From Fedora Project Wiki
< Extras | SteeringCommittee
2007 April 12 FESCo Meeting
Members
Present
- Brian Pepple (bpepple)
- Jason Tibbitts (tibbs)
- Christian Iseli (c4chris)
- Rex Dieter (rdieter)
- Toshio Kuratomi (abadger1999)
- Kevin Fenzi (nirik)
- Dennis Gilmore (dgilmore)
- Josh Boyer (jwb)
- Jeremy Katz (jeremy)
- Jesse Keating (f13)
- Bill Nottingham (notting)
Absent
- Tom Callaway (spot)
- Warren Togami (warren)
Summary
Packaging Committee Report
- FESCo approved the Packaging Committee's guidelines regarding:
- http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/OverallReviewGoals
- http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Conflicts
Renaming cvsextras
- FESCo approved warren's proposal to rename the cvsextras group.
Koji
- f13 discussed the plans for the switch from plague to Koji in Extras.
EPEL
- FESCo voted against the plan to delete everything and then do a mass-rebuild for EPEL5, instead of bumping the spec and rebuilding.
Package Conflicts
- bpepple received from Michael Schwent the tool to identify packages with conflicts, but he hasn't had time to look at it.
Log
* jeremy is here <bpepple> FESCo meeting ping -- abadger1999, bpepple, c4chris, dgilmore, f13, jeremy, jwb, notting, rdieter, spot, nirik, tibbs, warren hi everyone. * jwb is here <bpepple> who's around. <tibbs|h> I'm having some home repair done so I may be in and out. * nirik is here. thl is on the rabble seats abadger1999 here <rdieter> here <RajeshPandey> here --- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- Packaging Committee Report -- spot, abadger1999, rdieter, tibbs, scop <bpepple> tibbs|h: you want to take this? <tibbs|h> Two proposals this week. Yes, I'll run it. First is a basic statement of the responsibilities of reviewers and packagers during the review process. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/OverallReviewGoals If only the wiki were working.... <bpepple> d'oh! <tibbs|h> This is going to be difficult otherwise, I guess. <jeremy> indeed * dgilmore is here <tibbs|h> Perhaps abadger1999 has the text laying around somewhere. <abadger1999> http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:j3aohLyfkkAJ:fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/OverallReviewGoals+fedora+overallreviewgoals&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us <abadger1999> Google cache * c4chris is here <tibbs> abadger1999: Not quite. Oh, there it is at the bottom. Can everyone see that? <bpepple> yup. <tibbs> This is intended to replace the first paragraph of the ReviewProcess document. <bpepple> I don't see any problem with it. +1 <c4chris> +1 <tibbs> abadger1999: Is that the final text we chose? The cache is from before the meeting. <jeremy> looks okay I guess <nirik> +1 from here... <abadger1999> If it's before the meeting then it's old. <rdieter> final draft was a worded a little diferent, but the intent is/was the same. <notting> sorry i'm late. url? <abadger1999> I can pull the texts directly from the server if you want. <f13> well, I +1'd it in the packaging meeting, so I'll +1 it here. notting: wiki go boom, can't look directly at it <tibbs> abadger1999: That might be better; another alternative would be to postpone, but it would be really nice to get to the conflicts document. Since folks have been waiting on that. <abadger1999> What's the URL for the other docs? <tibbs> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Conflicts If that's what you're asking. <abadger1999> K. Let's postpone this portion and I'll pull the text so we can do this later in the meeting. <bpepple> abadger1999: ok. <tibbs> OK. bpepple, let's move on. --- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCO-Meeting -- MISC -- renaming cvsextras group -- warren * f13 runs to grab his lunch <bpepple> jeremy: warren's gone, but he mentioned on the mailing list that he wanted to implement this. possibly after the meeting, providing we approved the idea. <jeremy> bpepple: yeah. and as long as we're not switching the rest of the world at the same time, I'm okay with it <jwb> fine with me <bpepple> quick vote then? <f13> +1 <jwb> the wiki needs updating at the same time though <c4chris> +1 <bpepple> +1 here also. <notting> +1 <jeremy> jwb: yes. warren had a list of things needing updating +! +1 even <jwb> +1 <abadger1999> +1 <nirik> +1 (also if the script that sends out the sponsorship needed needs updating it should be at the same time) <rdieter> +1 <tibbs> +1 <bpepple> ok, so this is approved. I'll send a note to warren. --- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCO-Meeting -- MISC - koji - f13 <bpepple> f13: you wanted to talk about kojii <dgilmore> bpepple: we should switch Extras from plague to koji in the next week <f13> yeah, I sent mail to maintainer's regarding using Koji outlined what I think needs to happen <tibbs> Yes, that seems reasonable. <f13> but it all seems doable. <tibbs> One question, though: <f13> it's not hte merger yet, but will ease us into it. <tibbs> if dist-fc7 inherits from dist-fc6, how do we drop packages? <f13> dgilmore: we still need an rpm fix for devel. <nirik> sounds good to me, there should be a clear announcement about any outages and when and perhaps a "about to start" and "finished" emails to maintainers? <tibbs> Or am I confused about what "inherits" means? * bpepple hasn't had a chance to read his e-mail today. <f13> tibbs: you can block a package from dist-fc7 <jeremy> tibbs: there's a method of blocking packages to drop them <dgilmore> f13: yes we have the srpm and jeremy looked at it <f13> tibbs: it won't get inherited. <dgilmore> nasrat has not shown up <tibbs> OK, no problem. <jwb> f13, is core still using brew? <f13> jwb: yes <dgilmore> jeremy: can you get the patch into rpm <notting> f13: any progress on the build capacity tests? <f13> we don't have enough build power in the colo to switch over core yet. <tibbs> I'm looking forward to some "how to do cool things with koji" document. <f13> notting: yeah, doesn't look horrible, will be pretty good with a couple more boxes. <jwb> f13, can the core build machines be switch to koji though? <f13> notting: crap, I knew I forgot to cc somebody on those tests. jwb: no. <notting> f13: buy buy buy! <jwb> f13, because of RHEL? <dgilmore> jwb: how did you go ppc wise? <f13> jwb: because of SarBox and essentially we'd be granting access to people outside of Red Hat to machines inside the firewall. <jeremy> dgilmore: will try to get to that this afternoon. a little busy with summit live dvd finagling <dgilmore> jeremy: :) thanks and understood <notting> f13: mmcgrath: boxes on order? <jwb> f13, no. i don't mean merge yet. just run separate koji builder on the existing core machines <f13> notting: I've been granted a virtual blank check to get it done, we just have to figure out what is actually necessary for now until we can deploy the blade center. <jwb> dgilmore, Quad G5 mac is available whenever mmcgrath wants it <f13> jwb: I'm not following. jwb: what good would that do? <jwb> f13, do it there first where it's controlled and contained before releasing it to extras? <f13> jwb: lets talk about that after the meeting k? <tibbs> Obviously we just need a few racks of populated blade centers. <dgilmore> jwb: can you help us price up som 1U power5 boxes <jwb> dgilmore, i don't think IBM makes 1U power5 boxes <dgilmore> jwb, f13: lets talk hardware with mmcgrath after the meeting <f13> so, is there anybody that is in disagreement with going forward? dgilmore: yeah, lots of emails are flying by <jwb> f13, i'm asking why extras first, that's all... <f13> jwb: lighter load, existing builders, easy to move. <bpepple> f13: I don't have any problem with it. <c4chris> I'm fine with the move <tibbs> As long as it's relatively painless for the maintainers, then I think the sooner the better. <f13> jwb: Core is essentially using the same codebase, just a different instance of it. <notting> f13: don't have enough info to ask more questions - behind on mail. <jwb> f13, ok was just trying to get some feel for how much it's been tested seems fine with me <jeremy> jwb: due to.. ummm... "similarity" with other things, the underlying bits of koji are quite well tested. <nirik> yeah, on-ward to f7 victory. ;) <jwb> jeremy, that's great then <f13> which really, is mock <jeremy> nirik: indeed! <nirik> when were you guys thinking of doing the changeover? <f13> nirik: that really depends on how soon we can get the needed software bits written <dgilmore> nirik: when we can <f13> nirik: now that we have fesco buy-in, we can make that something of a priority * f13 had hoped mschendent would have responded by now... <nirik> ok, sounds good. I would like to see updates announced to maintainers or something to keep people in the loop... ;) <f13> mschwendent? <dgilmore> f13: he resonds on some things and not on others <f13> nirik: yep, I"ll constantly drop notes there <tibbs> Did he have concerns he voiced earlier? <f13> not that I"m aware of <bpepple> f13: anything else in regard to koji? <f13> I can't tell if he's even noticed or not <dgilmore> tibbs: no we need to tie the existing push scripts into koji <thl> will EPEL switch to koji at the same times as Extras? <dgilmore> thl: yes <thl> dgilmore, k, was just wondering <dgilmore> thl: well proberlly <thl> befcause f13's mail had a "(devel?)" in it <f13> thl: I can't say that right now. <nirik> dgilmore: so will the 5 rebuild take place now in plague or in koji? I guess it depends on timeframe..? <f13> I'm planning just devel/ for now <dgilmore> nirik: depends on timing <f13> as to not disrupt released product streams <tibbs> Does it look to be difficult to fix up the push scripts? <f13> tibbs: in theory, no. BUt i Haven't actually looked at the scripts <nirik> so fc5/fc6 builds will be in plague still, and devel will use koji? <f13> nirik: that's my initial plan. <dgilmore> nirik: and make build will do the right thing <f13> once devel use is solid, we can migrate fc6/5 too <nirik> you should make sure to check the case of 'make plague' (which I sometimes use... ) <f13> sure, balk if on devel/ <nirik> yeah. <notting> erk. we never did announce anything publicly about fc5, did we? <dgilmore> notting: no <f13> notting: nope! <jwb> f13, why? <f13> jwb: because plague buildroots won't be updated for devel builds. <dgilmore> notting: in theory FC-5 will stop support when Test4 is out <f13> jwb: and push scripts migh tnot pick up anything build for devel/ in plague <notting> dgilmore: ? <thl> dgilmore, test4 or test3? <notting> dgilmore: pretty sure the 'new' thing was a month or two post f7 <f13> thl: test3 is out already. notting: we were waiting for RH buy in on that. <thl> f13, ohh really? ;-) <jwb> f13, sorry, i meant why not switch to koji across the board? <dgilmore> notting: that was agreed upon for future releases but never backdated <tibbs> Due to lack of clarity, I'd wager that many folks are expecting the new thing to apply to FC5 as well as FC6. <f13> jwb: I don't want to risk an interruption in delivering updates to FC6 <bpepple> tibbs: agreed. <jwb> you mean FE6 <f13> jwb: right, both because we weren't planning on merging Core 6 either. not right away <EvilBob> dgilmore: someone at some point made the change retroactive for the "active" releases <f13> if we break rawhide, well it's rawhide. I don't want to break a live product, especially if there is a security issue that comes up. <jwb> ok. i find it a bit confusing that two buildsystems will be in use, but i guess there is some pain like that to be expected <thl> EvilBob, sure? I never saw that annouced anywhere, but maybe I missed it <dgilmore> EvilBob: that was not communicated anywhere <jeremy> jwb: 3 build systems for some of us. whee! :) <f13> dgilmore: I think we talked about it at a Fedora Board meeting <jwb> heh :) * thl wonders if mspevack is around to clarify <EvilBob> IIRC it was in a board meeting <f13> a discussion of how retroactive to make the new lifespan. <dgilmore> well it needs to get out in the wild if that is the case anyway lest move on <thl> dgilmore, +1 <bpepple> dgilmore: agreed. * rdieter recalls the "retroactive" discussions as well. <nirik> I think that was waiting on RH buyin for doing security updates for fc5 longer. <thl> rdieter, discussions yes, but no final decisions iirc <rdieter> notting said no one yelled, so we called it good. :) <thl> :-) <bpepple> ok, we should probably move on. <f13> dgilmore: we wanted to get RH buy in before trying to get fesco buy in. <dgilmore> f13: thats where i thought things were at waiting on RH <notting> hey, the wiki's alive --- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCO-Meeting -- MISC -- Package Database - abadger1999 <f13> dgilmore: that's what we've just spent 10 minutes confirming. <abadger1999> bpepple: Nothing to report. Move on. --- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- Packaging