16:00:02 <number80> #startmeeting FESCO (2016-06-24)
16:00:02 <zodbot> Meeting started Fri Jun 24 16:00:02 2016 UTC.  The chair is number80. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:00:02 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
16:00:02 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fesco_(2016-06-24)'
16:00:11 <number80> #meetingname fesco
16:00:11 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fesco'
16:00:38 <number80> #chair maxamillion dgilmore number80 jwb nirik paragan jsmith kalev sgallagh
16:00:38 <zodbot> Current chairs: dgilmore jsmith jwb kalev maxamillion nirik number80 paragan sgallagh
16:00:41 <maxamillion> .hello maxamillion
16:00:42 <zodbot> maxamillion: maxamillion 'Adam Miller' <maxamillion@gmail.com>
16:00:43 <nirik> morning
16:00:50 <number80> .hello hguemar
16:00:51 <zodbot> number80: hguemar 'Haïkel Guémar' <karlthered@gmail.com>
16:00:52 <paragan> .hello pnemade
16:00:54 <zodbot> paragan: pnemade 'Parag Nemade' <pnemade@redhat.com>
16:01:06 <jwb> hi
16:01:09 <sgallagh> .hello sgallagh
16:01:12 <zodbot> sgallagh: sgallagh 'Stephen Gallagher' <sgallagh@redhat.com>
16:01:21 <jsmith> .hello jsmith
16:01:22 <zodbot> jsmith: jsmith 'Jared Smith' <jsmith.fedora@gmail.com>
16:01:23 <number80> ok, we have quorum today :)
16:01:59 <number80> Let's start then with follow-ups
16:02:09 <number80> #topic #1587 Policy regarding packaging when upstream has chosen
16:02:21 <number80> .fesco 1587
16:02:23 <zodbot> number80: #1587 (Policy regarding packaging when upstream has chosen inappropriate name for package) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1587
16:02:53 * RemiFedora here
16:03:18 <number80> FPC has accepted to refine the guidelines and ask if we're good with that
16:03:20 <number80> https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/633
16:03:51 <number80> Proposal: let FPC to refine guidelines
16:04:14 <maxamillion> +1
16:04:15 <nirik> I'm fine with that, but the question is if the reporter of the ticket is ok with it
16:04:26 <nirik> and hey. ;) welcome mulhern
16:04:29 <sgallagh> Specifically, their answer is to modify the guidelines to make it clear that they are *guidelines*, not rules and that you may deviate but MUST document the deviation in the spec.
16:04:32 <mulhern> hi!
16:04:52 <number80> Hi mulhern
16:05:16 <number80> did you see tibbs update in your fesco ticket?
16:05:24 <nirik> right. Since this is hopefully a corner case that won't happen too often, it can be handled in the normal exception to guidelines process.
16:05:26 <paragan> I think FPC ticket is sufficient for now
16:06:25 <number80> I trust their experience to do that fairly
16:06:26 <jwb> I'm ambivalent
16:07:09 <nirik> proposal: close ticket and move on. ;)
16:07:14 <jwb> +1
16:07:15 <paragan> +1
16:07:15 <number80> +1
16:07:35 <sgallagh> I'd like to hear whether mulhern has anything to add, since she was accidentally left out of the discussion last week,
16:07:42 <mulhern> Likely it will come up again.
16:08:10 <mulhern> I'm the reviewer on the package in question.
16:08:34 <mulhern> I think FPC's guideline exception idea is fine, and in the right direction.
16:08:45 <maxamillion> +1
16:08:57 <jsmith> That's good enough for me -- I'm +1 to the proposal
16:09:42 <mulhern> I mean, likely the issue will come up again...but possibly in another form.
16:10:09 <mulhern> If it proves necessary, I will open another ticket for the new situation.
16:10:12 <nirik> then all the more reason to have a generic way to handle exceptions rather than be specific.
16:10:58 <mulhern> nirik: I think I agree with what you are saying.
16:11:01 <number80> maybe, we should just raise directly the conflictual cases to us
16:11:06 <mulhern> If I understand it correctly.
16:11:30 <sgallagh> Yeah, ultimately if there's an actual *dispute* (such as comaintainers disagreeing), the proper policy is to come to FESCo for conflict-resolution.
