From Fedora Project Wiki
#fedora-board-meeting
| stickster | OK, welcome everyone to a public Fedora Board IRC meeting. | 05 May 14:01 |
|---|---|---|
| stickster | Your moderator today is quaid | 05 May 14:02 |
| stickster | quaid will collect input on the #fedora-board-questions channel, and... | 05 May 14:02 |
| stickster | ...queue people to ask in here, after the Board finishes any discussion of pending agenda items. | 05 May 14:02 |
| stickster | quaid will /VOICE people one at a time to ask questions during the Q&A portion, and we'll discuss. | 05 May 14:03 |
| quaid | oh!, thanks for the updated how-to :) | 05 May 14:03 |
| --- ChanServ (ChanServ@services.) changed mode: +v mdomsch | 05 May 14:03 | |
| * stickster notes that poelcat is not available today to dole out agenda items, so stickster will do the honors | 05 May 14:03 | |
| stickster | quaid: no problem :-) | 05 May 14:03 |
| stickster | We just recently updated. | 05 May 14:04 |
| stickster | OK, let's do a roll call. | 05 May 14:04 |
| * stickster here | 05 May 14:04 | |
| spot | 05 May 14:04 | |
| * spot burps | 05 May 14:04 | |
| notting | 05 May 14:04 | |
| * notting is here | 05 May 14:04 | |
| mdomsch | 05 May 14:04 | |
| * mdomsch here | 05 May 14:04 | |
| f13 | 05 May 14:04 | |
| * f13 none | 05 May 14:04 | |
| skvidal | 05 May 14:04 | |
| * skvidal is here | 05 May 14:04 | |
| caillon | 05 May 14:04 | |
| * caillon none | 05 May 14:04 | |
| h\h | 05 May 14:05 | |
| * h\h . | 05 May 14:05 | |
| glezos | 05 May 14:05 | |
| * glezos here | 05 May 14:05 | |
| stickster | I think ctyler is here as well | 05 May 14:05 |
| ctyler | 05 May 14:05 | |
| * ctyler here | 05 May 14:05 | |
| stickster | See? :-) | 05 May 14:05 |
| stickster | OK, we have two current items to discuss today. The first is embargoed nations and Fedora. | 05 May 14:06 |
| stickster | https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2009-May/msg00001.html | 05 May 14:06 |
| stickster | The freemedia discussion in question is on a private list because the freemedia-list has a need to protect the email addresses of people requesting media who aren't Fedora Project members | 05 May 14:07 |
| stickster | But the gist of the list discussion is that a request for free media was made from a citizen of a country that is on the list of US export-controlled nations. | 05 May 14:07 |
| stickster | spot: help me out here if I stumble. | 05 May 14:07 |
| spot | stickster: mmmkay. | 05 May 14:07 |
| stickster | The gist of export controls is several-fold, but one of the important considerations here is that Fedora contains strong cryptographic code, which is regulated by US law as a munitions item. | 05 May 14:08 |
| stickster | Any time we release Fedora, Red Hat Legal files an application for export to uncontrolled nations because of that code. | 05 May 14:09 |
| spot | (although, it is worth noting that a crypto-free Fedora, if it were created, would probably still not be exportable to these T6 nations) | 05 May 14:09 |
| stickster | spot: Thanks | 05 May 14:09 |
| spot | (T6 Nations: Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Sudan, Syria) | 05 May 14:10 |
| stickster | It is *strictly forbidden* under US law for any US entity to transfer or aid in the transference of these materials to a T6 nation. | 05 May 14:10 |
| ctyler | 05 May 14:11 | |
| * ctyler believes that the munition classification no longer applies, but the embargo conditions still apply under the new classification | 05 May 14:11 | |
| notting | stickster: so, the question: does 'hosting the ticket tracker' count as 'aid in the transference'? | 05 May 14:11 |
| spot | notting: even if it didn't, anything officially linked with the use of the Fedora trademark does. | 05 May 14:11 |
