Summary from this week's FESCo Meeting
Thorsten Leemhuis
fedora at leemhuis.info
Fri Apr 21 18:10:08 UTC 2006
Also in the wiki at
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SteeringCommittee/Meeting-20060420
== Summary ==
Present from FESCo: thl, scop, jpo, jeremy, skvidal, warren, f13, Anvil
* Weekly sponsorship nomination
* Nominated and accepted: "Hans de Goede" and bpepple
* FESCo future
* See full log if you are interested in all the details. thl will
prepare a mail with a summary and a proposal how to proceed over the
weekend
* Security SIG
* a lot of discussion; some parts:
* f13 > | there is a proposal there, linked in the schedule, and I"d
like to know whats blocking this?
* warren> | I want small tweaks to it before it is approved.
* thl > | we really should get to an agreement next week
* EOL for Fedora Extras
* thl and warren mention again that they don't like the "Fedora Extras
Legacy" approach
* thl> will try try to work something out together with f13 and post
it to the list
* Some discussion about "Core packages reviews"
* a "Fedora Packaging Committee" seems likely
* jeremy> | bpepple: and if you notice ones [pacakges] that don't meet
the guidelines yet still get approved, let me know
== Full Log ==
{{{
18:57 --> | scop (Ville SkyttÀ) has joined #fedora-extras
18:59 < thl> | hello everyone
18:59 < jpo> | hi
19:00 --- | thl has changed the topic to: FESCo Meeting in progress
19:00 < thl> | who's around?
19:00 * | jeremy is, at least somewhat
19:00 < thl> | well, let's start slowly
19:01 --> | jnettlet_ (Jon Nettleton) has joined #fedora-extras
19:01 < thl> | First: Sorry, I didn't write the summary for the last meeting yet
19:01 < thl> | I'll hope to do that tomorrow
19:01 --- | thl has changed the topic to: FESCo Meeting in progress -- Kernel module standardization
19:02 < thl> | nothing new there, skipping
19:02 --- | thl has changed the topic to: FESCo Meeting in progress -- EOL Policy for FE
19:02 < thl> | does anyone want to say anything on that topic?
19:02 < thl> | or do we simply discuss this further on the list?
19:02 * | bpepple doesn't have anything to say.
19:03 < |Jef|> | thl: i take you you'd like to have competent constructive comments
19:03 < thl> | well, maybe I should say something:
19:03 < thl> | I don't like the idea of a "Fedora Extras Legacy"
19:03 < thl> | I'd like to avoid the term
19:04 < thl> | and a special group that handles older distros
19:04 < thl> | |Jef|, if you have constructive comments shoot
19:05 --- | thl has changed the topic to: FESCo Meeting in progress -- Broken deps report
19:05 < thl> | skipping
19:05 --- | thl has changed the topic to: FESCo Meeting in progress -- Security Proposal
19:05 < thl> | skipping, too -- no news this week on that iirc
19:06 < thl> | I hope to find time on the weekend to write a mail to the list with details how to prceed
19:06 < thl> | proceed
19:06 < skvidal> | thl: I can't make it to the meeting today
19:06 < skvidal> | right now the buildsys is down for an upgrade
19:06 < skvidal> | it took a while
19:06 < |Jef|> | thl: no i have no constructive comments... just general doomsaying
19:07 < thl> | skvidal, k, thx; have fun with the buildsys ;-)
19:07 < skvidal> | thanks
19:07 --- | thl has changed the topic to: FESCo Meeting in progress -- Weekly sponsorship nomination
19:07 < thl> | I'd like to nominate "Hans de Goede"
19:08 < warren> | I second that nomination.
19:08 < bpepple> | +1
19:08 < thl> | scop, ?
19:08 < scop> | +1
19:09 < thl> | k, thx
19:09 < thl> | I'll upgrade him
19:09 < thl> | okay
19:09 < thl> | that were all "Priority 1" items
19:09 < jeremy> | I have a nomination too
19:10 < thl> | does anyone want to discuss any other items
19:10 * | thl waits for jeremy
19:10 < jeremy> | bpepple
19:10 < jwb> | +1
19:10 < jwb> | (from the rif-raf)
19:10 * | warren takes a quick look at activity...
