18:00:04 #startmeeting FESCO (2013-10-23) 18:00:04 Meeting started Wed Oct 23 18:00:04 2013 UTC. The chair is nirik. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 18:00:04 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 18:00:04 #meetingname fesco 18:00:04 #chair abadger1999 mattdm mitr mmaslano notting nirik pjones t8m sgallagh 18:00:04 #topic init process 18:00:04 The meeting name has been set to 'fesco' 18:00:04 Current chairs: abadger1999 mattdm mitr mmaslano nirik notting pjones sgallagh t8m 18:00:20 who all is here today for exciting and fun fesco meeting? 18:00:25 hi 18:00:29 oooh! I am! 18:00:30 Greetings 18:00:36 Hello 18:00:42 hi all 18:00:51 abadger1999 is off at ansiblefest today, so he likely won't be around. 18:01:07 hello. 18:02:31 i'm here as long as the conference wifi holds up 18:02:37 cool. 18:02:44 (and as long as we don't go too ridiculously long) 18:02:46 #topic ticket #1164 F20 Changes - Process on Changes Freeze 18:02:46 .fesco 1164 18:02:47 nirik: #1164 (F20 Changes - Progress on Changes Freeze) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1164 18:03:02 I'm +1 to jreznik's suggestion in the last comment. 18:03:32 +1 18:03:39 Proposal: 18:03:41 mark Ryu Network Operating System as incomplete, postpone to F21 18:03:42 +1 from me as well 18:03:43 Vagrant as Self Contained Change, not on any official media - wait for completion by Final Change Deadline, only for marketing purposes 18:03:45 I'm +1 to that 18:03:45 same for OS Installer Support for LVM Thin Provisioning - Change is completed, missing user friendliness bits (profiles, LVM team is aware of it) 18:03:47 nirik: +1, but it doesn't talk about what to do with the LVM change 18:04:00 * sgallagh misread 18:04:03 +1 18:04:16 I missed the "same for" piece. Pay me no mind. 18:04:24 +1 18:05:26 action plan seems reasonable - +1 18:05:32 #agreed moving ryu to f21, wait on vagrant and lvm thin provisioning. (+8,0,0) 18:05:42 #topic ticket #1181 Fedora still vulnerable to BEAST 18:05:42 .fesco 1181 18:05:43 nirik: #1181 (Fedora still vulnerable to BEAST) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1181 18:05:47 anything we still need to do here? 18:06:55 * jreznik is here, sorry, blocked on blocker review 18:07:25 i thought there was some discussion in the bugs of additional patching required, but i don't think it was anything that required more fesco attention 18:07:35 nirik: I don't think so? we voted last week... 18:07:44 sgallagh: for lvm profiles, for dlehman it's considered done from his side, he told me to ask lvm guys what they think about it 18:07:50 yeah, the thread petered out on the devel list, but it sounded like there might be dependent packages that need rebuilding? 18:08:12 ok, I'll remove the meeting keyword then and we leave it for final tracking? or just close it? 18:08:26 NSS has been switched in f20 (... but not in rawhide?) 18:08:34 i think we can close it if NSS itself is built 18:08:44 The mailing list thread ended up addressing most issues I think 18:08:46 => let's close it 18:08:54 ok. 18:08:59 Why isn't it built in Rawhide? 18:09:01 why not rawhide? that seems strange. 18:09:04 That seems to be missing the point 18:09:22 I'll ask Elio separately 18:09:30 I suspect it's just been overlooked because we're so close to the beta deadline 18:09:40 but yeah, asking him can't hurt. 18:09:47 yeah, please do. 18:10:06 ... never mind, it's already been out in rawhide, so we are fine 18:10:17 #agreed close ticket now that nss is rebuilt. Follow up with other related items on list. 18:10:18 ("out" == "the offending patch hasn't been applied") 18:10:24 cool 18:10:29 #topic ticket #1182 F21/F22 System Wide Change: Python 3 as the Default Implementation - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Python_3_as_Default 18:10:29 .fesco 1182 18:10:30 nirik: #1182 (F21/F22 System Wide Change: Python 3 as the Default Implementation - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Python_3_as_Default) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1182 18:11:59 We were waiting on an update to the Change page. I haven't seen one 18:12:20 There was some more discussion on list. 18:12:55 Do we want to defer until abadger1999 is back? Is there urgency? 