| notting | spot: so, there really doesn't appear to be any discussion - as irritating as it may be, we just have to simply say 'no' in the freemedia ticketing/e-mail system? | 05 May 14:12 |
| spot | notting: yep. | 05 May 14:12 |
| spot | it is worth noting that we are really unhappy with that fact, but it is still a fact we have to live with. | 05 May 14:12 |
| * stickster thinks there is a need for a greater movement on the part of FOSS projects in the US to put export control reform on the table in Congress. | 05 May 14:14 | |
| * stickster wondering if any other Board members have an opinion to offer. | 05 May 14:14 | |
| skvidal | all of my opinions are unprintable | 05 May 14:15 |
| caillon | all of my opinions don't matter if our hand is forced | 05 May 14:15 |
| h\h | no point of having an opinion, if we can't make a change | 05 May 14:16 |
| stickster | OK, the consensus of the Board seems to be that we hate the export laws, but we are unfortunately bound by them. | 05 May 14:16 |
| glezos | same here more or less.. | 05 May 14:16 |
| stickster | OK, moving on then? | 05 May 14:17 |
| ctyler | 05 May 14:17 | |
| * ctyler wonders if there are any efforts underway to change this, which Fedora can join/support? | 05 May 14:17 | |
| stickster | ctyler: We should certainly look for them. | 05 May 14:17 |
| quaid | stickster: there may be questions from the other channel on this topic | 05 May 14:17 |
| glezos | and if there isn't, whether we need to investigating in finding them. | 05 May 14:17 |
| quaid | save them for the general discussion section? or have them now? | 05 May 14:17 |
| caillon | write to your congresspersons | 05 May 14:18 |
| stickster | quaid: Let's take those after we handle the Board-specific discussions | 05 May 14:18 |
| notting | theoretically, RH can try and address this with the same groups they use speaking for patent reform. i'm not sure if it's on their radar now | 05 May 14:18 |
| skvidal | quaid: are they heisenberg-questions? Do we have to collapse the wave-form to determine if they exist? | 05 May 14:18 |
| f13 | I'd say lets save them, so that we can get through teh agenda. | 05 May 14:18 |
| quaid | roger | 05 May 14:18 |
| stickster | The second item on our agenda, on a less legal but equally controversial note, concerns PPC in Fedora. skvidal, take it away | 05 May 14:18 |
| skvidal | woo hoo | 05 May 14:18 |
| skvidal | can someone give voice to jeremy? | 05 May 14:19 |
| caillon | 05 May 14:19 | |
| * caillon covers his ears | 05 May 14:19 | |
| skvidal | who has voice-y powers? | 05 May 14:19 |
| --- ChanServ (ChanServ@services.) changed mode: +o stickster | 05 May 14:19 | |
| --- stickster (n=thereaso@fedora/stickster) changed mode: +v jeremy | 05 May 14:19 | |
| --- ChanServ (ChanServ@services.) changed mode: +o quaid | 05 May 14:19 | |
| quaid | thx | 05 May 14:19 |
| --- ChanServ (ChanServ@services.) changed mode: +v jeremy | 05 May 14:19 | |
| skvidal | jeremy has suggested that we demote ppc to a secondary arch | 05 May 14:19 |
| skvidal | and he is theoretically here - but the gist of it is simple | 05 May 14:20 |
| jeremy | so as everyone probably saw in my blog post the end of last week -- when do we finally make the cut for ppc to be a secondary arch | 05 May 14:20 |
| skvidal | there he is | 05 May 14:20 |
| jeremy | 1) the board had decided 2 years ago to wait until another secondary arch was up and running. but it's been two years; I don't think we expected an indefinite stay ;) | 05 May 14:20 |
| jeremy | 2) ppc is regularly not ready for interim milestones and not pushed out | 05 May 14:20 |
| skvidal | mdomsch: would you care to explain your recommendation from the mailing list? | 05 May 14:20 |
| mdomsch | sure | 05 May 14:20 |
| mdomsch | first, let me say, I believe the secondary arch process has come a long long way in the past 2 years | 05 May 14:21 |
| f13 | 05 May 14:21 | |
