18:00:05 <rishi> #startmeeting FESCO (2015-09-16)
18:00:05 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Sep 16 18:00:05 2015 UTC.  The chair is rishi. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
18:00:05 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
18:00:13 <rishi> #meetingname fesco
18:00:13 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fesco'
18:00:27 <rishi> #chair ajax dgilmore hguemar jwb nirik paragan rishi thozza sgallagh
18:00:27 <zodbot> Current chairs: ajax dgilmore hguemar jwb nirik paragan rishi sgallagh thozza
18:00:36 <rishi> #topic init process
18:00:42 <rishi> .hello rishi
18:00:43 <zodbot> rishi: rishi 'Debarshi Ray' <debarshir@redhat.com>
18:00:43 <nirik> morning
18:00:47 <nirik> .hello kevin
18:00:48 <zodbot> nirik: kevin 'Kevin Fenzi' <kevin@scrye.com>
18:01:07 <rishi> hguemar excused himself from today's meeting because he is leading a hackathon.
18:01:30 <paragan> Hi
18:01:37 * dgilmore has a hard limit in 55 mins
18:01:48 <thozza> hi all
18:02:30 <sgallagh> I'm splitting my time with finishing up release validation for Fedora Server.
18:02:36 <jkurik> .hello jkurik
18:02:37 <zodbot> jkurik: jkurik 'Jan Kurik' <jkurik@redhat.com>
18:02:47 <rishi> That's 6 of us, with dgilmore leaving shortly.
18:02:50 <nyazdani> hi
18:03:04 <rishi> I think ajax is still on PTO.
18:03:27 <rishi> So let's start.
18:03:28 <jwb> hi
18:03:29 <jkurik> rishi: just to be sure..I am not a member of FESCo
18:03:36 <jwb> rishi, ajax should be back
18:04:07 <rishi> jwb: He is on the internal RH IRC, but he isn't responding.
18:04:11 <rishi> #topic dreamweb is in fedora with a license that does not allow modification
18:04:17 <rishi> .fesco 1465
18:04:18 <zodbot> rishi: #1465 (dreamweb is in fedora with a license that does not allow modification) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1465
18:04:46 <nirik> so, solved? close ?
18:04:49 <rishi> The ticket was originally filed for a legal issue.
18:05:00 <rishi> Which looks solvable / already solved now.
18:05:25 <rishi> sgallagh raised the issue of mirroring those huge files.
18:05:33 <rishi> Not sure what what we want to do about that.
18:05:53 <jwb> nothing
18:05:55 <nirik> I don't think there's anything we can do
18:05:56 <rishi> Hey, ajax
18:05:57 <ajax> (here with like half a brain, i'm at a conference)
18:06:03 <rishi> Right.
18:06:04 <nirik> mirroring fedora takes a lot of space. ;)
18:06:48 <rishi> Proposal: Close the ticket because the legal issue is solved and ignore the space problem for mirrors.
18:06:56 <rishi> Quick show of hands, please.
18:06:56 <nirik> +1
18:07:42 <sgallagh> +1
18:07:49 <rishi> +1 to my own proposal
18:07:53 <sgallagh> The space thing is worth a discussion, but not now.
18:07:58 <paragan> +1
18:07:59 <dgilmore> +1
18:08:14 <thozza> +1
18:08:35 <jwb> +1
18:09:05 <dgilmore> there is a lot of packages that take up a lot of space
18:09:10 <rishi> #agreed Close the ticket because the legal issue is solved and ignore the space problem for mirrors. (+7)
18:09:19 <rishi> #topic F24 Self Contained Changes
18:09:23 <rishi> .fesco 1478
18:09:24 <zodbot> rishi: #1478 (F24 Self Contained Changes) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1478
18:09:38 <jwb> +1
18:09:39 <dgilmore> +1
18:09:45 <paragan> +1
18:09:45 <nirik> +1
18:09:51 <ajax> +1
18:10:01 <sgallagh> +MANY
18:10:02 <rishi> +1
18:10:08 <jkurik> approved - thanks :)
18:10:39 <thozza> +1
18:10:48 <rishi> #agreed Approved - Anaconda Using LVM DBus API (+8)
18:11:13 <rishi> #topic Changes approval process should reflect the existence of WGs
18:11:15 <rishi> .fesco 1473
18:11:17 <zodbot> rishi: #1473 (Changes approval process should reflect the existence of WGs) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1473
18:11:22 <rishi> What do we want to do with this one?
