meetingminutes November 2013

meetingminutes@lists.fedoraproject.org

18 participants
44 discussions

Meeting minutes from today's Env-and-Stacks WG meeting (2013-11-05)
by Marcela Mašláňová 05 Nov '13

05 Nov '13

============================================ #fedora-meeting: Env and Stacks (2013-11-05) ============================================ Meeting started by mmaslano at 16:02:38 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2013-11-05/environment_and_… . Meeting summary --------------- * init process (mmaslano, 16:05:34) * communication channels (mmaslano, 16:06:15) * mailing list was set env-and-stacks(a)lists.fedoraproject.org (mmaslano, 16:12:19) * no new irc channel because of many time zones most of the communication will be happening on mailing list (mmaslano, 16:13:00) * Meeting frequency and times (mmaslano, 16:15:26) * LINK: http://whenisgood.net/fedenvstk/results/q3gmp7 (abadger1999, 16:24:49) * odd and even weeks will have different time for meetings because of time zones (mmaslano, 16:30:02) * AGREED: 16:00 UTC for week starting 19th November (mmaslano, 16:31:00) * everyone will look at whenisgood and will try to pick second date. The preferred time by juhp_ and bkabrda should be acceptable for most of the group (mmaslano, 16:33:58) * trac (mmaslano, 16:34:06) * handsome_pirate will create wiki for our WG (mmaslano, 16:41:28) * Discussions around the WG governance charter (mmaslano, 16:42:01) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Cloud/Governance is Cloud's (handsome_pirate, 16:45:14) * abadger1999 will put together a governance draft (mmaslano, 17:05:57) * LINK: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/desktop/2013-October/008245.html (juhp_, 17:11:49) * rest of the discussion will happen on mailing list. abadger1999 will write up the charter as soon as we will know what do we want to do (mmaslano, 17:32:28) * Open Floor (mmaslano, 17:34:59) Meeting ended at 17:37:58 UTC. Action Items ------------ Action Items, by person ----------------------- * **UNASSIGNED** * (none) People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * handsome_pirate (85) * mmaslano (83) * abadger1999 (70) * tjanez (46) * juhp_ (41) * drieden (18) * samkottler (15) * hhorak (15) * pkovar (10) * zodbot (4) * nirik (2) * masta (1) * pknirsch (1) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 .. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot 16:02:38 <mmaslano> #startmeeting Env and Stacks (2013-11-05) 16:02:38 <zodbot> Meeting started Tue Nov 5 16:02:38 2013 UTC. The chair is mmaslano. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 16:02:38 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 16:02:42 * samkottler is here 16:02:47 <handsome_pirate> Yay 16:02:50 <mmaslano> #meetingname Environment and Stacks 16:02:50 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'environment_and_stacks' 16:02:56 * handsome_pirate waves from the crows nest 16:03:01 <tjanez> Hi 16:03:04 <juhp_> hi 16:03:06 * pkovar is here 16:03:13 * mmaslano just arrived 16:03:29 <mmaslano> hhorak: is here, hi 16:03:31 * abadger1999 here 16:03:41 <drieden> Hi 16:03:57 * hhorak is greeting 16:04:23 * handsome_pirate will be right back 16:04:46 <mmaslano> Jens is not here 16:04:57 <juhp_> I am Jens :) 16:05:05 <mmaslano> great :) hi 16:05:25 <mmaslano> I'll do table of members for next week... 16:05:34 <mmaslano> #topic init process 16:06:10 <mmaslano> so let's discuss what other groups already discussed 16:06:15 <mmaslano> #topic communication channels 16:06:28 <mmaslano> We have mailing list 16:06:51 <samkottler> do we want to setup a new IRC channel? 