| * f13 wonders if dgilmore is available | 05 May 14:21 | |
| mdomsch | with 3 others | 05 May 14:21 |
| jeremy | mdomsch: indeed... never been closer :) | 05 May 14:21 |
| skvidal | f13: he's in oz | 05 May 14:21 |
| mdomsch | (arm, ia64, sparc) proving that it works | 05 May 14:21 |
| spot | The biggest hurdle for secondary arches has been the lack of the koji notification infrastructure (how the primary builders can tell the secondary builders to kick off a build once it is successful there) | 05 May 14:21 |
| mdomsch | spot, is there a plan to address this? | 05 May 14:22 |
| spot | Last week, I asked Red Hat Rel Eng whether they would be able to commit any resources to resolving that issue | 05 May 14:22 |
| skvidal | the question to my mind is not whether or not the 2ndary arch infrastructure is good or bad | 05 May 14:22 |
| spot | and I got a guarded maybe, so I'm working on drafting a more complete plan | 05 May 14:22 |
| f13 | 05 May 14:22 | |
| * f13 thought dgilmore was tasked with that. | 05 May 14:22 | |
| skvidal | it is whether or not we should be keeping ppc up as a primary arch | 05 May 14:22 |
| skvidal | and whether the board should continue "protecting" ppc as we have been | 05 May 14:23 |
| mdomsch | I also think, that having a pretty-darn-close-to-primary arch in the secondary arch list would continue to further the development of secondary arch infrastructure | 05 May 14:23 |
| f13 | lets let mdomsch finish his thoughts. | 05 May 14:23 |
| spot | the original arrangement was that once there were self-sustaining successful secondary arches, we would reconsider ppc. | 05 May 14:23 |
| stickster | f13: +1 | 05 May 14:23 |
| mdomsch | so, let me propose we take this in 2 steps | 05 May 14:23 |
| mdomsch | 05 May 14:24 | |
| * mdomsch digs out the wording, one sec | 05 May 14:24 | |
| mdomsch | Resolved that the Board removes the restriction preventing PPC from | 05 May 14:25 |
| mdomsch | being made a secondary architecture. | 05 May 14:25 |
| mdomsch | would be the first step. The Board has decreed that PPC can't be made into a secondary arch. | 05 May 14:25 |
| mdomsch | This first vote would remove this restriction | 05 May 14:25 |
| mdomsch | 05 May 14:25 | |
| mdomsch | assuming an affermative vote | 05 May 14:25 |
| mdomsch | then step 2 | 05 May 14:25 |
| mdomsch | Resolved that the Board asks FESCo to revisit the status of PPC for | 05 May 14:26 |
| mdomsch | Fedora 12 and future. | 05 May 14:26 |
| mdomsch | as fundamentally, it's not the Board's role to determine, but FESCo's | 05 May 14:26 |
| mdomsch | Honestly, if FESCo, understanding the feature process and the resource | 05 May 14:26 |
| mdomsch | requirements necessary to keep PPC as a primary arch, still decides to | 05 May 14:26 |
| mdomsch | do so, I think that's within their purvue. | 05 May 14:26 |
| stickster | mdomsch: I think that's the right way to make sure we are preserving FESCo and the community's say in this, thank you. | 05 May 14:27 |
| jeremy | mdomsch: fwiw, that matches exactly with what I'd expect | 05 May 14:27 |
| jeremy | ( / was rabble-rousing for ;) | 05 May 14:27 |
| stickster | Essentially, we're clearing a roadblock we set up ~2 years ago and saying, "Whether you want to take this road is up to you." | 05 May 14:27 |
| stickster | (addressed to FESCo as community-elected body) | 05 May 14:27 |
| f13 | this works for me, I'm ready to make the vote. | 05 May 14:28 |
| glezos | ..it also matches my own limits of detailed understanding. | 05 May 14:28 |
| mdomsch | I see PPC as being a "best in class" secondary arch | 05 May 14:28 |
| mdomsch | (not that I'm on FESCo to vote...) | 05 May 14:28 |
| mdomsch | with many benefits it brings to Fedora as a whole | 05 May 14:28 |
| mdomsch | and can bring even more benefit to the "status" of secondary arches - raising their status, visibility, and role | 05 May 14:29 |
