17:00:01 #startmeeting FESCO (2011-08-15) 17:00:01 Meeting started Mon Aug 15 17:00:01 2011 UTC. The chair is t8m. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 17:00:01 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 17:00:09 * sgallagh is here 17:00:14 * ajax waves 17:00:17 #meetingname fesco 17:00:17 The meeting name has been set to 'fesco' 17:00:18 * mmaslano is here 17:00:24 #chair notting nirik ajax cwickert mjg59 mmaslano t8m pjones sgallagh 17:00:24 Current chairs: ajax cwickert mjg59 mmaslano nirik notting pjones sgallagh t8m 17:00:25 * pjones is here eagerly awaiting this exciting agenda. 17:00:30 #topic init process 17:00:44 Hi all 17:00:48 * nirik is here. 17:00:50 * notting is here 17:01:01 * jsmith is here (lurking) 17:01:10 So we can start I assume 17:02:17 there are no meeting tickets so this will be really fast 17:02:26 Seriously? Nice. 17:02:44 * nirik nods. 17:02:45 Well, I have one thing to bring up in the open discussion period 17:02:45 i thought nirik was having a followup from last week about fesco members in/not in provenpackager/sponsors? 17:02:54 (except for my extremely lousy internet connection today) 17:03:11 Oh yeah. I looked for that, but couldn't find it in old meeting logs... ;( 17:03:28 so, I think we will need to draft up something and this time document it. ;) 17:03:30 notting, yes, I saw that in last week meeting log 17:04:02 * cwickert is here 17:04:06 anyone to write the draft? 17:04:59 I've not. What do folks think about this? 17:05:06 Did we decide on the main points? Are we automatically granting provenpackager/sponsor to FESCo members? 17:05:14 Do they keep it outside of their terms? 17:05:20 Also, what about proventester? 17:05:25 #topic FESCo members in/not in provenpackager/sponsors 17:05:40 provenpackager you mean? 17:06:08 nirik, I think he really means proventester 17:06:14 nirik: No, I mean if we're going to be automatically granting provenpackager and sponsor, should we also be proventesters? 17:06:15 as well 17:06:26 proventester is trivial to become. 17:06:31 is there something I can read to get the background of this? 17:06:37 file ticket, agree you read the page, done. 17:06:54 cwickert: the question came up last time that some fesco members are not sponsors. 17:07:04 so they don't see the feedback on sponsor/provenpackager requests 17:07:11 Or even provenpackager (as in my case) 17:07:15 that is sent to the sponsor alias. 17:07:28 and where is the problem with that? 17:08:05 cwickert: then they have difficulty voting on sponsor requests since they didn't see the feedback emails? or at least they have less info than others. 17:08:06 cwickert, when there is some dissenting voice and the sponsor apprentice gets for example one -1 17:08:34 ah, right 17:09:26 so, we could make fesco members automatically sponsor, or we could ask for the feedback in a different way, or we could leave it the way it is. 17:10:20 or we could put the fesco alias on the sponsor alias and be done with it? ;) 17:10:28 I dislike the idea of becoming a sponsor automatically 17:10:35 I mean, the problem we're actually trying to solve is email, right? 17:10:57 well, there's not a fesco alias, but there is a mailing list... 17:11:15 +1, lets fix the email problem and not change anything with proven packages or sponsors 17:11:30 +1 17:11:40 I don't really care if we resolve it one way or another 17:11:56 so I am +1 to both possibilities. 17:11:56 i'm +1 to that if it can be done. not sure if the FAS i nternals support that 17:11:56 * nirik ponders. 17:12:15 notting: If they can't, that seems like a perfectly reasonable RFE 17:12:26 any solution will be good +1 17:12:44 yeah, I don't think it's currently possible to do with fas aliases... 17:13:25 I guess the low power answer would be to fwd the emails to the fesco list. 17:13:58 nirik, you mean manually? 17:14:08 yeah. 17:14:16 * pjones proposes we RFE to solve this by making the fesco mailing list get the important emails and then do so when that's an option (which may, of course, be now.) 17:14:43 which may be the least grammatical proposal I've ever put forward. 17:14:51 ha 17:14:59 pjones: You duckspeak double-plus goodwise :) 17:15:55 I can try and come up with a solution, but right now I think 'fwd feedback emails to the fesco list' is all I have. 17:16:28 As for the automatic FESCo -> sponsor membership - If someone gets enough confidence to get votes for FESCo - where he can affect many things that sponsors do as well, perhaps there would be no problem with getting the sponsor status automatically? 17:16:57 nirik: Perhaps in the short-term, we could go with: alert the fesco list if the sponsor list has a disagreement, with a pointer to the archive link? 17:17:31 well, yeah, but in some cases they may not have desire or understanding to be a sponsor... they may come from some other part of the project? 