2024-06-05 14:01:59 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !startmeeting Fedora Council Meeting
2024-06-05 14:02:00 <@meetbot:fedora.im> Meeting started at 2024-06-05 14:01:59 UTC
2024-06-05 14:02:00 <@meetbot:fedora.im> The Meeting name is 'Fedora Council Meeting'
2024-06-05 14:02:10 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !topic Roll Call
2024-06-05 14:02:10 <@ffmancera:fedora.im> !hi
2024-06-05 14:02:12 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !hi
2024-06-05 14:02:12 <@zodbot:fedora.im> FAS Fernando F. Mancera (ffmancera) - he / him / his
2024-06-05 14:02:14 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Aoife Moloney (amoloney)
2024-06-05 14:02:16 <@moralcode:fedora.im> !hi
2024-06-05 14:02:17 <@zodbot:fedora.im> None (moralcode)
2024-06-05 14:02:28 <@roseline:matrix.org> !hi
2024-06-05 14:02:30 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Roseline Bassey (roseline-bassey) - she / her / hers
2024-06-05 14:03:09 <@jonatoni:fedora.im> !hi
2024-06-05 14:03:11 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Jona Azizaj (jonatoni) - she / her / hers
2024-06-05 14:03:19 <@jflory7:fedora.im> !hi
2024-06-05 14:03:20 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Justin W. Flory (jflory7) - he / him / his
2024-06-05 14:03:26 <@mattdm:fedora.im> Nice to see you Adrian and Roseline!
2024-06-05 14:03:45 <@mattdm:fedora.im> And Jona and Justin and Aoife and Fernando too, of course :)
2024-06-05 14:03:50 <@roseline:matrix.org> Thanks, Matthew.
2024-06-05 14:04:14 <@jflory7:fedora.im> Good morning folks!
2024-06-05 14:04:19 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> !hi
2024-06-05 14:04:22 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Neal Gompa (ngompa) - he / him / his
2024-06-05 14:04:31 <@mattdm:fedora.im> FYI there is a Red Hat all-engineering meeting going on right now, and I'm listening to that.
2024-06-05 14:04:32 <@jflory7:fedora.im> This looking like it will be a full slate today :)
2024-06-05 14:04:41 <@jflory7:fedora.im> For posterity:
2024-06-05 14:04:45 <@amoloney:fedora.im> same
2024-06-05 14:04:46 <@jflory7:fedora.im> !group members council
2024-06-05 14:04:48 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Members of council: Aoife Moloney, bt0dotninja, David Cantrell, FAS Fernando F. Mancera, Jason Brooks, jflory7 (@jflory7:fedora.im, @fca:fedoraproject.org), Jona Azizaj, Matthew Miller, Robert Wright, smeragoel, Sumantro Mukherjee, Akashdeep Dhar
2024-06-05 14:04:52 <@mattdm:fedora.im> Since humans aren't _actually_ good at multitasking, if I get distracted, ping me. :)
2024-06-05 14:04:59 <@jbrooks:matrix.org> !hi jasonbrooks
2024-06-05 14:05:02 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Jason Brooks (jasonbrooks) - he / him / his
2024-06-05 14:05:06 <@mattdm:fedora.im> Welcome Jason!
2024-06-05 14:05:07 <@jflory7:fedora.im> Oh, that is nice that it shows all the Matrix IDs tied to someone's account now
2024-06-05 14:05:32 <@amoloney:fedora.im> We also have asamalik and bookwar as our newest council members - welcome!
2024-06-05 14:05:39 <@mattdm:fedora.im> Adam! It's a party today!
2024-06-05 14:05:42 <@amoloney:fedora.im> we will get the council group updated
2024-06-05 14:05:56 <@mattdm:fedora.im> Welcome back to both of asamalik and bookwar ! 
2024-06-05 14:06:25 <@bookwar:fedora.im> !hi
2024-06-05 14:06:26 <@asamalik:fedora.im> hey everyone, thank you! :D 
2024-06-05 14:06:27 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Aleksandra Fedorova (bookwar) - she / her / hers
2024-06-05 14:06:39 <@mattdm:fedora.im> aoife are you updating the docs?
2024-06-05 14:06:41 <@jflory7:fedora.im> !action @jflory7 Fix the Google Calendar invite so that it says `#meeting:fedoraproject.org` and not `#council:fedoraproject.org`
2024-06-05 14:06:48 <@tosin_doreen:matrix.org> !hi
2024-06-05 14:06:50 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Oluwatosin Olatunji (tosindoreen) - she / her / hers
2024-06-05 14:07:13 <@asamalik:fedora.im> !hi
2024-06-05 14:07:16 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Adam Samalik (asamalik) - he / him / his
2024-06-05 14:07:28 <@bookwar:fedora.im> (me is on the train with unreliable connection so don't expect a reply)
2024-06-05 14:07:33 <@mattdm:fedora.im> I think we may have a record for most Council meeting attendees in the last, at least, five years. We may need to get more formal with some of our meeting processes.