18:13:11 yeah, so punt another week and ask them to update contingency planning? 18:13:11 seems reasonable, i can't imagine there is urgency yet 18:13:11 I would be for waiting for him, since he's the closest to this. 18:13:23 mattdm: Well, we want to give people an idea whether this is likely to pass FESCo 18:13:33 proposal: defer a week for more discussion/updating of feature page? 18:13:40 Although I suppose the previous email "FESCo is inclined to approve" is probably sufficient on that. 18:13:48 it would be nice to give those who propose the feature at least seems good to us 18:13:58 I.e. if people want to start this effort, they should feel welcome to go ahead 18:14:05 I am generally in favor. 18:14:11 The outstanding issues were 1) contingency plan, and 2) dnf bindings 18:14:13 And I trust people to work out the details. 18:14:27 Like, for example, those details. :) 18:14:30 2) has been resolved, and 1) AFAICS amounts to "we know we can have one, not sure whether we need to" 18:14:45 apologies for interrupting, but can someone ping me when we get to the WG stuff? 18:15:00 I'm generally in favor... but would like to see a better contingency plan... 18:15:03 jwb: can do 18:15:08 thx 18:15:47 proposal: Change is approved, to be revisited when planning F21 18:16:30 mitr, I think we can wait for the contingency plan proposal or at least some reasoning why we do not need one 18:17:10 t8m: it's the other way around - the proposed contingency plan is a side tag; we have dgilmore arguing that that we don't need one 18:17:13 yeah, I'd like to see a little better/more planning on contingency before approving 18:17:19 Proposal: Change is approved, conditional upon the contingency plan as we specified previously 18:17:21 well, it was proposed using different branch and not merging, but that wasn't approved by relengs 18:17:24 I think a side tag is not a good contingency. 18:17:33 nirik: what else should be done? 18:17:55 ship both py2/py3 until the rest of items that were py2 that were not done are fixed? 18:18:02 i think we need a side tag to *stage*. is the contingency a side tag to build the un-do and then merge that? 18:18:19 notting: Why do we need a side tag at all? 18:18:25 notting: they wanted to build in a side tag, merge, then if it failed unmerge. 18:18:29 we're going to need py2 and py3 around for at least as long as we've had py2 and p3 so far, i think. depends on how the stacks are packaged 18:18:38 If the contingency is to ship mixed, then can't we just build in the regular build system? 18:18:41 sgallagh: to build a stack switch from yum/dnf deps up to anaconda 18:18:46 Then things can land as they arrive 18:18:53 yum/dnf, anaconda, python-kickstart and the like need to land in Python3 version approximately at the same time 18:18:54 hmm 18:19:08 Ok, that makes sense. 18:20:20 side tags should be short lived not kept around for multiple releases. 18:20:23 they just don't work that way 18:21:13 anyhow, I'm ok with punting to next week, approving conditionally on a better contingency plan either one. 18:22:11 nirik: The proposal is to have a side tag only during the lifetime of f22 18:22:20 +1 18:22:22 Proposal: Feature is approved, provided that the contingency plan is updated with permitting a mixed environment of py2/py3 18:22:35 mitr: but I don't see how that helps. 18:22:55 sgallagh: sure, +1 18:23:00 sgallagh, +1 18:23:06 sgallagh: that sounds like asking them to ship parallel versions of the yum/anaconda stack 18:23:34 mitr: Perhaps I was unclear with my phrasing. 18:23:35 mitr: well, at least yum bindings? 