19:10 < scop> | no objections here
19:11 < warren> | bpepple, what is your e-mail address that you use on lists?
19:11 < bpepple> | bdpepple at ameritech.net
19:11 < warren> | is that also your bugzilla?
19:11 * | thl thought bpepple had sponsor status already
19:12 < bpepple> | warren: yup.
19:12 < jwb> | thl, which is all the more reason :)
19:12 < jeremy> | thl: not according to the account system (I was wondering after seeing a number of good reviews, so went to check :)
19:12 < warren> | OK, I like what I see.
19:12 < warren> | +1
19:13 < jwb> | side note...
19:13 < jwb> | should all the FESCO members have sponsor auth?
19:13 < warren> | jwb, no
19:13 * | jwb is puzzled by this
19:13 < warren> | at least historically no
19:13 < bpepple> | jwb: Not all FESCO members have contributed packages, and done reviews.
19:13 < warren> | we had some FESCO members who didn't do anything in extras, strangely
19:13 < thl> | okay, I'll upgrade bpepple to sponsor status
19:13 < warren> | but I think they melted away
19:14 < jwb> | bpepple, not contributing packages shouldn't be a hurdle
19:14 < jwb> | reviews... ok maybe
19:14 < bpepple> | jwb: Yeah, the reviewing is the bigger issue.
19:14 < warren> | If you're doing good reviews consistently, then you deserve sponsor status.
19:14 < jwb> | i just find it strange that members of FESCO are trustworthy enough to steer extras in general, but not sponsor others
19:15 < warren> | jwb, some of the original members of FESCO I didn't think belonged there, but that is a different story.
19:15 < jwb> | warren, sure. that's a different issue though
19:15 < warren> | I don't even know who is in FESCO anymore.
19:15 < warren> | FESCO is so transparent.
19:16 < jwb> | is the list on the wiki up to date?
19:16 < warren> | I don't know
19:16 * | warren looks
19:16 < thl> | it is update afaik
19:16 < warren> | URL?
19:16 < thl> | but this brings me to a important item in any case
19:16 < thl> | warren, http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SteeringCommittee
19:16 --- | thl has changed the topic to: FESCo Meeting in progress -- FESCo future
19:17 < jwb> | my question is prompted by f13's recent situation
19:17 < thl> | we need to discuss how to proceed with FESCo
19:17 < warren> | jwb, which situation is that?
19:17 < jwb> | warren, he was doing reviews and went to sponsor someone but couldn't
19:17 < thl> | there are some FESCO members that wanted to leave
19:17 < warren> | Yeah, then just remove them?
19:18 < thl> | we discussed about that on the FESCo list already
19:18 < warren> | jwb, in f13's case, I think he deserves sponsor status for several reasons
19:18 < jwb> | warren, so do i. and he has it now. but i just generalized the question
19:18 < thl> | and get a rotation for FESCo
19:18 < warren> | thl, ++
19:18 < jwb> | thl, yes
19:19 < thl> | the question is: how to do it exactly
19:19 < warren> | Did Anvil want to remain in?
19:19 < jwb> | perhaps by starting with a limit on the number of poeple?
19:19 < warren> | I think we should have people that 1) show up for meetings 2) are active leaders in Extras.
19:19 < Anvil> | remain in what ?
19:19 < thl> | a election after a self nomination for FESCo membership
19:19 < jwb> | Anvil, FESCO
19:19 < warren> | Anvil, do you want to remain in fesco?
19:19 < Anvil> | FESCO. Nah.
19:19 < Anvil> | warren : i'm of no use.
19:19 < Anvil> | honest.
19:19 < warren> | Anvil, you're plenty useful.
19:19 < Anvil> | warren : no way.
19:19 < warren> | (Just not for FESCO.)
19:20 < jwb> | thl, election by whom?
19:20 < Anvil> | even outside of fesco i have doubts
19:20 < warren> | Anvil, wink wink, nudge nudge
19:20 < Anvil> | jwb : from current fesco members maybe.
19:20 < jwb> | yeah, that's what i was thinking
19:20 < Anvil> | warren : I'm lost. What's that ?
19:20 < bpepple> | Anvil: sounds like a good idea.
