Meeting:Board meeting 2008-11-18

Fedora Project Board Meeting :: Tuesday 2008-11-18

• Public IRC Meeting

Topics Discussed

• With the announcement of a Fedora Server special interest group (SIG), Will Fedora have a server release?
• What about a searchable Fedora knowledge base?
• What progress is being made on the Fedora 11 and Fedora 12 schedule discussion?
• What about creating a history of past release schedules?

IRC Transcript

@stickster	All right, just intro'd in the public channel, mizmo will bring questions in here	11:06
+mizmo	from ongolaBoy, we have "hi, i'd like to know if with the creation of the SIG/server, we'll have a fedora 'server' release ?"	11:07
@stickster	Oh, good question!	11:07
+notting	.... that's up to the SIG, if they want to do a spin, I would guess.	11:07
+notting	unlike most SIGs, I doubt they'd do a live one.	11:07
+f13	also, we tried this once	11:08
+f13	the only thing a room full of server folks could agree upon was that you have to start minimal and work your way up	11:08
+f13	that's essentially the boot.iso/netinst.iso	11:08
@stickster	notting: Actually, that's an interesting question... because if you set up a facility for logging to an external host it would be a really cool idea from the standpoint of a secure baseline.	11:08
+f13	It allows you to start with a local boot media + installer image, and everything else is pulled from the network, allowing you to pick only exactly what you ant.	11:08
+spoleeba	would the appliance "feature" idea be aligned with future server sig..deliverables instead of a traditional iso?	11:08
+f13	so we essentially already have a "server" spin, and it's just the product of taking everything else away.	11:09
+notting	stickster: baseline, yes. but the live images don't adapt so well to each image adding the 5 necessary server packages of their own, plus maintaining the updates long term	11:09
+h\h	don't steal all the nifty SIG discussions and ideas :)	11:09
@stickster	notting: True, although there is USB to think of...	11:09
+spot	i think we should let the server SIG state their plans and intentions and not speak on their behalf.	11:10
+spoleeba	i thought part of the appliance concept was partly for virtualization needs..which screams server sig to me	11:10
@stickster	So I think the answer in summary is, "There's no compelling reason they *couldn't*"	11:10
+mdomsch	we've talked about an @Server group in kickstart too that is a minimal package set	11:10
+mizmo	is6s brings up, "The server SIG discussion and the excellent summary on FWN did bring up the need to somehow capture critical knowledge in some form more accessable than the HOWTOs"	11:10
+f13	I think the SIG has a lot of cool ideas and possiblities, like recipies (kickstart files) for various task sets, like a LAMP set, a messaging set, etc..	11:10
+notting	spot: agreed. although just for the record, due to timing there won't be one at F10 release even if they do decide to do sometihng	11:11
+spot	yeah.	11:11
+spoleeba	f13, wasnt there a summer intern who would on a website for a kickstart gallery like last summer or the year before?	11:11
@stickster	We'll make it easier on mizmo from here on out, and declare when we're done pontificating on one topic	11:11
+f13	I doubt we'll be seeing binary download representations of these sets, mostly because server folks are incredibly fickle and incredibly adverse to anything "extra" being on the spin.	11:11
+h\h	and the "live" kickstart CD :-)	11:11
@stickster	mizmo: We'll hit is6s's question in just a moment	11:11
+spoleeba	stickster, was that a question?	11:11
@stickster	whops	11:11
+spoleeba	stickster, it looks like a jeapordy "answer" in search of a "question"	11:12
+mizmo	:) how about, "is there a form more accessible than HOWTOS where we can capture critical knowledge?"	11:12
+f13	mdomsch: what would @server be that isn't satisified by @core (+ @base if you're so inclined)	11:13
+f13	spoleeba: I don't recall seeing anything actually working.	11:13
+quaid	you know, what intrigued me from the statements/discussion around a Server SIG was the thesis that Fedora has moved to being desktop focused.	11:13
+f13	so a form more accessible.	11:13
+mdomsch	f13, assuming there are a set of 'servers always have foo' features; @core might be sufficient	11:13
+quaid	yet Desktop people make the opposite argument ...	11:14
+f13	what about whitepapers for various "server" functionality.	11:14
+f13	published through the docs project?	11:14
+f13	although whitepapers can tend to be HOWTOs by a different name.	11:14
