18:00:38 <jwb> #startmeeting FESCO (YYYY-MM-DD)
18:00:38 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Jan  9 18:00:38 2013 UTC.  The chair is jwb. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
18:00:38 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
18:00:38 <jwb> #meetingname fesco
18:00:38 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fesco'
18:00:38 <jwb> #chair abadger1999 jwb mitr mmaslano notting nirik pjones t8m sgallagh
18:00:38 <zodbot> Current chairs: abadger1999 jwb mitr mmaslano nirik notting pjones sgallagh t8m
18:00:39 <jwb> #topic init process
18:00:48 <nirik> morning everyone.
18:00:48 <jwb> uh, heh
18:00:50 <mmaslano> hi
18:00:53 <mitr> Hello
18:00:55 <t8m> hello
18:00:55 <abadger1999> hola
18:01:19 <jwb> oh well.  i'll correct the YYYY-MM-DD thing manually
18:01:20 <sgallagh> Hello
18:01:45 <pjones> happy new year YYYY!
18:02:10 <jwb> notting is here.  he's just not paying attention
18:02:14 <nirik> I keep writing YYYX on all my checks. ;)
18:02:15 <jwb> let's get rolling
18:02:32 <jwb> #topic #896 Refine Feature process
18:02:33 <jwb> .fesco 896
18:02:33 <jwb> https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/896
18:02:35 <zodbot> jwb: #896 (Refine Feature process) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/896
18:02:52 <jwb> ok, so i think the biggest follow up was to look at mitr's templates
18:03:01 <jwb> i made a few comments on the systemwide feature one
18:03:05 <jwb> did anyone else look at them?
18:03:16 * nirik failed. Can look more now.
18:04:09 <jwb> well, i guess there's also the implied thing too.  the templates themselves aren't all that big a deal, but they imply we'd adopt a model where we have self-contained and systemwide features
18:04:39 <nirik> yeah.
18:04:41 <notting> hm. some of the sections from the system-wide features could still apply to self-contained ones if the submitter wants them to
18:04:41 <jwb> i was kind of hoping we'd defer the broader implications until FUDCon, as we have with other things
18:05:21 <mitr> notting: The idea is that upstream projects have (or should have) similar concerns (compatibility, migration, user notification) and thus it would be mostly taken care of upstream.
18:05:46 <mitr> For packages where upstreams don't do it or that are especially important, we could bump them into the systemwide category.
18:06:05 <t8m> mitr, that seems too big bump to me
18:06:07 <nirik> jwb: yeah, that was my hope too. I know others wanted to have something in place for f19, but I really don't think thats going to be easy to do...
18:07:16 <t8m> nirik, perhaps we could for F19 just change the process that some non-controversial features will be voted on en bloc?
18:07:27 <notting> mitr: true. but i suspect even self-contained ones may have *some* dependencies
18:07:44 <nirik> t8m: 'en bloc'?
18:07:56 <mitr> notting: If anything depends on them (and that $anything is not a part of the feature), it doesn't qualify as self-contained.
18:08:15 <pjones> nirik: "which ones does anybody have objections to?  alright, proposal to approve all the others"
18:08:31 <pjones> which was argued for this time but we just decided to charge all through them anyway
18:08:32 <nirik> sure, I would be ok with that.
18:08:40 <t8m> nirik, just vote that we accept feature A B C in one vote - someone would have to propose which are uncontroversial though
18:09:07 <jwb> i'd be OK with that as a stop-gap for f19.  particularly with the devel-announce thing we're doing now
18:09:19 * pjones would as well
18:09:32 <t8m> fine
18:09:36 <mmaslano> ok
18:09:53 <notting> sounds good
18:10:06 <nirik> BTW, I think the devel-announce thing has been a success so far.
18:10:16 <abadger1999> nirik: <nod>
18:10:17 <nirik> more discussion from people and interaction from feature owners.
18:10:41 <t8m> nirik, yep
18:10:55 <jwb> sgallagh, nirik, abadger1999, mitr, are you OK with voting en bloc for features nobody explicitly questions?
