17:01:12 <dgilmore> #startmeeting FESCO (2016-02-26)
17:01:12 <zodbot> Meeting started Fri Feb 26 17:01:12 2016 UTC.  The chair is dgilmore. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:01:12 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
17:01:12 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fesco_(2016-02-26)'
17:01:12 <dgilmore> #meetingname fesco
17:01:12 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fesco'
17:01:12 <dgilmore> #chair maxamillion dgilmore number80 jwb nirik paragan jsmith kalev sgallagh
17:01:12 <zodbot> Current chairs: dgilmore jsmith jwb kalev maxamillion nirik number80 paragan sgallagh
17:01:15 <dgilmore> #topic init process
17:01:17 <jsmith> .hello jsmith
17:01:18 <zodbot> jsmith: jsmith 'Jared Smith' <jsmith.fedora@gmail.com>
17:01:19 <nirik> morning.
17:01:19 <jwb> hello
17:01:20 <maxamillion> .hello maxamillion
17:01:22 <zodbot> maxamillion: maxamillion 'Adam Miller' <maxamillion@gmail.com>
17:01:25 <paragan> .hello pnemade
17:01:26 <zodbot> paragan: pnemade 'Parag Nemade' <pnemade@redhat.com>
17:01:26 <jkurik> .hello jkurik
17:01:28 <zodbot> jkurik: jkurik 'Jan Kurik' <jkurik@redhat.com>
17:01:34 <number80> .hello hguemar
17:01:35 <zodbot> number80: hguemar 'Haïkel Guémar' <karlthered@gmail.com>
17:01:40 <sgallagh> .hello sgallagh
17:01:43 <zodbot> sgallagh: sgallagh 'Stephen Gallagher' <sgallagh@redhat.com>
17:02:34 <dgilmore> #topic #1550 F24 approved Changes not in MODIFIED status (considered as not testable)
17:02:37 <dgilmore> .fesco 1550 https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1550
17:02:37 <zodbot> dgilmore: Error: '1550 https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1550' is not a valid integer.
17:02:39 <dgilmore> lets get started
17:02:49 <dgilmore> .fesco 1550
17:02:50 <zodbot> dgilmore: #1550 (F24 approved Changes not in MODIFIED status (considered as not testable)) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1550
17:02:56 <dgilmore> https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1550
17:03:23 <sgallagh> .link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=POST&classification=Fedora&columnlist=product%2Ccomponent%2Cversion%2Cbug_status%2Cresolution%2Cshort_desc%2Ckeywords%2Cflagtypes.name&f1=status_whiteboard&list_id=4694481&o1=anywords&product=Fedora&query_format=advanced&status_whiteboard=ChangeAcceptedF24&status_whiteboard_type=allwordssubstr&v1=SystemWideChange%20SelfContainedChange
17:03:36 <dgilmore> sgallagh: uggh my eyes
17:03:43 <maxamillion> that is quite the url
17:03:45 <nirik> less than yesterday. ;)
17:03:55 <paragan> for GHC 7.10 there is already a comment that it is not completed
17:04:20 <dgilmore> rpmdb says its not ready
17:04:23 <paragan> yes less that yesterday
17:04:36 <sgallagh> dgilmore: Sorry, wanted the full URL in the notes, though
17:04:45 <dgilmore> sgallagh: its not useable
17:04:54 <dgilmore> sgallagh: at least here
17:04:56 <nirik> it's easy to click on. ;)
17:05:04 <maxamillion> Layered Docker Image Build Service is mine, it's like 90% ish done ... I'm basically at the phase of getting things in Fedora Infra Ansible, deploy and test to make sure it all works out in the Fedora Infra ... but since it's not yet able to be tested right now I didn't know if I should leave it or set it to MODIFIED
17:05:07 <nirik> .tiny https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=POST&classification=Fedora&columnlist=product%2Ccomponent%2Cversion%2Cbug_status%2Cresolution%2Cshort_desc%2Ckeywords%2Cflagtypes.name&f1=status_whiteboard&list_id=4694481&o1=anywords&product=Fedora&query_format=advanced&status_whiteboard=ChangeAcceptedF24&status_whiteboard_type=allwordssubstr&v1=SystemWideChange%20SelfContainedChange
17:05:08 <zodbot> nirik: http://tinyurl.com/hsvltrs
17:05:17 <maxamillion> thanks zodbot
17:05:18 <dgilmore> may be my irc client, its broken into multiple lines
17:05:18 <maxamillion> :)
17:05:22 <number80> I'm fine with granting systemd and layered docker image a delay
17:05:22 <jkurik> GHC 7.10 and NewRpmDBFormat were postponed and I already removed these from https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/24/ChangeSet
17:05:37 <sgallagh> dgilmore: Ah, my client probably auto-split it for length.
