=================================== #fedora-meeting: FESCO (2012-04-16) ===================================
Meeting started by nirik at 17:05:17 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2012-04-16/fesco.2012-04-16-17.05.log.html . Meeting summary --------------- * init process (nirik, 17:05:17) * #833 Clarify provenpackagers communication policy for making changes to packages (nirik, 17:06:38) * AGREED: Will add wording about contacting maintainers to provenpackager policy and announce. (+7) (nirik, 17:10:47) * ACTION: mmaslano to make change to wiki and announce. (nirik, 17:11:36) * #830 define requirements for secondary arch promotion (nirik, 17:11:40) * LINK: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Secondary_Architecture_Promotion_Requirements_(Draft) (nirik, 17:11:40) * AGREED: Defer this issue a week and wait for more feedback/changes to draft. (+7) (nirik, 17:28:42) * #829 New proven packagers request: Pavel Alexeev(hubbitus) (nirik, 17:29:16) * LINK: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-4828 needs to go stable. (nirik, 17:34:58) * AGREED: request is approved. (+7) (nirik, 17:36:03) * Open Floor (nirik, 17:36:09) * ACTION: mjg59 will chair next week. (nirik, 17:38:58) * ACTION: nirik to update meeting process page. (nirik, 17:45:10) Meeting ended at 17:49:01 UTC. Action Items ------------ * mmaslano to make change to wiki and announce. * mjg59 will chair next week. * nirik to update meeting process page. Action Items, by person ----------------------- * mjg59 * mjg59 will chair next week. * mmaslano * mmaslano to make change to wiki and announce. * nirik * nirik to update meeting process page. * **UNASSIGNED** * (none) People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * nirik (74) * pjones (22) * mjg59 (21) * jonmasters (18) * t8m (17) * notting (11) * bconoboy (11) * mitr (10) * limburgher (10) * mmaslano (9) * zodbot (7) * jsmith (2) * tflink (1) * sgallagh (0) -- 17:05:17 <nirik> #startmeeting FESCO (2012-04-16) 17:05:17 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon Apr 16 17:05:17 2012 UTC. The chair is nirik. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 17:05:17 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 17:05:17 <nirik> #meetingname fesco 17:05:17 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fesco' 17:05:17 <nirik> #chair notting nirik mjg59 mmaslano t8m pjones sgallagh mitr limburgher 17:05:17 <nirik> #topic init process 17:05:18 <zodbot> Current chairs: limburgher mitr mjg59 mmaslano nirik notting pjones sgallagh t8m 17:05:23 * notting is here 17:05:27 * limburgher is here 17:05:27 <t8m> Hi 17:05:27 <mitr> Hello all 17:05:33 <mmaslano> hello 17:05:33 <nirik> sorry for the delay everyone. 17:06:16 <pjones> hi./ 17:06:30 <nirik> ok, shall we go ahead and dive in? 17:06:38 <nirik> #topic #833 Clarify provenpackagers communication policy for making changes to packages 17:06:39 <nirik> .fesco 833 17:06:41 <zodbot> nirik: #833 (Clarify provenpackagers communication policy for making changes to packags) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/833 17:06:54 <nirik> mmaslano: you were going to propose/make some wording changes? 17:07:23 <mmaslano> nirik: I'm fine with berrange proposal :) 17:07:35 <mmaslano> I won't correct English speakers ;-) 17:07:38 <mjg59> Hi 17:07:38 <nirik> yeah, seems fine to me too. 17:07:47 <limburgher> Agreed, sane. 17:07:55 <mmaslano> I'll add it to the wiki page 17:08:06 <nirik> +1 17:08:09 <mjg59> Works for me 17:08:24 <mitr> I'm not sure we want it that strict, e.g. for handling urgent issues or mass changes in rawhide preannounced on fedora-devel 17:08:44 <nirik> well, it says "should try" 17:08:48 <mitr> right 17:08:55 <pjones> Well, I wish he'd use the series comma, but sure, that's fine. 17:09:29 <t8m> I think the "should" already includes the common sense "when applicable". 