19:20 < thl> | jwb, by all Extras packagers
19:21 < jwb> | thl, omg
19:21 < thl> | jwb, just a idea
19:21 < thl> | jwb, any better ideas?
19:21 < warren> | How about appointment by the benevolent dictator thl?
19:21 < |Jef|> | thl: running large scale voting elections takes effort
19:21 < Anvil> | hmm actually do we have enough volunteers that we have to organize elections ?
19:21 < thl> | |Jef|, agreed
19:22 < warren> | I move that thl just chooses people to join.
19:22 < jwb> | thl, let those in FESCO that currently want to leave, leave. set a number for FESCO. if there are open spots, let people self nominate. then let FESCO elect
19:22 < Anvil> | thl |Jef| : extras packagers can *at least* make suggestions.
19:22 < |Jef|> | thl: and im more than running such an election..using closed software that i write to tally the voting results
19:23 < thl> | has anyone experiences with such votings?
19:23 < f13> | ooh fesco meeting,a nd I'm around!
19:23 < warren> | thl, first, who wanted to leave FESCO?
19:23 < thl> | debian does them now and then afaik
19:23 < f13> | warren: I expressed interest in leaving.
19:23 < |Jef|> | thl: anyone who has done gnome board elections...
19:23 < jwb> | thl, having a broader election isn't _bad_. it's just much harder to do, and sometimes people aren't really invovled enough to know
19:23 < Anvil> | arent we supposed to be based upon meritocraty and not democraty ?
19:24 < thl> | warren, at least Anvil, adriar, maybe Sopwith and f13
19:24 < warren> | Anvil, ++
19:24 < Anvil> | who are the more meriteful ?
19:24 < |Jef|> | Anvil: lets vote to figure that out!
19:24 < Anvil> | |Jef| :)
19:24 < warren> | So we're losing Anvil, adrian, Sopwith, bytee, gregdek, f13 ?
19:24 < |Jef|> | hahahaha
19:24 < Anvil> | warren : the end of an epoch ?
19:25 < warren> | I think merit is a good measure of who belongs in FESCO.
19:25 * | Anvil propose Axel for his own replacement.
19:25 < f13> | um.
19:25 < |Jef|> | warren: is that like 2/3s of the fesco?
19:25 < jwb> | |Jef|, it's a lot. yeah
19:25 < f13> | I"d rather see Axel do a few more packages before we start asking him how to run Extras.
19:25 < |Jef|> | jwb: thats not good
19:25 < warren> | f13, ++
19:25 < jwb> | no, it isn't
19:25 < Anvil> | f13 : hasnt he the merit to be considered as a fork ? Isnt that enough ? </troll>
19:26 < f13> | here's the thing, FESCO as it is has existed for a while.
19:26 < |Jef|> | jwb: you want a continuation of culture not upheavals
19:26 < warren> | 6 of 17 current members are leaving
19:26 < f13> | it's about time for fresh members/minds.
19:26 < |Jef|> | f13: sure fresh members.. not 2/3 fresh members though
19:26 < thl> | f13, agreed
19:26 < jwb> | who thinks 17 members is too many?
19:26 < warren> | I think 15 is reasonable
19:26 < Anvil> | jwb : _o/
19:26 < warren> | 6 leaving, 4 new
19:26 < scop> | I'd go for something like 9
19:26 < |Jef|> | warren: i like to think of committees as a group of people who have to decide on a place to eat dinner together
19:26 < thl> | I'd go for 13
19:26 < bpepple> | warren: That doesn't seem bad.
19:27 < |Jef|> | warren: 15 people deciding where to eat... never works
19:27 < jwb> | i was thinking 10, but i don't count
19:27 < ignacio> | 9 or 11 seems good to me.
19:27 < warren> | |Jef|, yeah, you need to wait much longer for a table to open.
19:27 < thl> | jwb, every opinions counts
19:27 < jwb> | :)
19:27 < ignacio> | Even numbers are bad.
19:27 < f13> | indeed
19:27 < |Jef|> | warren: or just decidingwhere to go.. is a huge pain in the ass...with 15
19:27 < jwb> | ah good point about even numbers
19:27 < warren> | Well think about it this way
19:27 < Anvil> | do we agree it has to be a prime number ? \-)
19:27 < jwb> | then i say 11
19:27 < warren> | how many members actually show up to meetings?