17:05:43 <number80> GNOME 3.20 is low-risk
17:06:03 <number80> I'd like to hear about anaconda status
17:06:11 <sgallagh> number80: Look at the updated list
17:06:14 <sgallagh> It's very short
17:06:15 <nirik> number80: what list are you looking at?
17:06:29 <number80> on the ticket
17:06:33 <dgilmore> lets go through them one by one
17:06:43 <jwb> maxamillion: do you know about the layered image service?
17:06:50 <maxamillion> number80: there was an URL posted with the updated list --> http://tinyurl.com/hsvltrs
17:06:51 <dgilmore> number80: the bug link in teh ticket has an updated list
17:07:02 <maxamillion> jwb: yes, I just talked about it like 15 lines back in the irc backlog
17:07:15 <maxamillion> jwb: I also updated the bugzilla entry about it
17:07:17 <dgilmore> NewRPMDBFormat says it is not ready as default and will be a tech preview
17:07:18 <jwb> oh, i'm terrible.  it was hiding behind the ugly urc
17:07:19 <jwb> url
17:07:20 <number80> maxamillion: yes, but I was speaking about stuff not in this list
17:07:24 <maxamillion> jwb: :D
17:07:30 <maxamillion> number80: oh, fair
17:07:49 <dgilmore> so i am okay relegating rpm DB to tech preview
17:07:53 <number80> maxamillion: you did document the ticket about layered image and I'm fine with delay
17:07:59 <dgilmore> number80: stop
17:08:08 <dgilmore> we will get to it
17:08:16 <number80> ack
17:08:28 <dgilmore> first up we are looking at the rpm DB change
17:08:30 <nirik> dgilmore: did you see jkurik's note? those two were remove
17:08:35 <nirik> [10:05:22] <jkurik> GHC 7.10 and NewRpmDBFormat were postponed and I already removed these from https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/24/ChangeSet
17:08:39 <dgilmore> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1303542
17:08:44 * maxamillion is so confused
17:08:51 <dgilmore> nirik: its in the bug list
17:08:52 <nirik> really there's 3 left
17:08:59 <paragan> yes
17:09:19 <dgilmore> okay skipping rpm db and GHC
17:09:26 <dgilmore> NueroFedora
17:09:28 <dgilmore> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1301529
17:09:37 <maxamillion> huh ... Tim Waugh is listed as the Layered Image Build Service Owner ... I wonder if he knows that
17:09:48 <dgilmore> maxamillion: STOP
17:09:49 <nirik> I'm not sure looking at this what NeuroFedora was going to do...
17:10:02 <jwb> add packages
17:10:06 <jwb> i don't think we need to do anythign here
17:10:10 <number80> ignatenkobrain is not here
17:10:15 <jkurik> I just updated https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1550#comment:3 to reflect the current status
17:10:21 <dgilmore> I think we say please try again in F25
17:11:05 <dgilmore> proposal remove NueroFedora from the list for F24 and ask them to try make F25
17:11:09 <jwb> i'm fine with that but it doesn't really mean anything
17:11:24 <number80> +0
17:11:41 <number80> (It can be achieved in time as much as it can't)
17:11:55 <dgilmore> number80: its supposed to be testable now
17:11:58 <zbyszek> It's just a bunch of packages, and it's likely that they'll be reviewed before F24 is released.
17:12:07 <dgilmore> afaict there has been nothing done
17:12:14 * nirik wishes the change actually listed them
17:12:16 <sgallagh> Then they can get promoted in F25
17:12:28 <number80> dgilmore: it's just a bunch of packages, but I'm definitively not -1
17:12:30 <zbyszek> I added the link to the tracker bug a few minutes ago:
17:12:37 <sgallagh> I'm +1 to deferring this Change. That doesn't stop the packages from landing, just our involvement in promoting it
17:12:41 <dgilmore> number80: does not matter
17:12:54 <zbyszek> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1276941
17:12:54 <jwb> this is one of those things that really don't fit the Change process well to begin with.  we add new packages to existing branches all the time.  none of this matters.
