16:00:05 <maxamillion> #startmeeting FESCO (2017-06-16)
16:00:05 <zodbot> Meeting started Fri Jun 16 16:00:05 2017 UTC.  The chair is maxamillion. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:00:05 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
16:00:05 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fesco_(2017-06-16)'
16:00:05 <maxamillion> #meetingname fesco
16:00:05 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fesco'
16:00:05 <maxamillion> #chair maxamillion dgilmore jwb nirik jforbes jsmith kalev sgallagh Rathann
16:00:05 <zodbot> Current chairs: Rathann dgilmore jforbes jsmith jwb kalev maxamillion nirik sgallagh
16:00:08 <maxamillion> #topic init process
16:00:10 <maxamillion> .hello maxamillion
16:00:11 <zodbot> maxamillion: maxamillion 'Adam Miller' <maxamillion@gmail.com>
16:00:20 <jforbes> .hello jforbes
16:00:21 <zodbot> jforbes: jforbes 'Justin M. Forbes' <jforbes@redhat.com>
16:01:02 <dgilmore> hey
16:01:26 <nirik> morning
16:01:32 <jsmith> .hello jsmith
16:01:37 <zodbot> jsmith: jsmith 'Jared Smith' <jsmith.fedora@gmail.com>
16:02:28 <maxamillion> alright, we have enough folks
16:02:35 <maxamillion> #topic #1690 Self Contained Changes (Sudo pip safety)
16:02:35 <maxamillion> .fesco 1690
16:02:35 <maxamillion> https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1690#comment-444058
16:02:36 <zodbot> maxamillion: Issue #1690: F27 Self Contained Changes - fesco - Pagure - https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1690
16:05:04 <maxamillion> doesn't seem like this really got any movement on the mailing list :/
16:05:59 * nirik is +1 for it as it affects packages I maintain a fair bit
16:06:37 <jsmith> I'm +1
16:07:04 <dgilmore> did the questions get answered?
16:07:28 <maxamillion> dgilmore: not that I'm seeing
16:07:39 <jforbes> We approved this for f26 and it got pushed to f27 right?
16:08:23 <maxamillion> jforbes: yeah, but they redesigned/reimplemented the solution so things changed since last approval
16:08:31 <nirik> yeah, they ran into some more problems than that though
16:08:33 <nirik> thought
16:08:44 <jforbes> Right, just making sure this was the same end goal
16:08:59 <dgilmore> I am good with the goal
16:09:16 <dgilmore> I would like the open quiestions to be resolved
16:09:18 <nirik> The number of "I cannot upgrade python*requests, your package is broken" bugs we get is pretty anoying...
16:09:35 <nirik> (caused by user doing sudo pip install requests)
16:11:06 <maxamillion> rgr
16:11:10 <maxamillion> on the whole I'm in support
16:11:25 <maxamillion> I'm +1
16:12:13 <jforbes> I am +1 as well. They seem more than willing to put things off if the approach doesn't work as intended, I don't see them bulldozing through issues without paying attention
16:12:24 <maxamillion> however, we still never got answers to the concerns that caused us to defer last week
16:12:38 <maxamillion> so ... I'm not sure what to do there
16:14:15 <dgilmore> maxamillion: indeed
16:15:00 <maxamillion> thoughts from the group?
16:15:38 <nirik> what were the questions?
16:15:42 * nirik looks for them
16:16:04 <dgilmore> I am good with acking the goal. But i would like to see the outstanding questions answered before acking the implementation
16:16:37 <dgilmore> they were on devel@ i believe
16:17:39 <maxamillion> yeah, they were on the devel@ thread ... there are concerns that were raised, and then re-raised based on our feedback from last meeting, and still no response
16:18:08 <nirik> I don't see them
16:18:18 <nirik> the last thread had some concerns, then a reply by change owner.
16:18:30 <jforbes> I understand the concerns listed there, but it doesn't seem like this is a new issue, and more of a "you are fixing one problem, but not fixing all of the problems" type thing
16:18:46 <dgilmore> looks like there was an anwer wednesday
16:18:55 <jsmith> I tend to agree -- getting this fixed (even incompletely) is better than no fix at all...