16:07:42 <tjanez> Regarding the mailing list, I just updated its description a couple of hours ago 16:08:00 <drieden> I think an IRC channel for env and stacks would be helpful 16:08:05 <tjanez> Open to suggestions/improvements, though 16:09:16 <tjanez> I don't feel we need a new IRC channel (yet) 16:09:35 <samkottler> why not? 16:09:45 <samkottler> what's the disadvantage of having it? 16:10:07 <tjanez> samkottler: Just though mailing-list is where discussion should take place 16:10:36 <tjanez> samkottler: And there are plenty of existing IRC channels 16:10:40 <abadger1999> better than a new irc channel would just being able to find everyone on irc but given the difficulty setting up a common meeting time, that's probably a wishlist item ;-) 16:10:41 <mmaslano> discussion with friends about a problem is fine, but discussion about future of something is different thing 16:10:50 <mmaslano> abadger1999: yeah 16:11:06 <juhp_> abadger1999, hehe :) 16:11:25 <mmaslano> do you want to vote about every topic or we just agreed on something? 16:11:37 <juhp_> well I don't mind but also feel that irc channel is not so urgent 16:11:46 <samkottler> I think we can use general concensus in this case 16:11:55 <samkottler> most people don't want a new channel :-) 16:12:13 <hhorak> I'd also prefer discussions of mailing list, it's more transparent for everyone.. we can set irc channel later.. 16:12:16 <tjanez> I'm fine with both, voting and consensus 16:12:19 <mmaslano> #info mailing list was set env-and-stacks(a)lists.fedoraproject.org 16:12:36 <mmaslano> ok, it also looks like consensus to me 16:13:00 <mmaslano> #info no new irc channel because of many time zones most of the communication will be happening on mailing list 16:13:34 <mmaslano> if someone's unhappy about anything, then please say so 16:13:42 <mmaslano> otherwise next topic 16:13:45 <drieden> makes sense, I agree with the no IRC. 16:14:14 <abadger1999> we could all idle in #fedora-devel I suppose. 16:14:37 <mmaslano> everyone is already there (I guess) 16:14:40 <samkottler> I think most of us already do 16:14:44 * handsome_pirate returns 16:14:59 * abadger1999 hasn't been but could start.... it was domnated by desktop flame wars for a while :-/ 16:15:14 <abadger1999> actually... let's just talk about irc channels later. 16:15:21 <mmaslano> fine by me 16:15:26 <mmaslano> #topic Meeting frequency and times 16:15:30 <abadger1999> when outsiders start asking where to find us on irc. 16:15:55 * handsome_pirate isn't in #fedora-devel by default, but will be from now on 16:16:12 <juhp_> I am usually there 16:16:50 <handsome_pirate> As far as meeting frequency, while we're hashing things out, we may want to have them fairly often 16:16:53 <handsome_pirate> Weekly 16:17:10 * masta looks in and lurks 16:17:10 <handsome_pirate> Tuesday is better than Monday 16:17:20 <handsome_pirate> Fedora QA meeting is Mondays at this time 16:17:26 <mmaslano> handsome_pirate: you are evil :) 16:17:32 <handsome_pirate> mmaslano: heh 16:17:45 <mmaslano> juhp_: abadger1999: I was wondering if you wish to go to every second meeting 16:17:49 <handsome_pirate> mmaslano: We can set it up to alternate time each week so we get the most coverage 16:17:57 <mmaslano> so you don't have to be up in strange times 16:18:06 <juhp_> that might be good 16:18:27 <samkottler> 16:00 UTC on tuesdays works really nicely for me 16:19:14 <handsome_pirate> +1 16:19:18 <handsome_pirate> But, I can do otherwise 16:19:51 <hhorak> alternate times seem good and 16:00 works for me as one of the alternatives 16:20:00 <mmaslano> it could be better, but okay 16:20:23 <tjanez> I'm fine with weekly meetings, but I would prefer less meetings when there are less things to discuss 16:20:32 <mmaslano> let's do another whenisgood for odd