Meeting:Board meeting 2009-06-04

Meeting Summary

• Continued toxicity discussion with no resolution
• Succession planning change was approved
  • https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2009-June/msg00004.html
  • http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board/SuccessionPlanning

Questions & Answers

• jjmcd--"I was wondering whether there is a feeling that the muiltiple delays are due to too ambitious a feature set"
• jwb--"Has the board considered my request for use of the existing ppc builders for a secondary arch effort?"
• abadger1999
  • "What does the Board feel their role is in deciding what packages/pieces of packages can be in Fedora Repositories?"
  • "So I'm wondering what constitutes high level policy -- does the Board feel like it should work through goals or through decrees?"
• nirik--"Can the board talk a bit about the 'who is fedora for?' discussion they have been having? is that close to a endpoint? or is there much more to discuss? will there be an opening for outside the board feedback on that topic at some point? Also, how will newly elected people figure into this topic?"

#fedora-board-meeting log

stickster	<meeting>	04 Jun 13:00
stickster	Roll call?	04 Jun 13:00
mdomsch	present and accounted for	04 Jun 13:00
notting		04 Jun 13:01
* notting is here		04 Jun 13:01
f13		04 Jun 13:01
* f13 none		04 Jun 13:01
ctyler		04 Jun 13:03
* ctyler here		04 Jun 13:03
skvidal		04 Jun 13:03
* skvidal is here		04 Jun 13:03
stickster	I've pinged a couple people who should be here in a moment.	04 Jun 13:03
--- ChanServ (ChanServ@services.) changed mode: +v spot		04 Jun 13:04
stickster	There's spot	04 Jun 13:04
stickster	caillon should be here in a moment	04 Jun 13:04
stickster	Harald doesn't seem to be online	04 Jun 13:04
stickster	Nor glezos	04 Jun 13:04
stickster	OK, let's proceed.	04 Jun 13:05
stickster	The first item on our agenda is set for 20 minutes	04 Jun 13:05
stickster	Followup on the mailing list moderation proposal.	04 Jun 13:05
stickster	I wanted to ensure that we had some sort of consensus on implementation	04 Jun 13:06
stickster	I show 4 items left to address:	04 Jun 13:06
stickster	1. Public vs. private warnings	04 Jun 13:06
stickster	2. Whether and how moderators are identified per action	04 Jun 13:07
--- ChanServ (ChanServ@services.) changed mode: +v caillon		04 Jun 13:07
stickster	3. Whether there's a requirement to record complaints or action taken	04 Jun 13:07
stickster	I showed a fourth, "use of a moderation FAS account," but honestly I think that's really part of #2.	04 Jun 13:07
stickster	Can we take each of these in turn and barrel through, stopping at ~1725 UTC?	04 Jun 13:08
mdomsch	good plan	04 Jun 13:08
stickster	OK, starting with #1, let's have at it.	04 Jun 13:08
mdomsch	[1] private +1	04 Jun 13:08
ctyler	(1) Private warnings (3) Yes, if someone gets multiple warnings, there should be a record of it that's private to moderators so that a new moderator can see history	04 Jun 13:08
skvidal	1. private warnings	04 Jun 13:08
skvidal	2. if the moderators are comfortable being known, then so be it.	04 Jun 13:08
notting	i'd agree - private warnings - no need to start public flamewars	04 Jun 13:09
f13	1 private warnings.	04 Jun 13:09
stickster	My take on this was that public warnings are good, but after seeing other people's reflections I realize the bad outweighs the good.	04 Jun 13:09
skvidal	3. having all the moderators cc a private list on what they've said sounds fair for later use	04 Jun 13:09
notting	3. there should be a referable record	04 Jun 13:09
f13	2. I have no real input here, I guess I'd leave it up to the moderator.	04 Jun 13:09
stickster	The list members should be trusted to provide feedback viz. #1.	04 Jun 13:09
mdomsch	[2] moderator should use their name, not come from "a group"	04 Jun 13:09
mdomsch	skvidal: agreed	04 Jun 13:10
f13	3. referable record.	04 Jun 13:10
ctyler	question on (1) -- if a private person whines publicly, are the moderators free to publicly state why they were warned? i.e., if you make it public, it's fully public?	04 Jun 13:10
