2023-12-06 21:00:41 <@tdawson:fedora.im> !startmeeting EPEL 
2023-12-06 21:00:42 <@meetbot:fedora.im> Meeting started at 2023-12-06 21:00:41 UTC
2023-12-06 21:00:42 <@meetbot:fedora.im> The Meeting name is 'EPEL'
2023-12-06 21:00:52 <@tdawson:fedora.im> !meetingname epel
2023-12-06 21:00:59 <@tdawson:fedora.im> !topic aloha
2023-12-06 21:01:03 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> !hi
2023-12-06 21:01:05 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Carl George (carlwgeorge)
2023-12-06 21:01:37 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> morning
2023-12-06 21:01:39 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> !hi
2023-12-06 21:01:41 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Kevin Fenzi (kevin) - he / him / his
2023-12-06 21:02:12 <@dherrera:fedora.im> !hi
2023-12-06 21:02:13 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Diego Herrera (dherrera) - he / him / his
2023-12-06 21:02:36 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> is `!hi` necessary for the meetbot to list you as an attendee?
2023-12-06 21:02:58 <@tdawson:fedora.im> I don't think so, but I'm not sure.
2023-12-06 21:03:58 <@smooge:fedora.im> no clue
2023-12-06 21:04:07 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> i'm wondering if i can skip it since i set my display name to my real name here in matrix
2023-12-06 21:04:17 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> unless that is client-specific
2023-12-06 21:04:23 <@smooge:fedora.im> hi Larc Egroeg
2023-12-06 21:04:55 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> larc is now my spy name
2023-12-06 21:04:58 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> looks like it looks up anyone who says anything and prints their fas name in the minutes as attende...
2023-12-06 21:05:24 <@tdawson:fedora.im> !topic End Of Life (EOL)
2023-12-06 21:05:32 <@tdawson:fedora.im> RHEL 7 / epel-7 will go EOL on 2024-06-30
https://endoflife.date/rhel
CentOS Stream 8 / epel-8-next goes EOL in 2024-05-31
CentOS Stream 9 / epel-9-next goes EOL in 2027-05-31
https://endoflife.date/centos-stream
2023-12-06 21:05:55 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> !hi
2023-12-06 21:05:56 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Neil Hanlon (neil) - he / him / his
2023-12-06 21:06:09 <@tdawson:fedora.im> !topic EPEL Issues https://pagure.io/epel/issues
2023-12-06 21:06:16 <@tdawson:fedora.im> https://pagure.io/epel/issues?tags=meeting&status=Open
2023-12-06 21:06:44 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Looks like we have just one this week, possibly short
2023-12-06 21:06:56 <@tdawson:fedora.im> !epel 262
2023-12-06 21:06:56 <@zodbot:fedora.im> epel #262 (https://pagure.io/epel/issue/262): Proposed incompatible security update (again) for llhttp in EPEL9
2023-12-06 21:07:49 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Has everyone read the email and/or issue yet?
2023-12-06 21:08:08 <@tdawson:fedora.im> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/EL2N7VTEADV3H7KIK6GGLOPDZI3Q6EEE/
2023-12-06 21:09:14 <@tdawson:fedora.im> It looks like Fesco has granted it a permanent exception - https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3115
2023-12-06 21:09:18 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> note that fesco has approved a perm exception here. yeah
2023-12-06 21:10:29 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> so anyhow, +1 to the exception, and perhaps we could consider a perm one too.
2023-12-06 21:10:35 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> +1 to all
2023-12-06 21:10:47 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Ditto for me +1
2023-12-06 21:10:57 <@salimma:fedora.im> !hi
2023-12-06 21:10:58 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Michel Lind (salimma) - he / him / his
2023-12-06 21:11:00 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> yup, seems simplest to officially extend the fesco exception to epel as well
2023-12-06 21:11:15 <@salimma:fedora.im> sorry, in planning meeting all day today and got a bit distracted
2023-12-06 21:11:16 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> !hi
2023-12-06 21:11:16 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> +1 from me to both this one time and to making it permanent
2023-12-06 21:11:18 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Neal Gompa (ngompa) - he / him / his
2023-12-06 21:11:29 <@tdawson:fedora.im> I'm wondering if we have it in one of our policies that if Fesco gives something a permanent exception, so do we, unless we specifically don't want to.
2023-12-06 21:11:37 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I think that's a good idea
2023-12-06 21:11:43 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> it simplifies things for everyone.