2024-06-05 14:07:44 <@mattdm:fedora.im> And with that I'll shut up and let Justin run the meeting :)
2024-06-05 14:07:46 <@amoloney:fedora.im> ack
2024-06-05 14:08:05 <@mattdm:fedora.im> or Aoife
2024-06-05 14:08:10 <@mattdm:fedora.im> whoever is running the meeting :) :) :)
2024-06-05 14:08:15 <@amoloney:fedora.im> tis me :)
2024-06-05 14:08:27 <@amoloney:fedora.im> Its part of the aul job
2024-06-05 14:08:46 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !topic Announcements & Reminders
2024-06-05 14:09:13 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !info Fedora Week of Diversity runs from June 17th to 22nd, 2024, featuring a series of interviews with community members sharing their Fedora stories. Additionally, we will host a virtual event on June 21st – 22nd, featuring talks, panel discussions and social activities. This year’s theme for Fedora Week of Diversity is “Empowering Diversity, Enriching Communities.
2024-06-05 14:09:30 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !info F40 Release Cycle Retrospective survey open until Friday June 7th - please share your feedback
2024-06-05 14:09:39 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !link https://fedoraproject.limequery.com/857364?lang=en
2024-06-05 14:10:06 <@jflory7:fedora.im> We swap it around sometimes but today, Aoife drives :)
2024-06-05 14:10:10 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !info Share your thoughts on what questions we should be including in an AI survey for Fedora
2024-06-05 14:10:13 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !link https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/ai-survey-questions-what-should-we-be-asking/118338
2024-06-05 14:10:37 <@jflory7:fedora.im> I like that this is a thing that can happen again in Fedora, now that Meetbot is back (on Matrix) :)
2024-06-05 14:10:38 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !info Reminder to vote in the council ticket #494
2024-06-05 14:10:40 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/494
2024-06-05 14:11:02 <@jflory7:fedora.im> Should this get a Marketing Team boost? Or maybe a repost in #news:fedoraproject.org?
2024-06-05 14:11:06 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> well it was your ping in #council:fedoraproject.org :)
2024-06-05 14:11:44 <@amoloney:fedora.im> Repost in announcements would be fine. Target audience here is folks directly involved in the release cycle
2024-06-05 14:11:59 <@amoloney:fedora.im> Marketing might be a little too wide
2024-06-05 14:12:16 <@jflory7:fedora.im> ACK.
2024-06-05 14:12:22 <@jflory7:fedora.im> Sending it out to #news:fedoraproject.org right now
2024-06-05 14:12:26 <@amoloney:fedora.im> closing date is 7th June, so Friday, and an email has gone out to devel & infra list
2024-06-05 14:13:03 <@amoloney:fedora.im> Thats all the announcements I had, is there any more that people want to share that werent included in the opening minutes?
2024-06-05 14:13:52 <@amoloney:fedora.im> your opportunity to share will close in ~2 mins :)
2024-06-05 14:14:02 <@jflory7:fedora.im> DevConf CZ!
2024-06-05 14:14:09 <@amoloney:fedora.im> YES!
2024-06-05 14:14:39 <@jflory7:fedora.im> !info DevConf CZ is next week. There will be many Fedora folks in attendance. If you will be there, please add your information to the Fedora Wiki page. If you are speaking, please make sure to note that in the wiki page too so we can promote your session(s)!
2024-06-05 14:14:41 <@jflory7:fedora.im> !link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DevConf.CZ_2024#Fedora_presence
2024-06-05 14:14:58 <@jflory7:fedora.im> <eof>
2024-06-05 14:15:21 <@amoloney:fedora.im> Thank you thats a good call out :) I cant believe its next week!
2024-06-05 14:15:37 <@jflory7:fedora.im> Oh, and a kudos to ffmancera for helping out with the wrangling and getting a volunteer grid set up :) More to come soon…
2024-06-05 14:16:09 <@jflory7:fedora.im> Me either. I think I could be in a time-warp paradox. I think I will blink and then Flock will be tomorrow :P
2024-06-05 14:16:43 <@ffmancera:fedora.im> yw!
2024-06-05 14:16:48 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !topic Status Checks
2024-06-05 14:16:50 <@jflory7:fedora.im> I think that's it for the announcements today! Next topic?
