18:01:20 <notting> #startmeeting FESCO (2013-01-23) 18:01:20 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Jan 23 18:01:20 2013 UTC. The chair is notting. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 18:01:20 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 18:01:28 <notting> #meetingname fesco 18:01:28 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fesco' 18:01:28 <notting> #chair abadger1999 jwb mitr mmaslano notting nirik pjones t8m sgallagh 18:01:28 <notting> #topic init process 18:01:28 <zodbot> Current chairs: abadger1999 jwb mitr mmaslano nirik notting pjones sgallagh t8m 18:01:33 <pjones> hello. 18:01:34 <mitr> Hello 18:01:38 <mmaslano> hi 18:01:39 <jwb> here 18:01:40 * sgallagh waves 18:01:43 * abadger1999 here 18:01:44 <nirik> morning everyone 18:01:51 <sgallagh> Happy Post-FUDCon FESCo meeting :) 18:01:53 <pjones> good to see everybody made it back from fudcon alive 18:01:58 <t8m> good evening everyone 18:02:08 * gregdek lurks4fun 18:02:19 <sgallagh> pjones: Except apparently spot. Poor guy. 18:02:30 <pjones> Oh? 18:02:35 <gregdek> kidney stones. 18:02:38 <pjones> yikes. 18:02:40 <nirik> :( 18:02:45 <jlaw> :( 18:02:46 <t8m> ouch 18:02:49 <notting> yeah, those are Not Fun 18:02:52 <pjones> dcantrell also wound up in the hospital with bronchitis, apparently. 18:02:53 <gregdek> he has drugs, though, so he'll make it. 18:03:03 <abadger1999> :-( 18:03:03 <pjones> but he's out now and recovering. 18:03:24 <notting> but hey, everyone's here. so... 18:03:24 <jlaw> had my first this summer while on vacation... not good 18:03:38 <notting> jlaw: we're all getting old 18:03:51 <jlaw> yea, i realize that from time to time 18:03:58 <notting> #topic #896 Refine Feature process 18:03:59 <notting> .fesco 896 18:04:01 <zodbot> notting: #896 (Refine Feature process) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/896 18:04:35 <nirik> jreznik asked us to delay a week on this... 18:04:40 <notting> there was discussion of this at FUDCon. in a not-shocking surprise, it also morphed into a discussion of reworking parts of fedora itself 18:04:47 <sgallagh> The Feature Process was discussed at FUDCon and a generally-approvable proposal came out of it, but mitr and jreznik have reported they need more time to get it into shape 18:05:18 <t8m> notting that seems like very often outcome of some meetings 18:05:35 <notting> but yes, we can wait a week. got plenty of features anyway 18:06:06 <sgallagh> And more sure to come this week, with the deadline impending 18:06:15 <notting> #info waiting a week, will discuss more at next meeting when proposal is updated 18:06:24 <notting> #986 F19 Feature: Fix Network Name Resolution - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/FixNetworkNameResolution 18:06:24 <notting> .fesco 986 18:06:27 <zodbot> notting: #986 (F19 Feature: Fix Network Name Resolution - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/FixNetworkNameResolution) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/986 18:06:56 <sgallagh> Are we going to first see if there are any block-voteable ones? 18:06:59 <nirik> I think mitr was going to ping glibc folks on this? 18:07:21 <nirik> sgallagh: +1 18:07:24 <t8m> sgallagh, +1 18:07:30 <jlaw> one of the glibc folks is here :-) and he talked to the other one yesterday 18:07:36 <mitr> a glibc comaintainer has become a comaintainer of this feature 18:07:48 <mitr> So I'm +1 18:07:59 <notting> well, if people want to do block-votes first... 