+spoleeba	f13, no..not actually working...im just suggesting obliguely that there was an idea to pull out of the trash heap and repurpose	11:14
+spoleeba	mizmo, ?	11:15
+quaid	is the SIG format going to fix this perceived schism of server/desktop?	11:15
+spoleeba	mizmo, is there.... you mean a knowledge base?	11:15
+spoleeba	mizmo, where would we host that?	11:15
@stickster	spoleeba: No answering questions with questions.	11:15
+spoleeba	stickster, really?	11:15
+spoleeba	stickster, all i do is ask questions	11:15
@stickster	really :-)	11:15
+skvidal	stickster: can we wish for more wishes?	11:15
@stickster	Only you Seth.	11:15
* stickster cracks the whip		11:16
+mizmo	spoleeba, when ideating, you shouldnt play devils advocate!	11:16
+f13	quaid: I think a server SIG can play a role in showing the community that Fedora cares more about just the Desktop, or is working on more than just the Desktop	11:16
+spoleeba	mizmo, this is a Board meeting	11:16
+quaid	spoleeba: we've discussed kbase, it would be a good thing, but we are short on resources compared to other needs/	11:16
@stickster	A knowledgebase has been discussed before in Docs, but it was never clear that it offered a huge return over a decent search engine run against any random base of content.	11:17
+f13	quaid: I don't think it'll ever "fix" the rift between the two factions, but debate and disagreement can often be healthy	11:17
@stickster	f13: no it's not	11:17
+quaid	f13: we've made great progress on making "both" possible that's for sure	11:17
+spoleeba	stickster, i should check with luke about his community oriented codebase he's working on	11:17
* stickster is being silly, sorry.		11:17
+spoleeba	stickster, ive a theory..that what we are talking about there...would help organize this sort of information as well...maybe	11:18
+mizmo	from jds2001, "is the "knowledge base" not the wiki?"	11:18
@stickster	I think Luke's idea is possibly more task-centric than knowledge-centric	11:18
+notting	i'm not sure the wiki is the right platform for the publishing of howtos, whitepapers, etc.	11:18
+spoleeba	stickster, i think it hasnt been exploded	11:18
@stickster	But there is probably a great deal of flexibility in the new Fedora Community application that J5 and others have been collaborating on.	11:18
+spoleeba	err explored	11:18
+notting	also, if we're going down the kbase road, we want something that's a whole lot more searchable than the wiki currently is	11:18
+quaid	current wiki search isn't that bad, it's the page naming that is the problem	11:19
@stickster	notting: Right. There's a fundamental problem of quality assurance, which is why... take it away quaid....	11:19
+spoleeba	notting, well regardless of the implementation.. is that the underlying desire for somethng better than a collection of howtos	11:19
+quaid	all of our pages are not searchable with WikiCaseNames; they are not in good categories; and the	11:19
+spoleeba	notting, whatever its implemented as....searchability and making sure the relevant infornation is easier to find..is the crux issue	11:20
+quaid	main namespace is full of stuff such as old Security Alerts	11:20
+f13	if it's not a howto, what is it?	11:20
+f13	what is it that people are wanting?	11:20
+quaid	the only thing a wiki doesn't have really is a sense of workflow and ability to expire automatically by rules.	11:20
+spoleeba	stickster, f13 asked a question!!!!!!	11:20
+quaid	... back to the original asker, I guess	11:20
@stickster	spoleeba: He's been sick, he gets one free pass ;-)	11:20
@stickster	I think one of the points is, almost all documentation concerns how to do something.	11:21
+spoleeba	quaid, yes... how is the wiki not good enough.. that's the question	11:21
+quaid	f13: I would say some of our stuff that is in a how-to could more better be a wizard, such as joining	11:21
* f13 is confused		11:21
+mizmo	f13, is6s says that spoleeba is articulating his main concern here, "searchability and making sure the relevant infornation is easier to find..is the crux issue"	11:21
+f13	what's the difference between a howto and a wizard? Both guide you through a process no?	11:21
+f13	mizmo: ok, that's a much much more reasonable target.	11:21
+f13	Is there an effort underway to make our existing wiki content easier to find?	11:22
@stickster	is6s: The way to improve that is to join the Documentation group and help us ensure the wiki pages are (1) appropriately titled, and (2) contain correct and timely content	11:22
+quaid	f13: sort of; I'm thinking wizards that gather and store in databases, v. telling people how to walk through each page of FAS app and add it themselves.	11:22
