17:01:18 <jwb> #startmeeting FESCO (2012-07-23)
17:01:18 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon Jul 23 17:01:18 2012 UTC.  The chair is jwb. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:01:18 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
17:01:25 <jwb> #meetingname fesco
17:01:25 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fesco'
17:01:29 <jwb> #chair notting nirik mjg59 mmaslano t8m pjones mitr limburgher jwb
17:01:29 <zodbot> Current chairs: jwb limburgher mitr mjg59 mmaslano nirik notting pjones t8m
17:01:31 <jwb> #topic init process
17:01:32 <mitr> Hello
17:01:38 <mmaslano> good evening
17:01:40 <nirik> good morning.
17:01:50 <pjones> hello.
17:01:52 <jwb> notting is out today, but voted in most of the tickets
17:02:16 * nirik sees we have about a zillion features today. ;)
17:02:17 * limburgher here
17:02:51 <jwb> ok, i think that's everyone that should be here.  let's get going because we have a ton of stuf
17:03:03 <jwb> #topic #892 F18 Feature: GNOME IBus Integration -
17:03:03 <jwb> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/GNOMEIBusIntegration
17:03:04 <jwb> .fesco 892
17:03:06 <zodbot> jwb: #892 (F18 Feature: GNOME IBus Integration - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/GNOMEIBusIntegration) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/892
17:03:09 <mjg59> +1
17:03:30 <pjones> sure, +1
17:03:31 <mitr> +1
17:03:35 <limburgher> +1
17:03:39 <mmaslano> +1
17:03:42 <mitr> (thanks for the clarification t0 Jens Petersen)
17:03:45 <jwb> +1
17:03:47 <nirik> +1
17:03:53 <jwb> excellent
17:04:01 <mclasen> its available in rawhide too, now
17:04:23 <jwb> #agreed GNOME IBus integration feature is approved (7, 0, 0)
17:04:38 <limburgher> mclasen: That's always nice. :)
17:04:44 <jwb> in the interest of making some more progress, i'm going to propose we put the provenpacakger requests at the end
17:04:48 <jwb> ok with everyone?
17:05:06 <limburgher> Seconded.
17:05:12 * mitr doesn't care
17:05:19 * nirik is fine either way
17:05:30 <jwb> ok, let's head on to the new features
17:05:37 <jwb> #topic #898 F18 Feature: Package Service Presets -
17:05:37 <jwb> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/PackagePresets
17:05:38 <jwb> .fesco 898
17:05:39 <zodbot> jwb: #898 (F18 Feature: Package Service Presets - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/PackagePresets) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/898
17:05:46 <mjg59> +1
17:06:20 <mitr> So this still wants to announce presets as a feature without making presets _work_ for most packages
17:06:36 <limburgher> But could then be made to work for any?
17:07:00 <mjg59> FPC won't pass it unless we approve
17:07:05 <mjg59> We said it's an FPC issue
17:07:08 <kay> mitr: it's optional, nothing should be forced to use it, but it should be the way to carry out policy if needed to
17:07:27 <mjg59> I agree that this is ridiculous to put through the feature process, but in the name of permitting people who want to do work to get work done we should just +1 it
17:07:28 <mitr> kay: How can we carry out policy using presets when the package scriptlets don't respect them?
17:07:52 <mitr> mjg59: the infra work is done, but do we want to relnote and announce something that doesn't actually work for users?
17:07:53 <nirik> I'm +1... even if there's not super big coverage. Perhaps feature owners could setup a tracking bug and try and get more coverage in this cycle?
17:08:04 <jwb> i'm +1 as well
17:08:04 <mjg59> mitr: I don't see any reason to relnote or announce it
17:08:10 <mjg59> mitr: But this is what procedure wants
17:08:39 <limburgher> +1
17:08:40 <kay> mitr: nothing new in our world, we can always only use that what's supported. we need to start somewhere, and that here today is step #1 :)
17:09:18 <mitr> kay: Given that we aren't nearly finished with the init.d->systemd migration, what is the ETA for this one?
