irc-support-sig August 2010

irc-support-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org

9 participants
11 discussions

Plan for tomorrow's irc-support-sig meeting (2010-08-26)
by Kevin Fenzi 26 Aug '10

26 Aug '10

Here's what I have for an agenda for tomorrow's meeting, which will be held at 16:00UTC in #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.net. Feel free to reply to this with additional topics, or bring them up in the "open floor" section of the meeting. #topic Week in review http://fedora.theglaserfamily.org/ircstats/fedora-weekly.html #topic should we add any new ops now? #topic how should new ops be nominated? #topic we need a rule about how long an op can be inactive #topic thomasj be removed from op status because of his inactivity #topic all #fedora ops be removed from op status in #fedora-social #topic SIG lead be elected and have a set term #topic fcami nomination #topic opsec nomination #topic trac instance setup #topic Open Floor kevin

4 6

trac instance
by Kevin Fenzi 23 Aug '10

23 Aug '10

I have a basic trac instance up with 2 setup ticket 'types'. Both have templates setup for info needed on that type of ticket. Feedback - a feedback request or comment Meeting - a item to be discussed in our next meeting. Go to: https://fedorahosted.org/irc-support-sig/newtplticket and login with your fedora account system account and look at the templates. Suggestions or ideas for improvment welcome. Currently, as with all fedorahosted trac instances, it requires you to have a fedora account system account in order to make or comment on tickets. We can change that so it allows anyone to create new tickets, but I worry about the spam involved if we do that. I know one project that had it set that way and had to disable that quickly due to the flood of spam tickets. :( Also, it currently does not mail the list, but we can set it to do so once it's setup if folks would like. kevin

1 0

Re: plan for tomorrow's irc-support-sig meeting (2010-08-19)
by Robert 'Bob' Jensen 22 Aug '10

22 Aug '10

----- "Thomas Janssen" <thomasj(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 4:54 AM, Clive Hills <discordianuk(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > Sadly, very sadly > > I would like to see the following items on next week's agenda: > > > > Why can non-#fedora ops nominate #fedora ops > > That's indeed one interesting question. IIRC we had a consensus once > that #ffedora ops can only be nominated and voted by #fedora ops. But > i have to read a ton of backlogs to find it. Currently not the time > for it. > > If i/we can't find the right log, i propose to have *at least* one > fully qualified #fedora operator to nominate an long term helper > who's > exemplary (well, you know what "we" want), for probationary ops. > If this be the case should we also remove ops from all #fedora ops for the #fedora-social channel until they are approved to be an op for that channel? Again I point out that this issue is only being brought up to punish Sonar_Gal and gwerra for me speaking my mind. This alone is bullshit. If you don't want ME to speak or nominate people don't punish them for it. This entire matter is getting way the hell out of hand. Feel free to throw the word F*CK in there about 20 times for me because I am getting pissed. -- Bob ------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Robert 'Bob' Jensen || Fedora Unity Founder | | bob(a)fedoraunity.org || http://fedoraunity.org/ | | http://bjensen.fedorapeople.org/ | | http://blogs.fedoraunity.org/bobjensen | | http://www.facebook.com/rpjensen | ------------------------------------------------------------------------

3 2

Re: New op nomination
by Robert 'Bob' Jensen 22 Aug '10

22 Aug '10

----- "Thomas Janssen" <thomasj(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote: > FWIW. Warren has a history. As already pointed out not a positive > one. FWIW. You are at best an inactive op, I'm not sure really why you still are an op actually, only speaking up because of your hatred toward this nomination. You painted a target on his back repeatedly. Because of YOUR history with him the least you should do is give no vote, IMO anyhow. -- Bob ------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Robert 'Bob' Jensen || Fedora Unity Founder | | bob(a)fedoraunity.org || http://fedoraunity.org/ | | http://bjensen.fedorapeople.org/ | | http://blogs.fedoraunity.org/bobjensen | | http://www.facebook.com/rpjensen | ------------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

new options for fpaste
by François Cami 21 Aug '10

21 Aug '10

Hi everyone, I've just done two fpaste mods that might help when doing IRC support in #fedora. The first ( https://fedorahosted.org/fpaste/ticket/1 ) * adds glxinfo | egrep "OpenGL version|OpenGL renderer" to --sysinfo * adds a --xorg option to collect Xorg specific information * adds a --rpmverify to check system integrity The second ( https://fedorahosted.org/fpaste/ticket/2 ) re-adds smolt public url to fpaste --sysinfo. Sadly, this makes fpaste depend on smolt. I can implement that without being smolt-dependent, but with some code duplication. Please note that --xorg is extremely verbose. A --sysinfo upload takes 62KB here, while a --xorg upload is three times that. I don't know how much space we currently have on fpaste.org, but that may need to be taken into account. As always, comments and flames welcome... François

1 0

plan for tomorrow's irc-support-sig meeting (2010-08-19)
by Kevin Fenzi 21 Aug '10