18:11:03 * nirik is
18:11:15 <sgallagh> Yes
18:11:29 <mmaslano> yeah
18:11:31 * abadger1999 not sure he likes it but is willing to try it this cycle :-)
18:12:27 <mitr> jwb: count me as 0, undecided.  Adds a hurdle to speaking up
18:12:53 <jwb> #agreed As a stop-gap for Fedora 19, FESCo will vote en bloc on Features that do not have an explicit question/objection (+:8,0:1,-:0)
18:13:22 <nirik> I'd note that if later anyone has questions about a approved feature we should be able to revisit it.
18:13:38 <jwb> sure
18:13:59 <jwb> #info Features can be revisited if later questions arise
18:13:59 <pjones> which is always true.
18:14:21 <jwb> ok, propose we defer more discussion on this as we have in previous meetings
18:14:23 * nirik nods.
18:14:27 <nirik> +1
18:14:32 <pjones> +1
18:14:42 <mitr> +1
18:14:49 <sgallagh> +1
18:14:58 <mmaslano> +1
18:15:05 <jwb> ok, moving on then
18:15:11 <jwb> #topic #963 change of names of configuration files
18:15:12 <jwb> .fesco 963
18:15:12 <jwb> https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/963
18:15:14 <zodbot> jwb: #963 (change of names of configuration files) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/963
18:15:26 <jwb> ok, we said we were only really worried about firstboot for release
18:15:36 <jwb> and i _think_ that is fixed with bug 892097
18:15:44 <nirik> yeah.
18:15:47 <pjones> fwiw the grubby change is in updates-testing now, which should be good enough for it.
18:15:55 <pjones> testing would be appreciated ;)
18:16:12 <nirik> proposal: close ticket and let rest be fixed by maintainers in the normal cycle?
18:16:17 <jwb> +1
18:16:18 <t8m> +1
18:16:21 <pjones> +1
18:16:29 <notting> +1
18:16:30 <sgallagh> nirik: +1 since it seems like that has already happened
18:16:30 <mitr> +1
18:16:33 <mmaslano> +1
18:16:56 <abadger1999> +1
18:17:09 <nirik> BTW, there was mention on the list of us setting a precident of some kind asking the feature owner to make the changes to all affected packages.
18:17:18 <jwb> #agreed firstboot is fixed so closing the ticket out and maintainers can fix remaining in the normal cycle (+:9,0:0,-:0)
18:17:43 <jwb> nirik, yeah.  i think you correctly pointed out it wasn't a great thing in the end, and not something we'd likely repeat
18:17:49 <nirik> don't know if we want to make clear there is no such guideline...
18:18:05 <mitr> I think we do need to move in that direction, but that's for a higher-bandwidth discussion I suppose
18:18:21 <mitr> Otherwise we are limited to saying "no" or accepting any level of breakage.
18:18:42 <nirik> well, the other alternative is for us to just do it. Either via a FES like setup or just ourselves.
18:19:14 <nirik> but yeah, sidetracking
18:19:15 <notting> without an army of minions, i think 'just ourselves' is not a good solution
18:19:29 <jwb> i'd be for asking a Feature owner if they are planning on doing such changes during feature submission.  and if they say no, then we reject the feature unless someone volunteers
18:19:35 <jwb> because wth
18:19:39 <nirik> thats another option too.
18:20:07 <sgallagh> Yeah, I think maybe we'd want to codify that into the Feature announcement too
18:20:24 <sgallagh> So that if volunteers are needed, we start looking for them a week in advance of the FESCo meeting
18:20:25 <jwb> something to keep in mind for higher impact features during our discussions
18:20:32 * nirik nods
18:20:48 <mitr> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Mitr/SystemwideFeatures already contains this in the "scope" section
18:21:00 <mitr> at least in some minimal form.
18:21:05 <jwb> yes, it does
18:21:15 <mitr> But then, #963 wasn't a feature
18:21:49 <jwb> mitr, also, jsut because someone lists things other developers have to do there doesn't mean people are actually agreeing to do it
18:22:11 <mitr> jwb: That's where FESCo as a voted representative can and should decide
18:22:30 <jwb> anyway, i think this side discussion is more in line with the previous ticket than 963
18:22:33 <mitr> When getting agreement from 100 or more people isn't practical
18:23:28 <jwb> shall we move on?