+quaid	f13: yes	11:22
+quaid	f13: gitwikirename :)	11:22
+quaid	we are renaming entire swathes of pages	11:22
+f13	there we go, is6s should get in contact with them	11:23
+quaid	join fedora-wiki-list for collaborating	11:23
+quaid	if you have a group that has a large # of pages on the wiki, you should be on that lis and discussing.	11:23
@stickster	quaid++ ... fedora-wiki-list is a cross-team group for getting the wiki into fighting shape	11:23
+spoleeba	quaid, can you give me a two sentence summary of the work being done?	11:23
+quaid	sure	11:23
+spoleeba	quaid, single syllable words if possible	11:23
+quaid	1. creating a set of pipe separate values files for major Subsections/ of the wiki (DocsProject.* etc.); then wikibot can rename and relink automagically.	11:24
+quaid	2. Help:Wiki_structure enforcing so people name new pages right, add them to smart categories and sub-cats, etc.	11:24
+quaid	3. Edumacation!	11:24
+quaid	<eol>	11:24
+spoleeba	actually... i saw a ubuntu planet blog entry that sort of speaks to this.... navigating web resources from a noob's pov	11:24
+spoleeba	http://www.ndeschildre.net/2008/11/17/community-infrastructure-the-newbie-test/ without getting into his qualitative analysis..i think the methodology is interesting	11:25
+f13	I also think there is room for improvement with the wiki search tool itself	11:26
+quaid	could be	11:26
+quaid	I can't really test that with the way pages are right now	11:26
+f13	it doesn't seem to want to match substrings of a page title. Searching for "foo" doesn't match a page named "bar/foo"	11:26
@stickster	We should take some hints from OpenSuSE for this. They have an excellent organization imho	11:26
+f13	which means it wouldn't find a page named "BarFoo" either	11:26
+quaid	f13: pages shouldn't be nested, that's the way it is	11:26
+quaid	yep, that's how MediaWiki works	11:26
+quaid	it all works best when pages are named naturally with spaces.	11:27
+f13	quaid: nested or not, if I search for 'package' I'd expect to find a page named 'packages'	11:27
+spoleeba	quaid, in our wiki, is there any way to associate pages which cut across categories?	11:27
+quaid	e.g. "How_to_join_the_Docs_Project" v. "DocsProject/Join/How"	11:27
+f13	or at least an option to substring search	11:27
+ctyler	case in point: search for FUDConF11	11:27
+f13	right, is that FUD_Con_F11 or FUDCon_F11 or F_U_D_Con_F11 ?	11:27
+quaid	f13: I might agree that it should pull strings from within words, but in the MW world that would get	11:28
+quaid	'package' -> 'packager', 'packages', 'packaged', etc.	11:28
+spot	can my bikeshed be green?	11:28
+quaid	FUDCon is one name	11:28
@stickster	f13: Yes, that's a good point. There's probably a resource issue for substring searches but we could ask websites to investigate it.	11:28
+skvidal	spot: if it is british racing green	11:28
+quaid	spot: funny but orthogonal	11:28
+skvidal	spot: and not ANY OTHER SHADE OF GREEN	11:28
+f13	quaid: that's how searching works. If you search too generic, you get a lot of results that will help you narrow down your search term	11:28
@stickster	These are good topics to bring up on the fedora wiki list	11:28
+quaid	+1	11:29
+spot	the intelligent solution is community tagging of content in a way that the search engine can find.	11:29
+spot	not repainting/renaming/reabusing the limitations	11:29
+quaid	is the MW method	11:29
+quaid	spot: renaming is more than that, though	11:29
+quaid	you can't l10n nested pages as well for example	11:29
+spot	quaid: do you care what the name is if you find what you're seeking?	11:29
* ctyler thinks won't help find FUDConF11		11:29
+quaid	again take the example of "How_to_join_the_Docs_Project" v. "DocsProject/Join/How"	11:30
+quaid	ctyler: yes, it will, if that is added to FUDCon_F11 page	11:30
+spoleeba	stickster, right so basically... people have a plan... they need help... now its time to shame the person who asked the question to dig in and help.. ill make that my goal for the next month	11:30
+mizmo	spoleeba, no need for shame, he is actually already on the docs team	11:31
@stickster	Well, shame-- but otherwise yes, there are plenty of useful tasks contributors can help with.	11:31
+spoleeba	mizmo, oh..so..it was an astroturfing question...i applaud the effort	11:31
@stickster	quaid: What are we waiting for wrt. the wikibot.	11:31
@stickster	sorry, s/\./?/	11:31
+quaid	stickster: completion of files in gitwikirename	11:31
+quaid	I added a column to add pages to 1+ categories, too	11:32
