16:00:02 #startmeeting FESCO (2016-06-24) 16:00:02 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 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 16:00:02 The meeting name has been set to 'fesco_(2016-06-24)' 16:00:11 #meetingname fesco 16:00:11 The meeting name has been set to 'fesco' 16:00:38 #chair maxamillion dgilmore number80 jwb nirik paragan jsmith kalev sgallagh 16:00:38 Current chairs: dgilmore jsmith jwb kalev maxamillion nirik number80 paragan sgallagh 16:00:41 .hello maxamillion 16:00:42 maxamillion: maxamillion 'Adam Miller' 16:00:43 morning 16:00:50 .hello hguemar 16:00:51 number80: hguemar 'Haïkel Guémar' 16:00:52 .hello pnemade 16:00:54 paragan: pnemade 'Parag Nemade' 16:01:06 hi 16:01:09 .hello sgallagh 16:01:12 sgallagh: sgallagh 'Stephen Gallagher' 16:01:21 .hello jsmith 16:01:22 jsmith: jsmith 'Jared Smith' 16:01:23 ok, we have quorum today :) 16:01:59 Let's start then with follow-ups 16:02:09 #topic #1587 Policy regarding packaging when upstream has chosen 16:02:21 .fesco 1587 16:02:23 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 FPC has accepted to refine the guidelines and ask if we're good with that 16:03:20 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/633 16:03:51 Proposal: let FPC to refine guidelines 16:04:14 +1 16:04:15 I'm fine with that, but the question is if the reporter of the ticket is ok with it 16:04:26 and hey. ;) welcome mulhern 16:04:29 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 hi! 16:04:52 Hi mulhern 16:05:16 did you see tibbs update in your fesco ticket? 16:05:24 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 I think FPC ticket is sufficient for now 16:06:25 I trust their experience to do that fairly 16:06:26 I'm ambivalent 16:07:09 proposal: close ticket and move on. ;) 16:07:14 +1 16:07:15 +1 16:07:15 +1 16:07:35 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 Likely it will come up again. 16:08:10 I'm the reviewer on the package in question. 16:08:34 I think FPC's guideline exception idea is fine, and in the right direction. 16:08:45 +1 16:08:57 That's good enough for me -- I'm +1 to the proposal 16:09:42 I mean, likely the issue will come up again...but possibly in another form. 16:10:09 If it proves necessary, I will open another ticket for the new situation. 16:10:12 then all the more reason to have a generic way to handle exceptions rather than be specific. 16:10:58 nirik: I think I agree with what you are saying. 16:11:01 maybe, we should just raise directly the conflictual cases to us 16:11:06 If I understand it correctly. 16:11:30 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 Anyway, I'm +1 to the proposal 16:11:50 ok, consensus 16:12:19 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 #agreed close ticket #1587 (+1: 7, 0: 0, -1: 0) 16:13:48 #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 just a reminder 16:14:02 brb, apologies 16:14:18 let's move on to the next topic 16:14:27 thank you mulhern for raising the case 16:14:42 #topic #1576 Evaluate Workstation graphical upgrade Change status 16:14:50 .fesco 1576 16:14:52 number80: #1576 (Evaluate Workstation graphical upgrade Change status) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1576 16:15:06 adamw, kparal: around? 16:15:43 pasting from #fedora-devel 16:15:46 │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 (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 sgallagh: thanks 16:16:30 So, I think FESCo can probably close this ticket. 16:16:36 well, it's on track 16:16:47 we should have closed it 2 weeks ago. there is nothing left for FESCo to do 16:16:52 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 yes close this ticket 16:17:04 I agree, there's not much to do 16:17:26 #action number80 close ticket 1576 16:17:33 next topic? 16:17:56 #topic #1589 BackupPC's packager Bernard Johnson is nonresponsive 16:17:59 .fesco 1589 16:18:00 number80: #1589 (BackupPC's packager Bernard Johnson is nonresponsive) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1589 16:18:24 process was followed and it's a legit case but the reporter is not a packager 16:19:03 Yeah, I don't know what the precedent is here. 16:19:08 since it's a company-driven bugfix, I'm not sure to sponsor someone for a one-shot job 16:19:18 (a likely) 16:19:32 * maxamillion is back 16:19:36 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 well, we could orphan in the hopes someone takes it up 16:19:45 it can't be worse than no one being around at all. 16:19:49 nirik: +1 16:19:52 sgallagh: yes, I'm not saying no 16:19:58 nirik, +1 16:19:59 just doubting 16:20:04 Sure, just providing the counter-argument 16:20:05 worst case scenario it's basically the same as it is now 16:20:09 +1 to nirik proposal of orphaning 16:20:23 I guess we could orphan it and ask the person to submit a package review to take ownership 16:20:33 yes 16:21:03 bjohnson is poc for 22 packages 16:21:10 sgallagh, jwb? 16:21:10 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packager/bjohnson/ 16:21:12 (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 +1 to the proposal 16:21:21 number80: Still considering 16:21:26 ack 16:21:32 i don't see how orphaning really helps anything in the near term 16:21:54 i'd be fine with doing that if we also asked a provenpackager to look into an update before we orphan 16:21:55 well, it may get packages that are not provenpackagers taking ownership and fixing the packages? 16:22:15 jwb: Well, the requestor has volunteered to maintain, but they aren't currently a package 16:22:17 *packager 16:22:17 * nirik shrugs. I can look at doing the update. 