15:02:54 <nils> #startmeeting modularity_wg 15:02:54 <zodbot> Meeting started Tue Dec 11 15:02:54 2018 UTC. 15:02:54 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location. 15:02:54 <zodbot> The chair is nils. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 15:02:54 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 15:02:54 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'modularity_wg' 15:02:54 <nils> #meetingtopic Weekly Meeting of the Modularity Working Group 15:02:54 <nils> #chair dgilmore 15:02:54 <zodbot> Current chairs: dgilmore nils 15:03:05 <nils> #topic Roll Call 15:03:07 <contyk> .hello psabata 15:03:07 <asamalik> .hello2 15:03:10 <zodbot> contyk: psabata 'Petr Ε abata' <psabata@redhat.com> 15:03:12 <nils> .hello nphilipp 15:03:14 <zodbot> asamalik: asamalik 'Adam Samalik' <asamalik@redhat.com> 15:03:17 <zodbot> nils: nphilipp 'Nils Philippsen' <nphilipp@redhat.com> 15:04:18 <nils> #topic Agenda 15:04:53 <nils> #info #112 Discussion: Module lifecycles 15:05:04 <nils> #info #115 Discussion: Stream branch ownership for packages & modules 15:05:18 <nils> #info 15:05:18 <nils> 118 Modularity WG Charter Review 15:05:23 <nils> #undo 15:05:23 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: INFO by nils at 15:05:18 : 15:05:30 <nils> #info #118 Modularity WG Charter Review 15:05:44 <nils> #topic #112 Discussion: Module lifecycles 15:05:54 <nils> #link https://pagure.io/modularity/issue/112 15:05:59 <nils> #chair asamalik 15:05:59 <zodbot> Current chairs: asamalik dgilmore nils 15:06:05 <nils> adam? 15:07:27 <asamalik> so all the info is in the ticket 15:10:26 * contyk is a little distracted but looks now 15:12:02 <asamalik> sorry there was someone super confused ringing the door bell... 15:12:04 * asamalik is back 15:12:50 <asamalik> so what I'd appreciate on this ticket is a feedback on the proposal 15:12:58 <contyk> so regarding your concerns in the ticket 15:13:02 <contyk> GA slips too 15:13:09 <nils> Some thoughts: 1) When you say "...is getting built in new releases forever" I understand it as "...until further notice", we should make it clear that nobody really commits to "eternal maintenance" 15:13:30 <nils> and, as contyk mentioned 2) we can't compute EOL from release because slips 15:13:54 <asamalik> I think it would be best to discuss it with other groups especially 15:13:59 <asamalik> ...releng 15:14:22 <contyk> yeah 15:14:39 <contyk> I would say the most reasonable thing is just to rely on platforms 15:14:43 <asamalik> contyk: yes 15:15:21 <contyk> we could also put it on FESCo's agenda 15:15:42 <asamalik> contyk: I think that could be a good idea 15:15:45 <contyk> if that sounds reasonable to you, I'd say defer it 15:15:47 <nils> Where are EOLs/SLAs kept currently? There's this flag you have to specify when branches are created. 15:15:47 * contyk nods 15:15:57 <contyk> I'll update the ticket and file it with FESCo 15:16:00 <asamalik> because this spans across many different groups 15:16:01 <contyk> nils: nowhere 15:16:02 <asamalik> contyk: thanks! 15:16:13 <nils> contyk, write only memory, gotcha 15:16:41 <nils> #action contyk updates the ticket and files it with FESCo 15:16:51 <asamalik> contyk++ 15:16:53 <nils> anything else to #info? 15:16:55 <nils> contyk++ 15:16:55 <zodbot> nils: Karma for psabata changed to 7 (for the current release cycle): https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any 15:17:10 <nils> Apparently not. 15:17:30 <nils> #topic #115 Discussion: Stream branch ownership for packages & modules 15:17:41 <nils> #link https://pagure.io/modularity/issue/115 15:19:09 <nils> asamalik, that's yours. I think the ticket is clear, so we could vote on it right away. 15:19:23 <contyk> there's a proposal to ask FPC to weigh in 15:19:32 <nils> ah right 15:19:34 <asamalik> I think we... that 15:19:40 <contyk> though I'd also say it's a FESCo matter rather than FPC 15:20:32 <contyk> should I also file a ticket for that then? 15:20:48 <asamalik> contyk: I think that would be good 15:20:56 <contyk> will do 15:21:07 <asamalik> because the change it proposes is quite significant 15:21:31 <asamalik> contyk: thanks! 