+quaid	so we can get a ton of motion with just one set of renames/recats	11:32
+mizmo	(got another question in the queue when you guys are ready for it .. )	11:32
+quaid	spot: there isn't a "Tag this page" tool in MW as it is, but I'll look in to that; it would be easier than "edit and add category" for sure	11:32
@stickster	I think the Board should be tremendously interested in that initiative reaching fruition.	11:32
@stickster	And that we should set a target, post-F10 release, for it to be completed.	11:32
+quaid	"we"	11:33
+quaid	?	11:33
+quaid	which we	11:33
@stickster	we the wiki gardeners.	11:33
+quaid	+1 then	11:33
@stickster	I think mizmo has another question, shall we move on?	11:33
+notting	ah, ok. don't think the board can realistically set a target w/o resources to direct	11:33
+spoleeba	stickster, im willing to set a target.. as long as im not expected to do the work..thats more than fair	11:33
@stickster	sorry, I was switching Board hat with Docs hat there.	11:33
+quaid	-1 ;-)	11:33
+quaid	that was for spoleeba :D	11:34
+quaid	anyway, to summarize	11:34
+spoleeba	stickster, how about.. we try to drive a recruitment effort to put resources into the hands of docs to mold	11:34
+quaid	the wiki is a bit of a thorn in the shoe of our contributors and needs more resolution; it's being worked on via f-wiki-l; join and help.	11:34
+spoleeba	quaid, is there potential here to run a post F10 "classroom" session specifically on this work..as a recruitment effort?	11:34
+quaid	sure	11:34
+ctyler	that would be a win	11:35
+quaid	more than a few; I know ianweller would want to lead some, too	11:35
@stickster	quaid: there are signups at fp.o/wiki/IRC/Classroom	11:35
+spoleeba	quaid, okay..so how about we set a target date for that... and board members try to line that up via some arm twisting	11:35
+spoleeba	quaid, we cant set a target for completion of the work..but we can try to set a target for a recruitment drive	11:35
+quaid	stickster: anyone mind if i rename that page? ha ha	11:36
@stickster	quaid: sure, go right ahead, there's an automatic redirect.	11:36
@stickster	OK, let's move on	11:36
* quaid notes that page doesn't actually go anywhere		11:37
@stickster	Sorry, Communicate/IRC/Classroom	11:37
+mizmo	okay our next question comes from diauq, "Q: ... caveat -- we know it is FESCo that sets the schedule for F11/F12, but recent discussions on f-a-b have shown an opinion split amongst people who are on the Board and are now or have been on FESCo, in other words ... the very people who need to reach a consensus. Is there any progress in thinking toward a consensus?"	11:37
+skvidal	sounds to me like it is up to fesco	11:38
+skvidal	not people who USED to be on fesco	11:38
+skvidal	I may have bitched and moaned about the timing but if fesco says okay	11:38
* quaid rolls his eyes		11:38
+skvidal	then it is fescos	11:38
+skvidal	decision to make	11:38
+f13	yeah, this is FESCo's decision to make	11:38
+quaid	so your answer is to reaffirm the caveat?	11:38
+f13	and it should be on the list for the next meeting.	11:38
+quaid	I'm not asking for an answer	11:38
+notting	f13: have you sent to bpepple for tomorrow?	11:38
+skvidal	quaid: my answer is to say 'it's not our job unless it is deeply screwed'	11:39
+quaid	ok, see	11:39
+f13	FESCo has the responsibility to take input from their constituants as the basis of their decision making process, but ultimately we elected them to make decisions for us.	11:39
+quaid	that diauq dude isn't asking the Board to make some decisions.	11:39
+f13	notting: I need to confirm it's on the list.	11:39
+skvidal	quaid: he's asking for a status report to a group of people who don't have that info atm	11:39
+spoleeba	im good at status reports... F11 will be released in 2012	11:40
+quaid	can This Community have a consensus around that issue?	11:40
+f13	define "This Community"	11:40
+skvidal	it's about fesco's consenseu	11:40
+skvidal	err consensus	11:40
+quaid	Fedora Project	11:40
+spoleeba	quaid, some decisions require time sensitive judgement..and not consensous...release schedules are one of those things...	11:40
+quaid	if there was nothing there to discuss, then why did it get to f-a-b etc.?	11:41
+skvidal	quaid: it was cc'd a couple of places I think	11:41
@stickster	It's important not to mistake a few thoughtful but disagreeing voices for a lack of consensus.	11:41
+spoleeba	quaid, because fab is the only list where we can hold a public feedback discussion really	11:41
@stickster	Right.	11:41