18:23:35 mitr: they said on list that anaconda should be able to keep py2/3 bindings for a few releases? 18:24:01 That shouldn't imply that any of the components should be duplicated (except maybe bindings). 18:24:11 sgallagh: +1 18:24:13 if we can still use python2 bindings for a couple of releases, that's going to be good enough for anaconda. 18:24:21 Just that we accept that we might have to have both py2 and py3 in the minimal image for a release 18:24:27 right. 18:24:52 sgallagh: +1 18:25:03 works for me 18:25:05 +1 18:25:09 so, thats +5 I guess so far 18:25:13 any other votes? 18:25:29 +1 to my own proposal, for the record 18:25:35 I don't want to have both in the minimal image 18:25:43 I would like to note that we've had both py2 and py3 on the Desktop image since F19. 18:25:52 mattdm: Your case might be special. 18:26:09 well, this is a contengency plan... not the desired outcome 18:26:12 sgallagh yes but I happen to care about it a lot 18:26:23 Sorry, again being unclear. 18:26:37 I mean, your image may be able to avoid this in any case, since you'll probably strip extra stuff out 18:26:46 Your images don't use anaconda, do they? 18:27:23 In any case, as nirik said, this is a contingency, not the plan 18:27:27 they use images generated by either anaconda or appliance-creator 18:28:16 yeah, I don't like that as a contingency -- it seems more like failure than a fallback 18:28:19 ok, this passes, unless anyone wants to change votes? 18:28:40 i guess i'll officially vote -1 18:28:40 mattdm: Then let's do our part to ensure that we don't hit this case. 18:28:43 the other alternative is: revert work done back to py2 18:28:58 that sucks too but less for the cloud image 18:29:05 Or force all work in this direction to guarantee compatibility with both 18:29:10 But I doubt we have that much control 18:29:33 sgallagh: I can be +1 as well, since anaconda is covered. 18:30:01 There are very few python users in the minimal image IIRC anyway 18:30:06 anyway, outvoted, moving on. :) 18:30:22 #agreed Feature is approved, provided that the contingency plan is updated with permitting a mixed environment of py2/py3 (+6,-1,0) 18:30:33 #info FESCo strongly advises prioritizing this work on those packages that appear in the minimal and cloud images first 18:30:58 should we do the prelink ticket before working groups? or does anyone care which? prelink might be quick (I hope) 18:31:13 * sgallagh remains in the "nuke it from orbit" group 18:31:15 I already voted on prelink in the ticket and I've only got 15 more minutes. 18:31:34 But I suspect it'll also be super fast, and I don't have any serious objects to the proposed WG members in the ticket. 18:31:36 lets get it out of the way... 18:31:40 #topic ticket #1183 Don't enable prelink by default in Fedora 18:31:40 .fesco 1183 18:31:42 nirik: #1183 (Don't enable prelink by default in Fedora) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1183 18:31:58 Proposal: remove prelink from base and standard. 18:32:04 pjones, +1 18:32:12 pjones: +1 (can I vote early and often on this?) 18:32:26 * pjones +1 18:32:29 toshio was +1 in ticket 18:32:36 I haven't seen enough to suggest that prelink is sufficiently maintained, so... sadly, +1 18:32:40 I'm +1 (we are talking remove from standard right?) 18:32:50 yeah, sorry. 18:32:58 I phrased it very precisely ;) 18:33:02 base and standard? 18:33:09 notting: as in "it should be in neither" 18:33:18 you did. I just was off reading the ticket. ;) 18:33:21 +1 18:33:23 not meaning to imply that it's in both or something. 18:33:47 pjones: just that those are the same thing 18:33:50 anyway, +1 18:33:58 notting: oh right. 18:34:00 bah. 18:34:11 nirik: seems to have passed. 18:34:20 #agreed remove prelink from core and standard groups (+8,0,0) 18:34:39 #topic ticket #1170 Working Group call for Volunteers 18:34:39 .fesco 1170 18:34:40 nirik: #1170 (Working Group call for Volunteers) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1170 18:35:06 First order here should probably be to discuss the Base Design WG 18:35:18 ok 18:35:46 Last week we happily volunteered notting for the position, but he has had to decline. Sorry about that, notting. 