16:11:43 <sgallagh> Anyway, I'm +1 to the proposal
16:11:50 <number80> ok, consensus
16:12:19 <nirik> well, if it's a guidelines thing it would go to the FPC... but if there's a conflict or they can't decide or whatever it would go to fesco
16:12:33 <number80> #agreed close ticket #1587 (+1: 7, 0: 0, -1: 0)
16:13:48 <number80> #info if there are conflict about inappropriate package naming or conflict, you should raise it to FPC (guidelines) or ultimately to FESCo
16:13:56 <number80> just a reminder
16:14:02 <maxamillion> brb, apologies
16:14:18 <number80> let's move on to the next topic
16:14:27 <number80> thank you mulhern for raising the case
16:14:42 <number80> #topic #1576  Evaluate Workstation graphical upgrade Change status
16:14:50 <number80> .fesco 1576
16:14:52 <zodbot> number80: #1576 (Evaluate Workstation graphical upgrade Change status) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1576
16:15:06 <number80> adamw, kparal: around?
16:15:43 <number80> pasting from #fedora-devel
16:15:46 <number80> │17:55:57           adamw | sgallagh: we're waiting on updated builds from desktop team which will fix all bugs and cure all known ills
16:15:54 <sgallagh> (11:56:29 AM) adamw: sgallagh: basically my last comment on the ticket stands, desktop team is still working on bug fixes, we're waiting for https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-fad11727bf to get updated
16:16:15 <number80> sgallagh: thanks
16:16:30 <sgallagh> So, I think FESCo can probably close this ticket.
16:16:36 <number80> well, it's on track
16:16:47 <jwb> we should have closed it 2 weeks ago.  there is nothing left for FESCo to do
16:16:52 <sgallagh> We decided last week that the final decision is up to QA, so I don't think we need to do much babysitting
16:16:58 <paragan> yes close this ticket
16:17:04 <number80> I agree, there's not much to do
16:17:26 <number80> #action number80 close ticket 1576
16:17:33 <number80> next topic?
16:17:56 <number80> #topic #1589 BackupPC's packager Bernard Johnson is nonresponsive
16:17:59 <number80> .fesco 1589
16:18:00 <zodbot> number80: #1589 (BackupPC's packager Bernard Johnson is nonresponsive) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1589
16:18:24 <number80> process was followed and it's a legit case but the reporter is not a packager
16:19:03 <sgallagh> Yeah, I don't know what the precedent is here.
16:19:08 <number80> since it's a company-driven bugfix, I'm not sure to sponsor someone for a one-shot job
16:19:18 <number80> (a likely)
16:19:32 * maxamillion is back
16:19:36 <sgallagh> number80: Alternately, if it's being driven by a corporate interest, it's more likely to be maintained than by a volunteer...
16:19:37 <nirik> well, we could orphan in the hopes someone takes it up
16:19:45 <nirik> it can't be worse than no one being around at all.
16:19:49 <maxamillion> nirik: +1
16:19:52 <number80> sgallagh: yes, I'm not saying no
16:19:58 <paragan> nirik, +1
16:19:59 <number80> just doubting
16:20:04 <sgallagh> Sure, just providing the counter-argument
16:20:05 <maxamillion> worst case scenario it's basically the same as it is now
16:20:09 <number80> +1 to nirik proposal of orphaning
16:20:23 <sgallagh> I guess we could orphan it and ask the person to submit a package review to take ownership
16:20:33 <number80> yes
16:21:03 <nirik> bjohnson is poc for 22 packages
16:21:10 <number80> sgallagh, jwb?
16:21:10 <nirik> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packager/bjohnson/
16:21:12 <sgallagh> (which would have the pleasant side-effect of forcing the package to update its spec to be back in keeping with current guidelines)
16:21:20 <jsmith> +1 to the proposal
16:21:21 <sgallagh> number80: Still considering
16:21:26 <number80> ack
16:21:32 <jwb> i don't see how orphaning really helps anything in the near term
16:21:54 <jwb> i'd be fine with doing that if we also asked a provenpackager to look into an update before we orphan
16:21:55 <nirik> well, it may get packages that are not provenpackagers taking ownership and fixing the packages?
16:22:15 <sgallagh> jwb: Well, the requestor has volunteered to maintain, but they aren't currently a package
16:22:17 <sgallagh> *packager
16:22:17 * nirik shrugs. I can look at doing the update.