and other for even week 16:20:34 <handsome_pirate> +1 16:20:35 <mmaslano> tjanez: I agree 16:20:42 <juhp_> sounds good 16:20:45 <handsome_pirate> I just see that right now we likely have plenty to do 16:20:55 <handsome_pirate> This can be revisited later 16:21:04 <handsome_pirate> So, one time is Tues, 1600 16:21:24 <handsome_pirate> So, how about another time? 16:21:27 <mmaslano> juhp_: which time and day do you prefer 16:21:33 <tjanez> Ok. Tuesday, 16:00 UTC works for me for the next couple of months 16:21:41 <mmaslano> it's 1:00 in the morning for you, so you can pick 16:21:44 <hhorak> I don't think we need another whenisgood, we just need to pick up the second time. 16:22:19 * abadger1999 has noticed that biweekly meetings tend to have lower overall attendance (maybe because people forget which week they're in?) 16:22:43 <juhp_> mmaslano, well roughly 12:00 from now +-4 hours would be fine 16:22:49 <mmaslano> abadger1999: that's for smart telephones are ;-) 16:22:53 <juhp_> but might still be easier to use whenisgood :) 16:23:11 <abadger1999> mmaslano: yeah.. but people book other meetings and events as well... 16:23:18 <mmaslano> juhp_: also bkabrda can't in this hour, so maybe he should specify his preference too 16:23:24 <juhp_> right 16:23:46 <tjanez> I agree with juhp_, use whenisgood and make precedence to bkabrda and juhp_ 16:24:14 <mmaslano> abadger1999: do you want to setup another whenisgood 'cause you know how to do it properly on first time? :) 16:24:27 <abadger1999> Why don't we just use the same one? 16:24:46 <abadger1999> and select the best time that includes slavek? 16:24:49 <abadger1999> http://whenisgood.net/fedenvstk/results/q3gmp7 16:25:15 <pkovar> abadger1999 good point :-) 16:25:25 <tjanez> agreed, thinking out of the box :-) 16:25:48 <tjanez> maybe people should adjust/amend their general availability? 16:25:55 <abadger1999> Tuesday, wed, fri 13:00 or 14:00 16:26:00 <juhp_> so around 13:00 UTC might work 16:26:06 <juhp_> yeah 16:26:47 <hhorak> there seems to be no other option including bkabrda on Tue 16:27:31 <hhorak> and probably not better option in other days either 16:27:34 * handsome_pirate is +1 Tues 16:27:35 <samkottler> 13:00 UTC is 5am local time for abadger1999 and it's a little early for me 16:27:44 <handsome_pirate> Keep it somewhat simpler 16:27:45 * samkottler would like ot keep the meeting on tuesdays generally 16:27:59 <handsome_pirate> samkottler: We can both show up to the office a bit early :) 16:28:01 <abadger1999> samkottler: I kinda thought that the idea was that I wouldn't be able to make this alternate meeting? 16:28:11 <abadger1999> and from the looks of it drieden won't either. 16:28:25 <mmaslano> samkottler: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meetingtime.html?iso=20131105&p1=1960… 16:28:30 <mmaslano> samkottler: it's hard :) 16:29:04 <handsome_pirate> Anyway, how about ML for this one? 16:29:10 <handsome_pirate> We ought to move on 16:29:12 <drieden> abadger1999 13:00 is tricky for me, I'm getting my kids ready for school, but can be available sporadically at that time. 16:29:34 <samkottler> mmaslano: yeah it's difficult, we'll figure it out on the list :-) 16:29:38 <juhp_> it is 10pm here but that is okay 16:30:02 <mmaslano> #info odd and even weeks will have different time for meetings because of time zones 16:30:04 <abadger1999> drieden: I take it 14:00 Wed is even worse for you? 16:30:20 <abadger1999> (since you have the hours after that blocked off as well) 16:30:32 <drieden> abadger1999 Yes 14:00 wed is a regularly scheduled meeting 16:31:00 <mmaslano> #agreed 16:00 UTC for week starting 19th November 16:31:36 <mmaslano> let's stare into whenisgood and write on mailing list 16:31:49 <mmaslano> we have still lot to do today 16:31:52 <tjanez> mmaslano: +1 16:32:12 <drieden> mmaslano +1 16:32:37 <hhorak> +1 16:33:08 <handsome_pirate> +1 16:33:17 <juhp_> +1 16:33:47 <tjanez> So, should we move on to trac? 16:33:54 <handsome_pirate> Sure 16:33:54 <pkovar> +1 16:33:58 <mmaslano> #info everyone will look at whenisgood and will try to pick second date. The preferred time by juhp_ and bkabrda should be acceptable for most of the group 16:34:03 <handsome_pirate> nirik: You around? 