17:09:31 <t8m> so +1 17:09:49 <mmaslano> +1 if voting needed 17:09:54 <mitr> +1 then, we can always weaken it later 17:09:54 <limburgher> +1 17:10:14 <mjg59> +1 17:10:18 <pjones> +1 17:10:37 <notting> +1 17:10:47 <nirik> #agreed Will add wording about contacting maintainers to provenpackager policy and announce. (+7) 17:11:08 <nirik> mmaslano: can you announce the change too? or would you like someone else to? 17:11:24 <mmaslano> nirik: I can send an email to devel 17:11:29 <nirik> thanks. 17:11:36 <nirik> #action mmaslano to make change to wiki and announce. 17:11:40 <nirik> #topic #830 define requirements for secondary arch promotion 17:11:40 <nirik> .fesco 830 17:11:40 <nirik> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Secondary_Architecture_Promotion_Requirements_(Draft) 17:11:41 <zodbot> nirik: #830 (define requirements for secondary arch promotion) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/830 17:12:05 <nirik> so, any further feedback here? does anyone have proposed changes? 17:12:26 <nirik> there's 2 things on the discussion tab 17:13:25 <jonmasters> so we will have further feedback, but not today 17:13:34 <notting> i don't think we have an automation framework for image-based installation 17:13:35 <notting> do we? 17:13:48 <jonmasters> notting: in discussion, not currently 17:13:56 <jsmith> notting: We do for EC2 images 17:14:06 <mjg59> jonmasters: We mentioned 2 weeks ago that we wanted to vote on this today 17:14:13 <nirik> there's plans/thoughts of it, but nothing I know of currently. 17:14:13 <jsmith> (assuming you're talking about automation of image creation) 17:14:37 <bconoboy> there's been a lot of feedback on the fedora list, but none of it has gone back into the proposal. 17:14:48 <jonmasters> mjg59: sure, I'm just saying - yea - what bconoboy is saying 17:14:51 <notting> jsmith: no, verification of the results 17:15:07 <mjg59> bconoboy: I really don't think there's been a great deal of substantive feedback that would result in modification, but I may be interpreting the discussions differently 17:15:20 <tflink> notting: we have some install automation in autoqa 17:15:24 <jonmasters> aside from the more straightforward case of qemu, I do have some ideas for how to implement image-based test on PandaBoards and so on. 17:15:27 <mjg59> Let me go back and skim that again 17:15:30 <pjones> bconoboy: what feedback are you thinking there has been that needs to be integrated in? 17:15:47 * nirik personally was -1 for kkofflers proposal/thread. 17:16:03 <pjones> nirik: yeah, I don't think that even really merits a vote 17:16:11 <bconoboy> pjones: for instance, I did an item-by-item discussion and differed on a number of points. some people replied to some, but not all, of htose points- does that mean the things I said that weren't commented on were agreed to? 17:16:11 <jonmasters> agreed 17:16:19 <t8m> nirik, you mean the secondarification of all meaningful architectures? :) 17:16:32 <nirik> t8m: yeah 17:17:09 <pjones> bconoboy: well, I disagreed with the way you were going about it and then you stopped responding. I kindof thought that meant maybe you would bring it up in a different way if you still had objections. 17:17:14 <nirik> we could table this another week and regroup feedback? 17:17:33 <nirik> or discuss feedback to specific parts here / now? 17:17:34 <jonmasters> nirik: I would like that 17:17:40 <jonmasters> (the first) 17:17:41 <nirik> or both. 17:17:42 <mjg59> bconoboy: Ah, I see. I replied to your points, and you never replied - I'd interpreted that as you being happy with my clarifications 17:18:11 <t8m> bconoboy, if you have some concrete proposals to change the draft perhaps we could vote on them one by one? 17:18:25 <bconoboy> mjg59: I just thought you'd be doing another draft. Some points you clarified on list and I Think those should go back into the proposal and that updated proposal should be voted on. 17:18:26 <jonmasters> to me, though, the main two sticking points are anaconda and testing - both of which we have eyes on 17:18:52 <mjg59> bconoboy: Right, I just thought that everything I said was already clear from the language 17:18:59 <pjones> I don't think anaconda is really a sticky point; we're only saying anaconda should be there when we're talking about anaconda-appropriate hardware as the target. 