23:00:30 <sparks> #startmeeting Docs Project Meeting - Agenda: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Docs_Project_meetings
23:00:30 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed May 12 23:00:30 2010 UTC.  The chair is sparks. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
23:00:30 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
23:00:37 <sparks> #meetingname Fedora Docs
23:00:37 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fedora_docs'
23:00:45 <sparks> #topic Roll Call
23:00:48 * sparks 
23:00:52 * quaid 
23:00:53 * rudi_ is there
23:00:57 * ardchoille is here
23:01:04 * jjmcd 
23:01:10 * Emad78 here
23:01:14 * stickster 
23:01:43 * radsy is here
23:01:49 * bcotton is here
23:02:14 <sparks> #chair stickster
23:02:14 <zodbot> Current chairs: sparks stickster
23:02:17 <sparks> #chair jjmcd
23:02:17 <zodbot> Current chairs: jjmcd sparks stickster
23:02:40 * Gearoid is here
23:02:41 * sparks is hoping that the storm won't take out his power or Intertubes
23:02:59 * Gearoid touches wood for sparks
23:03:22 <sparks> Okay, looks like we have a good group...  lets get started.
23:03:28 <sparks> #topic Follow up on last week's action items
23:03:52 <sparks> okay...
23:04:01 <sparks> stickster: you had #2
23:04:15 <stickster> Weird, I struck this out last week I thought
23:04:29 <stickster> The Live image is all good and the builds have been up for some time
23:04:52 <sparks> Okay...  I had #3 and I need to stoke that fire a bit
23:04:52 <stickster> s/image/image section/
23:05:08 <sparks> rudi_: you had #4 and #6
23:05:33 <rudi_> Yep --
23:05:59 <rudi_> perspectival has to soldier on alone on the DG
23:06:24 <rudi_> and some kind soul fixed the cs-CZ glitch before I got to it
23:06:44 <jjmcd> it worked just fine for me
23:07:03 <sparks> excellent
23:07:17 <sparks> ke4qqq: Are you here?\
23:07:40 <stickster> rudi_: That must have been my Thing To Do Right this week
23:07:48 <stickster> At least I think that was me :-)
23:07:58 <rudi_> Thanks stickster :)
23:08:17 <sparks> #action ke4qqq to post to f-d-l as a final call for input on grouping guides under docs/
23:08:20 * jjmcd was looking toward a long night of fixing po files in weird languages but they all worked
23:08:31 <sparks> #action ke4qqq to suggest on f-d-l that all guide owners become sponsors on all other guides
23:08:46 <sparks> Okay, I think that's that.
23:09:20 <sparks> #topic Schedule review
23:09:31 <sparks> #link http://poelstra.fedorapeople.org/schedules/f-13/f-13-docs-tasks.html
23:09:41 <sparks> stickster: Want to talk about the schedule slip?
23:09:53 <stickster> sparks: Sure, let me grab a link
23:10:19 <stickster> #link http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2010-May/090880.html <-- minutes for go/no-go meeting
23:10:37 <stickster> #link http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/announce/2010-May/002806.html <-- official announcement of 1-week slip
23:10:52 <stickster> Basically we found there was at least one blocking bug with uncertain scope that could have been pretty bad.
23:11:09 <stickster> Thus the decision to slip.
23:11:41 <stickster> We realized there were one or two other bugs on the F13Tracker that weren't bad enough to slip for, but which warranted a fix if they don't perturb the testing and validation
23:11:43 <sparks> #info F13 release slipped by one week.
23:11:55 <stickster> Today we discovered the blocker isn't as bad as we thought, but we're already committed to the slip.
23:12:09 <stickster> #info F13 GA will happen 2010-05-25
23:12:15 <stickster> eof
23:12:24 <sparks> stickster: Thank you.
23:12:39 <sparks> Anyone have any questions about the slip or about the schedule?
23:13:03 <stickster> rudi_: I think I lied to you earlier, it was sv-SE that I fixed
23:13:32 <sparks> I believe poelcat has a new schedule out that I'll send to the list tonight once it's had a second set of eyes on it.