17:13:17 <jwb> if they want to be recognized as a SIG, then great.  they can be at any time.
17:13:27 <nirik> zbyszek: thanks.
17:13:31 <nirik> jwb: +1
17:13:32 <number80> It's just a matter of marketing
17:13:37 <sgallagh> I think the goal here is mainly to get into the promotional chatter.
17:13:41 <jwb> Changes are not marketing.
17:14:11 <maxamillion> jwb: not at all?
17:14:25 <dgilmore> jwb: they are not, but we do use them to get the list of things to advertise
17:14:27 <number80> jwb: marketing relies on list changes for press releases, so that impact their work
17:14:49 <jwb> dgilmore: then we've repeated the failure with Features and negated the entire reason we started calling them Chagnes in the first place
17:14:53 <jwb> so good job us!
17:15:06 <dgilmore> jwb: go us
17:15:12 * jwb is so fed up with this that he's going to just be quiet
17:15:39 <number80> +1 to dgilmore proposal (so we could focus on more important topics)
17:15:51 <paragan> +1 to dgilmore proposal
17:15:56 <sgallagh> Regardless of that distinction, the Change is clearly not ready and therefore should have its Contingency Plan engaged
17:15:57 * nirik looks for that
17:15:58 <sgallagh> So +1
17:16:01 <maxamillion> +1 to dgilmore proposal
17:16:12 <nirik> sure, +1, lets move on
17:16:39 <jsmith> +1, move on...
17:16:41 <dgilmore> #accepted remove NueroFedora from the list for F24 and ask them to try make F25 (6,0,0)
17:16:54 <dgilmore> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243736
17:17:04 <dgilmore> Layered Docker Image
17:17:29 <number80> proposal: review this change in one or two weeks time
17:17:35 <dgilmore> +1
17:17:40 <number80> it's almost done and little impact on release
17:17:46 <number80> +1 (obviously)
17:17:47 <jsmith> +1 to number80's proposal
17:17:54 <nirik> sure, +1
17:17:56 <maxamillion> +1 (can I +1 my own Change?)
17:18:16 <dgilmore> #accepted review this change in one or two weeks time (5,0,0)
17:18:20 <sgallagh> +1
17:18:20 <jwb> +1
17:18:23 <jwb> maxamillion: yes
17:18:24 <sgallagh> (sorry, late)
17:18:26 <dgilmore> #undo
17:18:26 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: ACCEPTED by dgilmore at 17:18:16 : review this change in one or two weeks time (5,0,0)
17:18:30 <dgilmore> #accepted review this change in one or two weeks time (7,0,0)
17:18:32 <maxamillion> jwb: good to know, thanks
17:18:44 <dgilmore> last one
17:18:45 <dgilmore> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1288082
17:18:48 <dgilmore> systemd split
17:19:09 <number80> I'm in favour to grant a similar delay to zbyszek
17:19:14 <nirik> +1
17:19:19 <jsmith> +1 to similar delay
17:19:21 <paragan> +1
17:19:23 <sgallagh> number80: +1
17:19:25 <number80> +1
17:19:29 <jwb> +1
17:19:39 <dgilmore> the compose process is function, if a little manual right now
17:19:42 <maxamillion> +1
17:19:51 <number80> zbyszek: I trust you to provide us a progress status :)
17:19:56 <dgilmore> but waiting on https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308771 I am okay with
17:20:28 <zbyszek> number80: yeah... the changes are really simply, I'm mostly afraid of unexpected fallout
17:20:34 <zbyszek> simple
17:20:39 <number80> ack
17:20:41 <dgilmore> #accepted review again in one to two weeks, before Alpha change freeze (7,0,0)
17:21:53 <dgilmore> zbyszek: I really want to see it get in before Alpoha change freeze
17:21:59 <zbyszek> ack
17:22:07 <dgilmore> if not it will have to come after alpha
17:22:16 <dgilmore> as it would not meet any release criteria
17:22:35 <dgilmore> #topic Next week's chair
17:22:44 <dgilmore> who wants to run things next week
17:22:54 <number80> I can
17:23:17 <dgilmore> #action number80 to run next weeks meeting
17:23:26 <dgilmore> thanks number80
17:23:27 <dgilmore> #topic Open Floor
17:23:34 <jkurik> btw: I am on PTO the next week, so any formalities with Changes will need to wait till March 7th/8th
17:23:35 <dgilmore> does anyone have anything?