stickster	ctyler: I'd agree with that.	04 Jun 13:10
mdomsch	ctyler, yes	04 Jun 13:10
stickster	It's not a secret police action.	04 Jun 13:10
spot	sure	04 Jun 13:10
notting	ctyler: don't see why not	04 Jun 13:10
skvidal	ctyler: you call someone outin public , you should expect to be slapped in public :)	04 Jun 13:10
stickster	We are trying to be tactful and discreet, not hide what we're doing.	04 Jun 13:10
mdomsch	stickster, exactly	04 Jun 13:11
skvidal	stickster: wait, this isn't a secret police action? B/c I liked that aspect of it	04 Jun 13:11
f13	ctyler: seems natural, but as I stated on list, I don't want to see the lists become a venue for arguments over moderations	04 Jun 13:11
* stickster notes that by "we" he means "the group of people charged with moderating," of which he may not be one.		04 Jun 13:11
skvidal		04 Jun 13:11
* skvidal was looking forward to the long leather jacket		04 Jun 13:11
ctyler	f13: agreed	04 Jun 13:11
* stickster hands skvidal a black armband and motions him out to his squad car		04 Jun 13:11
skvidal	so a recommendation	04 Jun 13:11
notting	as for #2... i'd agree that it should be left up to the moderators, but they should probably pick a consistent policy among themselves	04 Jun 13:11
skvidal	someone is an ass on f-d-l	04 Jun 13:11
ctyler	notting: +1	04 Jun 13:12
skvidal	a moderator says - you were an ass you're messages are moderated and held for approval by the moderators for the next week - non-ass messages will be approved	04 Jun 13:12
skvidal	the person sends a non-ass-being but off-topic msg to the same list ranting about the moderation	04 Jun 13:12
mdomsch	in a similar vein: whenever a new mirror asks to sign up, they mail mirror-admin@fp.o; a person (me or Adrian generally) responds directly, leaving mirror-admin@fp.o on cc:.	04 Jun 13:13
mdomsch	so there is a record	04 Jun 13:13
skvidal	if I were a moderator, I would not let the message through and suggest that the person rant elsewhere	04 Jun 13:13
stickster	mdomsch: +1.	04 Jun 13:13
f13	skvidal: I would agree with that	04 Jun 13:13
ctyler	skvidal: week? I thought we were talking 1-2 days	04 Jun 13:13
skvidal	ctyler: s/week/whatever-time-you-like/	04 Jun 13:13
skvidal	ctyler: it's an example - the time is not important	04 Jun 13:13
caillon	lets do it in the gregorian calendar!	04 Jun 13:14
mdomsch	UTC-15	04 Jun 13:14
ctyler	I think the duration is important in two ways: it affects the perceived weight of the warning, and it affects the moderator workload	04 Jun 13:14
stickster	As for #2, I feel that if the list of moderators is not known, we'd need a check. Moderators doing their work individually and openly is well and good.	04 Jun 13:14
stickster	Excuse me, I meant to say:	04 Jun 13:15
skvidal	ctyler: my example was only to talk about keeping messages about the moderation off of the list b/c they are offtopic	04 Jun 13:15
stickster	If the identity of an individual moderator from the *known list of moderators* is not known....	04 Jun 13:15
ctyler	skvidal: yes, I get that, and agree	04 Jun 13:15
stickster	Is there anyone who disagrees with skvidal's suggestion, timelines aside?	04 Jun 13:15
spot	i'm fine with it.	04 Jun 13:16
stickster	OK, I take the lack of disagreement as consensus :-)	04 Jun 13:16
stickster	So far I have captured that:	04 Jun 13:17
f13	no no means yes	04 Jun 13:17
stickster	heh	04 Jun 13:17
skvidal	f13: yes, silence is consent - classy	04 Jun 13:17
f13	in a vacuum, nobody can hear you scream	04 Jun 13:17
notting	f13: no one can hear when you're screaming in digital?	04 Jun 13:17
skvidal	is that b/c the vacuum is very noisy when it is running?	04 Jun 13:17
spot	the aliens always hear you.	04 Jun 13:18
skvidal	oh - not THAT kind of vacuum	04 Jun 13:18
ctyler	question that hopefully will never matter: should we generalize this policy to include the planet? i.e., being decidedly non-excellent on the planet leads to suspension of feed?	04 Jun 13:18
f13		04 Jun 13:18