19:27 < warren> | Having some redundancy in there might make sense for us.
19:28 < thl> | warren, not enough currently
19:28 < warren> | thus a higher number makes sense for FESCO
19:28 < thl> | there are some members that I've never seen here
19:28 < thl> | warren, agreed
19:28 < warren> | 17 currently, I think 15 is reasonable
19:28 < |Jef|> | thl: or its an indication that the wrong people are on the committee
19:28 < warren> | but if we have 6 clear leaders to replace the 6 leaving, then we shouldn't deny them.
19:28 * | thl is fine with 15
19:28 < warren> | because maybe they will show up at meetings =)
19:28 < jwb> | warren, a higher number, or people that actually want to be there?
19:28 < ignacio> | The number can be cut down further as time goes on.
19:29 < warren> | jwb, people that actually want to be there.
19:29 < jwb> | yeah
19:29 < warren> | Requirements: 1) Leadership 2) Want to do it 3) Merit
19:29 < ignacio> | But for now it's best to rotate in some new members.
19:29 < |Jef|> | thl: think about a meeting quorum
19:29 < jwb> | yes
19:29 < thl> | Requirements: 4) take a open task and improve extras
19:30 < thl> | e.g. a self nominations to the list
19:30 < jwb> | thl, doesn't that fall into 3?
19:30 < thl> | jwb, maybe, but I wanted to make it explicit
19:30 < warren> | jwb, yeah
19:30 < warren> | oh
19:30 < jwb> | thl, so someone has to take a todo from the FESCO list and make it happen _before_ they are on FESCO?
19:30 < warren> | OK, while we're here. I nominate jwb and ignacio.
19:30 < thl> | I'd like to hear from each new member what his plans are for the next year
19:31 < thl> | jwb, no
19:31 < thl> | jwb, just laying down the plans and ideas for the future
19:31 < jwb> | hm, ok
19:31 < thl> | and at least plan to work on them after beeing in FESCo
19:31 * | warren wonders why FESCO membership is required for working on TODO items.
19:32 * | scop seconds
19:32 < thl> | warren, everyone can work on the todo items
19:32 < Anvil> | one good point for warren.
19:32 < |Jef|> | warren: other way around
19:32 < jwb> | warren, i'm not saying it is. just that some of those items might be harder to acheive
19:32 < |Jef|> | warren: if you get suckered into fesco membership you have to work on something :-
19:32 < thl> | but IMHO every FESCo member should work on at least one of the todo items
19:32 < jwb> | thl, ++
19:32 < warren> | There may be other obvious people here right now, but names escape my mind at the moment. I will read through review traffic in the last few weeks to see other obvious candidates.
19:33 < thl> | I really would like a self nomination periode
19:33 < thl> | where people can lay down their ideas for the future of Extras
19:34 * | thl waits for other ideas
19:35 < warren> | thl's approach is fine.
19:35 < warren> | Just do it.
19:35 < jwb> | i like that. it should (hopefully) show that they really want to be there and are motivated to improve things
19:35 < bpepple> | sounds good.
19:35 < thl> | k
19:35 < warren> | When people ask me "create this mailing list" I ask them to write a mission statement, goals, objectives, etc.
19:35 < thl> | I'll write a main on that topic to fedora-extras-list this weekend
19:35 < warren> | Sometimes they never respond, meaning they weren't serious about it.
19:35 < thl> | we should discuss this there a bit more
19:36 < warren> | If people want to join FESCO, they should write their own mission statement, goals, objectives, etc.
19:36 < thl> | and then we can proceed with a actual plan next week
19:36 < warren> | thl, ok
19:36 < thl> | that okay for everybody?
19:36 < jwb> | i think it's important to allow others to make suggestions, but the potential candidates still have to do the explaining thing
19:36 < f13> | worksforme
19:36 < warren> | One more aspect of FESCO membership that I would like to clarify.
19:36 < thl> | jwb, k
19:36 < warren> | What if members haven't had "merit" but they don't want to leave FESCO?
19:37 < warren> | (They don't actually do anything.)
19:37 < thl> | warren, good question
19:37 < warren> | I personally think the merit requirement is important.