16:34:06 <mmaslano> #topic trac 16:34:12 <nirik> handsome_pirate: yes, but in meeting. 16:34:32 <handsome_pirate> nirik: Roger 16:34:39 <mmaslano> I'm not sure if we need trac, but we probably need some wiki with information about us and our goals 16:34:45 <handsome_pirate> nirik: I pinged because we may be asking for a trac 16:34:53 <handsome_pirate> +1 to wiki 16:35:03 * handsome_pirate doesn't know about trac 16:35:04 <tjanez> Does anyone have an idea what would be in the trac? 16:35:23 <samkottler> meeting items probably primarily 16:35:26 <nirik> handsome_pirate: please file an infrastructure ticket with what you need. 16:35:30 <mmaslano> we could trac process of some issues, but that can be done differently 16:35:31 <abadger1999> I think trac is nice if we need ticketing but otherwise... not needed. 16:35:46 <handsome_pirate> Indeed 16:35:51 <samkottler> a lot of the work we have to do is with fesco and other groups so we can use their bug trackers 16:35:52 <juhp_> trac might be good for collecting todo's and such rfe's etc 16:35:58 <handsome_pirate> Yeah, we can likely make do with action items 16:36:12 <mmaslano> drieden: you might know about something better for tracking progress. But I'm not sure what do we need trac right now 16:36:36 <hhorak> +1 for wiki, but not sure if we need git/ticket system for anything.. 16:36:47 <abadger1999> I'd say, let's get started using the wiki and just stay aware that when we start accumulating things that look like tickets, we then ask to have a trac instance. 16:36:51 <drieden> mmaslan Trac can be set up with git for storage and landing page, and for tracking issues, but I don't really use trac for tracking issues. 16:37:07 <tjanez> hhorak, abadger1999: +1 16:37:12 <juhp_> abadger1999, sounds reasonable 16:37:44 <drieden> mmaslano wiki sounds good for now. I should have said that I haven't had to use trac for tracking issues. 16:38:13 <abadger1999> <nod> 16:38:40 * handsome_pirate will set up wiki bit 16:38:41 <handsome_pirate> s 16:38:51 <pkovar> let's stick with the fedora wiki. i think that's what other groups are also using 16:39:01 <handsome_pirate> Aye 16:39:07 <handsome_pirate> I mean in Fedora's wiki 16:40:23 <mmaslano> seems like consensus to me 16:40:33 <mmaslano> who will create wiki? 16:40:42 * handsome_pirate will 16:41:28 <mmaslano> #info handsome_pirate will create wiki for our WG 16:42:01 <mmaslano> #topic Discussions around the WG governance charter 16:42:08 <handsome_pirate> I'll get everything done up, then ping links to the list for approval/editing 16:42:13 <mmaslano> handsome_pirate: great 16:42:23 <juhp_> cool 16:42:55 <drieden> handsome_pirate yee be a good fellar yee bee (pirate accent) 16:43:30 <handsome_pirate> heh 16:43:40 <handsome_pirate> arrr 16:43:49 <juhp_> deadline is next week? 16:44:04 <handsome_pirate> Indeed 16:45:14 <handsome_pirate> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Cloud/Governance is Cloud's 16:45:20 * juhp_ hasn't seen any of the (draft) charters yet... 16:45:21 <handsome_pirate> I propose we do similar 16:45:24 <juhp_> aha 16:45:35 * handsome_pirate is a fan of simple and flexible 16:46:11 <abadger1999> yeah -- the only thing I'd change is how abstentions are counted in voting. 