18:08:00 <notting> #undo 18:08:00 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Info object at 0x24e79550> 18:08:02 <mitr> ... become a coowner of the feature, obviously 18:08:23 <nirik> cool 18:08:39 <notting> there are two features with no comments on the list: RemovePyXML, and Boost 1.53 18:09:24 <sgallagh> Boost and RemovePyXML seem like no-brainers to me 18:09:31 <mmaslano> +1 to them 18:09:39 <t8m> +1 to both 18:09:39 <pjones> I'm +1 to both. 18:09:44 <sgallagh> (+1 to both , in case that was not clear) 18:09:44 <nirik> sure, +1 18:09:45 <notting> i'm +1 to both 18:09:51 <jwb> +1 18:09:52 * nirik is looking to see if there's any he had questions on 18:10:08 <mitr> +1 18:10:18 <abadger1999> +1 to both 18:10:30 <sgallagh> I can see discussion happening on all of the others, though. 18:10:44 <notting> #agreed F19 Feature: Boost 1.53 Uplift is approved (+:9, -:0) 18:10:56 <notting> #agreed F19 Feature: RemovePyXML is approved (+:9, -:0) 18:11:07 <notting> ok, now back to the ones being discussed 18:11:13 * nirik doesn't actually off hand have any objections to any others, although I would require guidelines for jruby/ruby features. 18:11:28 <notting> #986 F19 Feature: Fix Network Name Resolution - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/FixNetworkNameResolution 18:11:28 <notting> .fesco 986 18:11:30 <zodbot> notting: #986 (F19 Feature: Fix Network Name Resolution - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/FixNetworkNameResolution) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/986 18:11:43 <mmaslano> notting: topic? 18:11:56 <t8m> notting, #topic 18:12:15 <notting> #topic #986 F19 Feature: Fix Network Name Resolution - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/FixNetworkNameResolution 18:12:18 <nirik> if glibc folks are willing and able to help/work/acccept patches on it, I'm fine with this one. +1 18:12:28 <mmaslano> +1 18:12:28 <t8m> +1 18:12:36 <notting> yeah, good to seem them involved. +1 18:12:39 <abadger1999> +1 18:12:43 <sgallagh> +1 with nirik's caveat 18:12:46 <jlaw> nirik: that's precisely why i gave that mess to carlos :-) 18:13:01 <jwb> how nice of you to welcome the new guy that way 18:13:06 <jlaw> :-) 18:13:06 <jwb> +1 18:13:10 <pjones> +1 18:13:10 <notting> the new guy always gets the worst stuff 18:13:17 <mitr> +1 18:13:19 <pjones> notting: if only that were true 18:13:21 <jlaw> he's also more qualified than I to fix it 18:13:30 <notting> pjones: wanna swap secure boot for s390? 18:13:36 <pjones> no. 18:13:50 <notting> #agreed F19 Feature: Fix Network Name Resolution is approved (+:9, -:0) 18:13:56 <sgallagh> notting: I can't decide which of those turds is browner :( 18:14:13 <notting> #topic #996 F19 Feature: BIND10 - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/BIND10 18:14:13 <notting> .fesco 996 18:14:15 <zodbot> notting: #996 (F19 Feature: BIND10 - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/BIND10) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/996 18:14:28 <nirik> sure, +1. I am happy they are leaving 9.x around for a while. 18:14:34 <mmaslano> +1 18:14:36 <t8m> +1 18:14:45 <pjones> +1 18:14:46 <sgallagh> BIND 10 scares the living crap out of me, but as long as 9.x is around *and supported* I'm okay with it. 18:15:00 <mitr> +1 18:15:00 <t8m> sgallagh, definitely 18:15:01 <abadger1999> +1 18:15:05 <pjones> I'll leave aside questions about why bind still exists at all. 18:15:12 <notting> pjones: hey, it's a complete rewrite 18:15:27 <t8m> pjones, because grub2 still exists? :) 18:15:39 <notting> +1 to having it as an add-on. would be interesting in a copr world if it could live there first, but not a big deal having it in the main repo 18:15:44 <pjones> t8m: heh. 18:15:49 * abadger1999 agrees with the sentiment that continued bind9 support makes this palatable 