16:00:37 #startmeeting FESCO (2016-12-09) 16:00:37 Meeting started Fri Dec 9 16:00:37 2016 UTC. The chair is maxamillion. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 16:00:37 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 16:00:37 The meeting name has been set to 'fesco_(2016-12-09)' 16:00:37 #meetingname fesco 16:00:37 The meeting name has been set to 'fesco' 16:00:37 #chair maxamillion dgilmore jwb nirik paragan jsmith kalev sgallagh Rathann 16:00:37 Current chairs: Rathann dgilmore jsmith jwb kalev maxamillion nirik paragan sgallagh 16:00:40 #topic init process 16:00:43 .hello maxamillion 16:00:47 maxamillion: maxamillion 'Adam Miller' 16:01:26 hi 16:01:31 jwb: welcome 16:01:43 .hello jsmith 16:01:44 jsmith: jsmith 'Jared Smith' 16:03:19 kinda here 16:04:03 Almost a quorum... 16:05:03 almost :) 16:05:12 sgallagh: and paragn are out 16:05:26 dgilmore: how "here" is kinda? ... will you be available to vote on things? 16:05:45 I'm double-booked, so I'm context switching between this meeting and a ${DAYJOB} meeting 16:06:44 maxamillion: maybe, in a interview 16:06:52 and need to pack 16:06:55 alright ... 16:07:14 we'll give it a few more minutes and then call it a day 16:08:26 hi 16:08:30 .hello rathann 16:08:31 Rathann: rathann 'Dominik Mierzejewski' 16:09:45 quorum! 16:10:07 #topic #1635 F26 Self Contained Changes (Java Security Policy) 16:10:07 .fesco 1635 16:10:07 https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1635#comment-43494 16:10:08 maxamillion: Issue #1635: F26 Self Contained Changes - fesco - Pagure - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1635 16:10:43 this was discussed last week but we never came to any conclusion on it, it was deferred to this week 16:12:06 and according to the mailing list, this has already been included in an update to F24 and F25 ... so I'm not sure there even needs to be a change proposal 16:12:11 apologies, but i missed last week. summary of why it was deferred? 16:13:26 jwb: needed more information on if this even really needs to be a Change, also waiting on more discussion on the mailing list (at the time there hadn't been much ... but it doesn't look there is any more than there was) .... also, everyone was surprised this Change was not already a reality so there was just some general confusion/uncertainty 16:13:33 wasn't the change reverted in f24/f25? 16:13:43 I see https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-1305a61687 16:13:54 Rathann: it might have been, I hadn't seen it though 16:13:56 and https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-ab8b0ffc96 16:14:08 Notes about this update: disabled accidentally enabled (not working) system security settings 16:14:30 .hello sgallagh 16:14:31 sgallagh: sgallagh 'Stephen Gallagher' 16:14:36 (my conflict ended early) 16:14:44 sgallagh: good news :) 16:15:10 so it looks like it's still F26+ at the moment 16:15:13 ok, so (as with all Changes) assuming they can make this work then I'm +1 16:15:18 Right, so it looks like the push to F24 and 25 was a mistake and has been reverted. 16:15:26 So it's clearly an F26 Change 16:15:54 +1 16:16:06 I'm +1 on this Change, as it brings us closer to the glorious centrally-managed policy we all want 16:16:12 I'm +1 to this change as well 16:16:32 +1 16:16:37 jsmith: dgilmore: ? ^^^ 16:17:00 +1, I guess... 16:17:15 * jsmith has no reason not to vote for it 16:18:13 we have enough votes for quorum on the topic and dgilmore is likely not really paying attention if he's giving an interview so we'll move on unless there are objections 16:18:30 agreed 16:18:37 sure 16:18:40 #agreed Approve F26 Self Contained Change Java Security Policy (+1: 5, -1: 0, +0: 0) 16:18:50 #topic #1646 No appropriate sudo directory for user scripts 16:18:50 .fesco 1646 16:18:50 https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1646 16:18:51 maxamillion: Issue #1646: No appropriate sudo directory for user scripts - fesco - Pagure - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1646 16:19:19 We discussed this at length last week, but we came up basically deadlocked 16:19:28 indeed 16:20:06 we did and since some of those opposed aren't here to discuss I'd prefer not to vote just yet until we can hash it out and make sure everyone's opinion is well represented 16:20:15 +1 to deferring 16:20:26 (that'll give me a better chance to form a strong opinion) 16:20:30 +1 to deferring, too 16:20:36 +1 to defer 16:20:42 Sure, fine with me. +1 to defer 16:21:05 hm, ok 16:21:28 #agreed Defer decision of Issue #1646 until 2016-12-16 16:21:35 #topic #1635 F26 Self contained Changes - Zend Framework 3 16:21:35 .fesco 1635 16:21:35 https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1635#comment-45817 16:21:36 maxamillion: Issue #1635: F26 Self Contained Changes - fesco - Pagure - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1635 16:21:55 I'm +1 to Zend 3 16:22:06 nirik voted in ticket also +1 16:22:20 I'm +1 on the change 16:22:25 +1 16:23:22 +1 16:23:36 Rathann: ? 