15:21:42 <nils> #action contyk files a ticket with FESCo for review 15:22:29 <nils> anything else here? 15:22:43 <asamalik> nils: I'd say let's move to the next topic 15:22:53 <nils> aye 15:23:07 <nils> #topic #118 Modularity WG Charter Review 15:23:17 <nils> #link https://pagure.io/modularity/issue/118 15:23:59 <asamalik> so I already thought we vote in the meeting and that whoever is present can vote 15:24:10 <nils> Langdon isn't here but he asked me if we can take it up regardless 15:24:25 <contyk> +1 to sgallagh's proposal 15:24:32 <asamalik> and I like sgallagh's proposal 15:24:36 <asamalik> +1 15:25:23 <nils> I'd say sgallagh's plus the bit of langdon saying "removing the voting member concept" 15:25:34 <sgallagh> nils: +1 15:25:47 <sgallagh> I didn't make that clear in my proposal, but I meant to supplement that part. 15:25:57 <nils> I took it that way :o) 15:26:46 <sgallagh> "a simple majority vote of those present" could have been phrased better, I suppose. 15:27:29 * sgallagh goes back to hacking on libmodulemd 15:27:46 <asamalik> sgallagh: +1 15:28:11 <nils> I think it's clear enough, but should extend to all steps (i.e. people present == people putting votes in in the ticket or the meeting) 15:28:44 <sgallagh> Seems fair to me. 15:34:12 <contyk> how do you know who's present in the ticket? 15:34:16 <nils> asamalik, contyk, so let's use sgallagh's proposal with the above clarifications: no more voting membership, all voting except "If there are any π, it is added to the next meeting agenda, where a simple majority vote of those present will decide it.") happens in the ticket. 15:34:23 <nils> contyk, those who vote 15:34:48 <contyk> ah, thought you wanted to replace +1 with "majority" 15:35:05 <nils> If you are present (whatever that means) but don't vote (or explicitly abstain), your presence doesn't matter 15:35:37 <contyk> *replace +3 with majority 15:35:53 <contyk> I just don't want tickets with mere one +1 passed because 100% people present voted for 15:36:39 <contyk> but I was reading it too quickly 15:36:44 <contyk> we're keeping +3 in the tickets, right? 15:36:49 <asamalik> yes 15:36:55 <contyk> ok, so +1 15:37:00 <nils> uhm 15:37:07 <nils> "If at the end of one week there are not at least 3 π, it is extended one further week and requires only a single π to pass." 15:37:30 <contyk> yeah, but the first week 15:37:31 <asamalik> nils: yes, that motivates people to care 15:38:23 <sgallagh> Right, it helps ensure tickets don't languish 15:38:24 <nils> So you can pass a proposal if you're the only one voting on it within two weeks? 15:38:35 <sgallagh> nils: Yes. 15:38:50 <nils> Kinds conflicts with contyk's "I just don't want tickets with mere one +1 passed because 100% people present voted for" 15:38:53 <sgallagh> That's the risk if you are lazy 15:38:55 <asamalik> nils: and if no one else says "no" 15:39:00 <nils> of course 15:39:07 <sgallagh> That's very much intentional. 15:39:23 * contyk nods 15:39:29 <nils> Just trying to ensure we're all on the same page. 15:39:30 <sgallagh> It forces those who care to respond in a timely manner or forever hold their peace 15:39:42 <asamalik> right :) 15:39:48 <nils> cue the wedding march 15:39:48 <sgallagh> (Or start another proposal, I suppose) 15:39:53 <contyk> watch the queue during holidays, guys! 15:39:58 <nils> heh 15:40:35 <contyk> I wonder if the "week" unit should be changed to whatever period passes between meetings 15:40:43 <contyk> it's generally a week but not always 15:41:01 <asamalik> contyk: like if we cancel because of holidays? 