17:19:16 <t8m> pjones, +1 17:19:19 <pjones> bconoboy: I think if you've got specific things you thing should be changed, you should send mjg59 some sample language 17:19:35 <mjg59> bconoboy: Mostly it seemed to be you asking for quantification of things that I don't think can be quantified 17:19:54 <jonmasters> can we ask for another week to collate feedback and straighten out any misscommunications? 17:19:59 <pjones> sure 17:20:02 <mjg59> Sure 17:20:03 <nirik> yeah, I don't think the anaconda requirement should be too much sticking point... there's wording there for resource constrained devices and such 17:20:05 <bconoboy> My general problem with the proposal is that it's even *less* concrete than before. Everything is nebulous and subjective. I think that's fine for an outline, but it isn't really a strategy for promotion. I think the outline is fine. 17:20:31 <pjones> bconoboy: I notice that you have not responded to my email (in response to you) about that. 17:20:32 <mjg59> bconoboy: Every time this has come up we've said that there's no way to provide a set of concrete requirements 17:20:44 <mitr> bconoboy: There just won't be a checklist with each item worth a specific number of points and a minimum number for acceptance. 17:20:45 <bconoboy> But what I'd like to see/hoped for was a description of what the relationship will be between the SA and FESCo/etc for the steps to advance. Right now it's just things that have to be done, but not how to approach them. 17:20:47 <nirik> The problem is I don't think we can make a strict technical requirement list that will result in automatic promotion 17:21:00 <t8m> nirik, +1 17:21:07 <pjones> bconoboy: I think the relationship between SA and fesco is *exactly* what the email I just referenced was about. 17:21:40 <nirik> so, I would urge communcation to keep as open as possible between fesco and arm folks... if one or the other sees something going the wrong way, let everyone know. 17:21:47 <bconoboy> nirik: Okay, I hear the "we can't set it all in stone today"... but a procedure for actually setting things in stone owuld be tremendously useful. 17:22:00 <bconoboy> IE, on a case by case basis. ARM today, $NEWARCH tomorrow 17:22:14 <jonmasters> nirik: completely agree that promotion is never guaranteed or automatic. Brendan is, however, reasonable in wanting more measurable specifics 17:22:20 <mitr> bconoboy: That procedure wouldn't give results any earlier than the vote on making the arcithecture primary. 17:22:21 <pjones> bconoboy: Message-ID: <4f7b1574.3080...@redhat.com> if you're looking to read it again. 17:22:22 <nirik> there are non technical issues that we can probibly never quantify. 17:22:23 <mjg59> jonmasters: No, he's not 17:22:30 <pjones> jonmasters: no. 17:22:42 <bconoboy> pjones: I'll go back and reread after this if we're goign to delay vote a week. 17:22:43 <jonmasters> mjg59: well, this is where you and I (shockingly surprising) are going to disagree ;) 17:22:43 <mitr> jonmasters: It's reasonable to want them, but not to expect them :) 17:22:49 <notting> what nirik said. i mean, even if mips hit all the technical points we might set up, i'm not sure i'd see the point of making mips a primary arch 17:23:18 <bconoboy> I hear the voice of FESCo saying no guaranties. That's fine. That's not what I"m talking about right now. 17:23:23 <pjones> jonmasters: as I said in the email - what we need is you to propose plans of how you're going to meet requirements, and us to provide guidance on if we think they're satisfactory or not. we need that level of flexibility if you're going to succeed. 