16:46:18 <juhp_> yeah probably a good idea to base the initial charter off other's work? 16:46:20 <mmaslano> abadger1999: do you what we should do about governance charter? I thought FESCo I picked voting members and that's it 16:46:45 <pkovar> so, can we just adopt that Making Decisions part on the cloud page? 16:46:46 <handsome_pirate> juhp_: That's what others are doing, is basing their charters off each other 16:46:50 <mmaslano> abadger1999: ah, true. Do you want to be able vote before or after meeting via email? 16:46:54 <abadger1999> mmaslano: fesco determined that the initial seeding of the group was at your (the liason's) discretion. 16:47:06 <abadger1999> but it's our job to decide how the group is governed in the future. 16:47:11 <handsome_pirate> Aye 16:47:24 <handsome_pirate> We would want to add a section on succession 16:47:27 <handsome_pirate> sp? 16:47:41 <handsome_pirate> ie, to figure out members to come after us 16:47:44 <abadger1999> we could say "in the future, there's one person who has absolute authority" or "anyone can vote and after one week the most votes wins". 16:47:51 <abadger1999> or anything in the middle :-) 16:48:07 * handsome_pirate is for nominations from the community 16:48:23 <handsome_pirate> ie, any intersted parties can be nominated or self nominate 16:48:41 <handsome_pirate> But, maybe have current voting members vote 16:48:42 * abadger1999 thinks the cloud governance is good looking. 16:49:01 <handsome_pirate> Indeed 16:49:35 <abadger1999> I guess the only doubt I have about adopting hte cloud model is that we might be a bit different in our goals. 16:49:46 <abadger1999> the cloud group is producing a product. 16:50:01 <abadger1999> My impression from mattdm is we're more a research and development group. 16:50:31 <handsome_pirate> ie, where all the fun stuff happens :) 16:50:40 <juhp_> true 16:50:41 <tjanez> Another question I have is what happens after FESCO elections if the current FESCO appointee is not re-elected? 16:50:52 <abadger1999> less about making decisions, more about working to enable wholly new things. 16:51:05 <handsome_pirate> tjanez: Good point, that 16:51:18 <abadger1999> tjanez: I can't speak for future fescos but I think current fesco would say: 16:51:28 <abadger1999> fesco just has to agree to the liason. 16:51:46 <abadger1999> so if the new fesco doesn't have a problem with the current liason, they'd continue in that capacity. 16:52:08 <abadger1999> only if the new fesco sid "We don't can't work with $person" would the liason need to change. 16:52:12 <abadger1999> *said 16:53:17 <tjanez> abadger1999: I agree, FESCO will not be causing problems :-) 16:53:40 <hhorak> abadger1999: sounds good to me 16:53:48 <handsome_pirate> +1 16:54:28 <pkovar> +1 16:54:34 <tjanez> I'm OK with serving as long as we are able to/willing, maybe it just sounds very autocratic to outsiders 16:54:45 <handsome_pirate> Indeed 16:55:04 <abadger1999> (of course, each WG can also say that they don't want to be represented by a certain liason as well). 16:55:24 <tjanez> But on the other hand, I really don't see ourselves as a ruling body 16:55:27 <mmaslano> I guess group can pick who will be voting members, no problem 16:55:35 <tjanez> but rather an enabler for people to work 16:55:40 <abadger1999> <nod> -- for some things I think a certain amount of autocracy is good... where precedent and knowledge of what came before is important. 16:55:41 <mmaslano> tjanez: yeah, I'd rather see us as working body :) 16:55:50 <abadger1999> not sure if that's a concern for this gorup or not. 16:56:07 <juhp_> right 16:56:38 <abadger1999> So maybe we should first ask, what is our role in Fedora? 