2024-06-05 14:17:00 <@jflory7:fedora.im> Oh my connectivity to the server is lost, these will deliver late
2024-06-05 14:17:09 <@amoloney:fedora.im> Council Hackfest Write ups
2024-06-05 14:17:13 <@amoloney:fedora.im> mine dropped too
2024-06-05 14:17:28 <@amoloney:fedora.im> anyway, just a quick check in here on this ticket
2024-06-05 14:17:38 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/484
2024-06-05 14:17:43 <@amoloney:fedora.im> I think we are done?
2024-06-05 14:17:57 <@ffmancera:fedora.im> So Mentored Project initiative one is done I just need to send it through the process for publishing 
2024-06-05 14:18:07 <@ffmancera:fedora.im> Will do ASAP today
2024-06-05 14:18:07 <@mattdm:fedora.im> I still have some strategy bits I am working on, but they've kinda got back burnered. 
2024-06-05 14:18:24 <@amoloney:fedora.im> Thank you, sounds good :)
2024-06-05 14:18:26 <@mattdm:fedora.im> I don't feel _awful_ about that because we're making good progress on the strategy work with the miroboard meetings.
2024-06-05 14:18:30 <@jflory7:fedora.im> I did not write the Matrix post. It needs to happen. But I think we should split that out of the Council Hackfest article. The self-hosting conversation is still ongoing, and it feels premature to say much before we know how those winds will blow.
2024-06-05 14:18:47 <@jflory7:fedora.im> I agree, I do feel like we are making real progress and moving it forward.
2024-06-05 14:19:08 <@amoloney:fedora.im> yeah I would be closing this ticket anyway as soon as the initiatives, matrix and maybe bug tracker one is published
2024-06-05 14:19:09 <@jflory7:fedora.im> Woohoo 🎉
2024-06-05 14:19:24 <@jflory7:fedora.im> CommOps one is probably still needed. I talk with Robert today in a 1:1, so I can mention it to him
2024-06-05 14:19:31 <@amoloney:fedora.im> Agreed
2024-06-05 14:19:34 <@jflory7:fedora.im> I know his capacity is very stretched this past month
2024-06-05 14:19:37 <@mattdm:fedora.im> Could someone volunteer to post something like https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/todays-working-session-on-strategy-2028/117865 about our last meeting?
2024-06-05 14:19:43 <@amoloney:fedora.im> Ack, thank you!
2024-06-05 14:19:50 <@mattdm:fedora.im> Either as a new topic, or we can edit the subject for that one and make it a reply....
2024-06-05 14:20:00 <@mattdm:fedora.im> Justin say hi to Robert for me!
2024-06-05 14:20:02 <@jflory7:fedora.im> Aoife Moloney: Should I open a new ticket for the Matrix article in order to split it out from the Council Hackfest ticket?
2024-06-05 14:20:08 <@jflory7:fedora.im> I will :)
2024-06-05 14:20:55 <@amoloney:fedora.im> Im happy to do it, but I think ffmancera or Jona Azizaj (she/her) would be better to recap this on the mentoring pieces if you had the capacity to do it?
2024-06-05 14:21:32 <@amoloney:fedora.im> Yeah I think so, it feeds into a wider gap we have to cover with mailing lists & official comms platforms for Fedora
2024-06-05 14:21:42 <@jflory7:fedora.im> ACK. On it.
2024-06-05 14:21:55 <@jflory7:fedora.im> I was meaning more on how you think we should track it best! A ticket seems like the best option
2024-06-05 14:22:01 <@amoloney:fedora.im> Theres a few tickets open that all fall into that project comms platforms category
2024-06-05 14:22:02 <@jonatoni:fedora.im> I can do that, but not today 😅 Tomorrow after our next meeting
2024-06-05 14:22:06 <@amoloney:fedora.im> ah - hahaha
2024-06-05 14:22:14 <@amoloney:fedora.im> yes that ticket would be best :)
2024-06-05 14:22:30 <@amoloney:fedora.im> thank you, sounds good 😊
2024-06-05 14:23:25 <@jflory7:fedora.im> Ah. Actually, how about we reuse this one instead for that? I will post a comment in the ticket, but better to close this one out instead of opening another that is very similar. https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/463
2024-06-05 14:23:46 <@amoloney:fedora.im> sounds good!
2024-06-05 14:24:21 <@jflory7:fedora.im> Cool.