18:36:32 has had to? :) heh. in any case, new blood is good. 18:36:34 nirik: You are the other FESCo volunteer on that group, but as I've also requested you on the Server WG, I would understand if you aren't jumping up and down here 18:37:10 mitr: is also there? 18:37:16 jwb: BTW, we're discussing WGs now. 18:37:23 Is he? 18:37:31 oh yeah, I blame the cold meds. Sorry. 18:37:47 :) 18:38:08 anyhow, mitr: would you be willing to be coordinator for base wg? 18:38:16 Hmm, I missed his name. He's also on my request list for Server WG :) 18:38:37 sgallagh: I'm also on the server WG, and I specifically don't want to be choosing members of the base WG => I'd like to decline as well 18:39:11 * sgallagh lucked out and claimed the good ones early 18:39:24 ha. hot potato hot potato. 18:39:38 Well, I'd like to make an alternate (non-FESCo) suggestion 18:39:44 ok, if no one else will I will help coordinate base design then. 18:39:58 do the selection by a rng ;) 18:40:17 nirik: Are you withdrawing from the Server WG, or are you going to take both on? 18:40:43 sgallagh: well, I could withdraw if you want, or try and do both. So much to do. ;) 18:40:57 we can try to find nirik more minions 18:40:57 fwiw, i think some overlap in members is probably good 18:41:05 * pknirsch nods 18:41:07 particularly among base and other WGs 18:41:14 overlap between these particulary groups seems good, yeah. 18:41:15 didn't you guys discuss early that this was so time consuming work that one could only serve in one WG? 18:41:21 especially base will have to talk a lot with the other teams 18:41:28 Viking-Ice: We phrased it as "strongly recommend against it" 18:41:31 But didn't forbid it. 18:42:02 some people are in a position to do more, so forbiding it would be excessive just on the grounds of "it takes a lot of time" 18:42:06 (for the record, I'm crazy enough to still try to do both server and base) 18:42:18 sgallagh: what was your alternate suggestion? 18:42:20 ... depending on what the coordinator chooses, of course. 18:42:20 yeah, I signed up for those two too. 18:42:33 but if you want to try another coordinator for base that would be fine too. ;) 18:42:34 I was going to propose pknirsch for the coordinator. 18:42:57 If nirik feels able to do both, I'm +1 to that. 18:43:05 * pjones now has to go. 18:43:27 i'd certainly be willing to be coordinator for base 18:43:37 Yeah, if nirik is up to it, I'm fine with that as well. I just don't want him to feel like he's cornered into it :) 18:43:46 I would also be good with pknirsch as alternate if nirik prefers not to 18:43:52 given an out :) 18:43:55 :) 18:44:11 :) ok, in the interests of my time, lets let pknirsch do it. ;) 18:44:30 sgallagh asked me to note that i might be interested in joining one of the WGs if there's interest 18:44:33 alright, thanks nirik. and i don't want to steal your work :) 18:44:45 just for the record :) 18:44:46 seems like QA might want someone to be 'on the bus' at least 18:44:56 the nomination period is over 18:45:08 adamw: there is one WG that currently has no QA people... 18:45:08 Viking-Ice: sgallagh was sounding me out the other day about late nominations 18:45:13 pjones: which one? 18:45:18 pknirsch: I'm sure things would be in good hands with you... and you might have more time to devote to it. 18:45:21 er... 18:45:33 adamw: workstation 18:45:33 looks like we have viking_ice and handsome_pirate involved in a couple 18:45:37 so i asked earlier this week and was told we had to make the list from people on the nominee list 18:45:39 "NOTE: There were no representatives from QA that nominated for this WG. I will be encouraging participation from all that want to pitch in anyway, but I'll explicitly try discussing things with QA as we go forward. " - from the workstation list. 18:45:42 Viking-Ice: As a special case, since he happened to be on vacation the whole nomination period 18:45:51 adamw, more thinking about those that did nominate but did not get selected while people that did not nominate suddenly did 18:45:52 And having QA people aboard makes sense 18:46:02 nirik: i'll certainly do my best :) 18:46:05 so, votes on pknirsch for coordinator for base design group? 