16:56:41 <abadger1999> What do we do? 16:57:58 <tjanez> Well, I would say use only as much birocracy as we need for working and develop it later as we define our mission and goals more clearly 16:58:21 <handsome_pirate> You know, I suddenly find myself leaning to the way that QA does things: Whoever wants to do something does it 16:58:33 <mmaslano> tjanez: we should solve this question until next week, when is deadline 16:58:54 <drieden> I think the Governance document can be separated from the "charter or what we do document" 16:59:21 <abadger1999> drieden: <nod> -- but I think governance depends on the charter. 16:59:30 * samkottler unfortuatenly has to leave now 16:59:37 <samkottler> I'll read the transcript later on 16:59:49 <handsome_pirate> +1 17:00:03 <juhp_> does someone want to take a stab at a draft charter? 17:00:05 <tjanez> For governance, I'm fine with something simple (e.g. similar to Cloud WG governance) 17:00:23 <drieden> tjanez +1. Consistency across the groups would be helpful 17:00:27 <handsome_pirate> Okay, I'm +1 not having governance in charter 17:00:43 <tjanez> We'll just have to change the thing with trac (they use trac) 17:00:52 <handsome_pirate> So 17:00:56 <hhorak> +1 for simplicity 17:01:01 <handsome_pirate> What is it that we'll actually be doing? 17:01:10 * juhp_ should look at the workstation draft too... 17:01:23 <mmaslano> handsome_pirate: I summarized what all of you told me 17:01:44 <tjanez> I think only slavek replied to your email 17:01:46 <mmaslano> handsome_pirate: languages, programming environments, setup databases, ... 17:01:51 <abadger1999> How about this -- let's adopt something very similar to the cloud wg governance but revisit the govenerance doc after f21 is out? 17:02:01 <mmaslano> abadger1999: +1 17:02:08 <tjanez> +1 17:02:09 <handsome_pirate> +1 17:02:10 <drieden> +1 17:02:11 <abadger1999> when we know about what we're actually doing in practice. 17:02:29 <juhp_> sounds ok to me but good to review a draft together next week 17:02:31 <hhorak> +1, maybe we can only be more specific (or change later) what "few days" mean and so on.. 17:03:06 <juhp_> (or by next week:) 17:03:17 <handsome_pirate> Okay, so we'll want to push things like python 3 17:03:20 <drieden> hhorak sounds good. It is a little vague right now 17:04:20 <abadger1999> k 17:04:26 <abadger1999> I'll put together a draft. 17:04:29 <juhp_> I will try to have a quick look at what other WGs are doing on their charters so far 17:04:55 <abadger1999> If next week's meeting is at 13:00 I won't be around to present it but I can send a link to the list. 17:05:00 <drieden> Is there a link to the other charters? 17:05:29 <mmaslano> #info abadger1999 will put together a charter draft 17:05:37 <abadger1999> err 17:05:40 <mmaslano> drieden: I guess they send links to devel maling list 17:05:41 <abadger1999> mmaslano: governance draft 17:05:46 <mmaslano> #undo 17:05:46 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Info object at 0x41454090> 17:05:57 <mmaslano> #info abadger1999 will put together a governance draft 17:06:05 <tjanez> Regarding other charters, we should probably have in mind, we are very much different from the three product WGs 17:06:15 <abadger1999> I think driedenwas making the separation that charter is more -- what are we going to do... which we don't know yet. 17:06:23 <juhp_> server one looks similar https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Server/Governance_Charter 17:06:25 <abadger1999> <nod> 17:06:29 * hhorak don't think other WG have much sofar either (just a guess) 17:06:36 <juhp_> didn't read carefully yet though 17:07:12 <handsome_pirate> Yeah, looks like everyone is making their 'charter' a governance doc 17:07:19 <handsome_pirate> We may want to avoid this 17:07:21 <juhp_> (I believe the Workstation draft was posted to desktop - I didn't have time to look at it yet) 17:07:31 <handsome_pirate> Charter is more for purpose than governance 17:07:35 <hhorak> server's seem to be very similar to cloud's one 17:07:45 <drieden> Yes, I meant the "What we do" charters for the other groups. I'm okay with the Cloud Governance charter wiki about the governing structure. 