+f13	there is something to discuss, just like with almost every other FESCo topic	11:41
+spoleeba	quaid, even if it comes down to a vote.. if fesco wants feedback...fab the place for it	11:41
+f13	and it's better to have some discussion in public before a short meeting to decide an issue.	11:41
@stickster	The schedule discussion started quite a while ago in the rel-eng group	11:41
+f13	it has been the desire of many community folks that FESCo issues are posted for public discussion well prior to a meeting	11:42
@stickster	f13 was trying to bring some solidity to the discussions and make sure it was seen by a larger group.	11:42
@stickster	And we should also recognize John Poelstra who did a lot of work drafting and presenting different schedules as well.	11:42
+f13	also, I think it's very unrealistic to expect total consensus on every item from every community member.	11:42
+spoleeba	quaid, so even if there isnt consensous..and the public discussion is contentious..its not bad to have it	11:42
+quaid	hmm ... seems like "are we time based or feature based" is a pretty important discussion, and when you decide "time bsaed"	11:43
+quaid	is it "passage of time or adherence to calendar" is also pretty fundamental.	11:43
+f13	and it depends on external factors too	11:43
+f13	I've always maintained that we have a hybrid schedule, that is both time and feature based.	11:43
+f13	We set a time to get a release done, then decide on a set of features that we should be able to complete within that time.	11:44
+f13	but we have and will adjust schedule according to feature status	11:44
+f13	so we're both time based, and feature based	11:44
+quaid	true dat	11:44
+mdomsch	likewise, we adjust features due to schedule status	11:45
+quaid	well that's wonderfully clear for people outside	11:46
+mdomsch	I thought rel-eng put forward a good argument	11:46
+mdomsch	for their schedule proposal	11:46
+ctyler	Yes, I thought it was well thought out too.	11:46
+ctyler	In the big picture we have consensus on a roughly-six-month pace, we're talking about tweaks.	11:46
+quaid	"We release at a specific time, but may bump that if some features are not ready, but you cannot know which features are going to be considered important enough to warrant a slip, and sometimes the calendar matters more than the length of the release cycle."	11:46
+quaid	at the very least, can we have a field for Features that identifies them as blockers or not from the start?	11:47
+f13	sounds pretty terrible to somebody externally trying to plan around a Fedora release (:	11:47
+mdomsch	quaid: count on your feature _not_ getting in, and be pleasantly surprised when it make the Gold discs	11:47
+quaid	s/can/do/ ?	11:47
@stickster	I think assigning a different date, and slipping a date, are kind of getting mixed up in quaid's summary there.	11:47
+quaid	mdomsch: oh, yeah, I can sell that one to ISVs, for sure	11:48
+f13	quaid: erm, I thought that all features are "blockers" once they've been accepted, until such time that they are thrown out and the contengency plan is enacted.	11:48
+mdomsch	quaid: welcome to my world :-)	11:48
+quaid	stickster: sure, and that's the point; how clear is this to new contributors?	11:48
* mdomsch _is_ really an optimist		11:48
+spoleeba	quaid, awesome..so if i convince someone my feature is really really important..they can tap it as a blocker at the beginning of a devel cycle..and i can sit on my hands and make releng push back the release repeatedly to accomidate me	11:48
+quaid	spoleeba: opposite	11:48
+f13	so maybe to reword this a bit	11:48
+quaid	spoleeba: the spotlight then is on blockers to get done v. making schedules slip	11:49
+f13	we're time based, we plan features based on those times, expect features to hit our schedule dates, but will slip for bugs.	11:49
+quaid	spoleeba: then we know where to pour or restrain resources, etc.	11:49
+spoleeba	quaid, perhaps its best to leave it squishy...so decisions get put off so the people who are making effort and deserve a little extra time..get it	11:49
+spoleeba	quaid, you dotn know at the beginning which feature owners are going to make a best effort	11:49
+notting	.... i'm confused. we earlier said that fesco was going to discuss and determine the schedule, and now we're all pontificating on ... what exactly?	11:49
+spoleeba	notting, nothing	11:50
+skvidal	notting: good question :)	11:50
+mdomsch	seinfeld	11:50
+quaid	notting: something that matters to the Board	11:50
+quaid	new contributors being unable to fathom wtf our schedule is all about	11:50
+quaid	let me put it another way:	11:50