17:09:46 <pjones> yeah, +1
17:10:11 <kay> mitr: there is no specific target point, we need it for prefdm killing as the first major user
17:10:44 <kay> mitr: it will be used for whatever makes sense to support, and rpm macros should make it easy to port stuff
17:10:53 <mitr> kay: right, and my election platform said "time-definite migrations".  So I'm forced to be -1
17:11:06 * mitr counts +5 already
17:11:07 <kay> mitr: not that i'm surprised :)
17:11:50 <jwb> mitr, you don't wish to vote?
17:12:06 <limburgher> mitr was -1.
17:12:11 <mitr> jwb: -1 as said above.  If it was +5, shall we move on?
17:12:25 <mitr> We can talk about large-scale changes later, perhaps
17:12:28 <jwb> oops, missed that sorry.
17:12:59 <jwb> #agreed feature Package Service Presets is approved (+: 5, -: 1 (mitr) 0:0)
17:13:03 <mitr> kay: to clarify, this is -1 to "being a feature", I can't -1 existing code in systemd
17:13:12 <jwb> #topic #883 F18 Feature: Display Manager Infrastructure Rework -
17:13:12 <jwb> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/DisplayManagerRework
17:13:13 <jwb> .fesco 883
17:13:14 <zodbot> jwb: #883 (F18 Feature: Display Manager Infrastructure Rework - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/DisplayManagerRework) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/883
17:13:16 <mjg59> +1
17:13:18 <jwb> this was dependent on presets
17:13:21 <jwb> +1
17:13:26 <mitr> +1
17:13:27 <jwb> notting was +1 in the ticket
17:13:28 <nirik> +1
17:13:29 <pjones> +1
17:13:31 <limburgher> +1
17:13:33 <mmaslano> +1
17:14:03 <jwb> #agreed feature Display Manager Rewrk is approved (+: 7, -: 0, 0: 0)
17:14:08 <jwb> #topic #909 F18 Feature: Heat - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Heat
17:14:11 <jwb> .fesco 909
17:14:13 <zodbot> jwb: #909 (F18 Feature: Heat - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Heat) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/909
17:14:24 <mitr> +1
17:14:26 <jwb> seems to be a version bump feature.  +1
17:14:28 <mmaslano> +1
17:14:36 <nirik> sure, +1
17:14:43 <t8m> hello, sorry for being late
17:14:45 <jwb> #agreed feature Heat is approved (+: 7, -: 0, 0:  0)
17:14:48 <jwb> oops
17:14:52 <jwb> copy/paste fail
17:15:33 <limburgher> Late +1
17:15:56 <t8m> seeing python-crypto does not make me happy at all
17:16:00 <t8m> so late -1
17:16:18 <mitr> Hm, python-crypto again? :(
17:16:21 <nirik> t8m: can you expand on that? whats wrong with it?
17:16:32 * nirik doesn't know the history there
17:16:33 <t8m> nirik, that's a long story
17:16:53 <mitr> nirik: absolutely horrible and security bug-inducing API, separate implementation => high risk of unfixed side channel attacks
17:16:58 <t8m> nirik, the api is not too good and I simply do not like proliferation of independent crypto implementations
17:17:16 <mitr> But we don't generally manage package existence this way I think
17:17:37 <jwb> does zodbot have a retract command?
17:17:44 <nirik> jwb: #undo
17:17:48 <jwb> #undo
17:17:48 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Agreed object at 0x36b3dfd0>
17:17:54 <jwb> thanks nirik
17:18:12 <nirik> sounds sad, but I would not block on that, just perhaps share your concerns with the Heat folks and suggest they use something else?
17:18:39 <mitr> I think that's the only way to go as well
17:18:44 <jwb> we're at +6, -1, right?
17:19:38 <nirik> +5/-1? /me recounts
17:19:47 <jwb> notting was +1 in the ticket
17:19:52 <nirik> ah, right
17:20:00 <jwb> ok, moving on
17:20:05 <jwb> #agreed feature Heat is approved (+: 6, -: 1 (t8m), 0:  0)
17:20:11 <limburgher> I don't like it either, but they're using one that isn't awesome, not introducing a new one.  I know long term we'de like to consolidate, but I don't think blocking things that use things other than, say, NSS, is the way to go.