17:08:13 <tjanez> drieden: Yes, I was also talking about the "what we do" charter 17:08:27 <pkovar> juhp_: the workstation one is here https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/desktop/2013-November/008259.html 17:08:28 <handsome_pirate> So, the hard part is to expand "languages, programming environments, setup databases, ..." into a proper document 17:08:36 <juhp_> pkovar, thanks 17:10:08 <mmaslano> I was sort of hoping people will post their ideas on mailing list 17:10:29 <tjanez> I think a good starting point for "what do we do" is mmaslano's mailing post 17:10:30 <handsome_pirate> Well, how about this: I'll start a ML thread on this? 17:10:36 <tjanez> and slavek's answer 17:10:50 <mmaslano> I spoke with most of you and create some points 17:11:04 <mmaslano> for example documentation - there is not much to add 17:11:18 <mmaslano> pkovar has imho a good plan 17:11:39 <tjanez> We should somehow separate the "what we are doing currently" from "what this WG will enable so people can develop/package new stacks/environments 17:11:49 <juhp_> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/desktop/2013-October/008245.html 17:12:21 <mmaslano> we might have a problem, that other WG believe we should do something else. I already heard we should do containers, but I refused 17:12:34 <mmaslano> I guess none of us is aware of details of containers 17:12:49 <juhp_> lightweight virt? 17:13:02 <mmaslano> probably all of them, maybe pick the best 17:13:08 <pkovar> juhp_: oh yeah, that's the actual charter :-) 17:13:10 <mmaslano> I guess Base group took it back 17:13:19 <abadger1999> Hmm... maybe we should be enabling people to do containers... but our role there would be supporting the people who know about it. 17:13:46 <mmaslano> maybe 17:14:13 <pknirsch> i'm fine with taking this to the Base WG discussion and see what they think about it. 17:14:16 <pkovar> or who want to learn about it? 17:14:17 <abadger1999> My feeling might be.. let's say containers is a new technology that only a few people are aware of. We'd help them document containers, see what they can do. 17:14:52 <abadger1999> create a proof of concept or two around them (which might be actual working software in fedora) 17:15:19 <abadger1999> and then if it was something that should really permeate all of fedora, we'd pass them along to the base design wg. 17:15:51 <abadger1999> who would see how containers could be applied throughout the OS. 17:15:56 <mmaslano> abadger1999: do you have someone in mind who will do it? 17:16:07 <tjanez> abadger1999: +1, but maybe not pass it to the base design WG, but to a "Fedora commons in ring 2" 17:16:12 <abadger1999> mmaslano: nope. 17:16:25 <handsome_pirate> hrm 17:16:36 <abadger1999> someone would have to come to us in that example. 17:16:38 <handsome_pirate> We all ought to look into it 17:16:47 <mmaslano> abadger1999: me neither which is reason why I didn't want it 17:17:18 <mmaslano> did we agreed on something yet? 17:17:58 <juhp_> perhaps it is something we could discuss later on the ml? I am not sure either if it is in our scope or not 17:18:12 <handsome_pirate> Indeed 17:18:12 <hhorak> we all probably should learn the basics about containers if we need to talk/vote about it in the future.. 