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 Šabata' <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 👎, 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 👍, it is extended one further week and requires only a single 👍 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, 👍, "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> 👌
15:51:45 <nils> ✓
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, 👍, 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