18:12:07 <jkurik> I would like to have clarified the way how WG will approve the Changes
18:12:10 <nirik> it seems to have grown somewhat from the orig proposal
18:12:15 <jkurik> So, I can use the process
18:12:27 <thozza> there was mention to have the WGs representatives by FESCo to bring up the changes on WGs meetings
18:12:32 <thozza> to provide feedback
18:13:17 <thozza> the elections thing is off-topic for this ticket
18:13:20 <nirik> perhaps a new proposal could be added? it's kinda mixed in with the 'redo how fesco is formed' or perhaps we should discuss that first?
18:14:08 <thozza> if rishi wants to redo how fesco is formed, I think it would be better to have a ticket for it
18:14:28 <thozza> or since there was some proposal, we can vote on it :)
18:14:29 <sgallagh> I'll say this again: Changes to the FESCo charter should really come from the Council.
18:14:43 <rishi> Personally, I am not too happy to add more process just because we want to keep FESCo "neutral", but I don't have anything more to add beyond what is already on the ticket.
18:15:05 <jwb> sgallagh, i disagree.
18:15:31 <sgallagh> jwb: When talking about how FESCo is comprised, I think it's sensible
18:15:43 <jwb> sgallagh, approval of changes to the fesco charter should come from the council.  suggestions and proposals for changes can be made by anyone
18:16:07 <sgallagh> Point conceded
18:16:27 <sgallagh> Anyway, I'm not convinced the current makeup of Fedora is in any way broken.
18:16:39 <rishi> I have a question. How did we decide that we want to do these 3 particular products? mattdm and sgallagh convinced the Board/Council?
18:16:59 <nirik> convinced fesco and then the board yeah
18:17:07 <rishi> Ok.
18:17:28 <jwb> they mostly map to something that was already doing that and was mostly successful.
18:17:31 <jwb> it wasn't a hard sell
18:17:58 <dgilmore> what happens if we get 2 or 3 more editions?
18:17:59 <sgallagh> (Sorry, phone rang, back now)
18:18:12 <sgallagh> dgilmore: So far it hasn't come up.
18:18:20 <jwb> dgilmore, we evaluate it if an when it happens?
18:18:29 <rishi> Anyway, back to this ticket.
18:18:32 <sgallagh> The Council ruled that a new edition would need to address a major new "market" that isn't served by the existing Editions.
18:18:32 <dgilmore> I think that it is FESCo's responsibility with a change to consider the effect on editions
18:18:43 <sgallagh> There's been some discussion about IoT, but nothing solid yet.
18:18:44 <rishi> For me the most important sentence is this: "Thus the FESCo's decision does not have much of a meaning if the WGs decide they don't want the change in their product."
18:18:59 <jwb> my main opinion on this ticket is that the items the proposal is aiming to accomplish should arguably be done by the WG liasions interacting with fesco
18:19:02 <dgilmore> if there is some concern FESCo should reach out the WG about it
18:19:07 <rishi> Or in other words, some potential stand-off between FESCo and one of the WGs.
18:19:25 <dgilmore> but getting each WG to sign of on systemwide changes seems ovely silly to me
18:19:36 <jwb> this is why we have liasions
18:19:48 <sgallagh> rishi: We established right at the beginning that FESCo retained authority over the WGs, if we ended up in an unreconcilable situation
18:20:03 <dgilmore> jwb: indeed
18:20:12 <rishi> dgilmore: Each WG doesn't need to do that. They can just have someone on FESCo as their rep. The rep. can be a WG member, or somebody else.