17:20:41 <t8m> limburgher, NSS, openssl, libgcrypt are ok
17:20:45 <jwb> #info the Heat team might want to look at using something other than python-crypto
17:21:01 <jwb> anything else on Heat before i roll on?
17:21:11 <limburgher> t8m: Right, I was generalizing, the sentence was nearly tl;dr as it was. :)
17:21:37 <jwb> #topic #910 F18 Feature: Network Team driver -
17:21:37 <jwb> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/TeamDriver
17:21:37 <jwb> .fesco 910
17:21:39 <zodbot> jwb: #910 (F18 Feature: Network Team driver - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/TeamDriver) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/910
17:22:01 <jwb> notting was +1 in the ticket.  suggested NM integration, which i believe the feature was updated for
17:22:07 <mjg59> +1
17:22:16 <jwb> +1
17:22:19 <limburgher> +1
17:22:23 <t8m> +1
17:22:27 <nirik> sure, +1
17:22:33 <mmaslano> +1
17:22:36 <nirik> yeah, I see NM suggested for next release
17:22:42 <mitr> +1
17:23:14 <pjones> +1
17:23:41 <jwb> #agreed feature Network Team driver is approved (+: 9, -: 0 , 0:  0)
17:23:53 <jwb> #topic #902 F18 Feature: IPython 0.13 -
17:23:54 <jwb> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/IPython_0.13
17:23:57 <jwb> .fesco 902
17:23:58 <zodbot> jwb: #902 (F18 Feature: IPython 0.13 - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/IPython_0.13) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/902
17:24:08 <jwb> notting was +1 in the ticket as well
17:24:18 <nirik> sure, +1
17:24:20 <jwb> +1
17:24:26 <limburgher> +1, not sure it needs a feature but that's another arg.
17:24:37 <mmaslano> +1
17:24:42 <mitr> +1
17:24:52 <mjg59> +1
17:25:04 <t8m> +1 with the feature process disclaimer
17:25:09 <pjones> +1
17:25:24 <jwb> #agreed feature IPython 0.13 is approved (+: 9, -: 0 , 0:  0)
17:25:32 <jwb> #topic #903 F18 Feature: Riak - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Riak
17:25:35 <jwb> .fesco 903
17:25:36 <zodbot> jwb: #903 (F18 Feature: Riak - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Riak) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/903
17:25:51 <jwb> notting was +1 in the ticket because apparently he was in a happy mood that day
17:25:58 <mjg59> +1
17:26:07 <mitr> +1
17:26:08 <nirik> sure, +1 more packages, silly featurelist. ;)
17:26:12 <t8m> again +1 with the feature process disclaimer
17:26:18 <limburgher> +1
17:26:19 <jwb> +1 FEATUREZ
17:26:58 <mmaslano> +1
17:27:16 <limburgher> Beats a BZ filed with subject "Riak is in Fedora 18 and no one told me OMGWTFBBQ!"  Definitely more than relnotes worthy, though.
17:27:28 <jwb> pjones, ?
17:27:44 <pjones> +1
17:27:48 <jwb> #agreed feature Riak is approved (+: 9, -: 0 , 0:  0)
17:27:53 <jwb> #topic #904 F18 Feature: Syscall Filters -
17:27:53 <jwb> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Syscall_Filters
17:27:54 <jwb> .fesco 904
17:27:55 <zodbot> jwb: #904 (F18 Feature: Syscall Filters - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Syscall_Filters) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/904
17:28:05 <jwb> i actually like this one a lot.  +1
17:28:06 <pjones> +1
17:28:09 <jwb> notting was +1 as well
17:28:14 <mitr> +1
17:28:20 <t8m> +1
17:28:21 * abadger1999 notes that the Presets was more along the lines of "FPC has approved this -- but it seems like FESCo has the ability to say no to it via the Feature process so we'll hold off on publishing it until FESCo says it's okay too"
17:28:22 <nirik> yeah, neat. +1
17:28:25 <mmaslano> +1
17:28:36 <mjg59> +1
17:29:02 <jwb> limburgher, ?
17:29:06 <limburgher> +1.