* f13 moderates everybody due to off-topic.		04 Jun 13:18
skvidal	ctyler: no	04 Jun 13:18
spot	ctyler: i don't think we can moderate the planet.	04 Jun 13:18
ctyler		04 Jun 13:18
* ctyler screams digitally 0100100100111011010011001010100111101010010010101		04 Jun 13:18
f13	ctyler: no, the planet is less .... structured.	04 Jun 13:18
f13	it's a read at your own risk kind of deal	04 Jun 13:18
stickster	The planet somewhat relies on people's self publishing	04 Jun 13:18
mdomsch	and impossible to drop single items from a feed	04 Jun 13:18
skvidal	mdomsch: indeed	04 Jun 13:18
skvidal	mdomsch: though I have thought about that a bit :-/	04 Jun 13:19
f13	that said, if you see somebody being an ass on planet, feel free to let them know	04 Jun 13:19
stickster	And it edges a little too close to the "speak your mind" rule. Posts that contain something illegal are one thing. There are talkbacks for everything else.	04 Jun 13:19
caillon	by being an ass right back	04 Jun 13:19
skvidal	mdomsch: having the feed generation be more database-y so you could tag a message as 'non post'	04 Jun 13:19
caillon	oh wait	04 Jun 13:19
mdomsch	skvidal, that's because at your heart you're really a censor in disguise	04 Jun 13:19
skvidal	mdomsch: oh my gosh yes. I like the quiet	04 Jun 13:19
ctyler	agreed that we don't want to censor planet, but a long non-excellent series of posts is quite possible	04 Jun 13:19
stickster	I would really like it if people could continue the practice of being excellent to each other on the Planet.	04 Jun 13:20
skvidal	mdomsch: I'm especially trying to keep the MAN from using his gnome-bias against me	04 Jun 13:20
stickster	And I feel that the community ought to encourage it.	04 Jun 13:20
mdomsch	stickster, I think that's generally true; in the few cases where that hasn't been, they've been handled privately	04 Jun 13:20
notting	but you can't be off-topic on the planet, so i don't think you should moderate it	04 Jun 13:20
mdomsch	and that's workd	04 Jun 13:20
skvidal	notting: true	04 Jun 13:21
stickster	OK guys, let me summarize at this point	04 Jun 13:21
stickster	1. Warnings are private. If a moderated person takes feedback to another venue publicly, moderators can respond publicly, preferably in a noninflammatory fashion.	04 Jun 13:21
stickster	2. Moderators can do their work individually, but should cc: <somewhere> to make a record.	04 Jun 13:21
stickster	Actually, that nails 2 and 3 if I'm reading this right.	04 Jun 13:22
--- ChanServ (ChanServ@services.) changed mode: +v caillon_		04 Jun 13:22
stickster	At what point does moderation become something more serious?	04 Jun 13:22
stickster	Should that matter be elevated to the Board?	04 Jun 13:23
stickster	And is it purely up to the moderator when to do that?	04 Jun 13:23
f13	well, constant failure to come back in line should be brought to the board's attention	04 Jun 13:23
skvidal	but it doesn't HAVE to be right away	04 Jun 13:23
f13	if moderation isn't working, escalate	04 Jun 13:23
notting	given i hope we'd never need to enact it, i think referring to the board is simpler than attempting to define something now to handle every contingency	04 Jun 13:24
stickster	Right, we really want moderation to be a sort of cool-down and lifted as soon as practicable.	04 Jun 13:24
skvidal	notting: nod	04 Jun 13:24
f13	stickster: sounds right	04 Jun 13:24
ctyler	Repeated moderations or high volume of non-excellence during moderation both point toward escalation	04 Jun 13:24
stickster	I would hope (and, optimistically, expect) that we would rather not get to that "what if" situation.	04 Jun 13:24
stickster	But I feel like making a bunch of policy about what to do at that point is almost like shirking a responsibility.	04 Jun 13:25
stickster	I feel that we as a Board would want to take that (hopefully very rare) situation on a case by case basis.	04 Jun 13:26
f13	yeah	04 Jun 13:26
mdomsch	agreed	04 Jun 13:26
skvidal	how about this	04 Jun 13:26
ctyler	yes	04 Jun 13:26
skvidal	no policy - unless there are chronic problems	04 Jun 13:26