18:20:14 <dgilmore> I think everything is really covered already
18:20:19 <sgallagh> And yeah, first order of business is for the liaisons to make their case.
18:20:26 <rishi> sgallagh: That is the problem.
18:20:26 <sgallagh> So I'm goin gto stick with "it ain't broke"
18:20:52 <dgilmore> rishi: we have the liasons,  they can speak up when the change comes up
18:20:52 <jwb> rishi, you are literally describing the liasion role
18:20:58 <thozza> sgallagh: but 'nothing' will happen if they don't
18:21:06 <dgilmore> I think this ticket is just wasting our time
18:21:10 <rishi> jwb: I know. I want the liasions to become FESCo members.
18:21:19 <rishi> Right now FESCo can be potentially composed of $random-bunch-of-people who might not represent the products at all.
18:21:20 <nirik> the liasions are fesco memebers.
18:21:29 <jwb> nirik, technically not
18:21:31 <rishi> Which is a problem.
18:21:33 <nirik> or at least were at the start.
18:21:39 <jwb> nirik, also incorrect
18:21:47 <thozza> rishi: why is that a problem?
18:21:58 <nirik> no? I am pretty sure we assigned them from existing fesco memebers at the start.
18:22:03 <nirik> perhaps my memory is playing tricks.
18:22:06 <jwb> i started as WG liasion and was not a fesco member.  stickster is the workstation liasion is not a fesco member
18:22:14 <rishi> thozza: Because in theory, we can have a FESCo that is incompetent to rule on a certain issue.
18:22:17 <jwb> the rest of them happen to map to liaions
18:22:20 <jwb> er, liasions
18:22:30 <jwb> but not by explicit choice of "these are fesco members"
18:22:30 <sgallagh> Perhaps it would be sufficient to amend our stance such that liaisons get a formal vote if they wish to whenever their SIG is involved
18:22:31 <nirik> anyhow, don't mean to sidetrack then
18:22:39 <thozza> rishi: in theory we may have WG representatives being incompetent
18:22:54 <rishi> thozza: But they will represent WG, who gets to make their product.
18:23:19 <thozza> rishi: so we will have multiple groups being incompetent - in theory
18:23:39 <sgallagh> Can we *please* stop with the nonsensical "But what if [something unlikely] happens?"
18:23:40 <rishi> An incompetent WG can lead to a crap product, which is ok, but having FESCo and one of the WGs talking past each other is a bigger problem.
18:23:51 <rishi> sgallagh: It isn't that nonsensical.
18:23:54 <thozza> sgallagh: I'm all for it
18:23:55 * rishi whispers "darktable"
18:23:57 <jwb> i'm not sure why we're trying to engineer our governance structure around theoretical incompetence
18:24:25 <jwb> darktable is not an example of fesco incompetence
18:24:49 <rishi> Anyway, I didn't file this ticket. :)
18:24:52 <thozza> So feel free to close the ticket as WONTFIX and we will rely on everyone doing what they are supposed to do
18:24:56 <thozza> ;)
18:25:01 <dgilmore> proposal the WG liason is there for the exact purpose of making sure they raise concerns over issues or concerns that the WG may have. It covers concerns with the Changes also so there is nothing that needs changed here. However the liasons should be reminded to look at the FESCo agenda and raise any concerns they have with changes.
18:25:09 <sgallagh> Proposal: Close the ticket and assume that everyone is acting in good faith unless proven otherwise
18:25:23 <rishi> dgilmore: But the liason can't vote, can he?
18:25:41 <thozza> rishi: why should they need to?
18:25:55 <dgilmore> rishi: does not need to
18:25:59 <thozza> if they raise some concerns, FESCo will discuss those
18:26:11 <Southern_Gentlem> ???