| caillon | +1 to both of mdoschs proposals, and I encourage jeremy to suade FESCo | 05 May 14:29 |
| mdomsch | and encouraging those communities | 05 May 14:29 |
| stickster | And as spot said, we can reiterate that various Fedora people are trying to bring resources to the table that will make this a less agonizing choice. | 05 May 14:29 |
| mdomsch | s/communities/aspects of our community/ | 05 May 14:29 |
| stickster | Let's take a vote on the first part then -- that the Board removes the restriction preventing PPC from being made a secondar arcy | 05 May 14:30 |
| stickster | *arch | 05 May 14:30 |
| f13 | +1 to removing the roadblock. | 05 May 14:30 |
| skvidal | +1 | 05 May 14:30 |
| glezos | +1 | 05 May 14:30 |
| mdomsch | +1 | 05 May 14:30 |
| notting | +1 | 05 May 14:30 |
| spot | I have to vote -1. i do not feel that the original conditions for unblocking ppc have been met. we have no successful secondary arch. arm is a half cocked dir of packages built outside of koji, ia64 is non-existent, and sparc has not managed a release. | 05 May 14:30 |
| h\h | +1 | 05 May 14:30 |
| glezos | 05 May 14:31 | |
| * glezos notes to remember asking 'any other opinions before starting to vote?'.. | 05 May 14:31 | |
| mdomsch | spot, would that improve if ppc were in there? | 05 May 14:31 |
| caillon | +1 to reconfirm | 05 May 14:31 |
| mdomsch | or would that make matters any worse? | 05 May 14:31 |
| spot | mdomsch: no. i strongly think that ppc will collapse entirely without the missing infrastructure work. | 05 May 14:31 |
| stickster | spot: Isn't that the issue that FESCo will decide according to how mdomsch just laid out the issues? | 05 May 14:32 |
| spot | stickster: yes, but we set the original terms for ppc as a secondary | 05 May 14:32 |
| spot | and now we're saying that we don't have to live up to them | 05 May 14:32 |
| glezos | spot: what is the missing infrastructure work needing more? Maybe we could send a message to the community in case someone in this last minute would like to take up the leadership and coordinate the delivery of the bits needed. | 05 May 14:33 |
| f13 | We did, with a reasonable expectation of within a year having a working secondary arch system | 05 May 14:33 |
| f13 | we're now 4 releases later, and still waiting. | 05 May 14:33 |
| jeremy | spot: when we set those terms, we thought it was 6-12 months out | 05 May 14:33 |
| spot | f13: that wasn't part of the original terms though. we didn't set a date. | 05 May 14:33 |
| skvidal | spot: so we keep it FOREVER? | 05 May 14:33 |
| spot | i would feel much more comfortable setting a date for that now instead | 05 May 14:33 |
| caillon | but it was part of the decision making process | 05 May 14:33 |
| spot | saying "if it doesn't show up in 6-12 months, we lift the hold" | 05 May 14:33 |
| caillon | the goal is for it to become a secondary arch at some point. | 05 May 14:33 |
| f13 | spot: you're right, we didn't, we didn't think it was necessary based on input at the time. | 05 May 14:33 |
| f13 | things changed (or rather haven't changed) and now we're looking at the issue once more. | 05 May 14:34 |
| spot | f13: so, lets set a reasonable time limit now. | 05 May 14:34 |
| f13 | and all the board is doing is removing the roadblock, we're not setting the PPC fate. | 05 May 14:34 |
| spot | rather than just saying "surprise! no more primary for you!" | 05 May 14:34 |
| f13 | I strongly feel that we should leave this decision up to FESCo | 05 May 14:34 |
| spot | oh, you know we are. | 05 May 14:34 |
| skvidal | spot: and I'm happy with that, actually | 05 May 14:35 |
| f13 | no, there are very strong ppc supporters on FESCo | 05 May 14:35 |
| skvidal | I'm completely fine with a giant bullet going through the head of ppc | 05 May 14:35 |