2024-06-05 14:24:30 <@jflory7:fedora.im> Then I think we are mostly good on the blog posts from the hackfest
2024-06-05 14:24:47 <@jflory7:fedora.im> Once Mentored Projects article is out, we can probably close it because the value will be limited after then
2024-06-05 14:24:56 <@jflory7:fedora.im> We should focus on other things coming up
2024-06-05 14:25:03 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !proposed Jona Azizaj (she/her) will write a topic on discussion.fpo recapping work on the Mentorship oiece of the strategy. Justin W. Flory (he/him) will split Matrix blog post from council hackfest write ups to close out this work as this forms part of a larger conversation on official project communication platforms. ffmancera will send the Mentored Projects article for publishing and follow up with Robert (message me now at @rwright:fedora.im) on status of CommOps 2.0 initiative write up
2024-06-05 14:25:19 <@jflory7:fedora.im> +1
2024-06-05 14:25:25 <@ffmancera:fedora.im> +1
2024-06-05 14:25:30 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !proposed Jona Azizaj (she/her) will write a topic on discussion.fpo recapping work on the Mentorship piece of the strategy. Justin W. Flory (he/him) will split Matrix blog post from council hackfest write ups to close out this work as this forms part of a larger conversation on official project communication platforms. ffmancera will send the Mentored Projects article for publishing and follow up with Robert (message me now at @rwright:fedora.im) on status of CommOps 2.0 initiative write up
2024-06-05 14:26:00 <@mattdm:fedora.im> sounds good.
2024-06-05 14:26:00 <@jonatoni:fedora.im> +1
2024-06-05 14:26:32 <@amoloney:fedora.im> we seem all good, so Ill stick an agreed command on that and move to discussion topics :)
2024-06-05 14:26:43 <@mattdm:fedora.im> Jona Azizaj (she/her): If you do it as a new topic, can you make sure to link to my earlier one so they stay connected? (Also, use the #strategy2028 tag please!)
2024-06-05 14:27:19 <@jonatoni:fedora.im> Yes, I will do that ☺️
2024-06-05 14:27:24 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !agreed Jona Azizaj (she/her) will write a topic on discussion.fpo recapping work on the Mentorship piece of the strategy in the coming days/week. Justin W. Flory (he/him) will split Matrix blog post from council hackfest write ups to close out this work as this forms part of a larger conversation on official project communication platforms. ffmancera will send the Mentored Projects article for publishing and follow up with Robert (message me now at @rwright:fedora.im) (@rowright:one.ems.host) on status of CommOps 2.0 initiative write up
2024-06-05 14:27:37 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !topic Discussion Topics
2024-06-05 14:27:56 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !info Issue #488: Review of Stakeholders & Decision Makers for Git Forge Evaluation 2024
2024-06-05 14:28:12 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/488
2024-06-05 14:28:30 <@amoloney:fedora.im> This should be quick - I need an ack on this ticekt please
2024-06-05 14:29:27 <@amoloney:fedora.im> last point on this topic was the two lists in the ticket make up all Stakeholders, and then Decision Makers should be reduced to Council, FESCo, Rel-Eng, QA and Packaging. 
2024-06-05 14:29:50 <@amoloney:fedora.im> Are we in agreement with this?
2024-06-05 14:30:12 <@jbrooks:matrix.org> Seems like a lot of decision makers?
2024-06-05 14:30:41 <@amoloney:fedora.im> It would be a representative from each group expected to sign off on a git forge replacement
2024-06-05 14:30:47 <@amoloney:fedora.im> just to clarify
2024-06-05 14:31:15 <@amoloney:fedora.im> so, in essence, 5 people - and for reference, this is replicating how we do Go/No-Go meetings
2024-06-05 14:31:52 <@jflory7:fedora.im> I think this part is key:
2024-06-05 14:31:53 <@jbrooks:matrix.org> Oh, I see your last comment, I was looking at the top
2024-06-05 14:31:56 <@amoloney:fedora.im> there are 3 'reps' in that instance, but with this Packagers are power-users of dist-git so they need to be included, and Council
2024-06-05 14:31:58 <@jflory7:fedora.im> !info The 'decision makers' of what forge will suit Fedoras needs based on the findings of the ARC investigation, and thus allowing the next phase of planning to start (migration plan, etc) will be Council, FESCo, Rel-Eng, QA and Packaging.
2024-06-05 14:32:04 <@mattdm:fedora.im> https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/fedora-council-tickets-ticket-488-review-of-stakeholders-decision-makers-for-git-forge-evaluation-2024/113660/6
2024-06-05 14:32:10 <@jflory7:fedora.im> Basically this is what we are voting on, right?
2024-06-05 14:32:21 <@amoloney:fedora.im> ah, fair :)
2024-06-05 14:32:29 <@mattdm:fedora.im> I think it's a lot of decision-makers too. The above is a proposal around that. :)
2024-06-05 14:32:33 <@amoloney:fedora.im> correct
2024-06-05 14:32:45 <@jflory7:fedora.im> And decision-makers here is people who have veto power on the git forge decision?