18:16:00 <mmaslano> next feature please 18:16:05 <jwb> +1 18:16:06 <nirik> gives folks time to look at pdns. ;) 18:16:19 <sgallagh> +1 (for the record) 18:16:24 <notting> #agreed F19 Feature: BIND10 is approved (+:9, -:0) 18:16:35 <notting> #topic #997 F19 Feature: Enlightement - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Enlightenment 18:16:35 <notting> .fesco 997 18:16:37 <zodbot> notting: #997 (F19 Feature: Enlightement - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Enlightenment) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/997 18:16:46 <mmaslano> +1 18:16:47 <nirik> +1 18:16:47 <sgallagh> notting: Can we amend that to mention that it's contingent on BIND 9 remaining supported for a while? 18:17:14 <t8m> +1 18:17:20 <notting> sgallagh: it's in the feature page 18:17:24 <mitr> sgallagh: How would that work? If bind9 goes unsupported in F20, we can't retroactively refuse the F19 feature 18:17:25 <abadger1999> +1 enlightenment 18:17:32 <mitr> +1 to Enlightenment 18:17:41 <notting> +1 to E. next step, sawfish? 18:18:05 <jwb> +1 18:18:05 <nirik> fvwm95! 18:18:06 * sgallagh shrugs. I just wanted it recorded for posterity 18:18:18 <pjones> +1 18:18:27 * pjones takes a shot of bourbon and declares "to mistakes!" 18:18:36 <sgallagh> +1 for CDE! 18:18:37 <t8m> pjones, :) 18:18:47 <notting> #agreed F19 Feature: Enlightenment is approved (+:9, -:0) 18:18:49 <sgallagh> err, I mean Enlightenment 18:19:01 <notting> #topic #998 F19 Feature: Erlyvideo -https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Erlyvideo 18:19:02 <notting> .fesco 998 18:19:04 <zodbot> notting: #998 (F19 Feature: Erlyvideo - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Erlyvideo) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/998 18:19:24 <nirik> sure, but of course it has to be useful with free codecs. +1 18:19:32 <mmaslano> +1 18:19:47 <mitr> +1 18:19:58 <t8m> +1 with the same disclaimer as nirik but I suppose the feature owner would not propose it otherwise 18:19:59 <jreznik> nirik: seems like it's not all about codecs and transcoding, but I agree 18:20:11 <jwb> i guess +1 18:20:14 <sgallagh> +1 with acceptable codecs 18:20:23 <notting> yes, +1 with acceptable codecs 18:20:40 <abadger1999> +1 - I think the maintainer addressed the available codecs issue in the thread. 18:20:45 <nirik> yeah 18:20:45 <pjones> yeah, +1 18:20:51 <sgallagh> I also recommend that we make sure someone double-checks it before release. I'll volunteer. 18:20:55 <notting> #agreed F19 Feature: Erlyvideo is approved (+:9, -:0) 18:21:01 <nirik> sgallagh: cool. thanks. 18:21:10 <notting> #info sgallagh to check that it works with acceptable free in-Fedora codecs before release 18:21:13 <sgallagh> abadger1999: I'm more concerned about shipping uncompiled but still patent-encumbered sources. 18:21:31 <abadger1999> sgallagh: <nod> I see your point. 18:21:42 <notting> #topic #1000 F19 Feature: GCC 4.8.x - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/GCC48 18:21:43 <notting> .fesco 1000 18:21:45 <zodbot> notting: #1000 (F19 Feature: GCC 4.8.x - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/GCC48) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1000 18:21:47 <notting> hooray, 1000 tickets! 18:21:47 <nirik> +1 18:21:51 <abadger1999> +1 18:21:53 <mmaslano> +1 18:21:56 <t8m> +1 18:22:04 <mitr> +1 18:22:04 <notting> dgilmore: around to discuss mass rebuild timing? 18:22:19 <jlaw> jakub said he'd be ready in a week or so 18:22:20 <nirik> we kinda need a schedule first don't we? 18:22:37 <sgallagh> nirik: We can mass-rebuild for Rawhide in any case, can't we? 18:22:40 <notting> nirik: we'd want to rebuild before branching 18:22:45 <pjones> speaking of which, what's the right procedure to get things not included in the mass rebuild? 