23:13:45 <sparks> #topic Release Notes
23:13:47 <rudi_> stickster -- shhhhh -- I'm happy for you to have the credit :)
23:13:53 <sparks> jjmcd: How goes the RNs?
23:14:07 <jjmcd> No real news.  We pushed an update
23:14:22 <sparks> I think I saw a new bug filed today...
23:14:31 <jjmcd> stickster did some stuff today perhaps he can explain ... I was in an exercise and got some odd mails
23:14:39 <jjmcd> Yes, I see a new bug.
23:14:54 <stickster> jjmcd: You mean the re-tagging?
23:15:10 <sparks> Tell me if it's me but it FEELS like we've had fewer last-minute updates to the RNs than in previous releases.
23:15:28 <jjmcd> stickster, whatever happened today.  I was dealing with a radiation emergency so I only scanned the emails
23:15:43 <jjmcd> Gets pretty frantic at the state EOC
23:15:50 <stickster> sparks: I think we have -- part of that, I *think*, is because of the reduced amount of last-minute important changes in F13
23:16:10 <stickster> Branching early and holding critical path updates to a more reasonable level has actually affected Docs
23:16:13 <stickster> That would be worth blogging
23:16:20 <jjmcd> we only had 3 actual bugs reported, 2 of them good info that we didn't know
23:16:43 <jjmcd> The third was a just plain mistake
23:16:50 <stickster> #info Branching early and reducing the number of late-breaking critical path updates has meant fewer last-minute changes in release notes, less strain on Docs/L10n
23:17:18 * sparks wanted to blog BEFORE about getting the information into the wiki early but might have forgotten.
23:17:35 <jjmcd> I see the bugs that went to L10N Monday have been completed in 8 languages
23:18:20 <jjmcd> And noriko has been hard at work moving Japanese closer to 100%
23:18:37 <stickster> I'm wondering what our total string content is now (F13) vs. F12 and F11.
23:18:38 <sparks> Wow, that's awesome!
23:19:12 <stickster> Because we changed from previous Publican to new Publican along the way, not sure if we can pull those stats
23:19:24 <sparks> jjmcd: Is it eight languages the RNs have been completely translated into?
23:19:24 <jjmcd> We made some big changes in how we do it, F11-<F12 and then F12->F13
23:19:46 <jjmcd> sparks, the original was 12.  8 finished the updates from MONDAY!
23:20:08 <rudi_> stickster -- I should be able to get those along the way; I'll poast them to f-d-l later
23:20:25 <sparks> No doubt about it... L10N is doing an awesome job.
23:21:03 <jjmcd> I feel like getting aw from the teeny stuff has helped, but it doesn't seem like they've gotten any shorter
23:21:41 <jjmcd> With the tables, no need for the updates that don't meaningfully change the user experience
23:21:58 <stickster> Yes.
23:22:11 <jjmcd> That reminds me tho
23:22:26 <jjmcd> rudi, I think on the tech notes we may be missing some strings
23:22:49 <jjmcd> If I recall, the first section, about 3 paragraphs, is always showing up in english
23:22:57 <rudi_> OK; I'll take a look
23:23:11 <jjmcd> For general info
23:23:31 <jjmcd> Rudi worked some magic so L10N didn't have dozens of copies of the same strings
23:23:49 <jjmcd> and thousands of strings that didn't need to be translated
23:23:54 <rudi_> Heh -- F12RN -- 813 strings; F13RN -- 532 strings
23:24:35 <rudi_> IIRC F10 and F11 were around 1000 strings, but I'd have to verify those
23:24:53 <jjmcd> I would expect those to have been a lot larger
23:25:15 <jjmcd> They had a lot of "blah was upgraded from x to y"
23:25:20 <sparks> so we cut the RNs in half?
23:25:56 <jjmcd> probably
23:26:04 <sparks> so that's significant.
23:26:24 <sparks> My first question is: are we missing anything from the current RNs that should be in there?