+ctyler	s/Board/the whole project/	11:50
+quaid	who decides if Fedora is a time-by-passage-of-time, time-by-calendar, feature-driven, or blend?	11:50
+quaid	is that FESCo?	11:50
+quaid	or the Board?	11:50
+quaid	ctyler: yes, but the Board represents who? the entire project	11:51
+f13	quaid: ultimately it's the FPL that decides that	11:51
@stickster	The way I look at it is this:	11:51
@stickster	The Fedora Project is more than just the distribution we issue.	11:51
@stickster	We're not a product, we're a project.	11:51
@stickster	If we were product-centric, we would likely institute a lot stronger and definitive timelines for everything	11:52
+mizmo	(we have another question in the queue when you're ready )	11:52
@stickster	We are always looking to maximize stickiness for contribution, whencever that arises.	11:52
+mdomsch	question: do we have "priorities" assigned to different features?	11:52
@stickster	Sometimes to do that we have to look at issues beyond a rigorous calendar date.	11:52
+f13	mdomsch: not enumerated in any way.	11:53
+quaid	I maintain that the calendar thing was put on _after_ the six month thing	11:53
@stickster	mdomsch: Do you mean like a weighting? I don't think so.	11:53
+quaid	and while six months is proven, I'm not yet convinced that the calendar is	11:53
+spoleeba	mdomsch, what would that get us? We dont exactly have abstract resources which we can move from one feature to another	11:54
+f13	mdomsch: that somewhat happens naturally based on what the feature is, how many things it touches, and how big of a boulder it is rolling behind you as you try to run out of the ruins.	11:54
+spoleeba	mdomsch, features are bottom up.. the feature owners drive them...we cant re-assign resources to high priorities	11:54
+notting	i'm not sure what particular features have to do with this 5 vs. 6 month cycle discussion	11:54
+f13	spoleeba: we can however more easily "throw out" some features	11:54
+mdomsch	so all features are 'nice 1' priority	11:55
+spoleeba	f13, sure...but isnt that a late in the game decision..based on how far that feature has come?	11:55
+f13	spoleeba: while other are quite difficult to throw out without incurring just as much of a delay as we would have in waiting for the bugs to get fixed.	11:55
+mdomsch	if they get done, great, otherwise, not	11:55
+quaid	notting: it does if features drive slips of that calendar, thereby causing 5 v. 6 discussions	11:55
+ctyler	notting: the question is what features you might slip for, and which ones you don't	11:55
+mdomsch	ctyler, exactly	11:55
+f13	ctyler: and the answer to that is "it depends"	11:55
+f13	sadly.	11:55
+ctyler	right	11:56
+spoleeba	f13, whether to through a specific feature out..is an intrisic assessment of that feature's scope and complexity..its not ranked ordered to another feature	11:56
+quaid	it just seems odd that we have a big drum to beat, and one little drummer can mess up the whole riddim for YEARS	11:56
+notting	i'm not sure we've ever slipped for any particular feature more than 'aaargh, broken'	11:56
+quaid	either we need to recognize that each drummer matters (features) or the beat matters (passage of time), and I don't get where adherence to a strict calendar helps either of those.	11:56
+f13	quaid: I think the only features we've ever interrupted the schedule for were big drum features, not little ones	11:56
+quaid	f13: ok, fair	11:56
+f13	quaid: and it was cases where throwing the feature out would have incurred a /longer/ delay than waiting for the feature to be fixed.	11:57
+ctyler	f13: that's the dividing line right there	11:57
+f13	quaid: often there is a point of no return on features, and we just have to accept that when we've reached that point, we may have to delay	11:57
+quaid	f13: maybe that's a basis for identifying higher-value features; discarding them costs more than delaying for them.	11:57
+mdomsch	s/discarding/postponing/	11:57
+quaid	s/value/blocker/ might be a better way to say that	11:58
+quaid	ok both changes :)	11:58
+f13	is this something we're going to want to incorporate into the F11 feature process?	11:58
+f13	if so, I think poelcat would like to know about it sooner, rather than later.	11:59
+spoleeba	f13, go or no go....if that point exists for feature...that should try to be identified so the feature inclusion process that fesco is involved with can sync with that point in the feature development	11:59
@stickster	Especially since the feature process has (I believe) already begun for Fedora 11.	11:59
+quaid	spoleeba: on your point about assigning resources	12:00