2023-12-06 21:11:45 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> i don't believe we cover it anywhere
2023-12-06 21:11:45 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> was about to suggest the same, yep
2023-12-06 21:12:01 <@salimma:fedora.im> yeah in general we should assume fesco rulings apply unless indicated otherwise
2023-12-06 21:12:08 <@salimma:fedora.im> should we update our policies?
2023-12-06 21:12:13 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> if we can't trust fesco, who _can_ we trust :) 
2023-12-06 21:12:32 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> IIRC, pretty much all engineering groups technically root their power in FESCo.
2023-12-06 21:12:41 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> But most people aren't generally aware of that.
2023-12-06 21:12:50 <@tdawson:fedora.im> !agree The voting was unanamous.  We all agree to the exception, and to a permanat exception for llhttp
2023-12-06 21:13:02 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> is it `!agree`?
2023-12-06 21:13:07 <@tdawson:fedora.im> !agreed The voting was unanamous.  We all agree to the exception, and to a permanat exception for llhttp
2023-12-06 21:13:12 <@jonathanspw:fedora.im> !hi
2023-12-06 21:13:13 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Jonathan Wright (jonathanspw)
2023-12-06 21:13:20 <@jonathanspw:fedora.im> sorry i'm late
2023-12-06 21:13:35 <@salimma:fedora.im> speaking of FESCo, election opens next Monday https://elections.fedoraproject.org/about/f39%20fesco%20election
2023-12-06 21:13:49 <@salimma:fedora.im> yours truly is running, but the interviews have not been posted yet
2023-12-06 21:13:53 <@tdawson:fedora.im> !agreed The voting was unanamous.  We all agree to the exception, and to a permanat exception for llhttp
2023-12-06 21:14:08 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> Conan Kudo it's !agreed
2023-12-06 21:14:09 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> Is this going to show up twice now?
2023-12-06 21:14:10 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> to be fair, when fesco is making decisions, i don't think they intend for it to automatically apply to epel in all cases.  the fesco folks here can correct me if i'm wrong.
2023-12-06 21:14:34 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> In general, we do not assume a difference between Fedora and EPEL unless there's a reason to do so.
2023-12-06 21:15:08 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> well, for things like package guidelines thats definitely the case. exceptions... could be?
2023-12-06 21:15:16 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> Needing to handle them differently has come up so rarely that I can't even really remember the last time we had to.
2023-12-06 21:15:28 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> Certainly not during my tenure on FESCo.
2023-12-06 21:15:41 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> But nirik may know more, having done this way longer than I
2023-12-06 21:15:45 <@salimma:fedora.im> if something needs to be done differently it's easier to document it on our (EPEL) side rather than FESCo, right
2023-12-06 21:15:51 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> well considering fedora and epel have different update policies, i would not assume a fedora updates policy exception applies to epel
2023-12-06 21:16:24 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> Both Fedora and EPEL have similar policies for stable releases, though. ABI breakage is not generally wanted without a heads-up.
2023-12-06 21:16:41 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> The difference is how much people adhere to it :P
2023-12-06 21:16:52 <@salimma:fedora.im> definitely true
2023-12-06 21:16:57 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> in any case I don't think fesco minds if we differ, but I think we should be clear about whatever we want to do. ;)
2023-12-06 21:17:32 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> Yeah, if there's a reason to deviate, we should document separately, but I think to make life simpler for everyone, I'd rather accept FESCo exceptions automatically.
2023-12-06 21:17:45 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> by default, I mean
2023-12-06 21:17:52 <@salimma:fedora.im> yeah, we should either decide that update exemptions automatically apply, or that they need further vetting. and then document that
2023-12-06 21:17:53 <@jonathanspw:fedora.im> +1
2023-12-06 21:18:54 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> To clarify my position: I largely view EPSCo as stewards of the "EPEL exceptions" to Fedora policy as part of maintaining the EPEL repository
2023-12-06 21:19:12 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> so I _generally_ defer to Fedora guidance by default unless there's a reason not to
2023-12-06 21:20:02 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> we've been through plenty of record-keeping conversions :P
2023-12-06 21:20:20 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> i think there are few enough exceptions that we can (and should) vet them to ensure we want to apply each one to epel, i.e. an explicit list of epel exceptions, not automatically passing through fedora ones
2023-12-06 21:20:38 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> for example, I am pretty sure kde was granted an exception due to release caidence upstream and I know I got an exception for calibre at one point. Oh well.