18:26:25 <rishi> That is all nice and fine, but when things come to a head, votes count.
18:26:28 <sgallagh> Yeah, none of us are so bull-headed that we would completely ignore the liaisons' opinions on a matter of relevance
18:26:32 <dgilmore> rishi: the meeting is open to anyone to speak at
18:26:34 <Southern_Gentlem> what is stopping any WG or sig from opening a ticket now?
18:26:44 <dgilmore> Southern_Gentlem: nothing
18:26:48 <dgilmore> it is all open
18:27:00 <thozza> sgallagh: +1
18:27:13 <nirik> additionally, even if they had a vote that would be just one vote.
18:27:19 <Southern_Gentlem> i dont see the need for this
18:27:20 <dgilmore> nothing from stoping anyone with any concerns about a change paying attention and raising those concerns
18:27:26 <rishi> I don't understand why we are so stuck to a 100% democratically elected FESCo, when, for example, our Council is not.
18:27:43 <thozza> rishi: because it is not a problem
18:27:48 <rishi> thozza: Why?
18:27:49 <thozza> in reality
18:27:55 <rishi> Why is it not a problem?
18:27:59 <dgilmore> rishi: we can allow the liason to vote
18:28:04 <dgilmore> I have no issue with that
18:28:06 <jwb> rishi, can you point to where it is a problem?
18:28:08 <nirik> why is it a problem?
18:28:11 <jwb> concretely?
18:28:24 <thozza> rishi: wrong question - provide situation when it WAS a problem
18:29:02 <rishi> jwb: nirik: I am asking, why it is not a problem that the Council is not 100% elected, because we seem to be strongly in favour of keeping FESCo that way.
18:29:15 <Southern_Gentlem> rishi some people would say thats the exact reason fesco ned to be elected by the community since the council is not totally
18:29:18 <sgallagh> rishi: You misunderstand.
18:29:20 <dgilmore> rishi: you are getting way off topic here
18:29:29 <jwb> i'm confused
18:29:32 <sgallagh> We are in favor of not making change for no demonstrated reason.
18:29:41 <sgallagh> The Council changed because it wasn't working.
18:29:41 <rishi> Anyway. My vote on this is 0. *shrug*
18:29:51 <nirik> it's up to you to convince us to change the current setup.
18:29:56 <dgilmore> rishi: your vote on what?
18:29:57 <sgallagh> FESCo is functional and thus has no impetus to reorganize
18:30:04 <rishi> dgilmore: If we allow the liason to vote, as you just said, then he his basically a full member, no?
18:30:24 <jwb> rishi, theoretically it would be votes towards WG specific items
18:30:25 <dgilmore> rishi: thats not up for vote. but I am not opposed to it
18:30:25 <sgallagh> rishi: Well, I proposed above having them given a vote when it applies to their SIG
18:30:27 <thozza> rishi: but why they need to?
18:30:28 <rishi> dgilmore: My vote on sgallagh 's proposal.
18:30:29 <jwb> but this is all kind of pointless.
18:30:30 <sgallagh> (and not on other matters)
18:30:33 * stickster feels like the more we formalize the liaison relationship with FESCo, the more bureaucratic things get for no reason.
18:30:43 <jwb> stickster, yes
18:30:56 <sgallagh> stickster: amen
18:31:04 <jwb> someone please ping me when we get back to a relevant topic.  i am unfortunately pulling double duty on meetings
18:31:11 <dgilmore> stickster: indeed, I think the concerns in the ticket were already covered and there is nothing to change here
18:31:25 <nirik> I'm +1 for dgilmore or sgallagh's proposal.
18:31:37 <rishi> nirik: dgilmore 's proposal?