16:22:35 <jwb> nirik, yeah, but from a response perspective it comes off very much as either apathy about the situation or a gamble
16:22:37 <number80> well, there was not build except from releng and perl SIG for perl rebuilds for a year
16:23:03 <jwb> person: hey, there is a problem and this needs an update.  fesco: *shrug* orphan
16:23:03 <number80> if the reporter was a packager, I'd have gladly reassigned it to him but we're in a tough spot
16:23:12 <sgallagh> jwb: Which is why I'm countering with "Orphan bjohnson's packages, ask lef to submit a package review for BackupPC to take it over"
16:23:14 <nirik> jwb: I was thinking of it as a gamble. ;) but yeah, agreed.
16:23:17 <jwb> no we are not in a tough spot
16:23:36 <jwb> look, we have provenpackagers.  they are a resource.  we should ask for help from that resource
16:23:51 <nirik> tell you what: I'll mentor/sponsor the person and get the package updated and orphan the rest of bjohnsons packages?
16:24:00 <number80> +1
16:24:04 <sgallagh> Sure, but at the same time is it any better to leave unmaintained packages un-orphaned?
16:24:15 <jwb> sgallagh: no, which is why i suggested doing both
16:24:18 <sgallagh> Is that beneficial to Fedora?
16:24:24 * jwb gives up
16:24:45 <sgallagh> jwb: I don't think I'm understanding you properly.
16:24:50 <maxamillion> jwb: is there a way to reach out to the provenpackagers en mass? (I feel like we need a mailing list)
16:25:02 <paragan> we can ask on devel list
16:25:03 <nirik> there is the fas alias.
16:25:12 <number80> jwb: I get your point that packages w/o identified maintainers could be collectively maintained by provenpackagers
16:25:17 <sgallagh> I don't mind applying the requested patch (I'll volunteer if no one else does)
16:25:19 <tibbs|w> It's not a list, but you can just mail provenpackagers@ and we'll all get it.
16:25:20 * nirik points to his offer above tho. Perhaps I am being ignored.
16:25:36 <number80> nirik: I agreed to it :)
16:25:40 <sgallagh> But I still think it makes sense to offer lef the opportunity to take over the package in question via the normal mentorship/package review process.
16:26:06 <number80> time-out
16:26:14 * nirik sighs
16:26:15 <number80> so we have two proposals for now
16:26:32 <maxamillion> nirik: I'm not against your offer, I just don't want things like this to fall on FESCo to pick up the peices ... I worry over time that FESCo will somehow end up trying to maintain a pile of packages that's not maintainable or doesn't scale packages:people ratio
16:26:34 <number80> A) nirik mentor and sponsor lef to be maintainer of backupPC
16:27:02 <number80> B) jwb to request help from provenpackagers
16:27:12 <nirik> I have no interest in maintaining it. The reporter offered to. I offered to teach him how to fish.
16:27:33 <sgallagh> C) Do A) but require a package review since lef isn't currently a packager.
16:27:36 <maxamillion> nirik: fair point, but still mentoring is a time commitment
16:27:58 <number80> sgallagh: correct
16:28:07 <nirik> sure, except I looked at the bug he filed, he has a patch. He figured out all our crazy non matintainer process.
16:28:15 <maxamillion> nirik: +1
16:28:19 <nirik> I don't think mentoring him will be that big a deal.
16:28:24 * maxamillion is +1 to A
16:28:27 <number80> well let's vote
16:28:28 <nirik> sorry, him or her. I don't know. Them.
16:28:32 <tibbs|w> The funny thing is that if this had gone to IRC (and I had seen it) I would have just taken care of  fixing the ACLs and doing the sponsorship and nobody would have been bothered.
16:28:56 <nirik> yeah, this doesn't need to be a massive deal. ;)
16:28:56 <tibbs|w> Sometimes the overhead of the bureaucracy just isn't worth it.
16:28:59 <sgallagh> tibbs|w: And we'd still be left with a package that is functionally abandoned.
16:29:07 <maxamillion> jwb: I would however like to follow up about having a better path to reach out to the provenpackager group, I think that's something that we should collectively as the Fedora Project be able to utilize better
16:29:09 <jsmith> +1 to either A or B -- I don't really care
16:29:14 <gholms> If he winds up being non-responsive later it shouldn't be any worse than it is now.
16:29:18 <paragan> I see here 3 things 1) let lef take this package via process 2) orphan remaining packages of bjohnson 3) someone to BackupPC package soon
16:29:20 <number80> +1 to all of them
16:29:31 <paragan> *fix
16:29:42 <tibbs|w> sgallagh: With a new active maintainer?  I don't see that.  I mean the guy wants to help.