2024-06-05 14:33:08 <@jflory7:fedora.im> Sorry if we already discussed this before 🫣 I was hoping to be clear on what role exactly these groups will play in the final decision
2024-06-05 14:33:31 <@jflory7:fedora.im> And decision-makers here are people who have veto power on the git forge decision?
2024-06-05 14:34:27 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !proposed The decision makers for the git forge replacement will be made up of a representative from Fedora Council, QA, Rel-Eng, Packaging Committee & FESCo. They reserve the right to Go or No-Go the options put forward from the ARC investigation team 
2024-06-05 14:34:39 <@mattdm:fedora.im> Let me re-post my proposal from the discussion thread....
2024-06-05 14:34:44 <@jflory7:fedora.im> Oh, I see the Discussion topic
2024-06-05 14:34:53 <@jflory7:fedora.im> Two places with discussion is a bit disorienting 😅
2024-06-05 14:35:22 <@jflory7:fedora.im> So is this also what we are voting on?
2024-06-05 14:35:25 <@jflory7:fedora.im>     If this level of consensus cannot be reached, the Council will weigh the input from all Stakeholders and Decision Makers and make the final call by our normal consensus process, starting with a proposal to adopt whichever option has the most support from the Decision Makers group, and if that fails, a proposal for the other choice.[3]
2024-06-05 14:35:25 <@jflory7:fedora.im> 
2024-06-05 14:35:25 <@jflory7:fedora.im>     The Gitforge Decision Meeting will strive for full consensus, but operate on a “unanimity minus two” basis. That is, in the end, there can be two dissenters and the decision still approved. This appears on the surface similar to “need the vote to be 12–2 or better”, but underneath (and in practice!) should function quite differently.[2]
2024-06-05 14:35:25 <@jflory7:fedora.im> 
2024-06-05 14:35:29 <@mattdm:fedora.im> 
2024-06-05 14:35:29 <@mattdm:fedora.im> My process proposal:
2024-06-05 14:35:29 <@mattdm:fedora.im> 
2024-06-05 14:35:29 <@mattdm:fedora.im> 1. The Gitforge Decision Meeting will strive for full consensus, but operate on a “unanimity minus two” basis. That is, in the end, there can be two dissenters and the decision still approved. This appears on the surface similar to “need the vote to be 12–2 or better”, but underneath (and in practice!) should function quite differently.
2024-06-05 14:35:29 <@mattdm:fedora.im> 2. If this level of consensus cannot be reached, the Council will weigh the input from all Stakeholders and Decision Makers and make the final call by our normal consensus process, starting with a proposal to adopt whichever option has the most support from the Decision Makers group, and if that fails, a proposal for the other choice.
2024-06-05 14:35:31 <@jflory7:fedora.im> The Gitforge Decision Meeting will strive for full consensus, but operate on a “unanimity minus two” basis. That is, in the end, there can be two dissenters and the decision still approved. This appears on the surface similar to “need the vote to be 12–2 or better”, but underneath (and in practice!) should function quite differently.[2]
2024-06-05 14:35:31 <@jflory7:fedora.im> If this level of consensus cannot be reached, the Council will weigh the input from all Stakeholders and Decision Makers and make the final call by our normal consensus process, starting with a proposal to adopt whichever option has the most support from the Decision Makers group, and if that fails, a proposal for the other choice.[3]
2024-06-05 14:35:31 <@jflory7:fedora.im> 
2024-06-05 14:35:37 <@jflory7:fedora.im> Oh, jinx :P
2024-06-05 14:35:48 <@mattdm:fedora.im> (plus there are some footnotes which I didn't copy)
2024-06-05 14:36:36 <@jflory7:fedora.im> mattdm: But looking at five voting bodies and not 14, right? Fedora Council, QA, Rel-Eng, Packaging Committee & FESCo.
2024-06-05 14:36:57 <@jflory7:fedora.im> 14 voting bodies definitely feels like too much, even with room for two dissents
2024-06-05 14:37:25 <@jflory7:fedora.im> I also don't want to offer option #4: "Our team is emphatically not fine with either choice and we have an alternate suggestion."
2024-06-05 14:37:38 <@jflory7:fedora.im> We can't go back to the drawing board any more, we have to be realistic about our choices at hand
2024-06-05 14:37:51 <@mattdm:fedora.im> Honestly I think that's too narrow. I know it's a lot, but we want people to feel like they are owners of the decision.
2024-06-05 14:38:17 <@mattdm:fedora.im> Otherwise, we'll get "yeah, well, they said that, but we're still using pagure forever for our team"
2024-06-05 14:38:21 <@jflory7:fedora.im> I am not sure I am persuaded that a large stakeholder group corresponds with ownership of the decision
2024-06-05 14:38:23 <@mattdm:fedora.im> Or github. Or whatever.