18:22:57 <notting> pjones: "poke releng", afaik. 18:22:57 <nirik> sure, but if we do it way before branching there might be another feature we have to rebuild for again... 18:22:58 <dgilmore> notting: sure 18:23:02 <nirik> and 2 of them would be sad 18:23:18 <dgilmore> we need to do the mass rebuild before branching 18:23:23 <dgilmore> we need 4 weeks for it 18:23:28 <dgilmore> 1 for the automated portion 18:23:31 <notting> dgilmore: jakub suggested 'next week or later'. is there anything that would cause problems with that? 18:23:38 <dgilmore> 3 for people to cleanup/ignore failures 18:23:57 <jlaw> i doubt it -- things are looking real good right now, both upstream and in our private rebuilds 18:24:00 <dgilmore> notting: i do want to add one bit to it and its ready i just need to do some more testing 18:24:35 <dgilmore> notting: and that is to run a script that will add patches to support aarch64 in the autoconf cruft in the package tarbulls 18:24:40 <notting> dgilmore: to stick a point on the calendar - start feb 1 and run over the weekend? 18:24:42 <mitr> I'd prefer making the final decision after the feature submission deadline (which happens to be about a week, so this would mean no or very little delay) 18:24:58 <dgilmore> so we dont keep hitting issues where we are told aarch64-redhat-linux-gnu is not valid 18:25:05 <sgallagh> +1 to the feature, btw. 18:25:08 <t8m> mitr, +1 18:25:21 <notting> i'm +1 as well 18:25:33 <dgilmore> notting: a feb1 kickoff is reasonable 18:26:05 <notting> proposal: plan to do mass rebuild on Feb 1. Confirm next week after all features submitted 18:26:07 * nirik is fine waiting and feb1 as a tenative. 18:26:39 <sgallagh> notting: +1 18:27:16 <mitr> +1 18:27:45 <pjones> notting: +1 18:27:48 <abadger1999> +1 18:27:57 <jwb> +1 18:28:05 <dgilmore> we would then be looking at march 5 as the earliest branch date 18:28:25 <notting> #agreed F19 Feature: GCC 4.8.x approved (+:7, -:0) 18:28:38 <mattn__> yay 18:28:46 <notting> #agreed Feb 1 tentatively scheduled for start of mass rebuild. Will confirm at 2013-01-30 FESCo meeting 18:28:53 <notting> i'll file a ticket for that to make sure it's on the schedule 18:29:22 <notting> #topic #1001 F19 Feature: JRuby 1.7 - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/JRuby_1.7 18:29:22 <notting> .fesco 1001 18:29:24 <zodbot> notting: #1001 (F19 Feature: JRuby 1.7 - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/JRuby_1.7) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1001 18:29:25 * jreznik is ok with scheduling thing 18:29:37 <mmaslano> +1 18:29:46 <jwb> 0 18:29:48 <nirik> +1 as long as their are approved guidelines from FPC as a gating factor. ;) 18:29:54 <t8m> +1 18:29:55 <sgallagh> +0 for the moment 18:30:18 <sgallagh> I'd rather know how we're going to handle packaging first. 18:30:21 <mmaslano> do you have any technical argument why 0? 18:30:33 <mitr> -1 _right now_ 18:30:38 <mmaslano> guys can work on issues, which you see 18:30:49 * pjones +1 18:30:53 <jwb> i don't know anything about ruby or jruby. i'm not qualified to vote on this either way 18:31:00 <notting> proposal: postpone jruby discussion to next week, still being actively discussed how it would be packaged and work on-list? 18:31:00 <sgallagh> Specifically, are we just going to have people repackage jruby-* for all packages, or are we going to require all ruby-* packages work in both, or what? 18:31:03 <mitr> The _mri_/_jruby_ thing is rather risky and it's not clear whether it is necessary 18:31:05 <mmaslano> jwb: that's fair 18:31:14 <abadger1999> I got this discussed at the FPC meeting today -- we had enough people that were okay with the general idea of sharing modules between mostly-compatible interpreters that I think we can guidelines for this. 18:31:19 <mmaslano> sgallagh: no 18:31:48 <mmaslano> mitr: you should discuss it with maintainer of package, there are no known issues 18:31:51 <mmaslano> abadger1999: great 18:31:57 <abadger1999> We did find several things that we have questions with about hte implementation so I don't know how long until we'd be able to approve guidelines or how much change there'd be with the current proposal. 18:32:00 <t8m> sgallagh, neither of that 18:32:06 <mitr> mmaslano: I have sent the questions to the mailing list just now. (I do apologize for not getting around to it earlier.) 18:32:13 <mmaslano> mitr: okay, thanks 18:32:36 <mmaslano> abadger1999: where can they discuss it? on fedora-devel? 18:33:06 <sgallagh> I'm +1 to deferring to next week while guidelines are discussed 18:33:16 <abadger1999> mmaslano: pacakging list. You can have slavek find me on irc too (I can arrange to be awake at the right time if necessary). 18:33:40 <mmaslano> abadger1999: ok, I'll let him know 18:33:43 <abadger1999> mmaslano: I'll add the questions we had today to the FPC ticket or page. 18:33:46 <abadger1999> mmaslano: Cool. 18:34:35 <mmaslano> I don't persuade you, let's postpone the feature to the next week 18:35:30 <abadger1999> wfm 18:36:14 <notting> ... ok 18:36:35 <notting> #info postponed to next week while devel@ and packaging@ discussion continues 18:36:49 <notting> ##1002 F19 Feature: Ruby 2.0.0 - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Ruby_2.0.0 18:36:49 <notting> .fesco 1002 18:36:51 <zodbot> notting: #1002 (F19 Feature: Ruby 2.0.0 - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Ruby_2.0.0) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1002 18:36:57 <mmaslano> topic :) 18:36:58 <notting> #topic #1002 F19 Feature: Ruby 2.0.0 - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Ruby_2.0.0 18:37:02 <notting> darned cut&paste 18:37:19 <mmaslano> abadger1999: did you approved guidelines? 18:37:27 <mmaslano> +1 anyway for the feature 18:37:28 <t8m> +1 18:37:37 <notting> +1 to this one, seems much more straightforward 18:37:43 <abadger1999> mmaslano: No. There aren't separate guidelines for jruby, correct? 18:37:48 <abadger1999> mmaslano: they share the same guidelines? 18:37:57 <mmaslano> I guess they are separated 18:38:08 <sgallagh> I'm out of the loop for Ruby 2.0. How badly is this going to break backwards-compatibility? 18:38:10 <mitr> This includes the same "rubypick" (_rvm_/_java_) mechanism that I was asking about for jruby 18:38:10 <mmaslano> but we approved node.js before guidelines last week, so... 18:38:16 <abadger1999> mmaslano: oh -- what's the link for the jruby guidelines then? 18:38:25 <mitr> sgallagh: they claim that ABI is broken but applications won't be 18:38:42 <jwb> source level compat 18:38:45 <mmaslano> mitr: there will be rebuild 18:39:08 <sgallagh> So they claim a mass-rebuild will solve any compatibility issues? 18:39:17 <mmaslano> abadger1999: there wasn't proposal for fpc ticket for JRuby. 18:39:34 <jwb> sgallagh, according to the feature page 18:39:49 <mmaslano> abadger1999: well, no guidelines proposal 18:39:50 <abadger1999> mmaslano: from the fesco feature pages for ruby-2 and jruby, the guidelines update for both jruby and ruby are the same: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Ruby 18:39:57 <mmaslano> yes 18:40:14 <mitr> The 2.0 page also links to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Bkabrda/Packaging_Ruby_JRuby 18:40:15 * nirik is fine with doing the same for this one as jruby then 18:40:19 <abadger1999> So really, the complete changes for this feature will also depend on having those guidelines updated. 