21 Aug '10

6 10

New op nomination
by Robert 'Bob' Jensen 21 Aug '10

21 Aug '10

In this weeks meeting on Aug 19, 2010 I nominated opsec/zodiac to be a new probationary op if he was willing to accept the nomination. I am pleased to say he has accepted and as such has been invited to the #fedora-ops channel. -- Bob ------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Robert 'Bob' Jensen || Fedora Unity Founder | | bob(a)fedoraunity.org || http://fedoraunity.org/ | | http://bjensen.fedorapeople.org/ | | http://blogs.fedoraunity.org/bobjensen | | http://www.facebook.com/rpjensen | ------------------------------------------------------------------------

4 5

Re: plan for tomorrow's irc-support-sig meeting (2010-08-19)
by Robert 'Bob' Jensen 20 Aug '10

20 Aug '10

----- "Kevin Fenzi" <kevin(a)scrye.com> wrote: > > I would rephase that as: "who can nominate someone as a #fedora op". > Should we allow self nominations? > Should it be only any existing #fedora op? > Should it be more than one existing #fedora op? > > We can add this to the meeting next week... > This is a simple effort it would appear to eliminate a few ops from having a voice because I am willing to be a "trouble maker" or "asshole" or "dink" or "troll" or "illogical", these are the names I have been called since this issue and the #fedora users I choose to nominate have come up. I am not sorry that I feel those that are perhaps not the "favorite sons" may be good ops and good to have involved in establishing the ops feedback process. I do not feel that we should be adding ops mid stream of that task, this should not however prevent us from aligning added ops for once that process is complete. -- Bob ------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Robert 'Bob' Jensen || Fedora Unity Founder | | bob(a)fedoraunity.org || http://fedoraunity.org/ | | http://bjensen.fedorapeople.org/ | | http://blogs.fedoraunity.org/bobjensen | | http://www.facebook.com/rpjensen | ------------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

Feedback ideas
by Kevin Fenzi 18 Aug '10

18 Aug '10

Greetings and welcome to the list everyone. ;) As you know, I have been hoping we could come up with a better way to allow people to provide us feedback and let us act on it. A pile of ideas is in: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Kevin/Support_Feedback At our last meeting we decided to setup this mailing list, and also look at perhaps setting up a trac instance for feedback. I haven't asked for the trac instance yet, as we aren't sure how we will use it. So, what do people want to do? Some possible ideas: a) Just use this list for feedback. Sadly, that will likely result in flamewars from people who aren't being constructive and/or people who aren't taking criticism well. Since this would be public, there might be ill will from people who air their dirty laundry who regret it later down the road. We could moderate flamewars, but then we need to know when to do so. b) Setup a trac instance for people to file tickets. One advantage of this is that we could force a template. This could point them to the FAQ page, note that they should be constructive, ask for specific logs or other information that people just posting to a list wouldn't provide a lot of the time and ask them what outcome they are trying to achieve. We still need to decide who triages the tickets. c) Something else? Mail alias, moderated list, just keep the current process as is, etc. Note that the above are ideas on how to accept feedback, they don't say anything about how we should process them or act on them. Thinking about all this stuff makes me really want to go back to as simple as possible, and when/if that doesn't work, try something else. So, I would personally propose we just use this mailing list for feedback, and we all try and accept feedback and come to some some of rough consensus on how we want to act on it. kevin

3 3

[modified systems] FAQ entry proposal and more
by François Cami 16 Aug '10

16 Aug '10

Hello, We've noticed time and again that some support requests in #fedora stem from extensive modifications of users' systems. Kernels from kernel.org, or xorg from git, come to mind. As a result, we seem to have an informal policy stating that we do not support extensively modified systems. Yet this policy is not present in the FAQ, and it is sometimes non-trivial to make sure a user's system is not modified. To facilitate checking for obvious modifications, I am considering: * adding a --pretend option to yum, which coupled with --distribution-synchronization and fpaste, which would enable us to trivially know whether a system is both up to date and in sync with what we're shipping at that precise moment. * creating a script to gather other information, like the version of both kernel and Xorg, the output of rpm -qVa, and the output of yum --pretend --distribution-synchronization. This script could be included in Fedora. We already ship sosreport in sos.noarch but I think this is overkill for our use. As for the FAQ entry, this is my proposal: == Keep to Fedora-provided packages == Please use the packages Fedora provides. Deviating from these can render your system unstable or introduce bugs. You should exercise caution before adding software from third-parties, especially unpackaged software. I would like us to show openness to modifications though. Two specific examples: * some users happen to need a kernel, or xorg stuff, from updates-testing for their hardware to work. Of course this will break other packages (the kmods from rpmfusion come to mind), but I feel we can manage such situations, or at the very least explain what could break when doing that. * some users request support after breaking their systems, for instance while installing proprietary drivers with upstream installers. I don't think we should stop at saying "not supported" in this case, especially if said user asks how to repair his system (which is something we can help with most of the time). Please let me know what you think. Comments and flames both welcome :) Cheers François

3 4

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

irc-support-sig August 2010