+quaid	I'd like to personally be able to know where and when to apply to help to keep a schedule from slipping	12:00
+quaid	usually when the ubiquitous we hears about it, it's too late to help.	12:00
* quaid doesn't need to keep beatin' this hoss		12:01
+quaid	but I don't think we should fool ourselves	12:01
+quaid	in to thinking that there isn't a fundamental "what is Fedora" question in here	12:01
+f13	we've drifted quite a bit, is there a summary of what we've been discussing, or any action items to take away?	12:01
* stickster was looking in buffer asking himself the same.		12:02
+quaid	that the Board is not answering by saying, "this one time schedule change thing is FESCos, let's move on."	12:02
+skvidal	do we have more questions?	12:03
@stickster	Would we like to pick out something we can concentrate on, like how to rate the blocker-ness of features at a particular point in the release cycle?	12:03
@stickster	(or a point determined by the feature itself)	12:03
+quaid	Action Item: can FESCo consider the value of assigning blocker levels to features to give earlier warning of potentially blocking features where bugs might cause schedule slip?	12:03
+quaid	stickster: for your q, I don't think that's really Board stuff.	12:04
@stickster	quaid: You just said what I wanted to say, only you said it correctly.	12:04
+quaid	Board is, "The schedule keeps slipping, we cannot find a way to help prevent that, what are you (FESCO, Releng) doing to help the rest of the community do our jobs of helping?"	12:04
+spoleeba	quaid, let me put it this way... i think its inappropriate to pick winning and losing features at the beginning of the Featuring process. By setting priorities early you are delibrately saying sorry Feature Y owner..it doesnt matter that you've been kicking ass and doing your job to drive your feature forward responsibly for months and now need a little help...we decided that this other feature over here with the deadbeat feature driver is way mo	12:04
+spoleeba	re important	12:04
+spoleeba	quaid, i think thats fundamentally wrong	12:04
@stickster	I didn't mean the Board should be taking the issue on, but that we should ask FESCo to look at that.	12:04
+quaid	spoleeba: oit	12:05
+quaid	spoleeba: it's not priority	12:05
+quaid	it's how far a feature reaches in and can mess up the schedule	12:05
+quaid	for example, the Transifex feature did not have l10n dependent on it for that release, so it's arrival or not did not impact the schedule.	12:05
+quaid	Plymouth? pretty far reaching, etc.	12:06
+quaid	it's not some way for people to slack by proxy.	12:06
* poelcat can't recall an incomplete feature that has "messed up the schedule"		12:06
+ctyler	number of tentacles and strength of their grip, not value of the feature	12:06
+spoleeba	quaid, so its a matter of milestoning inside the release.... at what point in the feature's development does it become release schedule critical	12:06
+f13	poelcat: networkmanager caused late slips for F9 or F8 did it not?	12:07
+quaid	for example ... if there are features where bugs are going to block the release, are we getting enough focus on testing those features above others?	12:07
+spoleeba	quaid, that point must be gotten to early ennough...or its grounds for punting on review	12:07
+quaid	spoleeba: yeah, something like that; some might get punted earlier, therefore, if continuing with them is going to risk the schedule too much, etc.	12:07
+f13	quaid: I think that's a fair question, and from releng I have an answer to that. Is this something we want to discuss now?	12:07
+poelcat	f13: fair enough... i kind of think that is the only one... and it would have blocked the release even if it didn't have a feature page	12:07
@stickster	I think we've solidified that there's a question worth asking.	12:07
+quaid	also, there *are* features where e.g. RHEL engineering could be hit up for help to get through bugs, if we can identify to tburke that it's needed.	12:08
@stickster	quaid: I think further discussion here is something we should do on f-devel-l.	12:08
@stickster	Where more actual developers can chime in.	12:08
+quaid	ok!	12:08
+spoleeba	quaid, most assuredly we can persuade...but we dont manage enough engineering resourced directly..there is a difference	12:08
@stickster	Hoss, you are hereby released.	12:08
+notting	stickster: i'm not seeing how that's relevant to the initial query about this particular schedule discussion, though	12:09
+quaid	spoleeba: yes, but that doesn't absolve us from trying, and we need the ammunition to try.	12:09