17:23:40 <jwb> yes
17:23:44 <paragan> #info I will be traveling next week so will miss the meeting.
17:23:47 * zbyszek would like to return to the privacy policy update question
17:23:52 <zbyszek> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:PrivacyPolicy still says that "Fedora collects personal information when: you create a user account"
17:24:02 <number80> jkurik: ack
17:24:13 <sgallagh> I have something for open floor
17:24:18 <dgilmore> jwb:
17:24:30 <dgilmore> zbyszek: please wait until after jwb
17:24:42 <jwb> just a note that today is the day that all of cicuk's packages need to be orphaned
17:24:50 <dgilmore> true
17:24:50 <jwb> nirik: i hate to put you on the spot but can you do so?
17:25:09 <nirik> yep. I can... I don't guess anyone has heard from him?
17:25:16 <jwb> i certainly have not
17:25:27 <number80> same goes for me
17:25:28 <jwb> fortunately, a number of them look to be pre-claimed
17:25:30 <paragan> me too not heard anything from him
17:25:44 <dgilmore> #info no one has heard from cicku, all of his packages will be orphaned
17:26:02 <dgilmore> #action nirik to complete teh orphaning
17:26:24 <dgilmore> sgallagh: is yours small? or should we let zbyszek go first
17:26:45 <sgallagh> Possibly not. Go ahead zbyszek
17:27:06 <zbyszek> So... the privacy policy still hasn't been updated
17:27:23 <zbyszek> It is the page linked from gnome dialogue window
17:27:35 <jwb> remind me where we said it needed to be updated?
17:27:40 <dgilmore> zbyszek: As I understand it, the privacy policy covers contributions to fedora and Fedora does collect some personal information
17:27:45 <maxamillion> jwb: +1
17:27:45 <dgilmore> zbyszek: so it is true
17:28:05 <zbyszek> No, it was agreed to be changed, pfrields was working on it, but it got stalled.
17:28:14 <jwb> where was it agreed?
17:28:20 <jwb> and what were the changes?
17:28:21 <dgilmore> zbyszek: thats not something we control afaik
17:28:38 <sgallagh> Yeah, that comes from Fedora Legal
17:28:41 <jwb> actually, i would propose we delay this and let zbyszek bring this up as an official topic next week
17:28:42 <zbyszek> When PRIVACY_POLICY_URL=https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:PrivacyPolicy was added to /usr/lib/os-release
17:28:43 <maxamillion> yeah, this might be a Council thing ... or Legal
17:28:47 <jwb> so we can get the background information again
17:28:55 <jwb> because doing this piecemeal isn't going to work
17:29:01 <dgilmore> jwb: I agree
17:29:02 <sgallagh> And we do collect personal information; you at least need an email address
17:29:03 <maxamillion> jwb: +1
17:29:15 <dgilmore> zbyszek: can you please file a ticket and add the meeting keyword
17:29:26 <sgallagh> And you are at least asked for a real name (though not everyone supplies it)
17:29:37 <zbyszek> dgilmore: For FESCo or Council?
17:29:47 <dgilmore> zbyszek: I would say council
17:29:49 <nirik> and you are asked for a phone number
17:29:49 <jwb> zbyszek: i'd suggest Council
17:29:54 <sgallagh> +Council
17:29:59 <dgilmore> its above FESCo's pay grade
17:30:05 <jwb> zbyszek: please give as much background on the agreement and prior discussions in the ticket
17:30:14 <zbyszek> OK.
17:30:22 <jwb> thank you
17:30:26 <nirik> you might touch base with stickster too if he was working on it...
17:30:27 <dgilmore> thanks
17:30:36 <dgilmore> sgallagh: what did you have?