19:38 < thl> | if they not even do the "lay down the plans for the near extras future" and the "self nominations"
19:38 < thl> | that it might be the right time to give that position to somebody else
19:38 < jwb> | ask them to leave, or explain why they should stay
19:39 < warren> | We're not comfortable booting people? =)
19:39 < jwb> | warren, that depends on their explanation :)
19:39 < bpepple> | How about FESCO membership for a specific timeframe with elections every year or so?
19:39 <-- | uwog has quit ("I like core dumps")
19:39 < thl> | jwb, yeah, "ask them to leave, or explain why they should stay" sounds like a good idea, too
19:39 < jwb> | FESCO isn't life membership. it's up for review
19:40 < warren> | It really isn't hard to get into FESCo if we have these requirements. There are only so many leaders.
19:40 < skvidal> | if anyone wants to get rid of me, I'm fine with that
19:40 --> | uwog (Marc Maurer) has joined #fedora-extras
19:40 < jwb> | bpepple, if we have some kind of staging in there, sure. we want to avoid doing a total refresh every year though
19:40 < warren> | If we get to a point where there are 100 people who are leaders and only 15 spots, then having the overhead of elections might be worth it.
19:40 < warren> | But I don't think that is necessary now.
19:41 < jwb> | right
19:41 < scop> | skvidal, not that I would want that per se, but being both in fesco and the board sounds somewhat unnecessary to me...
19:41 < thl> | btw, there should also be a discussion how the chair of fesco is choosen
19:41 < warren> | hot potato? =)
19:41 < warren> | "I don't want it, you take it."
19:41 < jwb> | thl, choosen by peers. as you were
19:41 < skvidal> | scop: I'm fine with leaving it
19:41 < jwb> | thl, with that person obviously wanting the job :)
19:42 < warren> | 7 leaving, 5 new?
19:42 < skvidal> | scop: especially if other people want to do more
19:42 < warren> | I think we have a few good people to choose from for 5 new.
19:42 < thl> | warren, please don't count
19:42 < skvidal> | scop: I don't want to be in the way
19:42 < thl> | let's wait who nominates himself for the job
19:42 < warren> | This is fine. Let's move on.
19:43 < thl> | k
19:43 < jwb> | thl, in your email could you outline what it entails to be on FESCO? time requirements, etc?
19:43 < thl> | jwb, I'll try
19:43 < jwb> | all i can ask :)
19:43 < warren> | Not necessarily time, but the dedication and merit.
19:43 < jwb> | warren, sure that too
19:43 < skvidal> | time is the big factor
19:43 < skvidal> | most people want to help
19:44 < skvidal> | sometimes they just don't have enough time to make it useful
19:44 < jwb> | right
19:44 * | warren brb
19:44 < thl> | the problem we have afaics is
19:44 < thl> | that a lot of people often expect help from fesco
19:44 < thl> | but they don't get any hints or help on fedora
19:45 < thl> | that why the EOL and the Security SIG are stuckked a bit ATM
19:45 < thl> | (afaics)
19:45 < thl> | we need to improve that in the future
19:45 < thl> | anyway, let's proceed with other things
19:45 --- | thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- free discussion related to fedora extras
19:46 < thl> | any other important things that need to be discussed?
19:46 < f13> | thl: I wasn't aroudn to talk about the Security thing last week
19:46 < f13> | can we bring it up now?
19:46 < bpepple> | Could we talk about Core packages reviews for a bit?
19:46 < f13> | also the EOL stuff I thought an email was going to go out for more discussion, but I neer saw anything. So yet another week we've let this languish.
19:46 --- | thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- f13 -- Security
19:46 < thl> | f13, the floor is yours
19:47 < thl> | f13, just FYI, I don#t like the Fedora Extras Legacy idea
19:47 < thl> | we should avoid the term
19:47 < f13> | Honestly, there is a proposal there, linked in the schedule, and I"d like to know whats blocking this?
19:47 <-- | has quit (Remote closed the connection)
19:47 < f13> | thl: 'Extras Legacy'? where do you see that anywhere?
19:47 < thl> | f13, you mean EOL or Security SIG?
19:47 < warren> | "Extras Legacy" is the wrong approach to this
19:47 < f13> | I could have sworn all the references were Maintenance.