16:24:10 ah 16:24:38 +1 16:24:53 #agreed F26 Self Contained Change - Zend Framework 3 (+1: 6, -1: 0, +0: 0) 16:24:58 * Rathann has confidence in Remi and the PHP SIG 16:25:01 (note: I included nirik's +1 from the ticket) 16:25:05 Rathann: +1 16:25:21 #topic #1652 i686 is not on primary mirror location 16:25:21 .fesco 1635 16:25:21 https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1652 16:25:22 maxamillion: Issue #1635: F26 Self Contained Changes - fesco - Pagure - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1635 16:25:22 also, all new packages are in already 16:26:00 .fesco 1652 16:26:01 sgallagh: Issue #1652: i686 is not on primary mirror location - fesco - Pagure - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1652 16:26:42 jwb: Wnat to lead this off? 16:26:49 sgallagh: bah, sorry 16:26:57 sure 16:27:37 so there's two aspects here. the most important one is a) why was this change done without formal discussion and communication. the other is b) is FESCo OK with this technical change 16:28:08 before anyone thinks i'm defending i686 and love it and want to keep it, i'm not 16:28:38 for some reason I thought we had talked about this in some capacity in the past ... I just don't remember if we ever actually said "yes, let's demote i686 to secondary" 16:29:00 the other changes around i686 we've discussed make this move a somewhat logical conclusion. but i AM interested in making sure that changes like this get proper discussion and visibility and i don't think that was done here 16:29:06 jwb: +1 - I think you have valid points, regardless of opinion about i686 as a platform 16:29:40 jwb: I completely agree -- while I personally don't really give much attention to i686, I too am very concerned about the communication 16:29:40 as i see it, this is essentially the final technical step in demotion under the new (intentionally) fuzzy primary/alternate reality that we approved 16:30:05 so if we're going to declare that, we need to vote on it and announce 16:30:14 agreed 16:30:16 and to be honest, we should probably run it past the Council 16:30:38 particularly since mattdm has been looking at user statistics and such surrounding all the architectures 16:30:39 jwb: +1 16:30:49 jwb: +1 to involving the Council 16:30:54 and there's a clear downwards trend 16:31:36 Rathann: there is. i believe mattdm's query there though is "is there a downward trend that accelerated because of our other de-emphasis of i686 and did that lead to a _faster_ loss of users?" 16:31:50 or, did those users simply migrate to i686 16:32:01 er, x86_64 16:32:03 sorry 16:32:17 so, not release blocking -> not primary? 16:32:29 i'm not sure we'll be able to answer that question with the data we have, but f24 did show a sharp 10% drop in users 16:32:39 and it was the first release we de-emphasized i686 16:32:56 Rathann: that may be one possible conclusion 16:33:05 it would make sense 16:34:25 Proposal: FESCo will draft an announcement for the demotion of i686 to an alternative architecture and seek Council input before publishing 16:34:33 alright, so is there enough here that someone can write up and take to the Council for effectively "Round 1" of official process discussion/approval to demote i686, then we as FESCo can be brought in for "Phase 2" if/when the Council deems it necessary? 16:34:37 and there it is :) 16:34:45 jwb: +1 16:34:54 jwb: +1 16:35:51 Rathann: ? 16:35:53 jsmith: ? 16:35:59 multilib will need to be considered, but that is handled in the buildsystem for the most part and i believe it should be reasonably working still 16:36:02 right, +1 16:36:06 jwb: safe to assume you're a +1 to you're proposal? 16:36:24 speaking of multilib, any idea when manual updates to the multilib set will be done? 16:36:32 i am, though it doesn't alleviate my concerns about doing this after the fact 16:36:59 we probably need to write up something on what "non-release blocking" means for an architecture as Rathann suggested 16:37:08 separate from the announcement itself 16:37:11 jwb: +1 16:37:34 jsmith: need your vote when you're available please 16:38:07 never mind my last question 16:39:36 right, an official process (or set of conditions) for moving between alternate and primary... don't we have one already? 