18:41:00 <sgallagh> abadger1999: Then I agree with nirik: let's defer a week while the guidelines are sorted. 18:41:01 * nirik nods 18:41:07 <mmaslano> abadger1999: I guess it's the same thing as node.js ;-) could we approve the feature and leave fpc to solve guidelines later? 18:41:08 * abadger1999 notes that he's fine with an update to ruby2.0, though... just not sure what the final guidelines will look like and how that will integrate with jruby. 18:41:14 <sgallagh> mmaslano: Node.js was more self-contained last week. This is breaking from existing Ruby 18:41:15 <mitr> I'd be fine with approving the feature contingent on FPC approval (which is already implicit per the "Scope" section), but the rubypick thing means I'm -1 this week, again 18:41:45 <mitr> or, rather, defer, not outright reject 18:42:14 <pjones> mitr: I'd be +1 to deferring for that reason. 18:42:20 <abadger1999> mitr: Do you have some specific concerns with rubypick? That is one of the things FPC wants added to the guidelines and if there's things you are concerned with, they should know about them. 18:43:08 <abadger1999> I don't knw if we can but I'd be okay approving ruby-2 without the jruby integration now. 18:43:13 <mitr> abadger1999: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-January/176712.html 18:43:45 <abadger1999> Having all of the jruby integration be part of the Jruby Feature. 18:44:00 <mmaslano> abadger1999: +1 18:44:19 <abadger1999> It would mean that ruby-2 work could go forward but updating the spec files with the new macros, path locations, etc would have to wait. 18:44:25 <mitr> abadger1999: The feature page talks about changing the Ruby guidelines for "better integration", which I understand to mean changing the directory structure; can the two really be discussed separately? 18:45:10 <mitr> Anyway, that's up to FPC. 18:46:10 <mmaslano> proposal: approve Ruby-2.0 (without integration part for now) 18:46:17 <abadger1999> mmaslano: +1 18:46:26 <nirik> sure, +1 18:46:33 <t8m> +1 18:46:39 <mitr> -1 to approving now 18:46:55 <notting> still +1 18:47:25 <mmaslano> obviously +1 from me 18:47:32 <jwb> 0 18:47:42 <pjones> I'd rather see the guidelines settled before we approve it. 18:47:50 <sgallagh> -1 to approving now. Please sort the guidelines first. 18:48:15 * nirik will switch to -1 as well, since folks want guidelines first 18:48:47 <t8m> if we skip the integration part what guidelines are needed for Ruby 2.0? 18:48:49 <pjones> that's -4:+3:1 18:49:03 <notting> which means it can't pass 18:49:17 <notting> so, postpone a week? 18:49:24 <nirik> yes 18:49:26 <abadger1999> yep 18:49:43 <mitr> plrsdr 18:49:45 <mitr> ...please 18:49:55 <notting> #info postponed to next week while devel@ and packaging@ discussion continues 18:50:04 <sgallagh> mitr: I will never understand Czech spelling :) 18:50:39 <notting> that's all for features 18:50:41 <t8m> sgallagh, that was a shifted hand spelling 18:50:49 <mmaslano> sgallagh: well, I have problems with your colorfoul idioms ;-) 18:50:52 <sgallagh> t8m: I know, I was joking 18:50:54 <notting> #topic Next week's chair 18:50:55 <pjones> t8m: it's called a joke ;) 18:51:01 <mmaslano> I can take it 18:51:14 <mmaslano> the chairwoman 18:51:16 <notting> #info mmaslano will chair next week's meeting 18:51:17 <sgallagh> I haven't actually taken my turn yet this cycle 18:51:22 <notting> sgallagh: too late! 18:51:22 <nirik> thanks