19:47 < thl> | f13, mschendt proposed that on extras-list
19:48 < f13> | thl: currently lets talk baout the Security SIG
19:48 --- | thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- f13 -- Security SIG
19:48 < warren> | We must have a Security team at the Fedora distribution level that tracks issues. Then security team + other people can work on the tracked issues.
19:49 < thl> | I'm fine with the proposal the Security SIG wrote
19:49 < warren> | URL?
19:49 < f13> | warren: it's linked in the schedule.
19:50 < thl> | warren, http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Schedule/SecurityPolicy
19:50 < thl> | I still wondering if we should split the Security SIG
19:50 < f13> | split?
19:50 < thl> | into a group that watches bugtrack and other mailinglist
19:50 < thl> | and a group that fixes things that need fixing
19:50 < warren> | Not necessarily
19:51 < f13> | thl: for the public lists not necessary
19:51 < thl> | warren, agreed
19:51 < warren> | I personally think the tracking part is the most important part of the security team.
19:51 < f13> | when we start talking embargo, then we do need a more limited view.
19:51 < thl> | warren, and we can do it later in any case if it becomes necessary
19:51 < jwb> | i hate embargo
19:51 < f13> | but thats for later. I'm trying to get the first part of the Policy in place, which we can grow from.
19:51 < warren> | Tracking is the main responsibility of security SIG. Then those members have the option of working on the issues, as does the package maintainers.
19:52 < f13> | Do we have quorem(sp?) of FESCO members to make this Policy approved, so that interested parties can start implimenting it?
19:52 * | f13 will leave time for more reading.
19:52 < warren> | I want small tweaks to it before it is approved.
19:52 < skvidal> | f13: quorum
19:52 < f13> | warren: what tweaks?
19:53 < warren> | f13, not exactly sure yet, I want to read this current version.
19:54 < thl> | I'm fine with waiting another week with a final discussion
19:54 < f13> | warren: it hasn't changed in over a week, did you not read it last week?
19:54 < thl> | but we really should get to an agreement next week
19:55 < warren> | agreed, by next week
19:55 < f13> | ok, moving on to EOL policy?
19:55 <-- | cweyl has left #fedora-extras ( )
19:55 --- | thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- f13 -- EOL
19:55 < f13> | Extras should track Core. Go into Maint mode when Core does, and really EOL when Core does.
19:55 <-- | giallu has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
19:55 < bpepple> | f13: +1
19:55 < jwb> | +1
19:55 < warren> | No sense maintaing Extras if Core is retired.
19:56 --> | cweyl (Chris Weyl) has joined #fedora-extras
19:56 < f13> | Can we agree that Maint mode gets security fixes only?
19:56 < f13> | or other things approved by board, such as severe bugfixes?
19:56 < jwb> | f13, i think the latter is better
19:57 < warren> | I agree in principal about no new additions, but I am not 100% comfortable about making this completely inflexible. I hope we can have some exception process that is a huge pain in the ass, enough so that people are discouraged from doing it.
19:57 < thl> | f13, just to make sure: did you read the thread mschendt started last week on fedora-extras-list?
19:57 < thl> | f13, https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-April/msg00880.html
19:57 < f13> | hrm, he did it on Extras list. bummer, I wasn't on that list.
19:57 < warren> | I don't agree to security fix only. Often times it requires far less effort to upgrade versions. It should be treated on a case by case basis based on impact.
19:58 < f13> | warren: but the reason to update the package would be fore Security
19:58 < f13> | warren: I'm ok w/ upgrading the package to fix a security issue, but not with upgrading a package because a new wizbang package version came out.
19:59 < f13> | thl: that thread seems more like implimentation of the policy rather than Policy in general.
19:59 < warren> | I still think we shouldn't make policy completely inflexible.
19:59 < f13> | warren: how is this not inflexible?
19:59 < f13> | warren: updates/upgrades for security, or things approved by the board can happen until a true EOL
19:59 < warren> | There are cases that are not "security" in a traditional sense, but it just makes sense to upgrade it.
19:59 < f13> | after true EOL, nothing more.
19:59 --> | abadger1999 (Toshio Kuratomi) has joined #fedora-extras
20:00 < f13> | warren: the board can approve that.