16:39:47 hm, there's https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Secondary_Architecture_Promotion_Requirements 16:40:53 that's promotion 16:41:02 yeah, there's promotion policy, we need a demotion policy 16:41:05 for demotion, we've only done it twice, with totally difference processes 16:41:31 the first was powerpc, where basically everyone said "we don't like this", fesco talked about it, and cut it off 16:41:38 I suspect *eventually* 32-bit ARM will need it once the world has migrated to AArch64 (probably many years out, but still) 16:42:07 the second is now i686, where it was a somewhat more staged demotion. kernel, some images, all images, non-release blocking, now. 16:42:32 maxamillion: Sorry, got pulled into another work meeting 16:42:36 I'm fine with staged 16:42:39 maxamillion: Gimme a second to catch up 16:42:42 jsmith: no worries 16:42:48 maxamillion: possibly. IoT may drive armhfp to remain primary. depending. 16:42:58 jwb: ah, good point 16:43:10 it might be better than a cut-off 16:43:16 OK, I'm +1 for the proposal 16:43:23 (thanks for being patient with me) 16:43:29 Proposal: FESCo will draft an announcement for the demotion of i686 to an alternative architecture and seek Council input before publishing. Separately, FESCo will draft an architecture demotion process 16:43:41 ok, so i changed it somewhat to add the demotion process creation 16:43:52 +1 16:44:09 +1 16:45:15 +1 16:45:22 #agreed Proposal: FESCo will draft an announcement for the demotion of i686 to an atlernative architecture and seek Council input before publishing (+1: 5, -1: 0, +0: 0) 16:45:32 sorry, was waiting on jsmith's vote for last Proposal 16:45:38 +1 to new Proposal 16:46:29 bleh 16:46:32 #undo 16:46:32 Removing item from minutes: AGREED by maxamillion at 16:45:22 : Proposal: FESCo will draft an announcement for the demotion of i686 to an atlernative architecture and seek Council input before publishing (+1: 5, -1: 0, +0: 0) 16:46:39 #agreed Proposal: FESCo will draft an announcement for the demotion of i686 to an atlernative architecture and seek Council input before publishing. Secondly, FESCo will draft an architecture demotion process. (+1: 5, -1: 0, +0: 0) 16:46:54 alright, I'll update that ticket after the meeting 16:47:31 is anyone currently taking the action item to write up the announcement and the demotion process? 16:47:40 i can 16:47:58 i'll create a separate ticket for the process part 16:48:05 use this ticket for the announcement part 16:48:10 jwb: awesome, thanks 16:48:21 #topic Next week's chair 16:48:27 who's up? 16:48:35 i'll note that i guess we just leave the i686 bits at the location they currently are under the assumption the Council won't overrule 16:48:59 Since I flaked out last week, I can handle next week 16:49:09 jwb: yeah, I have no idea what amount of work it would be to revert the change that landed the content in the current location 16:49:22 jwb: +1 (reluctantly, but don't know the scope of changing that) 16:49:26 #info jsmith to chair FESCo Meeting 2016-12-16 16:49:37 #topic Open Floor 16:50:12 I wanted to point out that elections are open and 5 of our seats are up for grabs 16:50:27 #info Reminder that 5 FESCo seats are open for elections now https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Elections 16:51:32 Thinking ahead -- do we want to pre-emptively cancel the meetings on the 23rd and/or 30th? 16:51:41 * jsmith won't be able to make either of those dates 16:52:05 I will similarly be unavailable 16:52:18 I'll be here on the 23rd but not the 30th 16:52:42 but I suspect most people will be out on the 23th and 30th so it might make sense to go ahead and call it 16:52:57 I'm +1 for cancelling those 16:53:01 Proposal: Cancel the meetings on the 23rd and 30th 16:53:08 i wont be here for either 16:53:29 Sounds like we're all in violent agreement :-) 16:54:48 +1 16:55:01 I could probably use the afternoon of 23rd for shopping, so I'm not opposed at all 16:55:26 I'm on vacation the following week, so +1 16:57:27 ok, i have to bail for today. thanks everyone 16:57:33 jwb: sgallagh: we don't have explicit +1's from you two and I don't want to assume a vote contextually 16:58:01 bah! 16:58:16 +1 16:58:19 :D 16:58:19 Sorry 16:58:21 jwb: have a good one 16:58:26 jwb: no worries, have a good weekend 17:00:48 meh 17:00:51 #agreed Cancel FESCo Meetings on 2016-12-23 and 2016-12-30 17:01:00 anything else for open floor? 17:02:03 #endmeeting