17:29:08 <jwb> #agreed feature Syscall Filters is approved (+: 9, -: 0 , 0:
17:29:23 <jwb> damn.  open paren.  oh well
17:29:30 <jwb> #topic #888 F18 Feature: UEFI Secure Boot -
17:29:31 <jwb> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/SecureBoot
17:29:31 <jwb> .fesco 888
17:29:32 <zodbot> jwb: #888 (F18 Feature: UEFI Secure Boot - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/SecureBoot) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/888
17:29:46 * nirik wonders how much discussion there will be.
17:29:50 <jwb> to get it out of the way, notting was +1
17:29:50 <gholms> Heh
17:29:51 <mjg59> +1
17:29:53 <pjones> meh, +1
17:29:56 <t8m> heh
17:30:05 <mjg59> But obviously we can answer any questions
17:30:18 <nirik> I'm +1. I think there is a small loss of freedom, but it's the best we can do with the way the world works right now.
17:30:36 * nirik would also like to thank mjg59 and pjones for spending all the time working on this and seeking a way forward.
17:30:47 * mitr needs to point out that we may be required to revoke signatures on kernels with known vulnerabilities (or known in-the-wild exploits?)
17:30:48 * gholms agrees with nirik
17:30:53 <limburgher> Yes, thank you.
17:30:54 <t8m> +0 as Fedora Board did not make clear statement and I decided that I won't give +1 unless a clear statement from Board is heard
17:30:55 <jwb> i believe everyone has expressed that this isn't a perfect solution, but seems to be a minimal compromise.  i'm +1
17:31:02 <mitr> +1 to the idea.
17:31:07 <mjg59> mitr: The expectation is in-the-wild exploits that are being used against other operating systes
17:31:15 <limburgher> It's the worst solution, except for all the others currently available.
17:31:35 * nirik nods.
17:31:36 <limburgher> Are we voting on scheme the first or the second, to clarify?
17:31:45 <gholms> t8m: We're still discussing it.  Sorry.  :(
17:31:52 <mitr> As to the practical questions, $somebody will need to take care of rel-eng changes (signing, key generation & storage etc.)  mjg59, do you need/want help with that?
17:32:00 <mjg59> mitr: I'm working on that internally, yes
17:32:04 <pjones> mitr: as mjg59 was saying; the expectation currently is that we won't revoke kernels /unless/ they've got exploits being used to pivot to another OS
17:32:09 <mjg59> mitr: There's hardware that needs to be bought and hosted
17:32:19 <nirik> limburgher: both I think? the feature does both...
17:32:54 <pjones> limburgher: *both* are to be supported
17:32:54 <mitr> pjones: sure.  I just felt necessary to point out this aspect of the feature, as we discussed earlier.
17:33:02 <limburgher> nirik:  1==shim, 2==shim+pesign?
17:33:09 <limburgher> AhhhAAAhhh.  Got it.
17:33:17 <pjones> no, 2 == roll your own with your own trust root locally
17:33:54 <mmaslano> pjones: do you also plan software which will help with signing our keys?
17:33:57 <limburgher> pjones: I see.
17:34:10 <mmaslano> um plan to write it...
17:34:13 <jwb> in case i lose count later, i currently have pjones, mjg59, notting, nirik, mitr, jwb +1.  t8m 0
17:34:28 <pjones> mmaslano: I've already written software to sign with an individual's key.
17:34:34 <mmaslano> pjones: ok, thanks
17:35:01 <limburgher> +1 with hopes for better options down the road, and thanks to M and P for getting us this far.
17:35:19 <mjg59> mmaslano: We still need to do work on documentation
17:35:27 <mjg59> mmaslano: We do consider that a priority
17:35:28 <pjones> Lots of it.
17:35:33 <mmaslano> jwb: 0 from me, I don't feel we can decide now about it
17:35:37 <nirik> I'm happy to help from the infra side... if we need to host hardware, let me know when and what.
17:35:45 <mmaslano> mjg59: your articles on your blog were great.
17:35:51 <mjg59> mmaslano: Thanks!
17:35:59 <mjg59> mmaslano: We'll be aiming for that level of detail
17:36:00 <jwb> mmaslano, why is that exactly?