16:19:10 <dgilmore> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/OFPNLIYEVQWH7KHESJFMPDCZGXQVQAJX/
16:19:11 <maxamillion> dgilmore: I think you're the only one who hasn't voted
16:19:30 <dgilmore> maxamillion: sorry catching up on devel@ to see whats going on
16:19:34 <nirik> yes, I think this problem is well worth fixing even if it doesn't solve a bunch of problems
16:19:50 <maxamillion> dgilmore: no worries, just pointing it out
16:20:19 <dgilmore> i think given the response on list wednesday, i am +1
16:22:01 <dgilmore> maxamillion: fin
16:22:09 <maxamillion> #agreed FESCo Approves Self Contained Change: Sudo pip safety
16:22:17 <maxamillion> #topic #1715 System Wide Change: Rsyslog log format change
16:22:17 <maxamillion> .fesco 1715
16:22:17 <maxamillion> https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1715
16:22:19 <zodbot> maxamillion: Issue #1715: F27 System Wide Change: Rsyslog log format change proposal - fesco - Pagure - https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1715
16:22:30 <jsmith> Any follow-up discussion on this?
16:22:41 <dgilmore> maxamillion: what about the java self contained change?
16:22:56 <maxamillion> dgilmore: that's new business, we're still doing follow ups
16:23:10 <dgilmore> maxamillion: okay
16:23:25 <maxamillion> jsmith: doesn't look like it
16:23:45 <jsmith> Yeah, I didn't find anything, and no update to the change page on the wiki :-(
16:24:06 <jforbes> I see no update there
16:24:06 <nirik> are the change owners aware? perhaps @them in the ticket or mail them directly?
16:24:13 <maxamillion> Proposal: Defer for one more week awaiting Change owner updates FESCo requested last week
16:24:21 <jsmith> maxamillion: +1 to your proposal
16:24:31 <sgallagh> I'm not really here, but I want to chime in on this
16:24:53 <sgallagh> The response I got back from the person proposing it was not encouraging.
16:25:12 <sgallagh> They very clearly have no interest in addressing any of the potential fallout around this Change
16:25:27 <sgallagh> I'm personally inclined to deny the Change outright, based on this.
16:26:01 <maxamillion> sgallagh: if there's no motivation to address fallout, I would also be inclined to deny
16:26:20 <nirik> thats sad. Not even offers to assist? sheesh
16:26:30 <sgallagh> "When some package will break because someone adjusted format of timestamps, the bug is in that package and not in the rsyslog's format."
16:26:50 <sgallagh> Yeah, so I'm firmly -1 to this Change
16:26:58 <maxamillion> alright
16:27:32 <nirik> well, that statement seems true to me... but if they offered to help fix things that would be something.
16:27:48 <jforbes> I would have to agree, that is an unpleasant attitude to take on it
16:28:36 <maxamillion> Proposal: FESCo Rejects System Wide Change: Rsyslog log format change on the grounds that the Change owner has said they will not address nor help address the impact the Change will have System Wide
16:28:52 <sgallagh> What we have is a person with a specific issue that they want fixed, but no indication that they care what happens to anyone else if this changes.
16:28:59 <jforbes> And no, that isn't a bug in the package, it is a lack of support for a change. Yeah, the package needs to be updated, but plowing through without care is a problem
16:29:13 * nirik wonders if this is just not miscommunication/language barrier
16:29:22 <jsmith> nirik: I'm wondering the same thing.
16:29:39 <jsmith> nirik: So I'm still inclined to wait another week, and try to get more communication from the change owner
16:29:41 <dgilmore> I would like to give a fair opportunity to them to justify the change
16:29:46 <sgallagh> nirik: We made a specific request and they said "no"
16:29:47 * nirik is with jsmith.
16:29:58 <dgilmore> sgallagh: where did they say no?
16:30:47 <sgallagh> dgilmore: I related our requests that they justify the request by populating the "Benefit to Fedora" with real reasons and also doing some due diligence on the fallout.
16:30:48 <nirik> they didn't actually say no, they just said it was a bug in the other package... I guess that implys it...