| skvidal | but we're not pulling the trigger | 05 May 14:35 |
| skvidal | we're letting fesco decide to pull the trigger | 05 May 14:35 |
| skvidal | we just took the safety off | 05 May 14:35 |
| glezos | heh | 05 May 14:35 |
| spot | I think we are not acting in a responsible manner, nor are we creating any incentive to complete this work | 05 May 14:35 |
| skvidal | could that be b/c no one actually wants to do the work at all? | 05 May 14:35 |
| f13 | what incentive is there now? | 05 May 14:35 |
| spot | we're setting ppc up to fail. | 05 May 14:35 |
| stickster | spot: What incentive do we create with a further delay? | 05 May 14:35 |
| stickster | spot: Do you have an incentive in mind? | 05 May 14:36 |
| spot | stickster: well, for one, it puts pressure on Red Hat Rel Eng | 05 May 14:36 |
| f13 | are we dragging all our contributors along just so that there is enough frustration with ppc that secondary arch work gets done? | 05 May 14:36 |
| glezos | a deadline is an incentive. | 05 May 14:36 |
| spot | who says they want to do this work anyways | 05 May 14:36 |
| jeremy | spot: if they don't want to do the work, then who's going to do the work to keep it going *even if the infrastructure existed today* ? | 05 May 14:36 |
| f13 | 05 May 14:36 | |
| * f13 thinks taking away the safety net would give /more/ incentive to get things done sooner | 05 May 14:36 | |
| spot | if they don't want to do the work in the time period, they have no excuse. | 05 May 14:37 |
| f13 | rather than having the "eh, if we don't get it done, ppc isn't going anywhere" fallback. | 05 May 14:37 |
| spot | Red Hat has RHEL interests in PPC | 05 May 14:37 |
| spot | i think the time limit will give them the kick in the butt to get us what we need | 05 May 14:37 |
| f13 | then have FESCo give them a time limit | 05 May 14:37 |
| spot | they do not have RHEL interests in the other arch | 05 May 14:37 |
| ctyler | spot: if we say the F12 timeframe, as mdomsch has proposed, that's not really different from saying now+6 months | 05 May 14:37 |
| f13 | excuse me? | 05 May 14:37 |
| caillon | spot, they also have RHEL interests in arches that don't really have anything resembling a secondary arch process right now | 05 May 14:37 |
| f13 | spot: we still ship RHEL for s390 | 05 May 14:38 |
| caillon | for example, s390 | 05 May 14:38 |
| f13 | and ia64 | 05 May 14:38 |
| spot | none of the others listed as a success. | 05 May 14:38 |
| spot | ia64 is a massive failure as a secondary | 05 May 14:38 |
| skvidal | jwb would like voice | 05 May 14:38 |
| quaid | stickster: would you like me to add jwb to the discussion at this point? as last agenda item, he is also queued up to discuss PPC. | 05 May 14:38 |
| glezos | quaid: I'd like to hear jwb's opinion. | 05 May 14:39 |
| skvidal | 05 May 14:39 | |
| * skvidal would too | 05 May 14:39 | |
| * stickster too. | 05 May 14:39 | |
| caillon | 05 May 14:39 | |
| * caillon too | 05 May 14:39 | |
| ctyler | 05 May 14:39 | |
| * ctyler too. | 05 May 14:39 | |
| --- quaid (n=quaid@fedora/quaid) changed mode: +v jwb | 05 May 14:39 | |
| jwb | hello | 05 May 14:40 |
| glezos | jwb: we're all ears. :P | 05 May 14:40 |
| jwb | before offering my personal opinion, i'd like to ask a question of the board | 05 May 14:40 |
| jwb | the fedora project currently has a number of ppc builders in place, and accounts for storage for the builds, etc | 05 May 14:41 |
| jwb | since the Board is the interface to RH funds and resources, i am wondering if that existing infrastructure would still be available for use _should_ FESCo decide to demote PPC | 05 May 14:41 |
| spot | technically, the answer would be no, without some sort of exception. | 05 May 14:42 |
| f13 | Important note here, Fedora Infrastructure at one time promised that this would be allowed. | 05 May 14:42 |