mmaslano 18:51:30 * sgallagh shrugs 18:51:30 <notting> #topic Open Floor 18:52:01 * jreznik tried to wrangle and announce as much features for the next week after the fudcon :) 18:52:05 <sgallagh> We're undoubtedly going to get inundated with Features in the next week. Do we want to consider setting up an extra meeting for two weeks from now to address them all? 18:52:30 <jwb> no? 18:52:31 <nirik> we could, or see how many we can get to next week and schedule then? 18:52:36 <mmaslano> sgallagh: vote in tickets 18:52:39 <jwb> why would we encourage late submissions 18:52:56 <jreznik> at least I can try to prepare the list of "simple" features based on discussion for FESCo... to vote in block? 18:53:05 <t8m> jreznik, please 18:53:16 <mmaslano> jreznik: yeah I'll add into agenda en bloc features 18:53:17 <sgallagh> jwb: I'm talking about last-minute, not late features 18:53:19 <mmaslano> and features.. 18:53:32 <jwb> sgallagh, ok, why would we encourage last-minute submissions? 18:53:42 <sgallagh> jwb: Because that's the only kind left? 18:53:58 <mmaslano> because they are always some? 18:54:01 <notting> we did pretty well today moving through them quickly 18:54:11 <jwb> i don't see a need for a separate meeting without seeing demand for it 18:54:14 <jreznik> cuurently 12 features announced for the next meeting + postponed ones 18:54:17 <mitr> We'll talk about the last-minute submissions anyway, so are we really encouraging anything by talking about them a little earlier? 18:55:03 <sgallagh> I agree with mmaslano's suggestion of trying to vote in tickets where possible. 18:55:11 <jreznik> btw. sorry for mariadb one - it got stuck in moderation queue for week and I did not realize it by Monday 18:55:24 <t8m> sgallagh, +1 18:55:37 <mmaslano> also you can discuss the features on mailing list and settle diferencies between meeting. 18:55:46 <mitr> Voting in tickets kind of conflicts with giving each feature a full week of discussion; still there are some open-and-shut cases 18:56:01 <jreznik> I'd say many features I just announced are from that easy to vote on category 18:56:05 <abadger1999> mitr: yeah, I was going to ask that 18:56:08 <sgallagh> mitr: Yes, but we can always amend the ticket if we change our minds based on discussion 18:56:24 <jreznik> mitr: vote once I report tickets (so max 2 days before mtg?) 18:56:33 <nirik> it might be good to at the top of the meeting: 'which features does someone want to discuss' any not on that list are just approved. 18:56:56 <sgallagh> nirik: Seems reasonable 18:57:04 <sgallagh> And basically what we did today 18:57:05 <mitr> That would make sense - and it's more restrictive than today's "what features had a response on the mailing list" 18:57:32 <pjones> Well, that was clearly a mistake - since we just wound up approving a bunch we could have done in bulk anyway 18:57:40 * nirik nods. 18:57:42 <mmaslano> ok, next time 18:57:45 <notting> mitr: which presumably would also include any tickets that don't get quorum beforehand 18:58:02 <pjones> I think it's really "are there any that fesco members want more discussion on", and exclude those 18:58:19 <t8m> pjones, +1 18:58:51 <sgallagh> pjones: +1 18:59:20 <nirik> yep 18:59:47 <notting> #info FESCo intends to do block approval of features next week based on whther or not further discussion on them is warranted 19:00:17 <notting> anything else for open floor? 19:00:35 <notting> if not, will close meeting in 2 mins 19:01:31 <sgallagh> notting: Thanks for chairing 19:01:40 <nirik> thanks notting 19:02:49 * abadger1999 thanks the BFMFL for chairing :-) 19:02:58 <notting> #endmetting 19:03:02 <notting> #endmeeting