18:23:45 <nirik> +1
18:24:22 <t8m> yep
18:24:26 <jwb> ok, moving on
18:24:31 <jwb> new features!
18:24:35 <jwb> #topic #984 F19 Feature: 3D Printing -
18:24:35 <jwb> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/3D_Printing
18:24:35 <jwb> .fesco 984
18:24:35 <jwb> https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/984
18:24:36 <jwb> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-January/175770.html
18:24:39 <zodbot> jwb: #984 (F19 Feature: 3D Printing - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/3D_Printing) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/984
18:24:50 <jwb> so.  no comments on devel@.  only a single comment in the wiki page
18:25:03 <pjones> looks pretty cool, I'm +1
18:25:09 <jwb> i am as well
18:25:18 <mitr> +1
18:25:21 <jwb> (i'm assuming we're doing our en bloc for the next meeting)
18:25:25 <sgallagh> +1. Doesn't look like it's likely to break anything else
18:25:27 <mmaslano> +1
18:25:40 <sgallagh> jwb: I think the other two on the list might be contentious anyway
18:25:44 <notting> +1
18:25:54 <nirik> +1
18:25:56 <t8m> +1
18:26:33 <jwb> #agreed F19 Feature: 3D Printing is accepted as a Feature (+:8,0:0,-:0)
18:26:41 <jwb> #topic #985 F19 Feature: Pillow - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Pillow
18:26:44 <jwb> .fesco 985
18:26:45 <zodbot> jwb: #985 (F19 Feature: Pillow - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Pillow) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/985
18:26:46 <jwb> https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/985
18:26:49 <jwb> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-January/175769.html
18:26:57 <abadger1999> +1
18:27:02 <mmaslano> +1
18:27:15 <abadger1999> (err +1 to both 3D printing and Pillow)
18:27:16 <nirik> +1 here as well.
18:27:16 <pjones> +1
18:27:18 <mitr> +1
18:27:20 <notting> +1
18:27:22 <sgallagh> How certain are we about its drop-in potential?
18:27:36 <sgallagh> There are a LOT of python apps reliant on PIL out there
18:27:44 <t8m> +1
18:27:55 <pjones> sgallagh: doesn't make much difference since the module name changes
18:28:21 <sgallagh> pjones: So it's going to require patching all of the consumers?
18:28:28 <pjones> Oh, actually, I misread and it does make a difference.
18:28:31 <pjones> but a minor one.
18:28:32 <sgallagh> I saw the words "drop-in replacement" somewhere
18:28:34 <mitr> sgallagh: It started as a fork, and the original PIL maintainer seems to support it, that's as certain as we can be
18:28:45 <pjones> some things appear to need to be fixed to use the other import format
18:28:52 <sgallagh> mitr: PIL upstream maintainer or Fedora maintainer?
18:28:58 <pjones> mitr: upstream
18:28:59 <mitr> sgallagh: Fedora maintainer
18:29:01 <pjones> er
18:29:03 <pjones> gah.
18:29:11 <pjones> I said everything wrong in that statement :)
18:29:39 <abadger1999> Hmm... from our previous discussoin, perhaps we should be asking who is going to do the porting (patch the import) work.
18:29:51 <jwb> might be a good idea
18:29:53 * abadger1999 will volunteer to help out with that, though.
18:29:56 * nirik nods.
18:30:08 <jwb> ok.  so defer until we have an answer to that?
18:30:47 <nirik> sure. If we want to make sure it's addressed.
18:31:10 <sgallagh> Well, if abadger1999 is going to own organizing that, I think that's probably sufficient to vote now.
18:31:15 <abadger1999> <nod>
18:31:41 <mitr> The way the featuree is written now ("Action needed by other maintainers"), individual package owners
18:31:41 <jwb> ok.  so we're at +7 with me and sgallagh not voting yet
18:31:50 <nirik> I'd be ok as long as abadger1999 is willing to make sure it happens. ;)
18:31:51 * abadger1999 is still +1 since I'll work on the porting. No worries if others feel differntly :-)
18:31:52 <jwb> anyone want to change their vote?