2023-12-06 21:20:57 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> Yes, KDE's exception is documented in KDE SIG's wiki pages and somewhere in the packaging guidelines
2023-12-06 21:21:06 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> and that was globally throughout Fedora and EPEL
2023-12-06 21:21:11 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Updates_Policy/#kde
2023-12-06 21:22:10 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> ah, missed it because it was in another section
2023-12-06 21:22:27 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> one of these days, Troy Dawson and I need to just sit and rewrite that page fully
2023-12-06 21:22:33 <@tdawson:fedora.im> I'm sorta thinking that we're talking past each other, and possibly all saying the same thing, but since there are exceptions and exceptions to exceptions, it's not communicating well.  Would someone be willing to type up a pull request for our documentation so we can discuss it better.
2023-12-06 21:22:46 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> How about...
2023-12-06 21:22:46 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> fwiw, that kde sig update policy does not mention epel
2023-12-06 21:22:51 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/KDE/Update_policy
2023-12-06 21:22:55 <@zodbot:fedora.im> neil gave a cookie to tdawson. They now have 60 cookie(s), 4 of which were obtained in the Fedora 39 release cycle
2023-12-06 21:23:11 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> we approve this one time exception and discuss further how we want to handle perm exceptions on list?
2023-12-06 21:23:25 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/KDE/EPEL#Update_Schedule
2023-12-06 21:23:44 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> ah, different page
2023-12-06 21:23:51 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> Again, incoherent.
2023-12-06 21:24:03 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> We need to fix it.
2023-12-06 21:24:11 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> yeah, might be worth considering combining those
2023-12-06 21:24:27 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> Exactly.
2023-12-06 21:24:39 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> We have unified our maintenance strategy, and so these pages need to be merged and reworked.
2023-12-06 21:24:55 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> i already owe y'all too many docs prs, so i'll steer clear of volunteering for this one
2023-12-06 21:25:14 <@tdawson:fedora.im> nirik: Correct.  This particular exception has been approved.  Do we have a volunteer to draft a update?
2023-12-06 21:25:55 <@tdawson:fedora.im> I would volunteer, but I can't promise much of anything until beginning of next year (2024)
2023-12-06 21:26:16 <@smooge:fedora.im> Going back to what nirik said.. approve this and move along
2023-12-06 21:26:27 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Moving on :)
2023-12-06 21:26:29 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I could do it.
2023-12-06 21:26:47 <@salimma:fedora.im> I owe several docs PRs too so I'll punt on this as well
2023-12-06 21:26:49 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I can write up exception policy guidance as a PR that we can discuss more concretely.
2023-12-06 21:27:11 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Conan Kudo: Thank you
2023-12-06 21:27:56 <@tdawson:fedora.im> !topic Old Business
2023-12-06 21:28:15 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Does anyone have any old business they want to bring up?
2023-12-06 21:29:00 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> friendly ping to nirik on https://pagure.io/releng/issue/11787
2023-12-06 21:29:26 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> I accept your ping and forward it to jednorozec who said he would do this. ;)
2023-12-06 21:29:31 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> I'll poke on ticket
2023-12-06 21:29:38 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> works for me
2023-12-06 21:29:49 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Any other Old Business ?
2023-12-06 21:30:33 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Not even anything from the young wippersnappers ... ok, moving on.
2023-12-06 21:30:36 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> even better 😀
2023-12-06 21:30:56 <@tdawson:fedora.im> !topic General Issues / Open Floor
2023-12-06 21:31:13 <@jonathanspw:fedora.im> I'm happy to report that EPEL support has been added to AlmaLinux ELevate :D
2023-12-06 21:31:20 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> I figured you had that portion covered ;)
2023-12-06 21:31:21 <@jonathanspw:fedora.im> So EPEL is no longer a blocker for folks looking to elevate.
2023-12-06 21:31:23 <@smooge:fedora.im> congrats
2023-12-06 21:31:33 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> congrats, nice work
2023-12-06 21:31:57 <@tdawson:fedora.im> cool
2023-12-06 21:32:02 <@jonathanspw:fedora.im> EPEL support is only for cent7 -> alma 8 right now but the other EL derivatives are coming soon.
2023-12-06 21:32:04 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> 🛗!
2023-12-06 21:32:11 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> woot!
2023-12-06 21:32:22 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> hopefully this results in more alma devs contributing to epel packages as they notice upgrade path issues
2023-12-06 21:33:46 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> i definitely prefer fresh installs, but i'm not against major version upgrades
2023-12-06 21:34:02 <@tdawson:fedora.im> I agree with you.  To me it's a chance to ensure everything is cleared up ... but ya ... others don't agree alot.