2024-06-05 14:38:40 <@jflory7:fedora.im> Also, we will never get 100% buy-in for any platform except dist-git
2024-06-05 14:38:48 <@mattdm:fedora.im> I mean, you can't disenfranchise people and then tell them they were part of the process.
2024-06-05 14:39:09 <@jflory7:fedora.im> But I don't think we are disenfranchising people either. We have been talking about git forges for four years…
2024-06-05 14:39:12 <@jbrooks:matrix.org> I like that set of five. We'll of course want to weigh seriously the input of all the stakeholders
2024-06-05 14:39:15 <@amoloney:fedora.im> We are all stakeholders in this change
2024-06-05 14:39:33 <@mattdm:fedora.im> What if it's the case, though? Should we pretend it isn't?
2024-06-05 14:39:36 <@amoloney:fedora.im> We need a narrower set of people to vote on a decision
2024-06-05 14:40:08 <@jflory7:fedora.im> Agreed, just because someone is not a stakeholder means we ignore their feedback. That has never been our style. But a lot of cooks in the kitchen is going to make it hard to get to where we want to go, when we want to get there.
2024-06-05 14:40:23 <@jflory7:fedora.im> We have already done so much discussion, I really want us to get to the action part 😅
2024-06-05 14:41:07 <@amoloney:fedora.im> so the groups that *need* to have final say on the option are Council (because we caused this :) ) , FESCo (because this is a technical change), Packaging (power user), QA (because we want this change to ...work) and Rel-Eng (because these changes cant break our ability to release)
2024-06-05 14:41:22 <@jflory7:fedora.im> We have to accept that change is hard and that we are going to have to change to an option that we can realistically support. We have done a lot of work to get to this point of presenting two options. If we waiver now, then it doesn't reflect well on the conversation, effort, and energy that has gone into getting to this point. We can't start over from square one :/
2024-06-05 14:41:33 <@mattdm:fedora.im> I get the temptation, but there's a very real chance of that blowing up ("'Red Hat already decided and is telling us the decision' all over again!")
2024-06-05 14:41:45 <@jflory7:fedora.im> But Red Hat has not decided any of this
2024-06-05 14:41:48 <@jflory7:fedora.im> And we have receipts
2024-06-05 14:41:54 <@jflory7:fedora.im> All the years of community conversations
2024-06-05 14:42:00 <@mattdm:fedora.im> Sure. But we also have to recognize that _some people won't agree and that's okay_.
2024-06-05 14:42:27 <@jflory7:fedora.im> Let's put this to vote perhaps, and see where we all stand?
2024-06-05 14:42:39 <@jflory7:fedora.im> I agree with this. That is what I am saying :)
2024-06-05 14:42:50 <@amoloney:fedora.im> the ticket lists stakeholder *groups*, but we are all stakeholders! and there are opportunities to give your input through the ARC teams investigation
2024-06-05 14:43:51 <@jflory7:fedora.im> Aoife Moloney: The quick topics are never quick :D
2024-06-05 14:43:58 <@amoloney:fedora.im> and we are being transparent in this work, and inclusive on who wants to get involved 
2024-06-05 14:44:08 <@jflory7:fedora.im> I know we have other things to cover today too, and we have 15 minutes left
2024-06-05 14:44:20 <@mattdm:fedora.im> Right, but I feel like it's disingenuous to give a ballot with only Party-Approved Choices and then say we had 100% agreement
2024-06-05 14:44:35 <@jflory7:fedora.im> We don't say we had 100% agreement. We can never say that :)
2024-06-05 14:44:59 <@amoloney:fedora.im> lets argue with the consensus when we have *who* shold be in the argument defined
2024-06-05 14:45:06 <@amoloney:fedora.im> lets argue with the consensus when we have _who_ should be in the argument defined
2024-06-05 14:45:20 <@jbrooks:matrix.org> If one of the five groups is totally against the choice and offers no other options, we'll have to convince them, work through it
2024-06-05 14:45:20 <@jflory7:fedora.im> Aoife Moloney: Want to take a go at a `!proposed`?
2024-06-05 14:45:37 <@mattdm:fedora.im> Am I reading the ticket wrong? It lists (with the inclusion of all of the WGs) 14 _decision maker_ groups.
2024-06-05 14:46:00 <@jflory7:fedora.im> Yes, to clarify, of our five decision-making stakeholders, I do think we want unanimous consent among _that_ group. Which is also why I want the size of the group to be smaller
2024-06-05 14:46:09 <@mattdm:fedora.im> Where is "five" coming from?
2024-06-05 14:46:15 <@jflory7:fedora.im> Read Aoife's last comment.