18:31:59 <sgallagh> jwb: I'm +1 now
18:32:18 <sgallagh> (Definitely a beneficial switch, I just want it to go smoothly)
18:32:18 <jwb> #agreed F19 Feature: Pillow is accepted as a Feature (+:9,0:0,-:0)
18:32:38 <jwb> #info abadger1999 will help coordinate the porting effort
18:32:55 <jwb> #topic #986 F19 Feature: DualstackNetworking -
18:32:56 <jwb> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/DualstackNetworking
18:32:56 <jwb> .fesco 986
18:32:56 <jwb> https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/986
18:32:56 <jwb> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-January/175773.html
18:32:57 <zodbot> jwb: #986 (F19 Feature: DualstackNetworking - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/DualstackNetworking) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/986
18:33:01 <sgallagh> abadger1999: I'll take some of the packages to port as well if you want.
18:33:06 <abadger1999> sgallagh: cool.
18:33:13 <notting> so networking in both openstack and cloudstack?
18:33:15 <sgallagh> (at minimum I'll handle the ones I own like ReviewBoard)
18:33:19 <abadger1999> jwb: should I follow up on porting in the fesco ticket or the feature page?
18:33:21 <nirik> heh.
18:33:25 <jwb> notting, ha
18:33:36 <jwb> abadger1999, good question.  you're leading it, so your choice :)
18:33:40 <abadger1999> will do.
18:34:03 <pjones> seems like we shipped RHEL 5 with this feature.
18:34:05 <notting> more seriously, i agree with the comments that the very nebulous and potentially expansive scope here is a problem
18:34:08 <nirik> This feature sounds to me more like "polish up the dualstack support"... since we really already do support dualstack.
18:34:20 <nirik> and "polish up" is not very clear
18:34:24 <mmaslano> the scope is not well defined here
18:34:49 <jwb> should we send it back and have them narrow it down to specific items they intend to fix?
18:34:49 * nirik also wonders if glibc maintainers are on board here.
18:35:02 <pjones> jwb: I'd be for that.
18:35:09 <jwb> me as well
18:35:12 <pjones> Since as described this isn't anything new AFAICS
18:35:13 * nirik has been running dualstack here for quite a while.
18:35:25 <jwb> there are a number of questions on the talk page that aren't answered as well
18:35:35 <sgallagh> This sounds like it would be better handled as a tracking BZ than a Feature page.
18:35:42 <nirik> yeah, lets ask them to answer those and followup on devel list discussion?
18:35:43 <jwb> sgallagh, yes
18:35:45 <t8m> sgallagh, +1
18:35:49 <mmaslano> +1
18:36:08 <t8m> nirik, +1 as well
18:36:12 <pjones> sgallagh: unless there really is something large and specific they're talking about, yeah.
18:36:25 <abadger1999> +1
18:36:25 <jwb> so reject and suggest a tracking bug?
18:36:28 <notting> sgallagh: yes, +1. there's nothing *wrong* with the ideas behind this feature, but it's not really a defined feature as is
18:36:30 <jwb> or defer?
18:36:35 <mitr> I think they have a specific plan re: AI_ADDRCONFIG, but it's not been written down in the feature
18:36:41 <abadger1999> Seems like the systemd cleanup task.
18:36:45 <abadger1999> eh... defer
18:36:52 <mmaslano> so rewrite the feature proposal
18:36:57 <sgallagh> It sounds to me more like bug fixing than a feature.
18:37:06 <abadger1999> It could be good release notes fodder if there's a lot of core services that get fixed.
18:37:09 <nirik> defer, but we should try and communicate to feature owners...
18:37:10 <mmaslano> it should be clear when the feature will be finished, which is not
18:37:15 <sgallagh> I think we should reject it as-is and ask them to either file bugs or reopen with more details
18:37:18 <pjones> the cost of ipv6 is eternal vigilance.
18:37:31 <mitr> In principle, would we accept "we'll do stuff to improve IPv6" as a feature at all?
18:37:37 <mmaslano> ;-)
18:37:49 <pjones> mitr: if there's some large, specific gain, maybe?  but otherwise probably not at this point
18:38:06 <nirik> mitr: as long as the stuff was listed and needed coordination to happen?
18:38:10 <pjones> since it works well enough that we've been saying it works for most of a decade.