16:29:50 <maxamillion> jwb: I'll write something up and make a meeting item out of it though, you have a really good point and I think that many of us (myself included) never really thought of it in that sense before
16:29:58 <number80> (I agree w/ jwb that we need to come up with a better solution than orphaning stuff)
16:30:05 <sgallagh> tibbs|w: Sorry, I misread your response. You are correct.
16:30:11 <jwb> i think sgallagh's addition of a package review is pretty onerous.  i'm -1 to that
16:30:14 <sgallagh> (Except for all of bjohnson's *other* packages)
16:30:20 <number80> tibbs|w: the issue is that we could apply that to anyone submitting package review
16:30:32 <sgallagh> That's fine. I'll support A) as well.  I trust nirik to mentor
16:30:39 <tibbs|w> number80: Well, sort of.
16:31:00 <number80> let's keep it short
16:31:15 <number80> so who's -1 or +0 to A)
16:31:20 <nirik> well, currently bjohnsons other packages are without maintainer anyhow, orphaning them just means there is a chance to get someone else maintaining them or retire them from the collection.
16:31:42 <sgallagh> OK, so formal proposal: We orphan all of bjohnson's packages. nirik will sponsor and mentor lef to take ownership of BackupPC.
16:31:43 <nirik> sure, +1 to my own proposal if it wasn't clear
16:31:54 <nirik> sure. +1
16:32:01 <number80> let's stick to sgallagh final proposal +1
16:32:02 <sgallagh> +1
16:32:19 <maxamillion> +1
16:32:31 <paragan> okay +1 to sgallagh proposal
16:32:36 <jwb> +1
16:32:42 <number80> jsmith: ?
16:33:03 <jsmith> +1
16:33:23 <number80> #agreed orphan all of bjohnson's packages. nirik will sponsor and mentor lef to take ownership of BackupPC (+1: 7, 0: 0, -1: 0)
16:33:23 <jsmith> (Sorry, interrupted by work requests)
16:33:27 <number80> np
16:33:44 <number80> #topic #1588 F25 System Wide Change: PHP 7.0
16:33:51 <number80> .fesco 1588
16:33:54 <number80> .fesco 1588
16:33:56 <zodbot> number80: #1588 (F25 System Wide Change: PHP 7.0) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1588
16:34:03 <jsmith> +1 to PHP 7.0
16:34:07 <paragan> +1
16:34:08 <maxamillion> +1 to PHP 7
16:34:16 <number80> +1 to PHP7
16:34:26 <sgallagh> +1
16:34:51 <nirik> +1
16:35:02 <number80> jwb?
16:35:46 <jwb> +1
16:35:53 <number80> thanks
16:36:23 <number80> #agreed PHP 7.0 system wide feature is accepted (+1: 7, 0: 0, -1; 0)
16:36:36 <number80> RemiFedora: congrats ;)
16:36:41 <RemiFedora> tahsnk :)
16:36:55 <number80> #topic Open Floor
16:36:58 <handsome_pirate> RemiFedora++
16:36:58 <zodbot> handsome_pirate: Karma for remi changed to 1 (for the f24 release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
16:37:02 <number80> anything you want to raise?
16:37:32 <nirik> I am not sure I will be around the next two meetings... but will try and vote in tickets/etc
16:37:50 <maxamillion> I might not make it to next week's meeting because of travel for Red Hat Summit
16:37:53 <sgallagh> I *should* be here next week, but certainly won't the week after.
16:37:54 <maxamillion> I'll try though
16:38:36 * jsmith has nothing for the open floor
16:38:52 <paragan> nothing from me here
16:39:06 <number80> Starting next week, we'll start new elections for 4 seats as jwb, dgilmore, sgallagh and myself have been elected for F23/24 cycles
16:39:40 <number80> jkurik should start the process soon enough
16:39:46 <number80> ok
16:39:47 <paragan> jreznik
16:39:58 <paragan> jkurik is on vacation
16:40:02 <number80> ack
16:40:04 <sgallagh> I was just about to say taht
16:40:22 <number80> well, who wants to chair next week?
16:40:49 <paragan> I can, hope we will get quorum next week ;-)
16:41:05 <number80> paragan: thank you :)
16:41:26 <number80> #info paragan will chair the next meeting (2016-07-01)
16:41:48 <number80> Well, thank you everyone for attending and see you next week
16:41:56 <number80> #endmeeting