18:46:15 yes let's do one thing at a time here 18:46:18 +1 pknirsch 18:46:21 Viking-Ice: yeah, I know - i figured i'd missed the bus... 18:46:22 +1 pknirsch 18:46:25 +1 here 18:46:27 +1 pknirsch 18:46:36 +1 pknirsch 18:46:41 +1 18:46:42 * pjones really goes. 18:46:44 i can be +1 to either nirik or pknirsch 18:47:16 #agreed pknirsch will coordinate base design working group for fesco. (+7,0,0) 18:47:19 jwb: Yeah, and that's officially the rule. But I noted that we were *extremely* limited in QA reps and was hoping we could loophole the guy who was out of touch during the nomination period :) 18:47:20 thanks pknirsch 18:47:29 thanks everyone for the vote of confidence ;) 18:47:38 * adamw is happy to be loopholed or not. 18:47:43 But that obviously wouldn't be my sole decision 18:47:57 Also note that the initial membership does not automatically constitute the membership 4 life 18:48:01 * adamw is currently 1500 mails behind on devel-list, so missed the whole thing. 18:48:02 sgallagh, the issue is that we've already drafted the lists and verified people still want to do it 18:48:10 ok, should we now approve/vote on the proposed working groups? or do we want to discuss adding adamw as a late candidate? 18:48:20 so unless we're talking about Base, we'd have to bump to add late-commers 18:48:33 jwb: I was mostly thinking of base, yeah 18:48:50 ok. and to be clear, i want QA input regardless of voting member status. 18:48:51 jwb: ah, i wouldn't want to kick anyone out. 18:48:56 adamw, base isn't formed. 18:49:01 so yeah, maybe loophole there 18:49:05 adamw: just delete those 1500 mails ;) 18:49:08 base is probably where i'd be interested in, anyway. 18:49:19 nirik, if you are going to add one in then you can just as well wipe the slate clean regarding the nominators, approving this is a double edged sword 18:49:19 drago01_: hell, no, i already found out the bugzilla header thing, which is like my favourite thing all year 18:49:22 I'd lean towards not bending the rules here, 1) as a matter of principle, 2) because bending them doesn't give us _that_ much anyway: elections are within a few months, and we can get QA input even without formal membership 18:49:55 adamw: ;) 18:49:55 * nirik is with mitr 18:50:02 ... and a WG can have as its first meeting voting to eject one of its own members for a different person anyway. each WG can invent its own loopholes 18:50:03 i'd personally love you in base, adamw, even if you're late on the bus ;) 18:50:15 notting, ha, fair 18:50:19 hehehe 18:50:24 process hackery! 18:50:32 governance model is the first thing to draft. it isn't a hack. 18:50:59 OK, then it sounds like in order to be fair, we should keep adamw off the lists. Sorry for the noise, folks. 18:51:11 so, um, what's the status with the base group? 18:51:20 * adamw is a tad confused whether that is included in the current voting or not 18:51:35 adamw: The coordinator we selected last week couldn't do it. So pknirsch will draft a group for next week to be ratified 18:51:49 right. 18:51:59 i'll be assembling a list of proposed nominees for it and put it in https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1170 18:52:12 OK. executive summary: am I too late for that one or not? 18:52:19 so shall we vote on each proposed group? or vote +1 on all by default unless objections? 18:52:40 adamw, think you're too late 18:52:42 adamw: I think we're going to stick to the rules 18:52:44 roger. 