17:36:03 * gholms agrees with mmaslano.  Thanks, mjg59!
17:36:40 <mmaslano> jwb: well I asked at first to board because its not about technical issues. Thanks to mjg59 and pjones we have a solution
17:37:18 <pjones> so, the current count is 6:+1, 2:+0, 0:-1
17:37:25 <jwb> #agreed feature UEFI Secure Boot is approved (+:7, -:0 , 0:2 (t8m, mmaslano) )
17:37:42 <jwb> pjones, notting was +1 in the ticket
17:38:16 <jwb> ok, let's keep moving.  lots of other things to discuss
17:38:20 <jwb> #topic #897 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/AvahiDefaultOnDesktop
17:38:23 <jwb> .fesco 897
17:38:27 <zodbot> jwb: #897 (F18 Feature: Avahi by Default on the Desktop - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/AvahiDefaultOnDesktop) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/897
17:38:30 <mjg59> +1
17:38:31 <mitr> +1
17:38:33 <mjg59> (Finally!)
17:38:38 <nirik> sure, +1
17:38:39 <limburgher> +1
17:38:46 <mmaslano> +1
17:38:46 <twoerner> one hting I want to get into discussion here
17:38:47 <t8m> +1
17:38:54 <jwb> twoerner, ok?
17:39:17 <mitr> Right - twoerner! _please_ just set the port as open, don't open it on service start.  That doesn't help anything, let's not start doing that.
17:39:20 <twoerner> for this I think FESCO should also decide on how we do this
17:39:38 <t8m> mitr, completely agree
17:39:48 <twoerner> with firewalld a special zone could be added for desktop
17:39:50 <twoerner> s
17:40:03 <twoerner> or should all zones be open for this?
17:40:37 <twoerner> is this a default for desktop only?
17:40:50 <nirik> I would say yeah...
17:40:58 <nirik> although...
17:41:25 <mitr> We didn't historically change the firewall based on installed package set.
17:41:50 <mitr> IIRC the Network zones feature hasn't been proposed for F18, has it?
17:41:55 <twoerner> mitr: but maybe we should depending on machine-type
17:42:16 <twoerner> mitr: it is alredy part of firewalld and NM since F-17
17:42:19 <limburgher> twoerner:  Like laptop, dekstop, etc?
17:42:23 <mitr> twoerner: I don't think we really have that concept.
17:42:25 <twoerner> only firewalld-default was postponed
17:42:31 <mitr> twoerner: ah
17:42:52 <nirik> yeah. I would say desktop. If other usecases/firewalld names would fit it, add them as requested?
17:42:59 <twoerner> limburgher: maybe something like this
17:43:16 * jwb steps afk from just a few seconds
17:43:24 <limburgher> twoerner:  But how would we know?
17:43:45 <mitr> I'm fine with opening the Avahi port for everyone.
17:43:54 <twoerner> limburgher: by the default package set for example - desktop / dcevelopment/ minimal...
17:44:21 <twoerner> if you decide to open for everyone.. then this has to be part of the default zone or all zones?
17:44:30 <limburgher> twoerner:  Fine for initial, but doesn't help for later changes.
17:44:40 <mclasen> I got a pretty uniform negative response when I tried to sell network zones as a user-visible concept in the desktop last year
17:44:41 <twoerner> all zones, that can be changed.. :-)
17:46:07 <jwb> so does anyone have a strong recommendation for twoerner ?
17:46:50 <nirik> I don't feel strongly about it, but I would say desktop and such other zones as make sense... but if folks want it on by default thats ok I guess.
17:47:20 <mitr> I'd suggest either letting twoerner decide what he thinks best, or postponing this aspect to next meeting.
17:47:48 <mitr> nirik: zones are "home/work/untrusted public" and the like
17:47:53 <jwb> this isn't going to change anyone's vote, correct?
17:47:57 <limburgher> I'm on the fence, but if it's needed to work completely out of the box I'm in favor.
17:48:01 * jwb notes pjones and i have not voted
17:48:18 <nirik> mitr: yeah, sorry, mixing terms there.
17:48:30 <pjones> Yeah, to be honest I'd rather vote on a proposal than a request for advice.