17:23:34 <nirik> right. There may be arches that are technically able to meet these requirements, but due to lack of mindshare, lack of hardware our users could use or other non technical reasons we would never want to promote 17:23:51 <jonmasters> pjones: fine. Ok. To avoid going in circles, give us a week to regroup on this and give you some more meat to chew on next Monday. 17:23:58 <bconoboy> What I'm saying is that the proposal isn't procedural, it's just some notions of what must be done, it lacks the structure of how to approach the undertaking. That's what I'm looking for. 17:24:00 <mjg59> If you have a plan that sounds like it meets all of the reqirements we provide, then the overwhelming probability is that the architecture will be promoted 17:24:24 <pjones> bconoboy: see that email. really. 17:24:28 <mjg59> And we can spend a short period of time going back and forth to make sure that those plans match everyone's expectations 17:24:33 <jonmasters> bconoboy: I think the onus on us is to say for e.g. "here's how we will handle testing", etc. 17:24:39 <pjones> jonmasters: exactly. 17:24:42 <bconoboy> pjones: okay, looking it up now 17:24:52 <nirik> for example, I suspect ppc / s390 could perhaps meet those technical requirements, but I don't think they have enough mindshare or hardware our users could ever use to make it worth making them primary. 17:25:11 <jonmasters> pjones: I do get you, I understand what you're asking for, and that is reasonable. It it is also, eventually, reasonable to agree on a less nebulous list. But we need to get you more meat before you can do the same for us. 17:25:34 <limburgher> Right, FESCO needs final say. But I think it's reasonable to put out there what we want to see before we'll look at it. 17:26:14 <pjones> jonmasters: that may well be true. time will tell ;) 17:26:34 <jonmasters> ok, we'll get you a list of points kinda related to the ones on the draft. E.g. putting forward representation, how we'll handle builds, how we'll get board access to developers, how we'll test, etc. 17:26:45 <mjg59> #proposal Defer for another week to allow concrete change proposals 17:26:46 <nirik> proposal: agreed: defer a week for more discussion and feedback on draft. 17:26:52 <mjg59> +1 17:26:54 <notting> well, if they want one more week to respond, i'm fine with that. it's not like we have a time pressure for this yet. +1 17:26:57 <nirik> +1 here as well. 17:26:59 <limburgher> +1 17:27:12 <t8m> +1 17:27:15 <pjones> jonmasters: just as a point, though, it'd be good if you guys responded by, say, friday morning, so we could have some discussion /before/ the fesco meeting monday 17:27:21 <jonmasters> notting: and in fairness, there isn't time pressure per se. We want to do this /right/, not in a rush. If need be, it's F19 or whatever. 17:27:29 <pjones> jonmasters: that'd help move the discussion along more easily 17:27:34 <mitr> +1, just to keep this on agenda - I don't think it makes much difference whether the proposal is voted on 17:27:35 <jonmasters> pjones: that is a reasonable request. I apologize for not doing so properly before. 17:28:19 <jonmasters> Brendan has done an excellent job, some us need to make time to assist further, and this will happen before next week's meeting. 17:28:26 <mmaslano> +1 17:28:42 <nirik> #agreed Defer this issue a week and wait for more feedback/changes to draft. (+7) 17:29:10 <nirik> thanks for the input jonmasters and bconoboy 17:29:16 <nirik> #topic #829 New proven packagers request: Pavel Alexeev(hubbitus) 17:29:16 <nirik> .fesco 829 17:29:17 <zodbot> nirik: #829 (New proven packagers request: Pavel Alexeev (hubbitus)) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/829 17:29:38 <nirik> This was formerly a sponsorship request... he's asked for provenpackager to work on ImageMagick updates. 