| spot | we have turned down s390 equipment from RH. | 05 May 14:42 |
| f13 | I think a slight tweaking would be in order here. | 05 May 14:42 |
| jwb | promised would be a strong word, but i have had emails with Infrastructure on it | 05 May 14:42 |
| skvidal | spot: s390 equipment was 40u wasn't it? | 05 May 14:42 |
| f13 | We have PPC resources that would no longer be of primary use to Fedora, we should find some way to get those into the hands of a willing host, such as Red Hat IS | 05 May 14:42 |
| spot | skvidal: no, it was a 1U x86 server to act as a koji hub | 05 May 14:43 |
| f13 | this gets a bit... icky because the resources are blades in a blade center | 05 May 14:43 |
| skvidal | spot: ah, sorry, I am evidently thinking of something else | 05 May 14:43 |
| jwb | f13, correct | 05 May 14:43 |
| f13 | but my opinion is that we should make ever effort to get those resources usable by the ppc secondary arch effort, without compromising our position on assisting secondary arches | 05 May 14:43 |
| jwb | i ask this for two reasons | 05 May 14:44 |
| notting | f13: 'we are not taking new hardware, but you can use what we already have'? | 05 May 14:44 |
| f13 | I'll also note that the Board can only speak for Fedora Infrastructure, and not Red Hat infrastructure as a whole. Red Hat can and will do whatever it feels necessary, outside of what Fedora supports. | 05 May 14:44 |
| glezos | f13: we better, otherwise the secondary arch effort will be in clear need of donated hardware to work as it should, right? | 05 May 14:44 |
| f13 | glezos: that's already the situation it is in. | 05 May 14:44 |
| f13 | notting: perhaps, but that really depends on how the Fedora infra team feels about it | 05 May 14:45 |
| skvidal | notting: well, that's not ridiculous | 05 May 14:45 |
| f13 | PPC is unique in this situation as it was a primary arch | 05 May 14:45 |
| caillon | 05 May 14:45 | |
| * caillon thinks we should let jwb finish | 05 May 14:45 | |
| jwb | i can wait | 05 May 14:45 |
| jwb | the discussion so far is fruitful | 05 May 14:45 |
| * stickster notes the time is :46 past the hour. | 05 May 14:46 | |
| jwb | ok, so reason #1) | 05 May 14:46 |
| stickster | I have a hard stop at the hour, and we would like to leave time for Q&A. | 05 May 14:46 |
| stickster | jwb: Go ahead, thanks. | 05 May 14:46 |
| jwb | there has been no planning from a community perspective for getting machine resources in place | 05 May 14:47 |
| jwb | which means by F12, ppc would almost assuredly be dead due to a simple lack of machines without some kind of large donation | 05 May 14:47 |
| jwb | that echos spot's concerns to a degree | 05 May 14:47 |
| skvidal | so if we're going to add an item to decide on | 05 May 14:48 |
| skvidal | I'd be in favor of allowing the ppc build to continue to use existing hardware as long as it is available/functional | 05 May 14:48 |
| skvidal | so the items would be: 1. take the ppc protection away | 05 May 14:49 |
| jwb | reason #2 for asking is that i believe there is another route that can be taken at a technical level, which is to disable ppc as a primary in koji and let it transition to a full secondary on a slightly larger timescale. allowing for time to drum up more community support, etc | 05 May 14:49 |
| jwb | 05 May 14:49 | |
| * jwb listens now | 05 May 14:49 | |
| f13 | jwb: do you feel that FESCo would be unable to take those concerns into consideration? | 05 May 14:49 |
| f13 | and would you rather have the protection at the board level for these items? | 05 May 14:50 |
| jwb | f13, no, i do not. but i do believe that the machine resource question would be asked anyway | 05 May 14:50 |
| spot | i still think that without the board either mandating or strongly recommending a timetable for a change like this, we're setting PPC up to fail. | 05 May 14:50 |