18:31:38 <dgilmore> I am +1 for either proposal as well
18:31:46 <stickster> That's all I have to say. Plus this: FESCo is not a government organization. It's colleagues. If we can't speak to each other like any other collaborators, things are desperately broken. I don't feel that way. I see no todo here. <eof/>
18:32:09 <sgallagh> (02:25:01 PM) dgilmore: proposal the WG liason is there for the exact purpose of making sure they raise concerns over issues or concerns that the WG may have. It covers concerns with the Changes also so there is nothing that needs changed here. However the liasons should be reminded to look at the FESCo agenda and raise any concerns they have with changes.
18:32:09 <sgallagh> (02:25:09 PM) sgallagh: Proposal: Close the ticket and assume that everyone is acting in good faith unless proven otherwise
18:32:19 * paragan also don't understand why should it matter for single WG vote for FESCo decision hence I am also +1 to either sgallagh or dgilmore proposal
18:32:21 <dgilmore> rishi: mine was kinda like sgallagh's but a bit more verbose
18:32:49 <thozza> ok, dgilmore's proposal seems even better
18:33:26 * rishi counts votes
18:33:34 <thozza> +1 sgallagh && dgilmore
18:33:56 <jwb> +1
18:34:39 <sgallagh> I'll simply withdraw mine as dgilmore covers it all
18:34:41 <sgallagh> +1 dgilmore
18:34:53 <paragan> +1 dgilmore then
18:35:04 <ajax> +1
18:36:25 <rishi> #agreed The WG liason is there for the exact purpose of making sure they raise concerns over issues or concerns that the WG may have. It covers concerns with the Changes also so there is nothing that needs changed here. However the liasons should with changes. (+6)
18:36:43 <rishi> #topic next weeks chair
18:36:56 <rishi> Who wants to be the chair next week?
18:37:08 <jwb> i'm likely to miss next week
18:37:14 <rishi> Me too.
18:37:24 <dgilmore> I can do it
18:37:25 <sgallagh> My attendance is iffy next week as well.
18:37:44 <rishi> dgilmore: cool
18:37:45 <rishi> #action dgilmore to chair next week
18:37:50 <rishi> #topic Open Floor
18:38:14 <jkurik> who is oing to represent FESCO on the Go/No-Go & Readiness meeting tomorrow ?
18:38:31 <sgallagh> I expect to be there and can do so in an official capacity
18:38:34 * nirik can, should be there
18:38:35 <jwb> jkurik, probably multiple people
18:38:47 <rishi> I'll be there too.
18:38:53 <jkurik> great, I just want to be sure we have FESCo covered
18:38:59 <jkurik> thanks
18:39:12 <rishi> sgallagh: One quick question regarding the systemd presets issue. I was looking at fedora-release.git today and didn't see the changes.
18:39:18 <rishi> I assume you have it covered.
18:39:46 * dgilmore will be there
18:40:07 <dgilmore> rishi: I pulled in the patch from sgallagh
18:40:26 <dgilmore> rishi: but we do need an update, will be fixed for final
18:40:48 <sgallagh> Right, it wasn't rushed in for Beta. Perfectly okay.
18:41:15 <rishi> Ah, ok. I was only looking at the downstream git.
18:41:27 <rishi> Any other items for open floor?
18:41:39 <dgilmore> nada
18:42:03 <sgallagh> In two weeks, I'd like to bring the bundling discussion to FESCo
18:42:21 <sgallagh> (give it a little more time to hammer out on the list, plus next week we may not have full-enough attendance)
18:42:28 <rishi> Ok, sgallagh
18:42:32 <sgallagh> So consider that advance warning :)
18:42:46 <rishi> #info sgallagh will table the bundling discussion in 2 weeks
18:42:54 * dgilmore heard there is a thread on that but since email just did not work at all in Argentina I have not caught up on a weeks worth yet
18:43:40 <rishi> Going to close the meeting in 30s ...
18:44:57 <rishi> Ok, thanks for coming everyone!
18:44:58 <rishi> #endmeeting