17:30:46 <zbyszek> thanks
17:31:01 * jwb notes that stickster is AFK this afternoon
17:31:22 <sgallagh> So, we need to follow up on the Mozilla situation, I think.
17:31:33 <sgallagh> (I probably should have re-added the meeting keyword, but I forgot)
17:31:48 <sgallagh> It has been a full month without a meaningful reply
17:31:48 <number80> any news?
17:31:50 <dgilmore> did we hear back from them?
17:32:02 <sgallagh> (Except for the initial one where they promised a complete response within 24 hours)
17:32:14 <sgallagh> I've been pinging them weekly since then, to completely dead air.
17:32:39 <jsmith> That's disappointing...
17:32:42 <sgallagh> At this point, I'm coming to the conclusion that they are not willing to work with us.
17:32:42 <nirik> sad
17:32:56 <jwb> ping them one more time and suggest we'll post our initial email as an open letter
17:32:59 <dgilmore> so we ship iceweasl?
17:32:59 <maxamillion> that's both odd and unfortunate
17:33:06 <nirik> jwb: +1
17:33:14 <jsmith> jwb: I think that's fair
17:33:16 <dgilmore> jwb: +1
17:33:16 <sgallagh> jwb: That's a reasonable approach, I suppose.
17:33:18 <maxamillion> jwb: +1
17:33:21 <number80> dgilmore: this should be our fallback solution
17:33:21 <jwb> "we prefer to work on this collaboratively in private, but if we really cannot do so we'll need to get a broader audience."
17:33:30 <number80> jwb: +1
17:33:41 <paragan> jwb, +1
17:33:47 <sgallagh> Yeah, I will do that. Should we give them a time-limit?
17:33:55 <number80> sgallagh: yes
17:33:57 <jwb> also, we need to run it past the Council
17:34:00 <dgilmore> sgallagh: I would
17:34:05 <sgallagh> i.e. we will post the open letter if they don't respond before the next FESCo meeting?
17:34:08 <maxamillion> dgilmore: also, icecat is already in Fedora
17:34:19 <jwb> before we post any open letter as some kind of official Fedora statement
17:34:25 <jsmith> sgallagh: Assuming the Council can sign off on it that quickly, yes.
17:34:36 <jsmith> sgallagh: I'd probably go for a deadline of March 10th
17:34:38 <sgallagh> Council meetings are Mondays, right?
17:34:42 <number80> Yup
17:34:53 <sgallagh> Let's ask for it to get on the agenda for this week, then.
17:35:20 <number80> If we don't get meaningful answer by then, I also would like us to vote to promote iceweasel (if council allows us)
17:35:28 <number80> and not waiting more
17:35:33 <jwb> sgallagh: should be easy.  monday's meeting is open floor
17:35:50 <jwb> number80: what does promote mean
17:36:07 <number80> jwb: making iceweasel default browser in fedora in replacement of firefox
17:36:07 <jwb> and can someone please tell me if it's iceweasle or icecat?
17:36:10 <nirik> and do we have someone packaging it?
17:36:13 <lupinix> i'm not fesco, but i'd like to add this info http://news.softpedia.com/news/debian-finally-switches-iceweasel-name-back-to-firefox-500966.shtml
17:36:15 <sgallagh> Do we want to actually figure out the contingency plan today?
17:36:17 <sgallagh> /me is not sure about that.
17:36:20 <jwb> because people keep using them interchangably but i don't believe they are
17:36:28 <number80> icecat
17:36:43 <nirik> icecat = based on the long term release
17:36:45 <sgallagh> jwb: iceweasel and icecat both exist
17:36:55 <nirik> iceweasel = debranded firefox based on the current firefox
17:36:56 <sgallagh> Except Iceweasel is going away now
17:37:06 <maxamillion> I thought IceCat replaces Iceweasel
17:37:28 <nirik> icecat-38.6.0-1.fc24.x86_64
17:37:33 <jwb> ew
17:37:36 <nirik> firefox-44.0.2-3.fc24.x86_64
17:37:37 <lupinix> icecat is GNU version without access to mozilla addon page and other changes
17:37:43 <jwb> no, i wouldn't support icecat as the default
17:38:05 <nirik> right, and follows the long term release cycles, not the normal release.