23:26:29 <jjmcd> Yes, and with the addition of the technical notes, still provided MORE information
23:26:51 <jjmcd> No, now we are actually much more complete
23:27:02 <sparks> wow, okay, that's awesome, then.
23:27:04 <jjmcd> Since the technical notes contain EVERY change
23:27:24 <sparks> Excellent.
23:27:29 <sparks> Anything else on the RNs?
23:27:36 <jjmcd> And they can be finalized hours after there is a final F13 repo
23:28:08 <jjmcd> thanks stickster you've given me some good stuff to blog on
23:28:18 <stickster> cool, jjmcd!
23:28:39 <sparks> coolljlkjkdsfkdsjj
23:28:46 <sparks> opps... sorry about that.
23:28:56 <sparks> Okay, let's move on.
23:29:11 <sparks> #topic Guide status
23:29:49 <sparks> Okay...  send a ! if you have a guide so I'll know who to call on.
23:29:51 <sparks> !
23:30:01 <rudi_> !
23:30:10 <bcotton> !
23:30:28 <radsy> !
23:30:45 <sparks> #info The Security Guide is completely translated in 2 languages and has been updated on docs.fp.o
23:31:41 <sparks> #info The Readme-Burning-ISOs is completely translated in 13 languages with an additional 2 above 80% and has been updated on docs.fp.o
23:32:12 <sparks> #info The Accessibility Guide is completely translated in 6 languages with an additional 1 above 80% and has been updated on docs.fp.o
23:32:16 <sparks> That's all mine...
23:32:24 <sparks> rudi_: What have you got?
23:33:02 <rudi_> IQSG is translated in 7 languages; I'll have these on d.fp.o shortly, but need to take some more screenshots
23:33:18 <rudi_> #info IQSG is translated in 7 languages; I'll have these on d.fp.o shortly, but need to take some more screenshots
23:33:32 * stickster is stunned
23:33:39 <stickster> This is so totally awesome. L10N ROCKS!
23:33:45 <sparks> +1
23:33:55 <jjmcd> It is bloody amazing, isn't it
23:34:04 <rudi_> #info no complete translations for IG yet; but the week's slip might give the usual suspects a chance to finish
23:34:32 <rudi_> #info -- DG is unlikely to be finished much ahead of GA
23:34:52 <sparks> rudi_: Are those the only guides you have?
23:35:18 <rudi_> #info -- no complete translations for VG yet; but Tsagadai or I should have an en-US build on d.fp.o in the next day or two
23:35:30 <rudi_> That's it from me, perspectival, and tsagadai
23:36:04 <sparks> rudi_: Excellent, thank you!
23:36:06 <rudi_> And yeah; the response from L10N on the IQSG is *unbelievable*
23:36:08 <sparks> bcotton: You're up.
23:36:18 <bcotton> #info RPM Guide exists outside of the normal version-centered release cycle, but could still use help.  See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Bcotton/RPM_Guide_tasks
23:36:38 <bcotton> fin
23:36:39 <jjmcd> #info "<stickster> This is is so totally awesome. L10N ROCKS!"
23:37:07 <sparks> bcotton: Yeah, we need to get that guide going.  Thanks!
23:37:15 <sparks> radsy: Your turn
23:37:45 <radsy> SLUG, WG, and MCS are up on d.fp.o and waiting on last-minute translations. Slip to 25/5 will help in this regard. SELinux FAQ is up also.
23:37:54 <radsy> planning SSH guide.
23:38:15 * sparks would like to help with the SSH guide...
23:38:27 <sparks> Okay, anyone else?
23:38:37 <radsy> About to put in repo/trac request ticket
23:39:19 <radsy> sparks, I'll get in touch with you once I've finished a draft TOC of sorts.
23:39:25 <sparks> radsy: Excellent.  Do you have a start to it yet?
23:39:30 <sparks> okay
23:40:04 <sparks> Okay, moving on...
23:40:22 <sparks> #topic git repo conversion
23:40:28 <sparks> nb: You around?