16:22:35 nirik, yeah, but from a response perspective it comes off very much as either apathy about the situation or a gamble 16:22:37 well, there was not build except from releng and perl SIG for perl rebuilds for a year 16:23:03 person: hey, there is a problem and this needs an update. fesco: *shrug* orphan 16:23:03 if the reporter was a packager, I'd have gladly reassigned it to him but we're in a tough spot 16:23:12 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 jwb: I was thinking of it as a gamble. ;) but yeah, agreed. 16:23:17 no we are not in a tough spot 16:23:36 look, we have provenpackagers. they are a resource. we should ask for help from that resource 16:23:51 tell you what: I'll mentor/sponsor the person and get the package updated and orphan the rest of bjohnsons packages? 16:24:00 +1 16:24:04 Sure, but at the same time is it any better to leave unmaintained packages un-orphaned? 16:24:15 sgallagh: no, which is why i suggested doing both 16:24:18 Is that beneficial to Fedora? 16:24:24 * jwb gives up 16:24:45 jwb: I don't think I'm understanding you properly. 16:24:50 jwb: is there a way to reach out to the provenpackagers en mass? (I feel like we need a mailing list) 16:25:02 we can ask on devel list 16:25:03 there is the fas alias. 16:25:12 jwb: I get your point that packages w/o identified maintainers could be collectively maintained by provenpackagers 16:25:17 I don't mind applying the requested patch (I'll volunteer if no one else does) 16:25:19 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 nirik: I agreed to it :) 16:25:40 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 time-out 16:26:14 * nirik sighs 16:26:15 so we have two proposals for now 16:26:32 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 A) nirik mentor and sponsor lef to be maintainer of backupPC 16:27:02 B) jwb to request help from provenpackagers 16:27:12 I have no interest in maintaining it. The reporter offered to. I offered to teach him how to fish. 16:27:33 C) Do A) but require a package review since lef isn't currently a packager. 16:27:36 nirik: fair point, but still mentoring is a time commitment 16:27:58 sgallagh: correct 16:28:07 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 nirik: +1 16:28:19 I don't think mentoring him will be that big a deal. 16:28:24 * maxamillion is +1 to A 16:28:27 well let's vote 16:28:28 sorry, him or her. I don't know. Them. 16:28:32 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 yeah, this doesn't need to be a massive deal. ;) 16:28:56 Sometimes the overhead of the bureaucracy just isn't worth it. 16:28:59 tibbs|w: And we'd still be left with a package that is functionally abandoned. 16:29:07 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 +1 to either A or B -- I don't really care 16:29:14 If he winds up being non-responsive later it shouldn't be any worse than it is now. 16:29:18 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 +1 to all of them 16:29:31 *fix 16:29:42 sgallagh: With a new active maintainer? I don't see that. I mean the guy wants to help. 16:29:50 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 (I agree w/ jwb that we need to come up with a better solution than orphaning stuff) 16:30:05 tibbs|w: Sorry, I misread your response. You are correct. 16:30:11 i think sgallagh's addition of a package review is pretty onerous. i'm -1 to that 16:30:14 (Except for all of bjohnson's *other* packages) 16:30:20 tibbs|w: the issue is that we could apply that to anyone submitting package review 16:30:32 That's fine. I'll support A) as well. I trust nirik to mentor 16:30:39 number80: Well, sort of. 16:31:00 let's keep it short 16:31:15 so who's -1 or +0 to A) 16:31:20 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 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 sure, +1 to my own proposal if it wasn't clear 16:31:54 sure. +1 16:32:01 let's stick to sgallagh final proposal +1 16:32:02 +1 16:32:19 +1 16:32:31 okay +1 to sgallagh proposal 16:32:36 +1 16:32:42 jsmith: ? 16:33:03 +1 16:33:23 #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 (Sorry, interrupted by work requests) 16:33:27 np 16:33:44 #topic #1588 F25 System Wide Change: PHP 7.0 16:33:51 .fesco 1588 16:33:54 .fesco 1588 16:33:56 number80: #1588 (F25 System Wide Change: PHP 7.0) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1588 16:34:03 +1 to PHP 7.0 16:34:07 +1 16:34:08 +1 to PHP 7 16:34:16 +1 to PHP7 16:34:26 +1 16:34:51 +1 16:35:02 jwb? 16:35:46 +1 16:35:53 thanks 16:36:23 #agreed PHP 7.0 system wide feature is accepted (+1: 7, 0: 0, -1; 0) 16:36:36 RemiFedora: congrats ;) 16:36:41 tahsnk :) 16:36:55 #topic Open Floor 16:36:58 RemiFedora++ 16:36:58 handsome_pirate: Karma for remi changed to 1 (for the f24 release cycle): https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any 16:37:02 anything you want to raise? 16:37:32 I am not sure I will be around the next two meetings... but will try and vote in tickets/etc 16:37:50 I might not make it to next week's meeting because of travel for Red Hat Summit 16:37:53 I *should* be here next week, but certainly won't the week after. 16:37:54 I'll try though 16:38:36 * jsmith has nothing for the open floor 16:38:52 nothing from me here 16:39:06 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 jkurik should start the process soon enough 16:39:46 ok 16:39:47 jreznik 16:39:58 jkurik is on vacation 16:40:02 ack 16:40:04 I was just about to say taht 16:40:22 well, who wants to chair next week? 16:40:49 I can, hope we will get quorum next week ;-) 16:41:05 paragan: thank you :) 16:41:26 #info paragan will chair the next meeting (2016-07-01) 16:41:48 Well, thank you everyone for attending and see you next week 16:41:56 #endmeeting