| jwb | f13, and that goes back to the board | 05 May 14:50 |
| jeremy | so, how would these arguments be different if sparc or ia64 were a successful secondary arch today? | 05 May 14:50 |
| f13 | spot: I have more faith in FESCo | 05 May 14:50 |
| notting | jeremy: if they were a secondary arch today, ppc would already likely have been made secondary, per the prior arrangement | 05 May 14:50 |
| spot | notting: indeed. | 05 May 14:51 |
| jeremy | notting: and how would things like the hardware, etc be solved? it'd be the exact same discussion | 05 May 14:51 |
| mdomsch | aside from "ppc could fail", what about the thought that ppc could help _raise_ the capability of secondary archs? | 05 May 14:51 |
| mdomsch | it's been there | 05 May 14:51 |
| f13 | mdomsch: I think it'll help raise awareness. | 05 May 14:51 |
| jeremy | mdomsch: I've been saying that for years -- it was the reason I wanted to have ppc as a secondary arch two years ago ;-) | 05 May 14:52 |
| spot | 05 May 14:52 | |
| * spot has said all he has to say on this topic. any more spinning and we'll be out of time. | 05 May 14:52 | |
| f13 | so we already passed lifting the road block. | 05 May 14:52 |
| mdomsch | ppc brings benefit to x86 too, no question. | 05 May 14:52 |
| skvidal | does anyone wish to change their vote? | 05 May 14:52 |
| f13 | do we have to vote to ask fesco to look at this, or is it pretty much assumed that this will land on a FESCo topic? | 05 May 14:52 |
| spot | nope. | 05 May 14:52 |
| notting | unless someone wants to bring an amended version with a timetable up for vote? | 05 May 14:52 |
| glezos | mdomsch: if it is communicated effectively, then it could work. If the topic isn't publicly talked about and pursuited, it might not work. | 05 May 14:52 |
| ctyler | spot: What kind of timetable did you have in mind? I hear '6 months' but that sounds like 'F12' on the face of it -- or is that 6 months to get ready, then transition for F13? | 05 May 14:53 |
| spot | ctyler: 6 months for the infrastructure to be in place and live. | 05 May 14:53 |
| stickster | f13: ...which doesn't mean we couldn't restore some deadline in another vote. Yay, flip flop! | 05 May 14:53 |
| notting | f13: honestly, i don't think it's our place to tell fesco to look at it. if someone wants to bring it to fesco, sure | 05 May 14:53 |
| spot | if it is not, then we lift the hold on PPC. | 05 May 14:53 |
| skvidal | notting: why not? we're people in the fedora community, too | 05 May 14:53 |
| skvidal | notting: alternatively, then jeremy will bring it to them, I'm sure | 05 May 14:54 |
| ctyler | 05 May 14:54 | |
| * ctyler adds his +1 to lifting hold | 05 May 14:54 | |
| f13 | 05 May 14:54 | |
| * f13 thinks we should get to more public Q&A | 05 May 14:54 | |
| f13 | we're terribly over time, and I have a hard stop at the hour too | 05 May 14:54 |
| notting | skvidal: as people, sure. as a 'board decrees you should', it seems out of place | 05 May 14:54 |
| glezos | f13: FAB? | 05 May 14:54 |
| stickster | spot: Do you want to make a motion for restoring a hold on PPC with a 6-month deadline? | 05 May 14:54 |
| spot | stickster: yes. | 05 May 14:54 |
| spot | 6 months from today, if the missing koji notification build infrastructure is not in place and live, we lift the hold on PPC. | 05 May 14:55 |
| skvidal | so right before f12 comes out we drop ppc | 05 May 14:55 |
| f13 | -1, I'd rather FESCo handles the timelines. | 05 May 14:55 |
| caillon | 05 May 14:55 | |
| * caillon notes that lifting the hold does not mean that PPC is demoted in status automatically | 05 May 14:55 | |
| stickster | caillon: You're correct. | 05 May 14:55 |
| skvidal | (and let's be clare I suspect that it won't be ready and we will still drop ppc) | 05 May 14:55 |
| skvidal | s/clare/clear/ | 05 May 14:55 |
| skvidal | 05 May 14:55 | |