17:49:04 <jwb> i ask because as of right now the feature has enough for approval if nobody is changing their vote
17:49:12 * limburgher with pjones
17:49:38 <t8m> I'd leave it up to twoerner to decide.
17:49:45 <t8m> so no vote change from me
17:49:55 <jwb> limburgher, is that changing your vote from +1 to 0?
17:50:37 <limburgher> jwb: No, simply expressing the relationship between my understanding and a possible vote on a possible proposal.  In a slightly complicated way.
17:51:28 <jwb> ok, then i'm going to second mitr's suggestion that we follow up with twoerner on this aspect of the feature later
17:52:17 <jwb> #agreed feature AvahiDefaultOnDesktop is approved (+:7, -:0 , 0:2 (jwb, pjones) )
17:52:36 <jwb> #info FESCo to follow up with twoerner on the opening of the port aspect
17:52:59 <jwb> #topic #899 F18 Feature: Virt Guest Suspend/Hibernate support -
17:53:00 <jwb> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Virt_Guest_Suspend_Hibernate
17:53:01 <jwb> .fesco 899
17:53:02 <zodbot> jwb: #899 (F18 Feature: Virt Guest Suspend/Hibernate support - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Virt_Guest_Suspend_Hibernate) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/899
17:53:05 <mmaslano> +1
17:53:47 <mitr> +1
17:53:49 <limburgher> +1
17:53:54 <jwb> honestly, i'm kinda hesitant
17:54:09 <mjg59> +1
17:54:14 <jwb> mostly because hibernate is horrible on real machines.  but i guess there's hope virt is easier to control
17:54:17 <mjg59> There's a chance hibernate will actually work in virt
17:54:22 <jwb> yeah
17:54:29 <jwb> hopeful +1
17:54:30 <t8m> +1
17:54:37 <limburgher> And if it's also horrible on VMs, then it's an accurate real-world test. :)
17:54:39 <nirik> +1
17:55:15 <jwb> pjones, ?
17:55:52 <pjones> yeah, I'm +1 I /guess/.
17:56:02 <jwb> #agreed feature Virt Guest Suspend/Hibernate support is approved (+:9, -:0 , 0:0)
17:56:07 <jwb> #topic #900 F18 Feature: Virt Live Snapshots -
17:56:08 <jwb> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Virt_Live_Snapshots
17:56:09 <jwb> .fesco 900
17:56:10 <zodbot> jwb: #900 (F18 Feature: Virt Live Snapshots - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Virt_Live_Snapshots) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/900
17:56:19 <mmaslano> +1
17:56:21 <t8m> +1
17:56:23 <limburgher> +1
17:56:27 <nirik> +1
17:56:28 <mjg59> +1
17:56:32 <jwb> +1
17:56:49 <pjones> +1
17:56:56 <mitr> +1 with some difficult to address worries about crypto
17:57:25 <jwb> #agreed feature Virt Live Snapshots is approved  (+:9, -:0 , 0:0)
17:57:38 <jwb> mitr, will you follow up with the virt team on that?
17:58:07 <mitr> jwb: I mentioned this at the talk page and they acknowledged it, and as mentioned above it's difficult to address :)
17:58:18 <jwb> ah, i see now, yes.  thanks
17:58:24 <mitr> Let's hope the users know what they are doing
17:58:25 <jwb> #topic #905 F18 Feature: System Storage Manager -
17:58:25 <jwb> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/SystemStorageManager
17:58:26 <jwb> .fesco 905
17:58:26 <zodbot> jwb: #905 (F18 Feature: System Storage Manager - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/SystemStorageManager) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/905
17:58:41 <mitr> +1
17:58:44 <mmaslano> +1
17:58:44 <mjg59> +1
17:58:49 <limburgher> +1
17:58:50 <t8m> +1
17:59:13 <pjones> +1
17:59:16 <nirik> +1
17:59:20 <jwb> +1
17:59:36 <jwb> #agreed feature SystemStorageManager is approved  (+:9, -:0 , 0:0)
17:59:42 <jwb> #topic #906 F18 Feature: firewalld - default firewall solution -
17:59:43 <jwb> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/firewalld-default
17:59:43 <jwb> .fesco 906
17:59:44 <zodbot> jwb: #906 (F18 Feature: firewalld - default firewall solution - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/firewalld-default) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/906
17:59:51 <mmaslano> +1
18:00:09 <mitr> +1, but a little worried that the F17 situation will replay
18:00:18 <mitr> There was remarkably little progress since
18:00:27 <t8m> +1 with the same worries
18:00:29 * nirik nods. What mitr said. +1 but I hope it's not in the same boat as f17
18:00:40 <mjg59> +1
18:00:42 <pjones> yeah, pretty much the same: +1
18:00:48 <twoerner> mitr: pushed some more patches today.. more to come..