17:38:16 <number80> proposal: if Mozilla doesn't provide a meaningful answer we can work on, and no veto from council, vote on promoting icecat as Fedora default's browser after the deadline given to Mozilla
17:38:25 <nirik> it also has things like prefs for not running non free js and other stuff
17:38:31 <nirik> -1
17:38:39 <jwb> -1
17:38:49 <number80> I don't think we should release F24 with such uncertainty
17:39:06 <jwb> i think releasing f24 with something so old is ridiculous
17:39:08 <number80> but we can discuss this later
17:39:13 <nirik> I'm not sure deciding now based on a bunch of whatifs is good.
17:39:22 <dgilmore> -1
17:39:24 <jwb> and i think we have time.  and i think we can deal with default browser later
17:39:28 <sgallagh> nirik: I agree
17:39:31 <sgallagh> number80: -1
17:39:36 <jwb> let's work the issue instead of shooting from the hip
17:39:37 <number80> Well, I'd like to have a decision before beta
17:39:44 <sgallagh> Yes, definitely before Beta
17:39:49 <nirik> I guess the least bad thing IMHO might be a iceweasel... but we would need people to package and maintain it.
17:40:07 * number80 drop proposal
17:40:09 <nirik> (which will be hard since debian isn't going to have it moving forward)
17:40:20 <jwb> fedbrowser
17:40:21 <sgallagh> nirik: Not true
17:40:22 <jwb> yay.
17:40:32 <nirik> sgallagh: oh?
17:40:35 <sgallagh> nirik: They're still maintaining their fork, they are just allowed to call it Firefox no
17:40:36 <sgallagh> *now
17:40:48 <maxamillion> jwb: :)
17:41:02 <jwb> they are forking it for architecture reasons.  they are not removing the functionality that fedora is trying to work with mozilla on
17:41:04 <nirik> sure, but they won't have the debranding stuff, etc.
17:41:12 <jwb> therefore whatever debian is still doing is not suitable for us to use
17:41:17 <sgallagh> Right
17:41:31 <nirik> and man how ironic it is that debian moves to firefox and we move to iceweasel. ;)
17:41:32 <jwb> which means iceweasel isn't an option, whether it exists or not
17:41:43 <jwb> so let's not get hung up on it
17:41:52 <number80> *nods*
17:42:19 <sgallagh> Hopefully Debian and others will come to our aid if we have to go publicly on offensive about this situation
17:42:45 <sgallagh> I think we would want to reach out to our contacts in Debian, Suse and other distros that care about user freedoms
17:43:11 <maxamillion> sgallagh: +1
17:43:13 <jwb> i think the Council is the body to do so, if Fedora wishes to do that
17:43:21 <sgallagh> jwb: ack
17:43:28 <maxamillion> coordinating and collaborating with other distros is likely adventagious
17:43:29 <jwb> the point where we go public, this is no longer a FESCo issue.
17:43:33 <maxamillion> jwb: +1
17:43:39 <nirik> huh.
17:43:49 <dgilmore> +1
17:43:51 <nirik> debian has a patch for unsigned addons in system dirs
17:43:54 <number80> It will be even greater impact, if we get other distros to sign off when we publicly release our open letter
17:44:07 <dgilmore> I think at this point we go to teh coouncil and ask them to get involved
17:44:24 <number80> +1 dgilmore
17:45:21 <nirik> if they can carry this, I don't know why we couldn't... but I can followup on the bug/tickets later I guess.
17:45:51 <jwb> nirik: it is information worth pointing out to our Firefox maintainer
17:45:53 <nirik> https://sources.debian.net/patches/iceweasel/45.0~b5-1/debian-hacks/Allow-unsigned-addons-in-usr-lib-share-mozilla-exten.patch/
17:46:45 <sgallagh> nirik: I think we tacitly *can* include that, given that Mozilla just recently asserted that their patches were a-ok.
17:46:55 <sgallagh> Publicly and loudly asserted it, in fact.
17:46:56 <nirik> right
17:47:10 <sgallagh> (Insert the usual IANAL disclaimers here)
17:47:12 <jwb> then perhaps this can be ended by having martin include it
17:47:32 <jwb> he likely needs to be pointed to it in the FESCo ticket either way
17:47:44 <sgallagh> jwb: Well, I still want a public response from Mozilla
17:47:51 <nirik> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293874
17:47:58 <nirik> it's mentioned there...