17:30:08 <notting> and now a meeting item due to not enough responses to that in ticket 17:30:29 <notting> in fact... no parseable yay/nay responses. 17:30:35 <t8m> so I stick with my previous opinion and give him +1 17:30:48 <nirik> I was thinking they could just request co-maintainer on those packages, but I suppose the set changes and could be a pain to get approved on all of them. 17:31:17 <limburgher> Yeah, it's a lot, given that it's ImageMagick. 17:31:25 <mitr> +1, in general I prefer having provenpackager quite open, and dealing with problems if they come 17:31:31 <mmaslano> I'm also for +1, he's doing packaging for a long time 17:31:38 <limburgher> +1 17:31:53 <notting> i'd be fine with it - +1 17:32:01 * nirik is a very weak +1 I guess. I still have the same concerns as on the sponsorship... communication needs to improve, etc. 17:32:25 <nirik> any other votes? 17:32:40 <mjg59> I'm ok with +1 17:32:51 <limburgher> nirik: Agreed, but again, it's ImageMagick, if there's a problem, A: we'll know and B: it's early in f18. 17:33:18 <nirik> limburgher: well, there's still a problem in f17 isn't there? or did that get fixed. 17:33:39 <nirik> no, it's still there. 17:33:58 <pjones> I really don't have an opinion 17:34:02 <limburgher> nirik: What still needs to happen to fix it? 17:34:58 <nirik> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-4828 needs to go stable. 17:35:14 <nirik> some dependent packages have already done so, but lack the ImageMagick package update 17:35:27 <nirik> or perhaps they haven't been rebuilt yet. not clear 17:35:45 <nirik> anyhow... 17:36:03 <nirik> #agreed request is approved. (+7) 17:36:09 <nirik> #topic Open Floor 17:36:16 <nirik> any items for open floor? 17:37:15 * nirik listens to the silence. 17:37:24 <nirik> oh, chair next week? 17:38:15 <nirik> don't all jump up at once... ;) 17:38:22 <mjg59> I'll do it 17:38:27 <mjg59> Been a while 17:38:58 <nirik> #action mjg59 will chair next week. 17:38:59 <nirik> thanks. 17:38:59 <t8m> I saw the mail on devel that we should establish a single chair due to inconsistencies in the mailing of FESCo meeting minutes :) 17:39:25 <t8m> anybody wants to be a chair for the whole term? :D 17:39:44 <nirik> I think as long as we all follow the process page it should be fine. 17:39:57 <t8m> people make mistakes :D 17:40:06 <nirik> I think adamw was just being grumpy in the middle of beta testing. ;) 17:40:33 <pjones> he's got a valid point, but I'm not sure it's quite a strong as he's making it sound :) 17:40:45 <t8m> sure, I see it that we just should be more careful in following the process page 17:40:55 * nirik nods. 17:41:07 <nirik> or clarify the process page if it's unclear in any places. 17:42:01 <t8m> nirik, I have the problem with sending the draft schedule 17:42:18 <t8m> nirik, not many people want to do it on Sundays 17:42:26 <nirik> yeah... 17:42:33 <nirik> perhaps we should make it send on friday? 17:42:38 <nirik> previous 'business' day 17:42:40 <limburgher> not a bad idea. 17:42:42 <mitr> sounds like the obvious answer 17:42:54 <t8m> nirik, +1, will you change the process page? 17:42:59 <nirik> but it also is sometimes hard to remember to do that so far in advance. 17:43:03 <nirik> sure, I can. 17:43:09 <nirik> if everyone is ok with that change? 17:43:11 <t8m> nirik, yeah 17:43:20 <mmaslano> sure 17:43:25 <notting> sure 17:43:45 <mjg59> I think that's reasonable 17:43:49 <nirik> we seldom add things over the weekend anyhow... 17:43:55 <mjg59> Especially because anything tagged over the weekend is unlikely to get read beforehand 17:44:51 <pjones> This is one of the big downsides to having the meeting on monday 17:44:57 <nirik> yeah. 17:45:10 <nirik> #action nirik to update meeting process page. 17:46:19 <nirik> ok, any other open floor items? 17:47:16 * nirik will close the meeting in a minute if nothing else. 17:48:59 <nirik> ok, thanks for coming everyone! 17:49:01 <nirik> #endmeeting
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