stickster	I think Seth is right.	04 Jun 13:26
skvidal	we don't have to make it perfect right away	04 Jun 13:26
mdomsch	if it's chronic, we have bigger problems	04 Jun 13:26
stickster	Exactly.	04 Jun 13:26
stickster	And the Board is also responsible for watching the moderators, of course.	04 Jun 13:27
stickster	It's not a set-and-forget process.	04 Jun 13:27
skvidal	nod	04 Jun 13:27
stickster	OK, I feel like we arrived at the answers we needed. Followup to fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com is fine and encouraged.	04 Jun 13:27
ctyler	Hopefully moderation will be used only a couple times per year if at all, and the warnings will be effective. I hope it's rare enough that people forget the procedure and have to look back at the wiki to remember.	04 Jun 13:27
stickster	Can we hit the next item?	04 Jun 13:27
skvidal	nod	04 Jun 13:28
stickster	ctyler: +1	04 Jun 13:28
mdomsch	roll	04 Jun 13:28
skvidal	tide	04 Jun 13:28
stickster	OK, the second item for 10 minutes	04 Jun 13:28
stickster	Board approval of changes to the succession wiki page	04 Jun 13:28
stickster	https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2009-June/msg00004.html	04 Jun 13:28
skvidal	sure	04 Jun 13:28
spot	+1	04 Jun 13:28
stickster	and http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board/SuccessionPlanning	04 Jun 13:28
f13	+1	04 Jun 13:29
stickster	1s are fine, or any feedback as well	04 Jun 13:29
ctyler	+1	04 Jun 13:29
notting	+1	04 Jun 13:29
* stickster should have sent a link out with the history diff		04 Jun 13:30
mdomsch	=1	04 Jun 13:30
mdomsch	+1 that is	04 Jun 13:30
caillon	+√1	04 Jun 13:30
notting	stickster: http://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Board%2FSuccessionPlanning&diff=105274&oldid=17685	04 Jun 13:30
stickster	caillon: Nice :-)	04 Jun 13:30
stickster	OK, I think that's unanimous vote by all present.	04 Jun 13:31
stickster	That's >2/3, which means the changes are approved.	04 Jun 13:31
stickster	I want to particularly thank inode0 for helping eagle-eye the text where needed.	04 Jun 13:31
mdomsch	hear hear	04 Jun 13:31
stickster	The point of the changes was to emphasize that the Board is not some artificial split of Red Hat vs. volunteers.	04 Jun 13:31
stickster	And also to add a handler for the (again hopefully rare) case where we don't get enough nominations to fill the open elected seats.	04 Jun 13:32
stickster	So, that wraps up that one.	04 Jun 13:32
stickster	Wow, we're efficient today! Thanks for bearing with my whip-cracking, guys. :-)	04 Jun 13:32
mdomsch	hasn't happened yet, though nominations tend to come in at the last minute :-)	04 Jun 13:32
stickster	Exactly.	04 Jun 13:32
stickster	And unless someone has something else dire, I think that brings us to Q&A!	04 Jun 13:33
f13	quack	04 Jun 13:33
stickster	I'll have you know I have a license to practice	04 Jun 13:34
mdomsch	while waiting on questions; let me note: I'm quite pleased we had such a large turnout for the FESCo and Board nominations	04 Jun 13:34
stickster	Not only that, but the town halls as well	04 Jun 13:35
mdomsch	5 for board (3 slots); 11 for FESCo (5 slots)	04 Jun 13:35
mdomsch	yeah, >40 people for those each	04 Jun 13:35
f13	do we have any q's?	04 Jun 13:35
notting	stickster: who's our question-gathering moderator today?	04 Jun 13:35
stickster	While we may have had a couple "oldie moldie" questions in the town hall meetings, there were many new ones too.	04 Jun 13:35
stickster	notting: I am	04 Jun 13:35
--- ChanServ (ChanServ@services.) changed mode: +o stickster		04 Jun 13:35
--- stickster (n=paul@fedora/stickster) changed mode: +v jjmcd		04 Jun 13:35
jjmcd	I was wondering whether there is a feeling that the muiltiple delays are due to too ambitious a feature set	04 Jun 13:36
stickster	jjmcd: I'm not sure your question is 100% Board-relevant, but you're clear to ask anyway :-)	04 Jun 13:36
notting	in the case of Fedora 11... probably, yes.	04 Jun 13:36
jjmcd	But it would be good to hear the perceptions	04 Jun 13:36