15:41:06 <contyk> yes 15:41:08 <asamalik> common holidays 15:41:09 <sgallagh> contyk: I'm in favor of assuming that people will generally not abuse the system 15:41:16 <sgallagh> And fixing it if they do 15:41:17 <nils> but the meetings only matter if some things get voted down 15:41:21 <asamalik> sgallagh: +1 15:41:23 * contyk nods 15:41:30 <asamalik> yeah let's not overcomplicate it right from the start 15:41:42 <nils> that punts the proposal to the next meeting 15:41:46 <sgallagh> If it was going to be abused, I think FESCo would have already had it happen 15:41:48 <contyk> nils: yeah, but in FESCo we typically close and announce the decisions after the meeting, not anytime 15:41:58 <contyk> yeah, let's have the same as FESCo 15:42:15 <sgallagh> Well, the *announcement* happens at the meeting, but the decision can be recorded earlier 15:42:21 <sgallagh> And implemented as soon as the conditions are met. 15:42:57 <sgallagh> Also, FESCo has a fast-track policy where +7 bypasses the week of waiting (for urgent decisions). I don't think we necessarily need the same here though. 15:43:14 <contyk> we don't even have that many people involved 15:43:18 <sgallagh> That kind of only works when you have a fixed number of voting members 15:43:21 <sgallagh> also that 15:43:52 <asamalik> so what's next? 15:44:00 <asamalik> have we agreed? 15:44:30 <contyk> I think so 15:44:36 <nils> I think I'm confused how the amendments we talked about would look like in the text :) 15:45:24 <nils> s/one week/until the working group meeting after the one week/ <-- suitably rephrased? 15:49:45 <contyk> nah, let's keep just one week 15:49:51 <contyk> assuming people will not abuse it 15:50:06 <nils> ok, keep thumbs up/down emoji or make it text (votes for/against)? 15:50:48 <sgallagh> nils: +1, π, "yea" or any other affirmation should be valid. 15:51:08 * contyk needs to enable unicode fonts in his xterm 15:51:16 <nils> ok, so let's make it textual and leave it open how people express that 15:51:28 <asamalik> π 15:51:45 <nils> β 15:51:57 <contyk> s/unicode/emoji-enabled/ 15:52:17 <contyk> anyway, we're fine with the proposal then? 15:52:21 <nils> yup 15:52:24 <contyk> if so, who will update the charter? 15:52:30 <nils> +1, π, yay! 15:52:37 <nils> I'll do 15:52:41 <contyk> thanks 15:53:21 <nils> #action nils updates the charter according to sgallagh's proposal in ticket #118 with the clarifications discussed 15:53:31 <nils> Do we have anything for open floor? 15:53:51 <contyk> just a note that the ursa major discussion is still ongoing 15:54:00 <contyk> watch the fesco ticket if interested 15:54:01 <nils> #topic Open Floor 15:54:12 <contyk> .fesco 2003 15:54:14 <zodbot> contyk: Issue #2003: Ursa Major (modules in buildroot) enablement - fesco - Pagure.io - https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2003 15:54:15 <nils> #info the ursa major discussion is still ongoing 15:54:30 <asamalik> and that today is my last day to be fully present here this year, taking vacation 15:54:32 <contyk> we should also get zodbot commands for modularity issues 15:54:35 <nils> #link https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2003 Issue #2003: Ursa Major (modules in buildroot) enablement 15:54:39 <asamalik> yes! 15:54:43 <asamalik> .modularity 15:54:48 <nils> that'd be nice 15:55:01 <contyk> anyone willing to take an action to pursue that? 15:55:02 <nils> (except, would it be logged as a link?) 15:55:17 <asamalik> I can! 15:55:20 <asamalik> could be fun 15:55:28 <asamalik> although I could do that in January :) 15:55:29 <nils> asamalik++ 15:55:31 <nils> cool! 15:55:57 <nils> #action asamalik pursues getting a .modularity zodbot command (like .fesco, only greener) 15:56:53 <contyk> great 15:56:55 <contyk> anything else? 15:56:58 <nils> Speaking about times of absence, should we skip one or two meetings around the holidays (after Christmas, first January week)? 15:57:00 <asamalik> nothing from me 15:57:13 <contyk> yes 15:57:31 <contyk> let's skip 25th and 1st 15:57:45 <nils> +1 15:57:50 <asamalik> +1 15:58:53 <nils> #agreed We'll skip the WG meetings scheduled for 2018-12-25 and 2019-01-01 because many people are absent. 15:59:04 <nils> That's it I guess. 15:59:13 <nils> Thanks everyone! 15:59:17 <contyk> thanks! 15:59:19 <contyk> o/ 15:59:24 <nils> #endmeeting