19 <carlwgeorge> like many other things in epel, i think it should mirror fedora rules/process except when we have good justification to diverge
20:59:28 <neil> on the fence, but I still lean fuzzy, especially if fesco is the ultimate decision maker. like I said, though, it's not something I am going to raise a stink over
20:59:29 <tdawson> OK, so it's looking pretty determined, even if nirik came back and was opposed to it.
21:00:21 <neil> alas, I have a hard stop. will put comments in the ticket if I find time. I'm out the next couple weeks, but it was good seeing y'all. speak to you later
21:00:44 <neil> thanks tdawson as always :)
21:01:01 <tdawson> And our time is up.  Thank you all for the good discussions.  And again, thank you all for all you do for EPEL and it's community.
21:01:05 <smooge> so I am going with experience and agreeing with carlwgeorge on mirror the rules of existing thigns. SOme of the early EPEL and before that Fedora Legacy issues were in trying to do our own thing
21:01:15 <smooge> good luck neil
21:01:40 <neil> thanks smooge. vacation, so, hopefully not going to think about EPEL or any of you--no offense :)
21:01:56 <michel-slm> dcavalca proxied his +1 for fesco rules
21:01:59 <smooge> huh, I always did all my deep EPEL thinking when I was on vacation
21:01:59 <tdawson> carlwgeorge: Would you mind writting something up that can go into our documentation?
21:02:08 <tdawson> And with that, I'll close the meeting.
21:02:09 <carlwgeorge> sure
21:02:22 <tdawson> #endmeeting