caillon	jjmcd, some of it was actually due to mirrors requesting a delay	04 Jun 13:37
mdomsch		04 Jun 13:37
* mdomsch gets nervous whenever he hears "complete rewrite of..." in regard to a release-critical feature		04 Jun 13:37
f13	caillon: I don't think that actually played into our decision to slip	04 Jun 13:37
stickster	mdomsch: agreed.	04 Jun 13:37
skvidal	jjmcd: I don't think it is too ambitious of a feature set - it was a difficulty in punting when the drop-dead date showed up	04 Jun 13:37
skvidal	back pre-beta	04 Jun 13:37
skvidal	it was hard to punt the feature	04 Jun 13:37
f13	jjmcd: over ambitions, maybe. Although at least at some level we knew some things were going to risk the end game.	04 Jun 13:37
mdomsch	regardless of how good the engineers are to accomplish said feature	04 Jun 13:37
skvidal	but it wasn't cooked yet	04 Jun 13:37
f13	anaconda and KMS were really risky things, but very high value as well	04 Jun 13:37
f13	so we accepted the risk, knowing full well that it may lead to slips	04 Jun 13:38
jjmcd	Coming from big corp IT it is still pretty amazing	04 Jun 13:38
mdomsch	f13 good point	04 Jun 13:38
stickster	Overall the storage rewrite is going to make future Fedora that much more flexible.	04 Jun 13:38
f13	(and fixable)	04 Jun 13:38
stickster	1.	04 Jun 13:38
--- stickster (n=paul@fedora/stickster) changed mode: -v jjmcd		04 Jun 13:39
spot		04 Jun 13:39
* spot nods in agreement		04 Jun 13:39
--- stickster (n=paul@fedora/stickster) changed mode: +v jwb		04 Jun 13:39
jwb	has the board considered my request for use of the existing ppc builders for a secondary arch effort?	04 Jun 13:39
f13	jjmcd: this cycle has exposed some weak points in our development process, which I hope to address in next week's FAD	04 Jun 13:39
notting	f13: and then we can try and quantify the value lost in the slip vs the value gained in having the feature in earlier	04 Jun 13:39
notting	jwb: Oops.	04 Jun 13:39
skvidal	jwb: were waiting until you're on the board for you to solve it	04 Jun 13:39
notting	jwb: (i.e., not yet)	04 Jun 13:39
f13	jwb: not yet	04 Jun 13:39
stickster	Election rigging! POLICE!	04 Jun 13:40
caillon	skvidal, hey, don't give away that we're stacking the election	04 Jun 13:40
skvidal	jwb: or better yet for when you're on the board so the board can say "conflict of interest" and punt ppc further	04 Jun 13:40
f13	I think we were waiting for FESCo's decision on PPC, and then forgot to bring it back to the table.	04 Jun 13:40
mdomsch	where's our item-tracking wunderbar secretary?	04 Jun 13:40
jwb	humbly requesting again. i realize they will likely need to be split to cope with f11 and f12	04 Jun 13:40
jwb	stickster, move on :)	04 Jun 13:40
--- stickster (n=paul@fedora/stickster) changed mode: -v jwb		04 Jun 13:41
mdomsch	I don't see a reason _not_ to grant such	04 Jun 13:41
stickster	As you wish!	04 Jun 13:41
stickster	I'll make sure this gets added to our schedule for next week.	04 Jun 13:41
--- stickster (n=paul@fedora/stickster) changed mode: +v abadger1999		04 Jun 13:41
ctyler		04 Jun 13:42
* ctyler thinks secondary arch may be more important as non-x86 netbooks gain momentum, which may eventually expose the server space to more alternate CPU designs as well		04 Jun 13:42
f13	mdomsch: the big thing is if we say yes to PPC, why wouldn't we host ia64 builders?	04 Jun 13:42
notting	f13: one time "well, we already have the hardware" exception, i would expect	04 Jun 13:42
caillon	abadger1999, in case you didn't notice, it's your turn ;)	04 Jun 13:42
f13	notting: that's my thought on it too.	04 Jun 13:42
ctyler	f13: for PPC, it's existing equipment	04 Jun 13:42
mdomsch	f13, it shouldn't be a requirement for Infra to host secondary items; but if they can, great.	04 Jun 13:42
abadger1999	What does the Board feel their role is in deciding what packages/pieces of packages can be in Fedora Repositories?	04 Jun 13:43
* stickster thinks abadger1999 is making sure we're done with this topic :-)		04 Jun 13:43
stickster	or not :-D	04 Jun 13:43