23:41:09 <jjmcd> I seem to recall he had some conflict tonight
23:41:19 <sparks> #info The two items up for discussion are 1) Move all git repos under docs/ and 2) Make all git repos' permissions come from the docs group
23:41:32 <sparks> jjmcd: Yeah, that sounds familiar.  Isn't he in class?
23:41:50 <jjmcd> I think he usually is on Wed, maybe a test or something tonite
23:42:08 <sparks> So there has been some discussion on the list about this.  Would anyone like to have their opinion officially recorded?
23:42:22 <jjmcd> I got the feeling we had strong support for moving everything under docs/
23:42:31 <jjmcd> Less so for the permissions
23:43:03 * sparks doesn't really like having to have all the different permission groups.
23:43:19 <sparks> Maybe we can have the docs group and a docs-repos group...
23:43:34 <jjmcd> Seems like there was some plan for fewer groups, but I don't recall what it was
23:43:46 * sparks doesn't either.
23:44:00 <jjmcd> I said a lot a couple meetings back, so I held back from the list discussion, but followed it
23:44:07 * bcotton would like a separate group for repos, along the lines of what sparks just said
23:44:41 <sparks> anyone else?
23:44:50 <jjmcd> Yeah, I kind of like that too.  The only other question is whether docs/web is separate or the same group.  ANd on that one I could argue either way
23:45:55 <sparks> So what are our roles, writers, editors, publishers?
23:45:56 * jjmcd seems to recall getting mailbombed the other day by git groups
23:46:12 <jjmcd> something like that
23:46:33 <sparks> so writers are in "docs", editors are in "docs-repos", and publishers are in "docs-web"?
23:46:59 <jjmcd> that kind of makes sense to me but I would like to hear the counter arguments
23:47:08 <sparks> me too
23:47:12 <sparks> anyone?
23:47:42 <sparks> #idea writers are in "docs" group, editors are in "docs-repos", and publishers are in "docs-web"?
23:47:48 <bcotton> how do we define "writers" "editors" and "publishers"?
23:48:05 <jjmcd> editors can commit source, publichers can move to web
23:48:17 <sparks> writers submit patches
23:48:20 <jjmcd> publishers probably should also be able to type
23:48:28 <jjmcd> Or contribute to the wiki
23:49:14 <bcotton> okay, so writers = patches, wiki; editors = commits; and publishers = web?  got it
23:49:27 <sparks> something like that.
23:49:28 <jjmcd> yeah, does that make sense?
23:49:46 <sparks> I like it.  Anyone else want to chime in?
23:49:59 * stickster wondering what problem having a 'writers' or 'docs' group solves
23:50:02 <ardchoille> I just found my logs of the last meeting
23:50:07 <stickster> Everyone can already send patches and edit the wiki who has CLA.
23:50:10 <ardchoille> Should I pastebin them?
23:50:23 <jjmcd> true
23:50:35 <jjmcd> But we had this discussion of a progression
23:50:39 <stickster> Why not just have 'writers' and 'publishers' (under whatever names are needed)?
23:50:58 <jjmcd> so there is some value in "being a member", even if you aren't quite ready to pull the trigger on a commit
23:51:06 <sparks> aren't all docs members writers?
23:51:22 <jjmcd> Yes, exactly
23:51:32 <stickster> I think right now people use groups to indicate they want to do something, which is making it increasingly harder to tell who's really contributing
23:51:45 <sparks> yes
23:51:48 <stickster> IMHO a group only needs to be used to enable some sort of special access.
23:51:56 <stickster> And that should be granted as widely as possible
23:52:01 <jjmcd> The way things have been going lately, the progression from writer to editor is likely to be pretty quick
23:52:07 <stickster> jjmcd: Exactly.
23:52:15 <stickster> And the quicker we make it, the more people will make use of it.