@stickster	The original question was about consensus, and we've wandered into the fact that our schedule slips.	12:09
@stickster	mizmo: Anything left in the queue at this poitn?	12:10
@stickster	*point, even	12:10
+mizmo	stickster, nope	12:11
+f13	there should be at least one	12:11
+mizmo	f13, no that wasn't a real question	12:11
+mizmo	and i thought it was	12:11
+f13	ah	12:11
@stickster	OK, it seems like there's a lurking question we haven't answered that's too inefficient for IRC, which is, "What is the proper way to acquaint new contributors with how our schedule works?"	12:12
@stickster	Maybe we should cobble that out through email	12:12
+spoleeba	our schedule works?	12:12
+f13	brb	12:12
@stickster	"the Fedora release schedule works"	12:12
+notting	stickster: i always thought it was '6 months, adjusted for slips, with an attempt to sync around mayday/halloween)	12:13
@stickster	Sorry, I didn't realize there was another schedule we were talking about over the last 30 minutes.	12:13
+quaid	notting: in other words ... don't book travel or make plans until the last three weeks?	12:14
@stickster	notting: That's how I've thought about it too. If we can't get more specific, we should note why somewhere that people can read it.	12:14
+spoleeba	notting, i purposely try to find a way to introduce enough slips in the spring release so it falls on my birthday...	12:15
@stickster	OK, if there's nothing further... mizmo?	12:16
+mizmo	stickster, we got another one	12:16
+mizmo	from joropo, " could a history of past releases schedules be developed? Rather that pontificate upon what *should* happen, can we gat a view of how things unfolded before?"	12:16
@stickster	I believe someone's done that on one of the lists...	12:17
+mdomsch	poelcat provided some of that already	12:17
@stickster	I don't have a URL handy but I think it might have been either John or Bill	12:17
+notting	wasn't me	12:17
+mizmo	nothing else in the question queue after that	12:18
+poelcat	Releases/HistoricalSchedules	12:18
+notting	quaid: i think we're fairly clear months in advance (modulo big explosions). might be worth comparing to ubuntu. i don't think 'big' companies (msft, even red hat with RHEL) are valid comparisons, as they're not working on the same cycles	12:18
+poelcat	Releases	12:18
+spoleeba	poelcat im sure answeed this in the fab thread...in response to me asking about that historical trends	12:18
+quaid	notting: that is not the feedback we get most releases from Ambassadors trying to plan release parties, for example	12:18
@stickster	Yes, he did -- Nov. 13th	12:18
+notting	poelcat: does that describe the schedule moves from the planned dates?	12:19
+poelcat	https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2008-November/msg00074.html	12:19
+poelcat	notting: nope... nobody tracked it before I started	12:19
+poelcat	doing it w/ taskjuggler	12:19
+quaid	if it mattered, we could figure it out to some level of accuracy	12:20
+notting	quaid: yeah, we can probably do wikimining	12:20
@stickster	OK, I think in fairness to our moderator we should close up shop here. We can continue talking if anyone would like.	12:21
+quaid	if we continue, over on #-public	12:22
@stickster	quaid: Right	12:22
@stickster	Adjourn?	12:22
+f13	One comment	12:23
+f13	re the history of schedules	12:23
+f13	Every release is unique, and each release faces it's own pressures and difficulties.	12:23
+f13	the result of one release can't necessarily be compared to the result of another, especially when things like the break in happen, or a move to an external build system	12:23
+f13	the constants between releases outside of these events have been somewhat identified, and we've attempted over the releases to introduce new methods of avoiding common scenarios	12:24
+f13	I"d like to think that we improve a little bit each time, uncovering layer upon layer of what causes delays, attaching each layer as we get to it.	12:25
+f13	so while the net result of "we slipped a week" still may happen, it's certainly not for the same reasons.	12:25
+f13	(except for when it is and our experiments failed)	12:25
+f13	that's all I have.	12:25
@stickster	OK, so noted f13 :-)	12:27
@stickster	And thanks again to John and you for trying to bring clarity to the F11 schedule given our F10 calendar	12:27
* notting has to disappear		12:28
@stickster	Thanks guys	12:28
@stickster	Anyone wanting to stick around can come to #fedora-board-public	12:28
@stickster	</meeting>	12:28

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!