20:00 < warren> | after a true EOL it just naturally makes sense to stop working on it.
20:00 < warren> | I have to go to my next meeting.
20:00 < warren> | I'll weigh in on list
20:00 < f13> | which list?
20:00 < warren> | fedora-extras-list
20:01 < f13> | can we keep it on fesco list? I'm ont on extras, and don't want to be.
20:01 < jwb> | f13, how about maintaines?
20:01 < jwb> | er, maintainers
20:01 < f13> | jwb: that works for me too
20:01 < f13> | can we set a hard mandate to resolve this by next week to?
20:01 < warren> | f13, well there is already a discussion on this very topic on extras-list, why not keep it there?
20:01 < jwb> | f13, fesco is closed and i can't read it and i'm selfish and want to know :)
20:01 < warren> | f13, we can try, but I wouldn't make guarantees.
20:01 < f13> | these are really the last two things I care about for Extras, and I"d REALLY like to get them off my plate.
20:02 < thl> | well, we're running late
20:02 < warren> | Quite frankly, I still am not fully comfortable with you trying to dictate Extras policy when you yourself were not an active contributor to Extras.
20:02 < f13> | warren: because A) that looked largely like an implementation discussion, not a policy discussion, B) a discussion on policy should have a narrower view, people doing rather than consuming.
20:02 < f13> | warren: I know, but given that there is NOBODY ELSE DOING IT means that I have to step in.
20:03 < thl> | f13, could you post a summary and a proposal to fedora-maintainers list
20:03 < thl> | so people can discuss
20:03 < thl> | and we agree on that one next week
20:03 < f13> | warren: because I CONTINUE to get questions bout why Legacy doesn't support Extras.
20:03 < jwb> | leadership vs. merit
20:03 < warren> | That is a good reason, we'll figure something out.
20:03 < jwb> | :)
20:03 < thl> | I don't like some of the ideas mschwendt proposed on extras-list
20:03 < warren> | Yes, i'm not comfortable with that either.
20:03 < f13> | I care about policy. How you guys impliment it is up to you.
20:03 < warren> | I think we're in agreement that Extras Legacy is not the direction we want to go?
20:04 < thl> | f13, I can write that mail if you don#t want to
20:04 < thl> | warren, yes
20:04 < warren> | I have to go
20:04 * | thl needs to leave soon, too
20:04 <-- | warren has quit ("Leaving")
20:04 < f13> | warren: right, the FEdora security SIG can step in and do things in absence of a maintainer or active maintainer, but I don't think it should be viewed as a dumping ground of old packages.
20:04 < f13> | an Extras maintainer should be under the understanding that if you want to maintain a package, you're in it for a full cycle.
20:05 < f13> | thats it for me.
20:05 < thl> | f13, define "full cycle" please
20:05 < thl> | full Core cycle as supported by red hat
20:05 < thl> | or by Fedora Legacy
20:05 < f13> | thl: If you introduce a package in FC4, you should be responsible for it until FC4 goes EOL
20:06 < f13> | thl: as by Legacy, as we're trying to blur the line between what "Red Hat' does and what "Fedora" does.
20:06 < thl> | f13, EOL by "Fedora Legacy"?
20:06 < f13> | thl: think of it as a cycle that "Fedora" does, which includes what RH contributes and Legacy contributes.
20:06 < f13> | thl: thats what makes sense to me.
20:06 < thl> | f13, I'll try to work something out
20:07 < thl> | and post it to you
20:07 < thl> | and afterwards to the list
20:07 < f13> | thl: especially given that Core ships w/ Legacy configs, and will soon ship w/ Legacy configs enabled.
20:07 < thl> | that okay?
20:07 < f13> | sounds fine by me.
20:07 < thl> | k
20:07 < f13> | thanks.
20:07 --> | warren (Unknown) has joined #fedora-extras
20:07 < thl> | bpepple> | Could we talk about Core packages reviews for a bit?
20:07 < f13> | I guess I should be around for that too (;
20:08 < bpepple> | Not really a Extras specific issue, but it's doesn't really seem clear to what standard these packages are being reviewed for?
20:08 < bpepple> | Are we using Extra guidelines?
20:09 < thl> | bpepple, currently yes
20:09 < f13> | bpepple: if you haven't noticed, I edited those policies so that they are FEdora standards.