23:52:23 <jjmcd> But that commit access is a little intimidating for some newer members
23:52:34 <jjmcd> We had some discussion of this on the list
23:52:44 <stickster> jjmcd: I think that argues that they are likely to be careful, then
23:52:44 <ardchoille> Yes, and in the last meeting
23:52:51 <stickster> Which means fewer problems, not more
23:52:56 <jjmcd> But we absolutely should make it quick
23:53:08 <stickster> The *real* problem is having someone ready to assist them and give them confidence -- not holding back access
23:53:16 <ardchoille> <ke4qqq> so maybe a rule of thumb needs to be that all guide/notes/document owners need to be sponsors on all others at a minimum (not wanting to create 'rules' per se)
23:53:16 <jjmcd> I'm less concerned with problems and more concerned with easing the path for new members
23:53:16 <Emad78> It was quick for me and stickster is right about less problems.
23:53:44 <stickster> Emad78 is a great example, thanks for popping up!
23:54:01 <Emad78> You guys blew through me pretty quick and I was off and running.
23:54:02 <bcotton> stickster that goes to the point i made on list about how we need a better mentoring/training schedule
23:54:03 <stickster> We gave him access (which probably took too many steps, but that's a different problem) and he went right to work.
23:54:04 <sparks> so we have the docs group with commit access to all the repos
23:54:19 <stickster> bcotton: Let's not get too far off the subject of groups though.
23:54:23 <stickster> Although I agree
23:54:30 <sparks> The only problem I see with that is that the group is currently bogged down with a bunch of people that shouldn't be in there anymore.
23:54:39 <sparks> Security-wise it's a risk.
23:54:43 <stickster> sparks: Yes. And I think there's no reason we can't clean house in that group
23:54:51 <Emad78> +1 on that sparks
23:54:57 <stickster> It just needs to be conveyed with plenty of notice
23:55:02 <stickster> publicly and to all members
23:55:07 <jjmcd> and a very soft touch
23:55:12 <stickster> There's already email aliases you can use for everyone in the group
23:55:17 <bcotton> anyone know how many people are in docs in FAS but haven't contributed?
23:55:27 <stickster> 'groupname-users@'
23:55:42 <stickster> rudi_: What say you to the above?
23:55:44 <jjmcd> bcotton, lots
23:55:46 <sparks> I also feel that new people wouldn't really KNOW that they have commit access anyway.
23:55:56 <jjmcd> true
23:56:01 <jjmcd> That may be enough
23:56:03 <sparks> yep
23:56:07 <stickster> As I mentioned, many people join groups because they think it's required, when they don't really know what work goes along with it.
23:56:15 <stickster> We've talked a bit about this on FAB.
23:56:27 <ardchoille> bcotton: I haven't really contributed (other than editing the wiki), but I'm new and looking for some support/direction
23:56:35 <stickster> One solution would be invitation-only groups, open for people to ask but you can't just self-serve yourself into them.
23:56:35 <rudi_> stickster --task-based groups make sense to me; and deactivating unused accounts makes sense too :)
23:57:09 <stickster> But in any case, I agree with a minimum of groups, and only use a group if you really need it
23:57:15 * stickster eof
23:57:16 <bcotton> ardchoille but you're actively participating/learning, so i'd consider you 'contributing'
23:58:26 <sparks> so...  I guess the question is...  two groups or three?
23:58:29 <bcotton> stickster, invitiation-only is a somewhat appealing idea given the wiki spam in the past day or two. it'd be nice to know someone's not a complete bonehead before we let them update docs/wiki even if it is easy to revert
23:58:35 <ardchoille> bcotton: Thanks
00:00:03 <sparks> Okay...  everyone vote...  2, 3, or something else...
00:00:07 <sparks> 3
00:00:15 <jjmcd> 3
00:00:18 <Emad78> 3
00:00:23 <bcotton> 3
00:00:24 <rudi_> 3
00:00:37 <stickster> What does the third group accomplish again?
00:01:02 <jjmcd> training wheels
00:01:16 <stickster> jjmcd: But what does it physically mean?
00:01:48 <sparks> stickster: Aren't there requirements for voting or something else that requires a member be a member of a group?