17:17:40 sgallagh: there's no archive. It's not a mailing list, it's an alias. 17:17:48 oh, damn 17:18:12 yeah, there's no real point in making, for example, me into a sponsor, since I basically don't ever do any sponsoring. 17:18:24 RFE: make the sponsor "alias" into a mailing list :) 17:18:34 sgallagh: yeah, was just going to suggest that 17:18:38 nirik, they might not but then I understand that there is no obligation to "do more things" if you have sponsor status in the db 17:19:05 sgallagh: problems with that approach: we would need to automatically add people somehow. Many people would just remove themselves. 17:19:12 t8m: fair enough, I guess. But growth for the sake of growth and all that... 17:19:16 t8m: true 17:19:57 t8m: Except that the sponsor list is public and people might just start targeting random sponsors 17:20:09 It's hard to say "no" to a direct request 17:20:24 We are discussing it for more than 15 minutes, do we want to continue? 17:20:38 we could also just ask people to cc: fesco list on their feedback? 17:21:09 * nirik is fine with low tech here... fwd or get the feedback to fesco via whatever handy means. 17:21:23 * notting +1s pjone's proposal 17:21:24 I agree with nirik 17:21:51 notting: What was pjones' proposal? 17:22:02 fix it with an email alias 17:22:06 ah, right 17:22:12 +1 for that 17:22:17 * sgallagh is fine with that as well 17:22:27 * nirik is unsure how it can be fixed with an alias. 17:22:30 notting: weirdest appostriphication of my name ever. 17:22:41 nirik: can't we just add fesco list to the sponsor alias? 17:22:55 pjones: Whose, notting's or mine? :) 17:22:57 just like we'd add any other sponsor? 17:23:02 sgallagh: his 17:23:10 no, because fas generates those aliases. We would need code changes in fas to add members non in a group to a group alias, which is... gross. 17:23:18 ew, yeah. 17:23:42 I suppose we could make a 'sponsor-feedback' alias that contains 'packager-sponsor-members fesco-list' 17:23:43 so there's no real urgency on this, though - so we could RFE that Fesco get a Cc on these things, right? 17:23:47 nirik: Can we get someone who IS on that list to just add an email filter to always send a copy to FESCo? 17:23:52 (It's ugly, but...) 17:23:53 sgallagh: sure. 17:24:04 pjones: yeah, no urgency at all. 17:24:14 pjones: never attribute to malice what can easily be explained by an inability to type 17:25:25 proposal: we just have someone fwd feedback emails to fesco list before the meeting where we vote on that sponsor. 17:25:41 Simple, low-tech, gets the job done: +1 17:25:47 nirik: can we do that *and* rfe getting fesco cc'd properly? 17:26:02 a phase-out plan for that kind of hackary would be nice. 17:26:15 Sure, do you mind filing the RFE? 17:26:30 I'm not entirely sure where to file it, but okay. 17:26:35 pjones: the only ok way I see to do that is the above alias... 17:26:41 nirik: well, hrm. 17:26:44 okay, whatever. 17:26:45 make a 'sponsor-feedback' alias that contains 'packager-sponsor-members fesco-list' 17:27:06 * nirik can do that after our infrastructure freeze, but filing a ticket so we don't forget would be good. 17:27:22 nirik, that will be fine I think 17:27:28 pjones: https://fedorahosted.org/fas/ 17:27:46 * nirik really dislikes the idea of adding non members to members aliases directly. 17:28:11 #action pjones will file a ticket to create sponsor-feedback alias that will contain packager-sponsor-members and fesco-list 17:28:32 nirik: https://fedorahosted.org/fas/ticket/142#preview 17:28:57 #info https://fedorahosted.org/fas/ticket/142 17:29:00 ok. 17:29:14 I really went all-out with that one. 17:29:19 :) 17:29:46 So, can we get a vote on the short-term solution suggested by nirik? 17:29:54 * sgallagh remains +1 17:30:03 * pjones +1 17:30:15 +1 17:30:17 * t8m too +1 17:30:17 +1 17:30:40 sure. 17:30:43 OK, who volunteers for doing the fwd? 17:30:55 Well, I don't currently get the emails, so not I ;) 17:31:03 * sgallagh is not a sponsor at present 17:31:50 * nirik votes notting since he's sending out the feedback emails. ;) 17:32:54 ok 17:33:01 so just adding a cc on the initial e-mail and watching that it does not get dropped would be enough? 17:33:58 true. It will I think send people a 'your post is held for moderation since you aren't subscribed' for the fesco list. 17:34:11 We could just not care, or open the list for non member posts. 17:34:57 nirik: Why would it do that? The client rule should have it forwarded from a FESCo member 17:35:29 sgallagh: if we added a 'CC: fesco-list' to the initial feedback email 17:35:30 I wasn't talking about (the equivalent of) .forward 17:35:54 ok, we've decided already to fwd explicitly, please ignore that 17:35:55 oh, sorry. I follow now 17:35:57 #action notting will fwd the feedback e-mails to the fesco list 17:36:07 this is only in the case of a dispute, or in all cases? 