Committee Report -- spot, abadger1999, rdieter, tibbs, scop <f13> dgilmore: that it's still waiting on RH <bpepple> since the wiki's back up. tibbs thl tdiehl <f13> now that the wiki is up... (: <bpepple> tibbs: want to go back to this? <tibbs> I'm still getting "down for maintenance" <jeremy> it is? <notting> ...and it's down again * f13 shakes his fist at mod_python <bpepple> d'oh! alright moving on again.... <tibbs> abadger1999: Any luck with extracting the texts? --- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCO-Meeting -- MISC -- Package Conflicts <abadger1999> http://www.otoworchard.com/fedora/Conflicts.html <tibbs> Ah, there's the conflicts draft. <abadger1999> http://www.otoworchard.com/fedora/Overall.html <bpepple> I talked to mschwent about this, and got his tools. He didn't sound interested in heading it, though. <tibbs> So, we have enough to proceed with the PC report, and the conflicts draft ties in. --- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- Packaging Committee Report -- spot, abadger1999, rdieter, tibbs, scop <tibbs> First off is http://www.otoworchard.com/fedora/Overall.html <notting> 2 <tibbs> Not much there really, but questions cropped up recently about this so we felt a bit of clarification was in order. <c4chris> looks fine +1 <bpepple> +1 <notting> +1 <f13> +1 <tibbs> +1 <nirik> +1 <tibbs> Anyone else? <jwb> +1 <rdieter> +1 <tibbs> OK, next is http://www.otoworchard.com/fedora/Conflicts.html <f13> +1 on that too <nirik> +1 <tibbs> A bit more meat here; I hope everyone had a chance to read over it. <c4chris> +1 <jwb> reading <rdieter> +1 <jeremy> looks pretty reasonable. +1 <tibbs> It is expected that we'll find other situations that will need to be clarified, so we'll add more sections to this as necessary. <f13> tibbs: did the PC approve the Conflicts draft? I don't remember it <bpepple> +1 <f13> but then again.... <tibbs> f13: Yes, voting was 5-0 <abadger1999> On Tuesday. <jwb> +1 <tibbs> And there's a +1 from you further down in the logs which I wasn't sure about. <notting> +1 <f13> tibbs: oh right, yeah I +1'd it sorry, this week has been... fun. <tibbs> f13: I'll update the minutes to indicate that. People have been wanting this conflicts draft for some time now, so it's good to get motion on it. BTW, +1 <notting> tibbs: i think the +1 was implied in your previous statement <tibbs> Anyone else? Remember to get your comments out there so that we can consider them before Tuesday when we'll write this up. <tibbs> bpepple: Assuming, of course, you indicate that this has passed. <tibbs> Otherwise that's all from the PC. <bpepple> tibbs: I consider these guidelines approved by FESCo. <tibbs> abadger1999: Thanks for extracting that text. <abadger1999> tibbs: No problem <bpepple> tibbs: anything else, or should we move on? <notting> tibbs: a 'what to do if upstream refuses to rename' section might be good. not that i have any ideas in that regard <f13> I think that's it. <tibbs> Yes, that's it from us. <bpepple> ok, moving on.... --- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCO-Meeting -- EPEL <bpepple> anything in regard to EPEL need to be discussed? <jwb> yes * thl send some notes from this week to the list <tibbs> notting: If you do have any ideas about that, please let us know. <thl> one hour or so ago <jwb> there was the buildroot issue Axel wanted acked by FESCo <notting> tibbs: get out baseball bats and beat upstream? :) * bpepple hasn't had a chance to read his e-mail today. :( <thl> bpepple, it's about the "mass-rebuild of EPEL5 now that we soon have RHEL5 final on the builders" bpepple, it was voted to delete everything and just rebuild <bpepple> thl: ok. <jwb> -1 <thl> everything, without chaning ENVR <f13> er.. <jwb> yeah, -1 <f13> that may not bode well for clients whom already ahve stuff installed <nirik> (note: only EPEL-5... not 4) <thl> f13, tell those that voted like that <f13> as noted many times before, packages changing checksums and such get messy <jwb> f13, it was noted in their discussion. apparently it didn't seem that big of a deal * thl disliked that plan, too <jwb> are we voting on this yet? <f13> *shrug* I don't run rhel5 so I won't get effected by it. <bpepple> jwb: Yeah, we should do a quick vote. <jwb> f13, more than rhel5 <tibbs> I'm still not understanding why you wouldn't want to bump, and I read the IRC logs. <jwb> tibbs, me either <dgilmore> tibbs: becaue people did not want to fork the spec <jwb> that is just lazy <thl> jwb, +1 <dgilmore> i wanted to add a .1 and rebuild <jwb> you're pissing on your users because you don't want to make a 2 character change <tibbs> Ah, that is a point, but I don't think it's a terribly good point. <jwb> dgilmore, that would be very acceptable <c4chris> yea, .1 and rebuild <rdieter> dgilmore: +1 <tibbs> The spec will diverge pretty much immediately anyway. <jwb> right <thl> dgilmore, why did you vote for deleting the packges then? * thl is confused <notting> ? you don't need to fork the spec. just b/c the release changes, doesn't mean you have to build and push for older releases <jwb> notting, fork it vs. the fedora spec <f13> notting: er, they have to bump the spec there, but nowhere else, so now the specs are diverged <notting> *horrors* <tibbs> As I understand things, EPEL has no reason to attempt to keep any kind of release ordering with Fedora. <dgilmore> thl: i was confused by then. <f13> not that I find anything _wrong_ with that. <tibbs> So it's not even appending ".1"; just bump the release. <f13> nod <thl> dgilmore, np, I was just confused now <notting> thl: well, two issues. i'd be all for 'rebuild and delete all old packages', but with a release bump <thl> tibbs, some people prefer to appending ".1" ovefr bumpin the release <f13> is there a call for fesco vote? <thl> I think they have a point <jwb> f13, axel requested one <f13> or a point 1 (: <thl> notting, sounds fine for me <c4chris> :-) <tibbs> OTOH, not rebuilding at all seems to be working for Fedora at this point. What's the reason they absolutely must be rebuilt? <abadger1999> tibbs: If they want to use the vanilla spec later, using .1 lets them come back on the next Fedora Release rather than the next upstream bump <nirik> tibbs: they were build against beta1 <tibbs> abadger1999: Extremely good point. <f13> abadger1999: but that actually overwrites history unless they merge that .1 somewhere into the history of hte FEdora spec <nirik> abadger1999: yeah, changelog is lost then if you merge <tibbs> nirik: And we have .fc6 packages in F7; surely F7 diverges from FC6 more than rhel5b1 diverges from rhel5release. <thl> f13, is that really a big problem if it was just a "rebuild" in the chanelog? <notting> dgilmore, this is only rebuilding things actually built for EPEL, not everything in EPEL cvs, right? <thl> notting, yes, only what has been build up to now <f13> thl: it's not a really big problem, but I generally don't like to see history get stomped <nirik> tibbs: yeah, you would think so... dunno for sure. <f13> and who k nows what happens with the rebuild, something may end up needing changed to build again against RHEL5 GA <thl> f13, agreed; I think in this case it's still not nice, but acceptable <f13> tibbs: you'd be surprised what all changed from B1 to GOLD * rdieter thinks we're not here to (re)make epel's decision for them (or not?), just ack or nack it. <f13> -1 (for their current plan) <jwb> -1 <c4chris> (plan == rebuild and no bump, right) <jwb> rdieter, but we can nack with a suggested improvement <thl> c4chris, yes <bpepple> c4chris: correct. <f13> c4chris: yep <c4chris> k, -1 then <notting> -1 <bpepple> -1 here also. <tibbs> Yeah, I hate to be an obstruction, but -1 to rebuilding with no bump. <abadger1999> -1 <thl> jwb, I can take care of that if you want; i was against this in any case ;-) <bpepple> so it looks like we against EPEL suggested plan. <jwb> thl, great <thl> bpepple, I'll get that out to epel and will take care of it <dgilmore> notting: yeah just whats built <bpepple> thl: great, thanks. <thl> but I'd like to discuss something else: do you guys here really want to ACK or NACK each decission from the packaging commitee or the epel steering committee? wouldn#t it be easier to discuss it on the list <bpepple> thl: personally I don't. * nirik voted for just wipe and rebuild, but doesn't really care that much... if everyone thinks there needs to be a bump we can do that. <thl> and bring only controversial topics (like the last one that just got nacked) up here? that might be a lot quicker and easier for everyone that how