mdomsch	that would also be subject to Infra _continuing_ to have the ability to host those builders	04 Jun 13:43
stickster	I feel like the Board has an overall role in making sure that Fedora maintains Fedora's ability to be redistributed	04 Jun 13:43
mdomsch	if for some reason they couldn't, they wouldn't be required to	04 Jun 13:43
skvidal	abadger1999: the roll feels to me like an appeal court for relatively insoluble issues at fesco and the fpc	04 Jun 13:44
stickster	oops, I overused the word "Fedora."	04 Jun 13:44
ctyler	abadger1999: I think the board sets high-level policy (e.g., guidelines for legal reasons, overall direction), FESCo sets technical policy and enforces the high level policy.	04 Jun 13:44
notting	the board is responsible for the long term success/health of the project; as such, they're certainly responsible for setting legal practices, and probably the best body for setting any non-legal practices as well. (defining the audience, if it is so decided, etc.)	04 Jun 13:45
notting	for example, the firmware exception came from the board, not from fesco	04 Jun 13:46
f13	also the board should be that "make the hard choice" place when FPL/FESCo can't agree on something.	04 Jun 13:46
stickster	I can't agree on it with myself?	04 Jun 13:46
mdomsch	we shouldn't be trying to mandate "taste", though some of the software noted recently has poor taste code-wise as well.	04 Jun 13:47
abadger1999	So I'm wondering what constitutes high level policy -- does the Board feel like it should work through goals or through decrees?	04 Jun 13:47
abadger1999	firmware exception is a decree.	04 Jun 13:47
skvidal	I like either of them	04 Jun 13:47
skvidal	decree == stick	04 Jun 13:47
skvidal	goal == carrot	04 Jun 13:47
notting	abadger1999: well, it was a decree that came about due to a goal	04 Jun 13:47
notting	abadger1999: just to muddy the waters further	04 Jun 13:47
f13	stickster: FPC sorry	04 Jun 13:47
stickster	f13: heh, np	04 Jun 13:47
abadger1999	notting: Right. But it could have been stated as a goal and left to others to formulate how to actually implement it.	04 Jun 13:47
ctyler	abadger1999: feels like there's a question lurking under your question :-)	04 Jun 13:48
abadger1999	That's kinda what I'm asking.	04 Jun 13:48
f13	it probably would have been better if the board stuck to the goal	04 Jun 13:48
f13	and left the decree up to the technical bodies	04 Jun 13:48
f13	the board isn't supposed to be a technical body	04 Jun 13:48
skvidal	and yet it sometimes needs to be	04 Jun 13:48
notting	abadger1999: hm... my memory may be failing me, but i believe the original policies prohibited firmware, the board looked at goal (make fedora more useable by everyone), decreed that firmware was now OK, and then did leave the implementation up to others	04 Jun 13:48
ctyler	"non-technical body" within a technical community is a bit hard to do	04 Jun 13:48
notting	(who may have been board members at the time)	04 Jun 13:49
f13	ctyler: i guess it depends on your definition of "technical"	04 Jun 13:49
caillon	HALP I CANT FIND THE ANY KEY	04 Jun 13:49
f13	I thought the board should be figuring out what we want to do, and the technical body like FESCo would figure out /how/ to do it	04 Jun 13:49
f13	or the FPC, releng, etc...	04 Jun 13:49
notting	abadger1999: though it is interesting to note the guidelines say the final yay/nay vote on content inclusion (vis-a-vis code inclusion) is FESCo	04 Jun 13:50
abadger1999	notting: I don't remember either.... But if the Board decrees firmware == ok, it's implementation. If the Board says, firmware is not software for the definition of "free software"	04 Jun 13:50
* stickster finds it's interesting this very question came up in a recent interview he did.		04 Jun 13:50
abadger1999	Err... sorry... I was erasing that, but hit return	04 Jun 13:50
mdomsch	in the case of firmware, the board had to make an exception to the "only free software" rule it had in place and FESCo had been enforcing, in order to accomplish the goal of it being usable anywhere.	04 Jun 13:50