17:37:08 only dispute I would say? 17:37:28 notting, what would you prefer? 17:37:47 only in dispute is easier to remember 17:38:28 I think that would be fine 17:38:39 sure 17:39:20 OK, we are discussing it for more than 30 minutes now 17:39:31 Perhaps we should move on? 17:39:39 * nirik thinks we covered it all now. 17:39:58 #topic Fedora Engineering Services tickets 17:40:08 #info https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-engineering-services/report/6 17:40:48 anything here to discuss? 17:41:37 I suppose not 17:41:40 nope... I tried to get a hold of the person that was going to work on it... 17:41:47 but he was busy... will try further. ;) 17:42:03 #topic Next week's chair 17:42:04 nirik: Work on which? 17:43:10 sgallagh: I had someone that wanted to revive and revitalize fedora engineering services. 17:43:15 Oh ok 17:43:17 Cool 17:43:20 but he moved jobs and moved and had no time. ;) 17:43:45 On the current topic: I will volunteer for two weeks from today, but I can't do next week (I'll be traveling right up until the meeting) 17:43:52 Anybody wants to be the next week chair? 17:44:10 * nirik has had enough break, I can do it next week. 17:44:30 #action sgallagh to be chair on 2011-08-29 meeting 17:44:59 #action nirik to be chair next week - on 2011-08-22 meeting 17:45:08 #topic Open Floor 17:45:11 i'll be on vacation next week next week and the one following, so i won't be able to make the meetings on the 22nd or 29th 17:45:32 I have two bits for Open Floor. 17:45:41 I might not be able to make the meeting on the 22nd but unsure yet. 17:46:02 First is a curiosity: Will any other members of FESCo be at LinuxCon Vancouver this week? 17:46:14 * nirik will not. Sounds like a fun one tho. 17:46:23 * mmaslano is not sure about vacation in next three weeks 17:46:44 * t8m not. Slightly too far :) 17:47:12 not i 17:47:23 I'm going to be in boston as usual, enjoying this fine summer weather. 17:47:59 Ok, I was just curious. Would have been nice to put faces to names. 17:48:57 On to my second matter: we discovered a serious bug in libtevent 0.9.10 introduced upstream that requires a rebuild of not only tevent but all of the packages that depend on it. 17:49:40 nasty. ;( 17:49:44 So this is probably going to necessitate a branch to build the fixes, as well as provenpackager and proventester support as it touches critpath and heavily-used apps :( 17:49:52 sgallagh, how many packages depend on it? 17:50:15 sgallagh: all branches? or rawhide/f16? or ? 17:50:20 nirik: Only F15 17:50:30 ah. 17:50:48 F14 had 0.9.8 which was unaffected, and F16 had 0.9.11 (and recently 0.9.13) which contained the fix 17:50:52 I'd suggest trying to rebuild them all and add them in one update so they all push out at once with no dep issues. 17:51:28 nirik: Well, the first problem with that is that I don't own all the packages that depend on it 17:51:38 (I think I may need to apply for provenpackager) 17:51:48 yeah, might be good... 17:52:00 The second problem is that, last I checked (Thursday) the buildroot overrides didn't take provenpackager into account 17:52:02 sgallagh, now it would be handy to be a provenpackager/sponsor automatically :) 17:52:27 heh 17:52:30 afaik you can only ask for br overrides for things you're explicitly on the acl for, yeah 17:52:39 sgallagh: they don't... yeah. it's a bug. 17:52:48 Hopefully a fixed bodhi soon. 17:53:14 BZ for reference: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=730014 17:54:35 sgallagh, what do you need from FESCo? Any proposal? 17:54:38 So without that fix, I probably need to rely on the maintainers of the dependent packages to push their updates with me 17:55:09 t8m: Am I mistaken that the best move here would be a "mass rebuild" branch (for very loose definition of "mass")? 17:55:15 yeah, or a provenpackger to assist. 17:55:45 I propose we make sgallagh a provenpackager. 17:55:46 t8m: I guess my first step should be requesting provenpackager. 17:56:09 our process calls for asking for feedback from sponsors for a week. ;) 17:56:20 * sgallagh chuckles 17:56:23 meh ;) 17:56:35 That's fine, as I'm going to be at LinuxCon, I won't have time to fix this before next Monday anyway 17:57:04 sgallagh: great, so you can create provenpackagers request ;-) 17:57:19 Will do 17:59:19 * nirik nods. Sounds good. Anything more? 17:59:20 sgallagh, as for a special mass-rebuild branch - I do not think it is necessary in this case 18:00:31 https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/660 18:01:16 If there is nothing else to discuss I'll close the meeting in 2 minutes. 18:03:26 #endmeeting