20:09 < f13> | not Extras standards.
20:09 < thl> | bpepple, I think some detials still need to be worked out
20:09 < f13> | and yes, new core package reviews must adhere to these guidelines.
20:10 < thl> | maybe we need a "Fedora Packaging Committe" that handles the guidelines for both Core and Extras
20:10 < bpepple> | Some of the packages I've looked at seem to need a more formal approach to be approved.
20:10 < f13> | bpepple: there were only 4 core packages thus far.
20:10 < f13> | bpepple: and they were used as the test case to see where the policies needed adjustment and how the process works.
20:11 < f13> | thl: yes, I think a formal Packaging committee should be created. I'm pretty sure spot is in agreement too.
20:11 < bpepple> | Ok, maybe that's what I noticed. I glanced at gcalctools review, and there looked like some reluctance to follow the packing guidelines.
20:12 < thl> | I need to leave
20:12 < thl> | Is it okay for everyone if I close the meeting?
20:12 < f13> | bpepple: part of that is being the first to get reviewed.
20:12 < f13> | thl: yes.
20:12 * | thl fill close the meeting in 60
20:12 < f13> | bpepple: trust me, those of us that are approving packages, and are behidn this at Red Hat will ensure that shit gets done right.
20:12 * | thl fill close the meeting in 30
20:13 < bpepple> | f13: Ok, just verify how these should be handled.
20:13 < bpepple> | thanks.
20:13 * | thl fill close the meeting in 15
20:13 * | thl fill close the meeting in 10
20:13 < thl> | MARK: Meeting End!
20:13 < thl> | thx everyone
20:13 < jeremy> | bpepple: and if you notice ones that don't meet the guidelines yet still get approved, let me know
20:13 < f13> | bpepple: simple. If the package doesn't meet the guideline, don't accept it. IF it isn't on FC-ACCEPT, I'm not letting it into the distro.
20:13 <-- | jnettlet_ has left #fedora-extras ( "Leaving")
20:15 < bpepple> | whoops, I meant verifying, not verify.
20:16 < abadger1999> | f13: We don't require an Extras Maintainer to "support" on all architectures. But they do have to be willing to accept patches to fix problems on other archs. So in a sense they're just coordinators. What're your thoughts on the differences WRT maintaining packages on FC-releases you're not running?
20:17 < f13> | abadger1999: probably simiilar. The Security SIG is there as a fallback point, but shouldn't be dumped upon. THe maintainer should make a resonable effort to stick around for the lifespan.
20:17 < f13> | abadger1999: I don't want to see Extras (continue to) be a fire and forget repository
20:21 --> | BobJensen (Robert 'Bob' Jensen) has joined #Fedora-Extras
20:21 <-- | JSchmitt has quit (Remote closed the connection)
20:21 < abadger1999> | f13: I missed the first part of the EOL discussion -- is the proposed solution to fire-and-forget just that the maintainer pushes updates to older releases?
20:23 < abadger1999> | f13: It seems some of the hesitation to update less current FC stems from not being able to test there.
20:23 < f13> | abadger1999: its more of putting a policy in place where there is none.
20:23 < f13> | abadger1999: currently there is no policy, and thus no expectation on how long an Extras package will be valid.
20:24 < f13> | I'm interested in seeing a policy go in place regarding when things can be updated and such, but implimentation is largely up to Extras to decide.
20:26 < abadger1999> | f13: I see.. So any time period as long as it sets a definite expectation so responsibility for the remaining time period can be planned on by other projects/end-users?
20:26 < f13> | pretty much yes.
20:26 < f13> | and I'm recommending the timeline that follows Core as presented by Fedora.
20:26 < f13> | Active for a period of time, Maint for a period of time, then flat out EOL
20:28 <-- | scop has left #fedora-extras ( "Leaving")
20:29 < abadger1999> | f13: So a two part proposal: 1) There must be a definite timeline. 2) Timeline that follows Core makes sense (insert reasons here).
20:29 < f13> | yeah
20:29 < abadger1999> | f13: Thanks. I've got a better understanding now :-)
}}}
--
Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora at leemhuis.info>
More information about the fedora-extras-list
mailing list