| * skvidal doesn't want to be clare | 05 May 14:55 | |
| quaid | 05 May 14:56 | |
| * quaid notes the only person in the Q&A queue has removed himself | 05 May 14:56 | |
| jwb | drop is such a strong word :) | 05 May 14:56 |
| skvidal | jwb: demote? | 05 May 14:56 |
| spot | fwiw, I'm +1 for my motion | 05 May 14:56 |
| jwb | skvidal, demote is more accurate i think | 05 May 14:56 |
| spot | (shocking, I know) | 05 May 14:56 |
| stickster | OK guys, please -- a motion's on the table, can we please vote? | 05 May 14:57 |
| notting | 05 May 14:57 | |
| * notting is +1 to spot's motion | 05 May 14:57 | |
| stickster | I show one -1, two +1 so far | 05 May 14:57 |
| glezos | 05 May 14:57 | |
| * glezos is +1 too. | 05 May 14:57 | |
| skvidal | -1 I think punting it back to fesco is the best bet | 05 May 14:57 |
| caillon | -1, I agree with f13 | 05 May 14:57 |
| mdomsch | -1 - FESCo can handle the tradeoff, timelines, etc. | 05 May 14:57 |
| ctyler | 05 May 14:57 | |
| * ctyler is -1, let fesco determine timing | 05 May 14:57 | |
| h\h | -1 | 05 May 14:57 |
| stickster | That's everyone, six -1 and three +1 by my count. | 05 May 14:58 |
| glezos | My reasoning is that I'm more inclined to make a careful and step-by-step choice with a safety net. | 05 May 14:58 |
| jwb | stickster, i would like the board to look into the existing builder question in the meantime if possible please | 05 May 14:59 |
| stickster | OK, so to make this clear, we have passed lifting the hold on PPC as a primary arch, and we have not passed restoring a hold for a 6-month time period. | 05 May 14:59 |
| h\h | I want a real discussion going on.. if it is protected nothing might happen | 05 May 14:59 |
| stickster | h\h: I agree, jwb -- let's bring this to FAB and resolve there. | 05 May 14:59 |
| stickster | I'm sorry this has dragged us out to the hour mark | 05 May 14:59 |
| quaid | stickster: there is no more queue for Q&A; you can call the close | 05 May 14:59 |
| stickster | *sigh | 05 May 14:59 |
| notting | quaid: there was a queue, and they backed out? | 05 May 15:00 |
| stickster | Well, the FAB still remains the place where anyone can bring up a question at *any* time for Board and community discussion. | 05 May 15:00 |
| quaid | notting: yes, he has to go at the hour, as do many of you | 05 May 15:00 |
| caillon | I also think that us setting the timeline isn't really that helpful if all we do is just lift the hold in 6 months. maybe 6 months from now, FESCo will vote to keep it around for longer. I think having FESCo set the timeline would provide more urgency than for the Board to set a timeline on possibly maybe having PPC be demoted | 05 May 15:00 |
| stickster | http://redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board | 05 May 15:00 |
| * stickster has to leave at the top of the hour, which is... now. | 05 May 15:00 | |
| stickster | I'll remain logging and publish the notes, etc. | 05 May 15:00 |
| quaid | ok, without a queue and without a chair | 05 May 15:00 |
| mdomsch | thank you all | 05 May 15:00 |
| stickster | Thank you everyone for attending, community and Board alike. | 05 May 15:01 |
| spot | 05 May 15:01 | |
| * spot sighs | 05 May 15:01 | |
| f13 | thanks all, sorry for the long meeting. | 05 May 15:01 |
| stickster | The next meeting is scheduled for 2009-06-02, UTC 1800. | 05 May 15:01 |
| ctyler | thanks everyone | 05 May 15:01 |
| jwb | jeremy, i look to you to send the first email | 05 May 15:01 |
| stickster | s/meeting/public IRC Board meeting/ | 05 May 15:01 |
| --- quaid (n=quaid@fedora/quaid) changed topic: Next public Fedora Project Board meeting: 2009-06-02 UTC 1800 -- Questions and public discussions on #fedora-board-questions | 05 May 15:10 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.6 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!