it was planed and done with the PC months ago, too <f13> except what's controversial for FESCo may not seem controversial to PC or EPEL sigs <jwb> thl, it would be helpful for a set amount of time to pass by before actually moving forward with the decision <thl> f13, that why the summaries get posted to the list <jwb> so FESCo has time to review and speak up <thl> jwb, sure <tibbs> The PC stuff can go either way, but it seems that some things just don't generate comments unless there's actually a vote called. <abadger1999> I'd like to see a report of issues discussed/decided on. But not necessarily discussion or ACK/NACK. <bpepple> abadger1999: +1 <jwb> abadger1999, +1 <thl> jwb, the rule was that the meeting minutes had to be send to the proper place at least 24 hours before the next fesco meeting abadger1999, +1 the question is: where to send it <jwb> thl, right, but i mean if we're not going to ack/nack everything, wait a week or so before actually implementing the decisions <thl> can I send it to the FESCo list directly? or fedora-maintainers? devel? jwb, we are in agreement <notting> maybe just give fesco a week of veto power? <bpepple> I would lean towards either maintainers or devel. <f13> -maintainers <jwb> notting, right <thl> bpepple, devel is public, so might be better <f13> notting: I can agree to that. <jwb> -maintainers <tibbs> I admit I haven't always been able to get the PC summaries out a full 24 hours previous so far I've made at least the day before. <thl> why exclude the rest of the world <f13> or even -maintainers-announce thl: because the rest of the world doesn't have veto power. <thl> tibbs, well, then the veto power extends by one week f13, but the rest of the world should not be excluded IMHO <f13> no reason why maintainer's couldn't be read-only <thl> anyway, let's stop here for now we can work out the details on the list <f13> -devel is horribly noisy to try and run decisions through <thl> that might be easier <bpepple> thl: thanks. moving on.... --- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- Free discussion around Fedora <nirik> is lmacken around to give a quick status update on bodhi? <jwb> what is bodhi * bpepple hasn't heard of it either. <thl> jwb, the new updates system from lmacken <wwoods> the updates system <jwb> huh? <notting> jwb: patrick swayze in point break? <jwb> for update announcements? notting, nice :) <nirik> https://hosted.fedoraproject.org/projects/bodhi/ guess lmacken isn't around? Oh well. Just a thought. <wwoods> for getting new builds into updates-testing and then pushing them to updates <jwb> f13, oh... does koji do scratch builds? <f13> yes <jwb> and they'll be enabled for extras? <f13> multiple levels of scratch builds. yes * nirik cheers <f13> you can A) build with --scratch, which doesn't tag the build, and puts it in temporary storage that will get flushed. <jwb> cool <f13> B) build with --no-tag which will import the build into the database, but not actually tag it, but you can tag it later to be included. * thl send something to the list for FESCo discussion ( https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/2007-April/msg00246.html ) , but that was probably to late to discuss it today <f13> or C) build for a -candidate tag so you can test it and later "move" it to a live tag. oh and --scratch builds don't get imported into the DB and thus can never be tagged for any collection <jwb> f13, there is a doc that will be sent out on how to use koji right? <rdieter> no, you have to figure it out yourself, no cheating and asking for help either. :) <f13> a simple one to start with warren is supposed to be working on a FAQ <bpepple> thl: I was thinking about bringing that up at next week's meeting, since I hadn't heard back from Max about it. <jwb> rdieter, then you're screwed. you can't even make simple CVS requests correctly <thl> bpepple, k * jwb runs <thl> bpepple, maybe discussing it first on the list is easier anyway <rdieter> yep. :) <jwb> f13, ok great <bpepple> not to mention we're running late. ;) <jwb> :) <bpepple> anything else people want to discuss before wrapping up the meeting? <c4chris> nothing here * bpepple will end the meeting in 60 bpepple will end the meeting in 30 bpepple will end the meeting in 15 <bpepple> -- MARK -- Meeting End