2023-12-06 21:34:02 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> if you are made of money, fresh installs are great :)
2023-12-06 21:34:21 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> most people... are not made of money and do not have oodles of hardware :)
2023-12-06 21:34:21 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> i'm not sure how those are related, but ok
2023-12-06 21:34:53 <@salimma:fedora.im> we generally reimage, but do our initial spin ups of new releases by upgrading in place, so there's room for both
2023-12-06 21:35:13 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> regardless, i didn't meant to rabbit hole us, sorry. That's genuinely awesome news about elevate
2023-12-06 21:35:48 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Any other things for Open Floor?
2023-12-06 21:35:49 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> typically, I see reprovisioning in environments where there's more hardware to throw at the problem or systems are designed with enough system / data separation that it's easy to do
2023-12-06 21:35:49 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> dying on hills tends to generate discussion 😉
2023-12-06 21:36:00 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> otherwise, in-place upgrades it is
2023-12-06 21:36:07 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> i was _hoping_ i'd be ignored and allowed to decompose!
2023-12-06 21:36:22 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> i got one thing
2023-12-06 21:36:38 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Carl George: Go for it.
2023-12-06 21:37:19 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> > wild idea: an policy that allows members of the epel-packagers-sig to request epel*-next branches on any package that already has epel* branches
2023-12-06 21:37:49 <@michel:one.ems.host> I'm in favor, we would have mailman in epel9 already if not for this
2023-12-06 21:38:32 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> i've run into a case where a maintainer was having trouble understanding what epel next is, and took several back and forth comments to eventually get the epel9-next branch added https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2245057
2023-12-06 21:38:35 <@tdawson:fedora.im> I thought this wasn't really a policy thing as much as a releng scripts thing.
2023-12-06 21:38:37 <@michel:one.ems.host> we're pretty much like provenpackagers in the epel* scope except we need to deal with branching and provenpackagers don't on the fedora side
2023-12-06 21:38:51 <@michel:one.ems.host> and this will reduce the burden on releng having to deal with escalations
2023-12-06 21:39:24 <@tdawson:fedora.im> That didn't come out correctly ... I think even if you are a proven packager, you cannot request a epel*-next branch.
2023-12-06 21:39:26 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> it could definitely be misused, but then there would be a clear record of who did it. ;)
2023-12-06 21:39:41 <@smooge:fedora.im> I think you mean "requests for epel-next packages can be approved if there are existing epel-* branches". I mean anyone can currently request things.. whether the script gods will accept is another matter :)
2023-12-06 21:39:44 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> correct
2023-12-06 21:40:11 <@michel:one.ems.host> Troy Dawson: true. but proven packagers don't need to deal with branching on Fedora, while on epel we don't do auto branching so this is an issue
2023-12-06 21:40:34 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> exactly, right now it can be requested, and the toddler will reject it if you aren't a maintainer, collaborator, or in a group that is one of those
2023-12-06 21:40:41 <@michel:one.ems.host> this seems a halfway compromise between "just autobranch if there's already an epel branch" and "no you must be in teh ACL or ask to be first"
2023-12-06 21:41:31 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> i'm suggesting a code change to the toddler that will let some group (either epel-packagers-sig or proven packagers) to get epel*-next branches in cases like this
2023-12-06 21:41:49 <@michel:one.ems.host> only epel*-next or epel* too?
2023-12-06 21:41:57 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> of course in the end you should still explain to the maintainer whats going on, no?
2023-12-06 21:41:58 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> definitely just epel*-next
2023-12-06 21:42:32 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> of course, it should still start with a ticket and discussion, but say after a week or something it could move forward without the maintainer
2023-12-06 21:42:36 <@michel:one.ems.host> for epel10 I personally will likely not care that much about non-stream, except for the mailman stack I guess
2023-12-06 21:43:09 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> for epel10 it's not a problem because we'll have the leading branch already, and provenpackagers can fix any issues like this without delay
2023-12-06 21:43:19 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> I'm not opposed. I could see it being useful where maintainer doesn't know yet whats going on and something has to be done quickly, or maintainer doesn't care and is happy to let someone else do it.