00:02:02 <stickster> sparks: There are
00:02:19 <stickster> But what I'm saying is, if we give people commit access and train them, those are the training wheels.
00:02:40 <sparks> So by using the docs group as a badge we are allowing those that do work but don't necessarily need repo access or web access.
00:02:51 <stickster> What work is that?
00:02:51 <sparks> to vote and such
00:02:59 <sparks> wiki, patches
00:03:09 <stickster> I just think more barriers is not the answer.
00:03:26 <stickster> Look how simple things were for Emad78 when we just let him do what he showed up to do
00:03:26 <sparks> it's not a barrier so much as it is a security control.
00:03:30 <jjmcd> Well, going from 20+ to 3 is a step in the right direction
00:04:05 <rudi_> and for some people, maybe as much a security blanket
00:04:21 <sparks> yes
00:04:41 <stickster> sparks: I think voting on that 'badge' concept is not a strong argument
00:04:45 <sparks> there are a lot of people that just use the docs group as a badge that don't necessarily need to access anything.
00:05:02 <sparks> I agree but people like to be in a bunch of groups
00:05:13 <stickster> sparks: But I think it's up to us to break out of that mentality.
00:05:23 <stickster> The only reason they do that is because we encourage it :-)
00:05:34 <sparks> You don't need to be in any groups to do wiki or patch work but it puts you "in" the group to have that docs badge.
00:05:40 * stickster is strongly for just 2 groups, writing+editing, and publishing
00:05:54 <stickster> Both those groups are meaningful, unlike a 'badge' group.
00:06:04 <stickster> cla_done already means that.
00:06:22 <sparks> I agree...  There was just a lot of discussion against using the docs group for access.
00:06:39 <stickster> I think that we should:
00:06:46 <stickster> 1. Clear out the docs group, in an appropriate manner
00:06:54 <stickster> 2. Retask the docs group to be writers+editors
00:07:07 <stickster> 3. Have a docs-publishers (or some named) group to do web publishing
00:07:41 <stickster> If you want to work, you get commit access. If you prove you're good, we give you sponsor privileges too.
00:08:04 <stickster> But... that's my pitch. eof.
00:08:37 <sparks> discussion on stickster's idea?
00:08:39 * stickster used a bunch of everyone's time on arguing this point and apologizes
00:08:49 <bcotton> stickster, so in your proposal, do new members join docs group right away or once they're comfortable/competent for committing?
00:09:14 <stickster> bcotton: When they feel they want to work on docs.
00:09:26 <stickster> We remove it from the requirements for joining.
00:09:57 <rudi_> Feels scary...
00:09:59 <rudi_> I like it :)
00:10:13 <Emad78> Let's go for it.
00:10:24 <bcotton> whatever we end up doing, it'll still be less messy than the status quo
00:10:36 <stickster> And a much shorter Get Started page.
00:11:02 <sparks> stickster: Can you put your idea into an #idea?
00:11:02 * rudi_ changes sides to the "2" camp
00:11:15 <stickster> sparks: Sure thing, and again, sorry for the long argument
00:11:16 <jjmcd> shorter is a good thing
00:11:19 <ardchoille> ok, so, as a new member, I joined the docs group. What happens to new members now? Just want to understand everything.
00:11:22 <stickster> jjmcd: Yeah :-)
00:11:26 <stickster> including arguments! :-)
00:11:54 <stickster> ardchoille: You'll get an email at some point soon where we'll tell you that
00:12:06 <jjmcd> bcotton, goind back to your mentoring comment while stickster types, did you read my campaign statements?
00:12:13 <stickster> But essentially it will be, "We're going to remove you from this group, but it's NOT BECAUSE WE DON'T LOVE YOU.
00:12:36 <stickster> We want you to come back, if you would like to work on our documentation.
00:12:39 <bcotton> jjmcd no, i am a bad/lazy person
00:12:47 <stickster> ardchoille: Does that make sense?
00:12:59 <ardchoille> stickster: ok, so I'll lose my email alias and fedorapeople space due to the "need to be in a non-cla group" rule?