18:38:19 <jwb> ok.  how does this sound: agreed F19 DualstackNetworking is deferred as the feature is too vague and it is not clear that this is more than a general improvement in existing IPv6/dual stack support
18:38:19 <notting> i am concerned, for things like AI_ADDRCONFIG, that there probably should be coordination because changing/fixing them can cause weird issues with packages later if they're broken
18:38:40 <mmaslano> jwb: sounds fine
18:38:44 <pjones> jwb: +1
18:38:53 <sgallagh> jwb: Phrasing sounds good to me. +1
18:38:53 <nirik> jwb: +1
18:38:55 <jwb> agreed F19 DualstackNetworking is  deferred as the feature is too vague and it is not clear that this  is more than a general improvement in existing IPv6/dual stack  support
18:38:59 <jwb> sigh
18:39:08 <mitr> +1
18:39:09 <t8m> jwb, +1
18:39:19 <notting> +1
18:39:26 <sgallagh> I might add a request that they set up a BZ tracker and start filing bugs on individual packages though
18:39:45 <sgallagh> Because it would be good to track their efforts (I doubt they'll stop implementing just because it's not a Feature)
18:39:52 <mitr> pjones: There have been _fairly recent_ problems re: AI_ADDRCONFIG.  "Sorting out the AI_ADDRCONFIG mess" might make sense as a feature
18:39:55 <jwb> #agreed F19 DualstackNetworking is  deferred as the feature is too vague and it is not clear that this  is more than a general improvement in existing IPv6/dual stack support (+:8,0:0,-:0)
18:39:58 <nirik> they have one. actually two. ;)
18:40:01 <mmaslano> sgallagh: yes, good point
18:40:11 <nirik> (they made one, and there's an old one dwmw2_gone made)
18:40:12 <pjones> mitr: well, let them rephrase the feature that way then, if that's what they mean
18:40:20 <mitr> pjones: sure
18:40:28 <jwb> #info It would be good to highlight the existing tracking bugs more prominently
18:41:10 <jwb> #topic Next Week's Chair
18:41:18 <mmaslano> I'll do it
18:41:24 <jwb> great.  thanks mmaslano
18:41:29 <jwb> #agreed mmaslano to chair next week
18:41:32 <jwb> #topic Open Floor
18:41:41 <jwb> anyone have any comments/questions?
18:41:48 <jwb> i think we're finally go for f18 release
18:41:54 * jwb crosses fingers and stuff
18:41:56 <sgallagh> FUDCON: anything we should be planning for besides the Feature Revamp?
18:42:18 <jwb> i think that's the big one
18:42:21 <sgallagh> (And the short "Meet Your FESCo" session)
18:42:36 * nirik nods.
18:42:43 <jwb> i guess i missed that one.  we're doing that?
18:43:09 <sgallagh> jwb: I proposed it. Basically just a 30 minute baby-shaking, hand-kissing thing.
18:43:21 <jwb> ok, cool
18:43:23 <mmaslano> good luck :)
18:43:23 <pjones> Do we want to just defer next week's meeting until fudcon?  or is that going to make it less productive?
18:43:33 <nirik> or perhaps people yelling at us telling us we are doing it wrong. ;)
18:43:39 * abadger1999 makes a note not to bring babies to meet sgallagh
18:43:41 <mmaslano> we could ack features on meeting
18:43:44 <jwb> pjones, was wondering that myself.  though we will have some f19 features by next week
18:43:51 <mitr> Not everyone will be at FUDCon, and the feature load is increasing
18:43:52 <jwb> perhaps just limit it to that
18:43:53 <sgallagh> pjones: Not all of FESCo will be at FUDCON.
18:44:03 <pjones> so?  I wasn't suggesting to not have it on irc
18:44:19 <pjones> though I guess that'd make it a solid mixed bag
18:44:34 <t8m> I think we can keep the meeting time and do just features
18:44:42 <pjones> yeah
18:44:49 <jwb> fine with me
18:45:14 <sgallagh> So, regular time but features-only?
18:45:16 <nirik> sure. I think it would be good to knock them out if we can
18:45:51 <Viking-Ice> open floor?