f13	I don't read it quite like that	04 Jun 13:50
abadger1999	Was going to agree with notting instead :-)	04 Jun 13:51
ctyler	f13: agreed, but the lines are always a bit blurry. Frankly I think that can be pragmatic, and not a real problem.	04 Jun 13:51
f13	abadger1999: "firmware must be in a package named -firmware and ....." is an implementation	04 Jun 13:51
stickster	"We disagree with lumping this blob in with code run on the CPU" is not.	04 Jun 13:51
--- stickster (n=paul@fedora/stickster) changed mode: -v abadger1999		04 Jun 13:52
mdomsch		04 Jun 13:52
* mdomsch doesn't like the firmware example; it's quite dated now...		04 Jun 13:52
stickster	yes.	04 Jun 13:52
stickster	But it saved us from saying gnaughty.	04 Jun 13:52
--- stickster (n=paul@fedora/stickster) changed mode: +v nirik		04 Jun 13:52
f13	*bonk*	04 Jun 13:52
ctyler	d'oh!	04 Jun 13:52
nirik	can the board talk a bit about the 'who is fedora for?' discussion they have been having? is that close to a endpoint? or is there much more to discuss? will there be an opening for outside the board feedback on that topic at some point? Also, how will newly elected people figure into this topic?	04 Jun 13:53
skvidal	nirik: not even remotely close to an endpoint	04 Jun 13:53
skvidal		04 Jun 13:53
* skvidal tries to figure out how old he'll be when the board is finished		04 Jun 13:53
ctyler	but good progress on some points	04 Jun 13:53
nirik	ok, good to know. It's hard to see that from minutes.	04 Jun 13:53
mdomsch	the target audience is "yes" :-)	04 Jun 13:53
notting	i believe spot was writing up a proposal for next week-ish	04 Jun 13:53
f13	nirik: there are some conflicting ideas in the current board	04 Jun 13:53
f13	and some proposals being drafted	04 Jun 13:53
spot	yeah, that hasn't happened yet. i need more hours in the day.	04 Jun 13:54
nirik	so the new board could further shape that discussion?	04 Jun 13:54
f13	don't we all	04 Jun 13:54
spot	nirik: yes	04 Jun 13:54
f13	nirik: or muddy it further	04 Jun 13:54
nirik	or change it. ;)	04 Jun 13:54
stickster	It feels like this topic is so vital for the community, but the Board is trying to make sure we are not alienating parts thereof.	04 Jun 13:54
f13	I'm going to leak my thoughts here	04 Jun 13:54
stickster	I think there's generally agreement that "Fedora is not for your Aunt Tillie."	04 Jun 13:54
skvidal	f13: eww	04 Jun 13:54
spot		04 Jun 13:54
* spot gets a mop		04 Jun 13:54
f13	Ideally we'd have one spin or one target that is THE target for Fedora	04 Jun 13:54
notting	that being said, if we end up rewriting the "who is fedora for" each 6 months with each new board, we're going to do irreparable harm to the project	04 Jun 13:55
f13	anything we do gets measured against that target. If it helps, great. If it doesn't help, but doesn't hurt, great. If it hurts, we need special attention on what is being proposed to see if the hurt is outweighed by the good done elsewhere.	04 Jun 13:55
f13	that's still very hand wavy	04 Jun 13:56
f13	and since I'm on my way out of the board, who knows if that will be carried forward.	04 Jun 13:56
spot	f13: fwiw, that seems in line with what i was going to draft, except less hand-wavy	04 Jun 13:56
notting	f13: i'm sure someone will pick up the flag for you.	04 Jun 13:56
f13	I do think the board is getting a better understanding at how defining a target will help the project	04 Jun 13:56
notting	whoops, i said flag	04 Jun 13:56
skvidal	notting: taiwanese flag	04 Jun 13:56
f13	which is one of the harder parts	04 Jun 13:57
spot		04 Jun 13:57
* spot moderates notting for trolling		04 Jun 13:57
f13	knowing what problem we're solving helps us solve the problem	04 Jun 13:57
stickster	One way we've talked about this recently is in the context of making sure that, if we have a definitive "more equal than others" approach to THE Fedora target, other groups should be somewhat freed up to explore other options	04 Jun 13:57
stickster	In other words, I think we're obligated to make sure that we are not imposing the restrictions of that target unnecessarily on SIGs or spins.	04 Jun 13:58