2023-12-06 21:44:22 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> and yeah, come on epel10.... hurry up and get here. ;)
2023-12-06 21:44:34 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> similar to the provenpackager policy, we can say that <empowered group> should communicate with the maintainer first
2023-12-06 21:45:15 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> specifically this part:

> Prior to making changes, provenpackagers should try to communicate with owners of a package in bugzilla, dist-git pull request, IRC, matrix, or email. They should be careful not to change other people’s packages needlessly and try to do the minimal changes required to fix problems
2023-12-06 21:45:59 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> +1
2023-12-06 21:46:04 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> so if no one is opposed, my question is should we reserve this for provenpackagers, or members of the epel-packagers-sig
2023-12-06 21:46:15 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> either one works for me honestly
2023-12-06 21:46:47 <@tdawson:fedora.im> I'm ok with either one.
2023-12-06 21:46:52 <@jonathanspw:fedora.im> I'd say both
2023-12-06 21:46:54 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> +1 from me on either
2023-12-06 21:46:56 <@jonathanspw:fedora.im> Or, either
2023-12-06 21:46:57 <@jonathanspw:fedora.im> semantics
2023-12-06 21:47:08 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> (or both ;) )
2023-12-06 21:47:09 <@jonathanspw:fedora.im> If a user is in either group, let them do it.
2023-12-06 21:47:57 <@salimma:fedora.im> yeah, either
2023-12-06 21:48:08 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> i said i'm ok with both, but maybe epel-packagers-sig is the more logical choice.  sometimes i'm surprised by who i see is provenpackager.
2023-12-06 21:48:12 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> worth pondering on.
2023-12-06 21:48:20 <@salimma:fedora.im> hmm good point
2023-12-06 21:48:33 <@smooge:fedora.im> hey just because they let me into Proven Packagers once.. doesn't mean they are all bad
2023-12-06 21:49:15 <@dherrera:fedora.im> so... should this get requested as a FESco ticket? or can we simply decide on this here?
2023-12-06 21:49:21 <@salimma:fedora.im> the barrier of entry for epel-packagers-sig is quite reasonable, and there's already weird backlash against provenpackagers in Fedora, maybe making it epel-packagers-sig first is a good start
2023-12-06 21:49:39 <@tdawson:fedora.im> I'm ok with just epel-packagers-sig
2023-12-06 21:49:42 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> that's exactly what i had in mind
2023-12-06 21:50:25 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> did we ask fesco for permission for users to be able to untag their own epel-next builds?  this fits in the same sort of bucket i think.
2023-12-06 21:50:45 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Diego Herrera: I believe we have to decide on it here.  It's a unique EPEL thing.
2023-12-06 21:50:58 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> to be fair, I think that was orig a misconfiguration on the epel-next tags. ;)
2023-12-06 21:51:22 <@tdawson:fedora.im> shhh .... not so loud. :)
2023-12-06 21:51:28 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> ha
2023-12-06 21:51:29 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> so vote time?
2023-12-06 21:52:17 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> I'd vote -1 right now... not because I don't like it, but because I don't like proposing new non time sensitive things, discussing them and approving them all in the same meeting
2023-12-06 21:52:25 <@tdawson:fedora.im> I'd feel better with an issue and an official vote next week.  Because this is going to need to be somewhere we can point to for releng.
2023-12-06 21:53:02 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> well to be fair i quasi-proposed it in the main channel last week, but sure i can file an issue
2023-12-06 21:53:06 <@smooge:fedora.im> agreed
2023-12-06 21:53:09 <@smooge:fedora.im> with nirik
2023-12-06 21:53:28 <@smooge:fedora.im> this needs a) a ticket b) some discussion and c) a vote
2023-12-06 21:54:19 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> alongside the ticket i'll make a discussion thread
2023-12-06 21:54:35 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> alongside the ticket i'll make a discussion.fpo thread
2023-12-06 21:54:56 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Carl George: Thank you
2023-12-06 21:55:07 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Any other Open Floor items before we run out of time?
2023-12-06 21:56:22 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Thank you all for comming and for the good discussions.
2023-12-06 21:56:35 <@jonathanspw:fedora.im> y'all have a good rest of the week!
2023-12-06 21:56:37 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> Thank you Troy Dawson for running and being awesome as always! :) 
2023-12-06 21:56:43 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> have a good wednesday y'all
2023-12-06 21:56:44 <@smooge:fedora.im> thanks troy
2023-12-06 21:56:49 <@tdawson:fedora.im> And thank you all for all your for on EPEL and it's community.
2023-12-06 21:56:51 <@dherrera:fedora.im> thanks troy :D
2023-12-06 21:56:54 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Talk to you next week.
2023-12-06 21:57:09 <@tdawson:fedora.im> !endmeeting