16:30:57 <sgallagh> I quoted the entire response above
16:31:29 <nirik> but that doesn't say "... and we will not help or care about those bugs"
16:31:46 <dgilmore> So I think we need to be fair
16:31:52 <sgallagh> There are further comments along that
16:31:53 <dgilmore> give them a chance
16:32:08 <sgallagh> Where Roman's summary is "well, if someone's stuff breaks, they can change the config"
16:32:21 <dgilmore> if they ignore or do not give sufficient feedback and update in the next week we reject it then
16:32:54 <jforbes> dgilmore: that seems fair
16:33:32 <maxamillion> someone want to make a proposal for a vote?
16:34:03 <dgilmore> I think a lot of the gruffness in the responses is likely language and cultural and not at all intended to come across as gruff and dismissive
16:35:29 <sgallagh> That's possible, certainly.
16:35:31 <nirik> proposal: Wait a week for changes. At least populating Benefit and addressing assistance with bugs in packages affected by fallout.
16:35:36 <dgilmore> proposal #agreed FESCo asks that in the next week we get some of the benefits to fedora and our users laid out in the change, an outline of docs on how to manage things, and a commitment to help resolve conflicts and problems as they come up in  the transistion
16:35:47 <dgilmore> or what nirik said
16:35:54 <nirik> yours is more detailed, thats fine
16:35:58 <nirik> +1 dgilmore
16:36:01 <sgallagh> Yeah, +1 dgilmore
16:36:21 <jforbes> +1 dgilmore
16:36:45 * sgallagh returns to not being here
16:37:08 <jsmith> dgilmore: +1
16:37:40 <dgilmore> I will reach out to some folks in Brno to talk to him
16:37:54 <dgilmore> to try break down cultural/language issues
16:38:14 <dgilmore> maxamillion: I am +1 obviously
16:38:46 <maxamillion> +1 dgilmore
16:39:09 <maxamillion> #agreed FESCo asks that in the next week we get some of the benefits to fedora and our users laid out in the change, an outline of docs on how to manage things, and a commitment to help resolve conflicts and problems as they come up in  the transistion (+1:5, -1:0, +0:0)
16:39:19 <maxamillion> alright, onto new business
16:39:20 <maxamillion> #topic #1690 Self Contained Changes (Java system/command setting)
16:39:20 <maxamillion> .fesco 1690
16:39:20 <maxamillion> https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1690#comment-444058
16:39:21 <zodbot> maxamillion: Issue #1690: F27 Self Contained Changes - fesco - Pagure - https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1690
16:39:36 <jsmith> I'm not a Java person my any stretch, but this feels a bit like a system-wide change to me
16:39:47 <dgilmore> I am a bit confused what this actually is
16:40:28 <dgilmore> it seems to be to have a way to change which java an application uses while leaving all others using the standard system java
16:41:04 <nirik> well, other way... having a java always used by system apps (rpms) and a possibly different one by user installed stuff
16:41:18 <dgilmore> I have no idea how they actually intend to solve the problem
16:41:19 <maxamillion> right
16:41:45 <nirik> I guess change the rpm packages to use a different java path/link
16:41:48 <dgilmore> there is zero replies on list
16:42:02 <maxamillion> well, it seems like it's a built-in virtualenv or rvm for ruby, but for jvm versions .... I just don't have any idea what the plan is on *how* to accomplish this
16:42:17 <maxamillion> which makes it hard to decide on since I don't know what the actual change is
16:43:03 <nirik> shall we punt a week and ask for more details on implementation?
16:43:19 <jforbes> I would prefer that
16:43:25 <dgilmore> /usr/some/other/jave foo.jar
16:43:34 <dgilmore> thats how I have always done it when need be
16:43:40 <dgilmore> nirik: indeed
16:43:56 <maxamillion> nirik: +1
16:44:26 <dgilmore> +1
16:44:36 <maxamillion> Proposal: Defer Self Contained Changes (Java system/command setting) until next week, requesting feedback from Change owners about implementation details and actual impact to Fedora
16:44:41 <jsmith> +1
16:44:45 <dgilmore> ack
16:44:45 <maxamillion> +1
16:44:52 <jforbes> +1
16:45:16 <maxamillion> nirik: safe to assume a +1 from you?