2024-06-05 14:46:18 <@jbrooks:matrix.org> https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/488#comment-911892
2024-06-05 14:46:58 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !proposed The decision to vote Go or No-Go on the git forge replacement will be made up of a vote from a representative from the following five groups: Fedora Council, FESCo, Fedora QA, Packaging Committee and Rel-Eng
2024-06-05 14:47:04 <@jflory7:fedora.im> +1
2024-06-05 14:47:19 <@jonatoni:fedora.im> +1
2024-06-05 14:47:50 <@mattdm:fedora.im> -1
2024-06-05 14:48:19 <@jbrooks:matrix.org> +1
2024-06-05 14:48:29 <@mattdm:fedora.im> I think that is the set for _dist-git_. I do not think it is inclusive enough for the wider gitforge replacement.
2024-06-05 14:48:29 <@jbrooks:matrix.org> (not sure if the thumbs up counts)
2024-06-05 14:49:13 <@jflory7:fedora.im> (Historically, from IRC times, we always type since not all Matrix clients show reactions)
2024-06-05 14:49:44 <@amoloney:fedora.im> who would be missing to catch the wider replacement?
2024-06-05 14:49:52 <@mattdm:fedora.im> I also don't understand what "Go" / "No-Go" means in this context. I understand the idea of an _analogy_ with the Go/No-Go meeting, but that's just an analogy. We _need_  to be "go" on _something_.
2024-06-05 14:50:05 <@amoloney:fedora.im> and by who I mean in terms of groups - not individuals
2024-06-05 14:50:08 <@jflory7:fedora.im> Go on either GitLab or Forgejo.
2024-06-05 14:50:18 <@jflory7:fedora.im> Go/no-go on either GitLab or Forgejo.
2024-06-05 14:51:01 <@mattdm:fedora.im> I don't think Design/Websites/Marketing/Docs/Ambassadors/Mindshare/Join/Magazine are represented at all except by "Council"
2024-06-05 14:51:03 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Also, are you asking these groups *as a whole* to vote on a final A/B decision and send you their decision?
2024-06-05 14:51:06 <@amoloney:fedora.im> This is what the ARC team are investigating
2024-06-05 14:51:11 <@mattdm:fedora.im> And "Council" is already carrying a _lot_ with our vote.
2024-06-05 14:51:15 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Or to pick someone to participate in the process?
2024-06-05 14:51:37 <@bookwar:fedora.im> It seems to me that there is a big jump between defining stakeholders and then defining the finalized process. 
2024-06-05 14:51:43 <@mattdm:fedora.im> This is a very confusing phrasing.
2024-06-05 14:51:49 <@amoloney:fedora.im> Ideally this, similar to the release Go/No-Go meetings
2024-06-05 14:52:01 <@bookwar:fedora.im> Can we stop at "who are the main stakeholders" at this point?
2024-06-05 14:52:16 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Aoife Moloney: I think for a decision like this, the Go/No-Go meeting approach of "whichever member shows up gets the whole vote" might be problematic.
2024-06-05 14:52:44 <@jflory7:fedora.im> Isn't this what we have been talking about since February though? I feel like we have gone off the rails on this topic though 🥲
2024-06-05 14:52:46 <@amoloney:fedora.im> Thats fair, but if we choose an option that serves our dist-git needs, this is more of a workflow preference and not a technical blocker
2024-06-05 14:52:49 <@mattdm:fedora.im> I think the question is, basically: which stakeholders get to be part of the _deciders_.
2024-06-05 14:53:01 <@amoloney:fedora.im> would my assumption be correct?
2024-06-05 14:53:46 <@amoloney:fedora.im> Id sincerely hope groups would be more plugged into the investigation before a final decision is required
2024-06-05 14:53:51 <@mattdm:fedora.im> I think there's a _huge_ difference between "and I would like to do this in the same way we do our release Go/No-Go meetings where we discuss the solution transparently and in detail, and then we vote on it" and "Go/no-go on either GitLab or Forgejo."
2024-06-05 14:54:37 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Proposal: Council asks each of Fedora Council, FESCo, Fedora QA, Packaging Committee and Rel-Eng to choose a single representative in these discussions and who will act as a proxy vote for that group (eliciting input appropriately, but having the final say).
2024-06-05 14:55:10 <@amoloney:fedora.im> thats just different words from what I said as my last comment in the ticket ...