18:45:57 <jwb> #agreed Next week's FESCo meeting will be new F19 Features only
18:45:59 <jwb> Viking-Ice, yes
18:46:00 <sgallagh> Viking-Ice: Yes, do you have something to discuss?
18:46:33 <Viking-Ice> fesco input on https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810040
18:47:03 * nirik already provided his input. Other interested fesco folks feel free to.
18:47:18 <adamw> ...really.
18:47:19 <jwb> we're already spinning an RC4 for this, right?
18:47:23 <adamw> we only have the go/no-go in 13 minutes.
18:47:39 <nirik> jwb: yes but it would require retesting/slip I think.
18:47:50 <jwb> why?
18:47:50 <adamw> jwb: yes. rc4 is being built which includes this. rc3 does not. they are identical otherwise. we can argue about what to do / which one to ship at go/no-go. in 13 minutes.
18:48:08 <jwb> wait, rc3 just showed up like a few hours ago, right?
18:48:15 <nirik> jwb: because it has a package that affects the login process. at least desktop/gdm using things would need retested.
18:48:24 <tflink> jwb: the only thing that changed were the release notes, though
18:48:30 <tflink> between RC2 and RC3
18:48:34 <jwb> oh
18:48:36 <mmaslano> it's there since f17 and it's blocker now?
18:48:46 <nirik> anyhow, we can discuss in other meeting, imho
18:49:05 <Viking-Ice> mmaslano, we missed it last release cycle
18:49:06 <sgallagh> Viking-Ice: What FESCo input are you expecting?
18:49:20 <pjones> Viking-Ice: I think you should try to be less caustic on bugs.
18:49:43 <adamw> pjones: i was the most caustic one, tbf.
18:49:46 * jreznik already prepared a batch of features for next meeting, will file tickets tmrw
18:49:56 <pjones> adamw: but you didn't ask for my input.
18:50:08 <nirik> jreznik: did you see the one feature owner that sent their own announce/ticket?
18:50:30 <jreznik> nirik: which one?
18:50:44 <nirik> https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/988
18:50:56 <nirik> and there's a devel-announce post from them in moderation
18:51:26 * jreznik is checking
18:51:36 <nirik> anyhow, I have nothing more for open floor. ;)
18:51:36 * sgallagh needs to talk to that guy and figure out where that's going to fit with OpenLMI/CIM
18:51:50 <t8m> nirik, we should just close the ticket and ask him to follow the process
18:51:57 <Viking-Ice> pjones, so you assume I'm like that on every  bug
18:52:18 <jreznik> nirik: well, someone took really fast track skipping wrangler at all :)
18:52:32 <nirik> jreznik: yeah.
18:52:42 <nirik> jreznik: if you could talk with them that would be great.
18:52:48 <jwb> Viking-Ice, pjones: i'm not interested in turning the FESCo meeting into a discourse on bug ettiqutte.  take it elsewhere
18:52:48 <jreznik> yep, definitely
18:52:54 <jreznik> thanks for heads up
18:53:51 <jreznik> t8m: I'll check it tmrw and will talk to him - if it's going to look good, no need to close the ticket...
18:54:11 <jwb> Viking-Ice, i think the general consensus is that FESCo members can offer input in the bug or at the go/no-go meeting in a few minutes.
18:54:20 <t8m> jreznik, probably - hopefully nobody else will follow with doing it the same way
18:54:22 <jwb> i doubt you'll get much else during this meeting
18:54:48 <Viking-Ice> jwb, yup
18:54:53 <nirik> or via the bug.
18:55:07 <jwb> i said that ;)
18:55:10 <jreznik> well, would be great to see fesco guys around at go/no-go to help to decide which rc we want to go with
18:55:18 * nirik can't read.
18:55:20 <jreznik> so thanks :)
18:55:29 <jwb> jreznik, which channel is that one in again?
18:55:49 * sgallagh will be there
18:55:56 <tflink> fedora-meeting-2
18:55:58 <jwb> thx
18:56:02 <jreznik> to avoid conflicts
18:56:06 <jwb> ok, anything else for FESCo Open Floor?
18:56:13 <jreznik> and I expected it's going to be looong one :)
18:56:58 <jwb> if there's nothing else in 2 min, i'll close this out
18:58:33 <jwb> #endmeeting