18:52:45 adamw: I think we decided you are too late, but that group once formed could decide to drop a member and add you 18:52:50 However, that doesn't mean you shouldn't participate 18:52:55 Just that you won't get a vote 18:52:55 right. 18:52:56 * adamw has his peanuts ready already/. 18:53:01 this is just voting members. 18:53:38 ok, so does anyone object to any of the proposed makeup of working groups? 18:54:07 * nirik is fine with all of them in the ticket so far. 18:54:13 * mattdm is too 18:54:22 no objections 18:54:44 Are there proposed candidates for the cloud group? 18:55:03 I don't see them in ticket yet. 18:55:07 no objections 18:55:22 no objections to the list so far. curious how the multi-desktop participation in workstation works out in terms of deliverables, but that's for them to figure 18:55:47 i think that's notting's way of saying i'm crazy? 18:56:14 :) 18:56:28 yeah, I definitely am curious how non featured products will shake out... 18:56:45 mattdm: Cloud nominees? 18:57:03 so we need cloud and base... we could do them next week? 18:57:14 no i have my list... 18:57:26 I have no objections to any of the currently-proposed WGs 18:57:33 i was sure I put it in trac. hold on... 18:57:41 mattdm: Not there yet, no 18:58:09 one second 18:58:22 thats +6 for approving the workstation, server and env and stacks groups I think... (If I counted right) 18:59:18 nirik, notting: i have my own ideas on that, but yeah it will be interesting to see. i've hopefully set it up to be collaborative and not combative 18:59:23 okay there now. 18:59:35 without little nice comments about everyone -- that seems to have gotten lost. 18:59:40 (not sure what happned there. 18:59:54 mattdm: That's what the "preview" button is for 18:59:55 :) 19:00:10 preview button probably ate my original post :) 19:00:14 no objection to cloud wg list either 19:00:35 that does put sam in 2 groups... but if he's got the time I guess... 19:00:37 Is Sam Kottler okay with serving on both Cloud and Stacks? 19:00:47 ooh, you tabbed the FPL. no fair going above everyone! 19:01:04 notting mwhahaha. 19:01:07 samkottler: question for you above 19:01:39 sgallagh: yeah, I'm okay with it despite what my sleep pattern might have to say about it 19:01:50 I also picked Jens Petersen, and he's already in Workstation, so... 19:02:04 I'll have to ask him where he'd like to stay 19:02:14 mmaslano: Ah, I missed that too 19:02:45 samkottler: sleep pattern, course load, patch backlog... 19:03:05 * nirik has no real objections to proposed cloud makeup either 19:03:31 notting: :P all the things are busy 19:03:44 cloud group seems ok 19:03:55 so, all those ok for everyone then? and we do base next week? 19:04:19 query: do we have a short list of deliverables we want from each working group? if not, should we make one now? 19:04:30 I'd like to recommend that the coordinators of approved WGs get a WhenIsGood sent out to all of their participants and should meet before the next FESCo meeting 19:05:10 nirik: short list of deliverables for product wgs https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora.next/boardproposal#Product_Working_Groups 19:05:20 it is a little more vague for base and env/stacks 19:05:26 which is probably my fault 19:05:51 ok, great. 19:05:59 Also "January 2014" is a little vague as well. 19:06:01 just want to make sure groups know what they should be working on. 19:06:05 Beginning? End? 19:06:06 I would propose WG start working on defining "Product Interactions" a.s.a.p there seems to be a bit of overlap on the suggestion page 19:06:59 Should we set a deadline for the governance charter? 19:07:01 mattdm: no worries, guys already have some ideas about env/stack. I can sum ti up on some mailing list 19:07:01 Viking-Ice yes, that's important 19:07:07 Viking-Ice: having requirements docs hopefully will help identify those interaction areas. 19:07:29 and if they come into conflict we can work it out. 19:07:38 so, speaking of mailing lists... 