18:00:49 <limburgher> +1 Will be happier when the mostlys are banished.
18:00:54 <jwb> someone can explain what happened in f17 to me later.  i apparently wasn't paying attention then
18:01:03 <mitr> twoerner: that's great to hear
18:01:12 <jwb> +1
18:01:26 <jwb> #agreed feature firewalld - default firewall solution is approved  (+:9, -:0 , 0:0)
18:01:34 <jwb> #topic #907 F18 Feature: Features/Liberation Fonts 2 -
18:01:34 <jwb> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Liberation_Fonts_2
18:01:35 <jwb> .fesco 907
18:01:36 <zodbot> jwb: #907 (F18 Feature: Features/Liberation Fonts 2 - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Liberation_Fonts_2) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/907
18:02:07 <limburgher> +1
18:02:15 <pjones> +1
18:02:15 <nirik> +1 here
18:02:19 <mmaslano> +1
18:02:20 <jwb> +1
18:02:23 <mitr> +1
18:02:24 <t8m> +1
18:02:46 <mjg59> +1
18:02:57 <jwb> #agreed feature Liberation Fonts 2 is approved  (+:9, -:0 , 0:0)
18:03:02 <jwb> #topic #908 F18 Feature: Fontconfig Enable Autohinting -
18:03:03 <jwb> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/FontconfigEnableAutohinting
18:03:03 <jwb> .fesco 908
18:03:04 <zodbot> jwb: #908 (F18 Feature: Fontconfig Enable Autohinting - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/FontconfigEnableAutohinting) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/908
18:03:23 <nirik> +1.
18:03:27 <mitr> jreznik has pointed out that this interacts with Liberation 2.0 - Liberation advertises better hinting, but autohinting would override this
18:03:54 <mjg59> Yeah
18:04:02 <mitr> AFAICT the feature owners are aware, so there may be changes, but I have no interest in micromanaging that.
18:04:04 <mjg59> If necessary I guess it can ship a fontconfig fragment?
18:04:13 <mitr> So +1 to the general idea
18:04:16 <limburgher> SHould be fine.
18:04:17 <limburgher> +1
18:04:21 <mitr> mjg59: I think something like that is the plan
18:04:31 <pjones> yeah +1
18:04:49 <jwb> notting was looking for more input from the desktop teams.  only mccann replied
18:05:01 <jwb> though he was in favor in general
18:05:16 <mjg59> +1
18:05:17 <mmaslano> +1
18:05:24 <jwb> +1
18:05:37 <jwb> t8m?
18:05:51 <t8m> I thought that the autohinting is already enabled.
18:05:59 <t8m> but +1 anyway
18:06:07 <jwb> #agreed feature Fontconfig Enable Autohinting is approved  (+:9, -:0 , 0:0)
18:06:24 <jwb> ok, that was the last feature on the schedule for today.  lets get to the provenpackager stuff quickly
18:06:31 <jwb> #topic #879 rishi: requesting provenpackager
18:06:32 <jwb> .fesco 879
18:06:33 <zodbot> jwb: #879 (rishi: requesting provenpackager) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/879
18:06:40 <mjg59> +1
18:06:49 <jwb> +1
18:06:51 <t8m> +1
18:06:56 <pjones> +1
18:07:03 <mmaslano> +1
18:07:07 <nirik> +1 here as well.
18:07:13 <mitr> weak +1
18:07:30 <jwb> limburgher, ?
18:07:38 <limburgher> +1, I think.