00:13:16 <stickster> ardchoille: I think once you get it, you're OK
00:13:25 <stickster> ardchoille: But how about we make that something I check with Infrastructure?
00:13:42 <ardchoille> I feel someone should check that out, because it can impact me as I'm now teaching classes and using fedorapeople space
00:13:48 <stickster> #action stickster Check with Infrastructure to find out if removing someone from their only non-cla group 'docs' would turn off their email alias and fpeeps space
00:13:49 <ardchoille> Ah, yeah.
00:13:52 <stickster> done
00:14:05 <jjmcd> Yes, we should make sure we don't burn anyone with that
00:14:06 <stickster> Let me file my idea before I get confused, I'm old :-)
00:14:19 * bcotton moves to table the issue until stickster has an answer from Infrastructure
00:14:26 <stickster> bcotton: Fair enough
00:14:27 <ardchoille> I don't mind eliminating the "training wheels", especially since this community it so helpful, I just want to be sure I don't wreck something later.
00:15:24 <stickster> #idea (1) With appropriate publicity and advance notice, clean 'docs' group; (2) Make 'docs' group all writers+editors, with commit access for anyone who wants it, no requirement to join it listed on our page. Proven contributors become sponsors. (3) Use a 'publishers' group (any name is fine) to do web publishing.
00:15:32 <stickster> Okey doke
00:15:44 <stickster> ardchoille: That's precisely the reason you're a good fit here :-)
00:16:07 <sparks> Okay
00:16:15 <ardchoille> I'm not sure if I'm allowed to vote, but I like stickster's ideas and vote for 2
00:16:20 <jjmcd> And we should probably be more aggreessive at approving sponsors, but we've learned that in the past few weeks
00:16:43 * stickster eof
00:16:43 <sparks> So we are going to table this for next week after stickster gets information from Infrastructure, correct?
00:16:50 <jjmcd> +1
00:16:51 <stickster> sparks: I think that's the right thing to do
00:16:56 <stickster> No sense in voting for a plan that won't work
00:17:02 <stickster> And we're not under a deadline here
00:17:14 <ardchoille> Ok
00:17:33 <sparks> stickster: I agree.  Can you put this on the list, as well.  I'd like to make sure folks know we WILL vote on this next week.
00:18:09 <stickster> Yup
00:18:14 <stickster> #action stickster to raise idea to list email
00:18:24 <sparks> Okay, anyone have anything else on this topic?
00:18:27 <jjmcd> FWIW - looks like 100-150 members of docs,
00:18:41 <jjmcd> perhaps 30 of which need to be there, a dozen actually active
00:18:47 <sparks> Ummm... yeah...  Definitely not that many people active.
00:18:49 * stickster has to go afk, thanks for entertaining my crazy ideas, guys :-)
00:18:58 <jjmcd> thanks stickster
00:19:13 <sparks> stickster: thank you
00:19:32 <sparks> Okay, let's move on.
00:19:46 <sparks> #topic Outstanding BZ Tickets
00:20:05 <sparks> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&classification=Fedora&product=Fedora%20Documentation&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED
00:20:27 <sparks> #info 91 bugs
00:20:48 <sparks> #info 16 new bugs
00:21:01 <sparks> #topic All other business
00:21:06 <sparks> Anyone have anything else?
00:21:09 <rudi_> 2 things
00:21:16 <rudi_> 1. Publican update
00:21:36 <rudi_> Publican 1.6.3 is out in the next few days (just waiting on a dep to leave testing)
00:21:56 <jjmcd> what does it break?
00:22:23 <sparks> what does it fix?
00:22:37 <rudi_> There's *heaps* of bug fixes in there, but it's *really important* not to use it to update POTs for anything that's currently in L10N (since some strings are chunked slightly differently)
00:22:50 <sparks> :(
00:23:17 <rudi_> And yeah, we're aware of one particular corner-case breakage; but it's a really unusual scenario and I'll detail it on F-D-L
00:23:44 <sparks> should we just wait until after F13 release or is that when 2.0 comes out?