17:47:59 <sgallagh> If only to prevent future issues where they break this patch
17:48:11 <nirik> "Let's see if Debian will ship this patch in their branded browser. If so we can do the same in Fedora."
17:48:35 <sgallagh> Right, noted today.
17:48:38 <sgallagh> I guess that's something.
17:48:49 <jwb> sgallagh: they may well just point to their agreement with debian
17:48:59 <jwb> which is fine, though a bit passive agressive
17:49:10 <jwb> either way, pinging them again might work in light of this information
17:49:22 <sgallagh> jwb: Sure, but that doesn't stop them from intentionally making it difficult to maintain that patch
17:49:37 <nirik> ideally it would be nice if it was upstreamed.
17:49:44 <dgilmore> nirik: indeed
17:49:50 <jwb> sgallagh: please don't jump to conclusions.  it isn't going to help
17:49:51 <sgallagh> Absolutely
17:49:58 <dgilmore> should we wrap this up?
17:50:03 <maxamillion> dgilmore: +1
17:50:03 <nirik> anyhow, nothing to do here... wait some more and see how this pans out?
17:50:05 <dgilmore> if I have it right
17:50:15 <sgallagh> Hold up.
17:50:16 <dgilmore> sgallagh: will email mozilla one last time
17:50:25 <sgallagh> Am I sending that email or not (with the deadline?)
17:50:35 <sgallagh> Are we asking the Council to publish it if they don't respond?
17:50:41 <dgilmore> we will bring the issue to the council to discuss monday
17:50:46 <sgallagh> Because I don't know that we had a firm decision there.
17:51:09 <jwb> sgallagh: let's do it in the opposite order
17:51:18 <sgallagh> Proposal: Ask the Council on Monday. If they give the go-ahead on the deadline and open letter, email Mozilla after the Council meeting.
17:51:24 <jwb> discuss Monday, if Council approves then send email with Mar 10th as deadline for response
17:51:30 <jwb> sgallagh: yes, that.  +1
17:51:31 <number80> +1 to sgallagh proposal
17:51:35 <sgallagh> +1
17:51:41 <dgilmore> +1
17:51:59 <nirik> so, wait... this is going to say what? can we carry that patch?
17:52:15 <nirik> or that we are publishing the letter and asking for something else?
17:52:16 <sgallagh> nirik: Right now we're discussing a response to our initial set of concerns.
17:52:28 <jwb> nirik: we want a response to the original email.  if they're response is to poitn to that patch, then fine
17:52:30 <sgallagh> If the answer they give is "Use Debian's Patch", that's acceptable
17:52:39 <nirik> ok, fair enough, then +1
17:52:53 <paragan> +1
17:52:57 <maxamillion> +1
17:53:46 <jsmith> +1 from me, I guess
17:56:52 <sgallagh> #agreed Ask the Council on Monday. If they give the go-ahead on the deadline of March 10th and publishing the open letter, email Mozilla after the Council meeting.
17:57:04 <sgallagh> #action sgallagh to take the issue to the Council open floor on Monday
17:57:26 <sgallagh> Oops, forgot the count
17:57:28 <sgallagh> #undo
17:57:28 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: ACTION by sgallagh at 17:57:04 : sgallagh to take the issue to the Council open floor on Monday
17:57:30 <sgallagh> #undo
17:57:30 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: AGREED by sgallagh at 17:56:52 : Ask the Council on Monday. If they give the go-ahead on the deadline of March 10th and publishing the open letter, email Mozilla after the Council meeting.
17:57:36 <sgallagh> #agreed Ask the Council on Monday. If they give the go-ahead on the deadline of March 10th and publishing the open letter, email Mozilla after the Council meeting. (+8, 0, -0)
17:57:40 <sgallagh> #action sgallagh to take the issue to the Council open floor on Monday
17:58:25 <sgallagh> Anything else or shall we end the meeting.
17:58:27 <sgallagh> /me wants lunch
17:59:07 * jsmith has nothing to add, and wants lunch as well
17:59:26 <dgilmore> I think thats it
17:59:31 <dgilmore> #endmeeting