18:07:51 <jwb> #agreed rishi is accepted as a provenpackager
18:07:59 <jwb> #topic #881 jcwillia: request for provenpackager status
18:08:00 <jwb> .fesco 881
18:08:01 <zodbot> jwb: #881 (jcwillia: request for provenpackager status) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/881
18:08:25 <mjg59> Yeah still kind of lacking a reason here
18:08:26 <jwb> there was little info and no votes in the ticket
18:08:30 <nirik> I'm -1 without more rationale.
18:08:35 <mjg59> I think ask for more rationale in the ticket
18:08:43 <mmaslano> according to last comment +1
18:08:51 <limburgher> mjg59, I need more also.  0 for now.
18:09:10 <t8m> 0 for now from me as well
18:09:12 <nirik> ie, what parts of the music spin need non maintainer assistance?
18:09:13 <mitr> -1, mock is important but maintaining 1 package is very far from "skilled package maintainers who are experienced in a wide variety of package types"
18:09:37 <jwb> so in general we'd like to see more rationale for PP it seems
18:10:14 <t8m> also what mitr said - packaging kernel and mock are pretty special things
18:10:24 <jwb> #rejected jcwillia for provenpackager.  would like to see more rationale and further packaging experience
18:10:26 <mitr> t8m: I can find 0 kernel buidls in koji btw
18:10:39 <jwb> MRG-RT is RHEL, not fedora
18:10:40 <t8m> mitr, I suppose he did it in RH inside
18:10:46 <mitr> t8m: right
18:10:56 <jwb> #topic #901 provenpackager request for itamarjp
18:10:57 <jwb> .fesco 901
18:10:58 <zodbot> jwb: #901 (provenpackager request for itamarjp) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/901
18:11:20 <jwb> there was a -1 from mschwendt on this one
18:11:41 <nirik> I'm -1 for now, but would suggest they become more active on their packages and then resubmit...
18:11:47 <mjg59> I started reading the ticket, got confused and went to do something else isntead
18:11:59 <t8m> same as nirik -1 for now
18:12:02 <pjones> I'm also -1 here
18:12:05 <mmaslano> -1 I agree with mschwendt, he might try later
18:12:07 <mjg59> So I think -1 for now
18:12:10 <limburgher> -1
18:12:46 <jwb> #rejected itamarjp for provenpackager.  would like to see more involvment on the packages maintained
18:13:17 <jwb> that brings us to the end of the agenda.  there were a couple of late features added.  adjourn or continue on?
18:13:52 * nirik is happy either way.
18:14:00 <jwb> i'd personally like to adjourn, but if the majority want to stay i will
18:14:03 <mitr> Adjourn, please - the ticket said "for jul 30", so I haven't had time to look at them
18:14:12 <t8m> I'd say adjourn
18:14:17 <mjg59> Please
18:14:18 <jwb> oh, i forgot open floor
18:14:25 <limburgher> Yeah, adjourn, I've got a full plate today.
18:14:44 <nirik> and we need a chair for next week.
18:14:47 <jwb> let's settle next weeks chair
18:14:53 <mmaslano> I could do it
18:15:07 <jwb> thanks
18:15:22 <jwb> #info mmaslano will chair next week's meeting
18:15:34 <jreznik> one thing from me - tmrw, 2012-07-24 is Feature Submission Deadline
18:15:44 <jwb> jreznik, indeed.  thanks
18:16:06 <jwb> #info Tomrrow, 2012-07-24 is the Feature Submission Deadline
18:16:41 <jwb> ok, really quick
18:16:42 <jwb> #topic Open Floor
18:16:44 <t8m> I won't be able to attend next week.
18:16:55 <limburgher> Nothing from me.
18:17:20 <jwb> if there's nothing further, i'll adjourn in 1min
18:17:33 <nirik> The mass rebuild is done. Please fix any packages of yours that failed to build. ;)
18:17:51 <jwb> #info F18 Mass Rebuild is complete.  Please fix any of your packages that may have failed
18:18:07 <jwb> ok, let's call it a day
18:18:11 <jwb> thanks everyone
18:18:18 <jwb> #endmeeting