00:24:15 <rudi_> 2.0 should be out sometime in the F13 cycle
00:24:36 <rudi_> And yeah, there's no harm in *not* updating to 1.6.3 until after F13 GA
00:24:53 * sparks is just worried about the pot file issues
00:25:31 <rudi_> sparks -- I'll post details to the list today
00:25:37 <sparks> rudi_: Thank you
00:25:42 <sparks> rudi_: What was the second thing?
00:26:27 <rudi_> 2. Website revamp is now well advanced and "Welcome" page and other bits and pieces are already in L10N
00:26:45 <sparks> rudi_: Got a link to an example page?
00:26:47 <rudi_> nb says that we can have a live stage for the branch shortly
00:26:57 <rudi_> sparks -- yep -- one sec
00:27:43 <rudi_> sparks -- tech demo here -- http://publictest8.fedoraproject.org/fedoradocs/public_html/en-US/index.html
00:28:15 <rudi_> If you have the web.git on your system, you can also just check out the "Publican-2.0" branch and take a look locally
00:29:06 <rudi_> EOF
00:29:10 <sparks> rudi_: I like it!
00:29:23 <sparks> It looks like there may be less of a need for Zikula.
00:29:35 <rudi_> Thanks sparks
00:30:15 <rudi_> Note too that the whole thing can be automated:
00:30:35 <rudi_> but we have to hammer out some packaging stuff to make *that* happen
00:30:59 <rudi_> "publican package --brew" to build a package on Koji
00:31:16 <sparks> very cool
00:31:17 <rudi_> then run a tag command to tag into either "stage" or "public"
00:31:27 * sparks has some ideas for later.
00:31:42 <rudi_> (which dovetails neatly with the groups stuff we've just been discussing)
00:31:56 <rudi_> (any writer/editor should be able to tag/untag "stage)
00:32:11 <rudi_> (publishers should also be able to tag/untag "public")
00:32:29 <sparks> great!
00:32:35 <sparks> Okay, anyone have anything else?
00:32:38 <ardchoille> I have one item
00:32:40 <rudi_> sparks -- ideas very welcome on publican-list too
00:34:13 <sparks> ardchoille: Go ahead
00:34:23 <ardchoille> Once a new person joins the docs group, what's next? Is there a "getting started" path one should follow? I've been editing the wiki but I'm aching to do more.
00:34:41 <ardchoille> I hear a bit about pot files. Is it possible I canhelp with that?
00:35:02 <sparks> ardchoille: Yeah, get with me after the meeting in #fedora-docs
00:35:07 <ardchoille> Or perhaps this is a subject that can wait until the groups have been decided?
00:35:19 <ardchoille> sparks: Will do
00:35:22 <jjmcd> No reason to delay
00:35:31 <sparks> jjmcd: If you have something for ardchoille go ahead.
00:35:47 <jjmcd> sparks, I'm actually about out of work
00:35:56 <ardchoille> I feel there could be a "getting started" section on the docs page that would help steer new members.
00:35:57 <jjmcd> Only one bug, well, maybe that's a good thing
00:36:01 <sparks> ardchoille: It doesn't have to wait until the groups thing is decided.  It's more of a "what needs to be done" question.
00:36:09 <ardchoille> sparks: ok
00:36:29 <jjmcd> Perhaps that is the thing, I'll take ardchoille through resolving that new bug
00:36:39 <ardchoille> jjmcd: excellent!
00:36:52 <jjmcd> Gets bugzilla, git, publican, the whole shot
00:37:08 <sparks> Great!
00:37:41 <rudi_> ardchoille -- maybe a rework of the old docs guide is in order? :)
00:37:56 <jjmcd> boy is that puppy out of date
00:38:10 <ardchoille> I'm asking for myself, but also for future members as well.
00:38:41 <sparks> ya
00:39:10 <sparks> Okay, anything else?
00:40:39 <sparks> Thanks everyone for coming tonight!
00:40:47 <sparks> #endmeeting