19:07:52 Negotiating overlap is one duty that FESCo should be retaining here 19:08:10 +1 sgallagh. and the development will be done in the open so there should not be any surprises 19:08:18 * nirik nods 19:08:59 I'd prefer to reuse existing lists if possible... 19:09:08 I'm okay with setting a deadline, but I do note that we put the january deliverable out there so that time demands of the f20 release wouldn't make participation hard. 19:09:14 +1 to prefering existing lists 19:09:16 desktop -> workstation, cloud -> cloud, server -> server, stacks and base -> devel 19:09:17 nirik: I don't :) 19:09:22 mattdm: Yes, but *when* in January? 19:09:27 Somewhat vague. 19:09:28 mmaslano: ok. why not? 19:09:56 nirik: I guess someone wanted less email on devel, do you think it will help when we start disucssing stacks there? 19:10:00 sgallagh: I'd say try to avoid early Jan 19:10:02 setting a deadline for what exactly? all of the items on the list? 19:10:02 I'm planning to use server@lists.fp.o for the Server WG 19:10:22 nirik, I think stacks should have its own list 19:10:37 nirik, keeping base on devel would be fine (at least for me) 19:10:44 * pknirsch nods 19:10:57 we can always prefix the subject with [BaseWG] e.g. 19:11:03 sgallagh: If we weren''t 90% done by Jan 1, and started to look at the specific deadline to get something delivered, we'd be in deep trouble anyway 19:11:05 We should consider publishing regular updates to devel@ though 19:11:07 so that it can be clear that the topic is about that 19:11:16 well, the problem with more lists is that people don't like subscribing to more and mroe lists, so they stop... and sure your new list is quiet, but only because you aren't getting the feedback you really should be getting. 19:11:24 I guess I could see stacks being seperate. 19:12:18 nirik: ok, I'll ask rest of the group again, they wanted new today 19:12:38 mmaslano you can ask them on the new list! oh wait. 19:12:40 how about this proposal: use existing lists for now, working groups when they meet can decide if they require a new list and request it? 19:12:44 mattdm: ha 19:12:54 nirik: Seems reasonable to me. +1 19:13:21 +1 (let's not spend time on this...) 19:13:23 instead of us deciding, they can decide how best to go. 19:13:38 +1 to all of those sentiments 19:14:19 any other votes? objections? :) 19:15:03 +1 19:15:05 +1 19:15:28 nirik: i like it. +1 19:15:35 #agreed working groups can decide if they want new lists when they meet (+7,0,0) 19:15:43 ok, what else do we need to decide here? 19:15:54 did you set deadlines for specific items on the list of stuff to produce? 19:16:17 "january" is all i heard, and i'm assuming that's for all the things in the lsit 19:16:17 we have not yet. 19:16:21 yeah. 19:16:43 Governance charter really should be sometime in December 19:16:44 Do we need deadlines or is it okay to just start working? Is there a lack of urgency without? 19:16:48 jwb: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora.next/boardproposal#Product_Working_Groups mentions January only for the first 2 19:16:55 If only to give time to deal with any voting app stuff 19:16:58 how about "asap" (so that we can plan for a release) 19:17:23 Overall I'm not thrilled about establishing too many interim deadlines (... and imposing a waterfall model by that) 19:17:27 i would think you at least want the governance charter set before you start working on the PRD 19:17:40 and does fesco have to approve that? 19:17:44 and we want to start working on the prd right away 19:18:07 a PRD can predate governance, no? 19:18:16 it can, but i'm not sure you want it to 19:18:23 I'd say yes, or at least object if there's something problematic in one. 19:18:38 what happens if people quit because they don't agree with the majority? 19:18:42 etc 19:19:32 I'd hope we wouldn't get too complex with charters... 19:19:35 you can always start drafting it though i suppose? 19:19:52 pknirsch, it? 19:19:55