16:45:23 <nirik> +1
16:45:33 <nirik> +1 to +1ing +1s
16:45:47 <dgilmore> :D
16:45:55 <maxamillion> #agreed Defer Self Contained Changes (Java system/command setting) until next week, requesting feedback from Change owners about implementation details and actual impact to Fedora (+1:5, -1:0, +0:0)
16:46:00 <maxamillion> #topic #1716 Request to take over NetHack package
16:46:00 <maxamillion> .fesco 1716
16:46:01 <maxamillion> https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1716
16:46:04 <zodbot> maxamillion: Issue #1716: Request to take over NetHack package - fesco - Pagure - https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1716
16:47:00 <dgilmore> assigning bugs requires fedorabugs permission I believe
16:47:29 <nirik> +1 to just making them an admin of the package
16:47:43 <dgilmore> I am +1 to giving them admin
16:47:53 <nirik> nethack is mission critical, so more maintainers the better.
16:47:53 <maxamillion> in the BZ comments, it looks like lmacken approved some fedpkg ACLs .... what's missing?
16:47:58 <dgilmore> do not think it will solve the problem that had them ask
16:48:23 <nirik> maxamillion: approveacls
16:48:29 <maxamillion> ahhh ok
16:48:32 <nirik> dgilmore: they likely want to be point of contact.
16:48:34 <maxamillion> +1 to giving admin
16:48:53 <maxamillion> jsmith: jforbes: ?
16:48:54 <dgilmore> nirik: likely
16:48:59 <dgilmore> they have fedorabugs
16:49:05 <jforbes> I am +1 to admin
16:49:07 <dgilmore> so should be able to assign bugs to themselves
16:49:10 <nirik> yeah
16:49:19 * dgilmore checked their account
16:49:40 <jsmith> +1
16:50:55 <maxamillion> #agreed FESCo grants request to take over NetHack package by  tachoknight
16:51:02 <maxamillion> #topic #1717 provenpackager request for tdawson
16:51:02 <maxamillion> .fesco 1717
16:51:03 <maxamillion> https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1717
16:51:06 <zodbot> maxamillion: Issue #1717: provenpackager request for tdawson - fesco - Pagure - https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1717
16:51:20 <maxamillion> I already did a +1 in the ticket, but I'll +1 again here
16:52:56 <maxamillion> I worked with tdawson for about 3 years on the OpenShift Online Team and he's a very skilled packager, also as a side note he was one of the original two founders of Scientific Linux as well as maintaining his own RHEL rebuild for a while (now defunct: http://yorlinux.org/)
16:53:43 <jsmith> +1
16:54:13 <dgilmore> +1
16:54:46 <jforbes> +1 here
16:56:11 <nirik> hum, normally these don't come to meetings. ;)
16:56:25 <nirik> but I usually handle them and I was out last week I guess. ;)
16:56:36 <maxamillion> nirik: oh
16:56:46 <nirik> You must get at least 3 positive votes with no negative votes, over a one week review period, to be automatically approved.
16:56:58 <maxamillion> nirik: yeah, that's my bad
16:57:26 <nirik> no worries.
16:57:32 * nirik can process it.
16:57:33 <maxamillion> #agreed Approved: provenpackager request for tdawson (+1:5, -1:0, +0:0)
16:57:52 <maxamillion> #topic Next week's chair
16:58:02 <maxamillion> who's up?
16:58:45 <dgilmore> I guess I can
16:59:08 <dgilmore> when are the next elections?
16:59:53 <maxamillion> no idea
17:01:00 <nirik> should be after f26...
17:01:13 <maxamillion> yeah, I just can't seem to find it in the wiki :/
17:01:35 <jsmith> I'm happy to take next week's meeting if you don't want to, dgilmore
17:02:25 <dgilmore> jsmith: all yours
17:02:58 <maxamillion> #info jsmith to chair next weeks meeting
17:03:08 <maxamillion> #topic Open Floor
17:04:34 <maxamillion> I'll give it a few minutes and then close up shop
17:07:14 <maxamillion> alright, thanks for coming all!
17:07:16 <maxamillion> #endmeeting