2024-06-05 14:55:13 <@bookwar:fedora.im> I think honestly it doesn't matter in the end. What matters is who we chase explicitly for the specific and thoughtful feedback. Decision will come to Council, whether in the form of "implement the consensus" or "deal with a lack of consensus"
2024-06-05 14:55:19 <@amoloney:fedora.im> +1
2024-06-05 14:55:31 <@mattdm:fedora.im>  **We ditch the "go / no-go" idea and remove _all_ "Decision-Makers" _except_ for Council. Council is responsible for making sure all Stakeholders are heard and represented in the final decision.**
2024-06-05 14:55:31 <@mattdm:fedora.im> 
2024-06-05 14:55:31 <@mattdm:fedora.im> I still like my original proposal. However, as an alternative:
2024-06-05 14:55:42 <@jflory7:fedora.im> +1
2024-06-05 14:56:02 <@bt0dotninja:fedora.im> +1
2024-06-05 14:56:12 <@mattdm:fedora.im> This is the same as the previous proposal.
2024-06-05 14:56:15 <@mattdm:fedora.im> I am still -1 to that.
2024-06-05 14:56:31 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> mattdm: Given the amount of confusion around the previous proposal, it's at least a clearer one.
2024-06-05 14:56:35 <@jbrooks:matrix.org> I'm fine w/ council-only as decision-maker. The mega list of deciders is what I find problematic
2024-06-05 14:57:26 <@jbrooks:matrix.org> though I guess the council is a bunch of members 🙂
2024-06-05 14:57:28 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Also, by "in these discussions", I mean active participants in hammering out the details, not just signing off on the end resulkt
2024-06-05 14:57:32 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Also, by "in these discussions", I mean active participants in hammering out the details, not just signing off on the end result
2024-06-05 14:57:45 <@mattdm:fedora.im> As I said in the discussion, it's a different approach than we have usually taken. I _do_ think it can work, with the right structure. (See resources on consensus-based decision making.)
2024-06-05 14:58:04 <@jflory7:fedora.im> I don't think we will get consensus here in the next two minutes
2024-06-05 14:58:40 <@mattdm:fedora.im> I'm interested in that experiment. My alternate proposal is basically "don't do it the way Aoife suggested, and do what the Council usually does for big decisions"
2024-06-05 14:59:02 <@mattdm:fedora.im> And I have a meeting to get to!
2024-06-05 14:59:13 <@jflory7:fedora.im> I'm not sure if we have standardized a way to decide big things though 😕 We will likely have to pick this up again later
2024-06-05 14:59:25 <@amoloney:fedora.im> Sure, we can do it whatever way it means to just get it done at this point 😅
2024-06-05 14:59:56 <@jflory7:fedora.im> Our clock to implement this is ticking :/ That is my biggest concern at this point
2024-06-05 15:00:17 <@amoloney:fedora.im> Its not resolved, it will come back at the next meeting... :-/
2024-06-05 15:00:18 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Justin W. Flory (he/him): Apologies for coming in late, but what's the deadline on this?
2024-06-05 15:00:27 <@jflory7:fedora.im> We can't have another year of git forge conversations, we need git forge action 🥲
2024-06-05 15:00:29 <@mattdm:fedora.im> We have a standardized way to decide big things. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/council/#decisions
2024-06-05 15:00:30 <@amoloney:fedora.im> but the discussion was good!
2024-06-05 15:00:56 <@mattdm:fedora.im> Do you want to have a year of conversations _after_ action? I don't.
2024-06-05 15:01:10 <@amoloney:fedora.im> no hard one set yet, but with the investigation started, we should have this formalised in the next few weeks
2024-06-05 15:01:10 <@mattdm:fedora.im> and I need to go. more on this later, obviously!
2024-06-05 15:01:27 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> mattdm: That's inevitable for any big decision. We only stopped hearing complaints about the end of dist-cvs in 2018
2024-06-05 15:02:25 <@amoloney:fedora.im> ok, this was a bit chaotic but there was value here too so thanks for all of your discussion folks, I will try summarize this in the ticket AND discussion :) 
2024-06-05 15:02:41 <@jflory7:fedora.im> Thanks Aoife for being our valiant chair :)
2024-06-05 15:02:43 <@jflory7:fedora.im> Aoife Moloney++
2024-06-05 15:02:45 <@zodbot:fedora.im> jflory7 has already given cookies to amoloney during the F40 timeframe
2024-06-05 15:02:47 <@amoloney:fedora.im> we will reconvene on it on our next meeting and hopefully we will be closer to a bottom line
2024-06-05 15:02:51 <@jflory7:fedora.im> It is a lot of cat herding :)
2024-06-05 15:02:53 <@amoloney:fedora.im> thanks everyone!
2024-06-05 15:02:54 <@zodbot:fedora.im> sgallagh gave a cookie to amoloney. They now have 47 cookies, 14 of which were obtained in the Fedora 40 release cycle
2024-06-05 15:02:56 <@amoloney:fedora.im> !endmeeting