nirik		04 Jun 13:58
* nirik nods.		04 Jun 13:58
stickster	And by the same token, the things that SIG does can't inflict themselves on people using that central target as their entry point into Fedora.	04 Jun 13:58
notting	stickster: no Fedora dpkg sig?	04 Jun 13:59
stickster	Because if we break that experience, which presumably is what most people would get, we're cutting off our nose to spite our face.	04 Jun 13:59
--- stickster (n=paul@fedora/stickster) changed mode: -v notting		04 Jun 13:59
--- stickster (n=paul@fedora/stickster) changed mode: +v notting		04 Jun 13:59
stickster	ha!	04 Jun 13:59
notting	i'm sure there's probably a less drastic example to what you're suggesting	04 Jun 14:00
nirik	I still think fedora can and is for many people. It's fine to concentrate on some central theme, but should try whereever possible to not quash other themes if people are willing to work on them.	04 Jun 14:00
stickster	I agree.	04 Jun 14:00
--- stickster (n=paul@fedora/stickster) changed mode: -v nirik		04 Jun 14:01
stickster	(with his concurrence)	04 Jun 14:01
f13	I agree with nirik, so long as what other people are willing to work on don't risk the experience for our central theme	04 Jun 14:02
mdomsch	notting: you see febootstrap now in debian :-)	04 Jun 14:02
stickster	Right, I think abadger1999 said it well elsewhere when he mentioned "tradeoffs."	04 Jun 14:02
stickster	Which is a better expression than my nose-cutting example.	04 Jun 14:03
stickster	I think that's it for questions, Board members.	04 Jun 14:03
f13	man, nothing good to lame duck...	04 Jun 14:03
spot	whee!	04 Jun 14:03
spot		04 Jun 14:03
* spot runs away screaming		04 Jun 14:03
ctyler	in a vacuum	04 Jun 14:04
stickster	Thanks very much for attending, both Board and community alike.	04 Jun 14:04
ctyler	Thank you all, good discussion.	04 Jun 14:04
* stickster notes that Board members have an important email in their box		04 Jun 14:04
skvidal	oh dear	04 Jun 14:04
skvidal		04 Jun 14:04
* skvidal looks		04 Jun 14:04
skvidal	no, no I don't	04 Jun 14:04
stickster	I sent it out right before the meeting	04 Jun 14:04
skvidal	oh	04 Jun 14:04
skvidal	stickster: hey - when do I get kicked off the various lists?	04 Jun 14:05
stickster	Good question skvidal. Let me note that before we close	04 Jun 14:05
skvidal	ie: when is the official transition date from old board	04 Jun 14:05
stickster	The final Board appointment will happen around the time I'm in Berlin.	04 Jun 14:05
skvidal	umm	04 Jun 14:05
stickster	I would propose that the first meeting of the new Board will be the first or second week in July.	04 Jun 14:05
skvidal	can you use dates that are not relative to where you are?	04 Jun 14:06
skvidal	:)	04 Jun 14:06
stickster	skvidal: No. As you well know, the universe revolves around me.	04 Jun 14:06
skvidal	righto	04 Jun 14:06
stickster	But more seriously...	04 Jun 14:06
stickster	All I meant was that, I'll be sending that email from Berlin.	04 Jun 14:06
stickster	Does "first or second week in July" work for everyone still here?	04 Jun 14:06
skvidal	then I expect it to be sent w/a german accent	04 Jun 14:06
stickster	Schnell!	04 Jun 14:07
* stickster hears no one screaming in pain, so first or second week in July.		04 Jun 14:07
stickster	In all honesty, I suspect that the first week in July will be a recovery week for me after spending ~22 days of June away from home.	04 Jun 14:08
stickster	I'll float this around to FAB for general knowledge.	04 Jun 14:08
stickster	All right, here endeth the meeting. Thank you everyone, and remember that the Board nominees for this election will be in the town hall meeting tonight/tomorrow morning at 0200 UTC, 10:00pm US-Eastern.	04 Jun 14:09
stickster	I believe inode0 is moderating at that session.	04 Jun 14:09
stickster	Until next time, be excellent to each other! ;-)	04 Jun 14:09
stickster	</meeting>	04 Jun 14:09

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.6 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!