17:18:23 <handsome_pirate> Anyone here a decent writer? 17:18:29 <handsome_pirate> hhorak: +1 17:18:33 <abadger1999> I guess I see us s -- "wild ideas come here first, get incubated, and then when they're no longer wild and unknown ideas, they go onto a different part of fedora to be integrated more heavily" 17:18:35 <tjanez> I would prefer to discuss the general "what will we do" on the ML 17:18:51 <handsome_pirate> hence my comment above about all of us looking at it 17:19:00 <handsome_pirate> abadger1999: +1 17:19:17 <tjanez> Do we still have time until next week's meeting? 17:20:05 <mmaslano> I guess so 17:21:08 <tjanez> Maybe we should also advertise our ML and WG on the devel and point people there for a discussion on "what will we do" 17:21:19 <juhp_> yes 17:21:22 <tjanez> I think its critical to define what is in our scope and what not 17:21:29 * handsome_pirate just popped an email off to the M/L 17:21:37 <juhp_> agreed 17:21:38 <tjanez> So that other WG won't have wrong expectations 17:21:50 <tjanez> which will cause problems later... 17:22:11 <hhorak> sorry, I'd need to leave.. will read the log later. 17:22:14 <tjanez> handsome_pirate: thanks! 17:22:48 <abadger1999> tjanez: +1 17:23:14 <mmaslano> who will write it? 17:23:44 <handsome_pirate> Who's a good writer? 17:23:47 <abadger1999> I can write it -- but not until we decide what we want it to say :-) 17:24:05 <handsome_pirate> abadger1999: Hence the ml thread I just started 17:24:38 <abadger1999> handsome_pirate: Did you get moderated? it didn't show up i nthe archives. 17:25:41 <tjanez> handsome_pirate: I also can't see your email 17:26:13 <tjanez> It got moderated: Reason: Post by non-member to a members-only list 17:26:44 <pkovar> handsome_pirate: but you seem to be subscribed jdulaney at fedoraproject.org 17:26:55 <handsome_pirate> I just resent it 17:27:09 <handsome_pirate> With right email address 17:27:35 <abadger1999> Cool. 17:28:01 <abadger1999> So yeah -- we can discuss this on the mailing list and I can start drafting next week. 17:28:03 <tjanez> I can write an email to devel and advertize this thread, if we agree to it? 17:28:10 <abadger1999> works for me. 17:28:39 <handsome_pirate> +1 17:28:50 <drieden> +1 17:29:04 <juhp_> great 17:29:06 <abadger1999> If you disagree with the direction handsome_pirate and I proposed, be sure to say that so that we get discussion about the alternative directions we could move in :-) 17:30:51 <tjanez> well, should we wrap up this meeting? 17:31:14 <mmaslano> do we have action item for this topic? 17:31:46 <handsome_pirate> mmaslano: Discussion on ml thread, abadger1999 to write up charter 17:32:15 <tjanez> handsome_pirate starts the discussion on the ML, tjanez will write an email to devel asking for contribution from non-members 17:32:26 <abadger1999> Note -- I can promise a governance doc for next week but I can't promise a Charter Document for next week. 17:32:28 <mmaslano> #info rest of the discussion will happen on mailing list. abadger1999 will write up the charter as soon as we will know what do we want to do 17:32:30 <abadger1999> Only the start of it. 17:32:37 <mmaslano> that's fine by me 17:32:41 <abadger1999> Cool. 17:32:54 <handsome_pirate> +1 17:33:34 <tjanez> +1 17:33:56 <juhp_> +1 good 17:34:18 <drieden> +1 17:34:20 <abadger1999> +1 17:34:23 * juhp_ is still a bit unclear about goverance vs charter but probably will become clearer as we discuss 17:34:35 <juhp_> erm governance 17:34:45 <mmaslano> probably 17:34:59 <mmaslano> #topic Open Floor 17:35:03 <mmaslano> anything else? 17:36:28 * handsome_pirate is good to go 17:36:41 <drieden> I don't have anything 17:36:53 <tjanez> nothing more from me 17:37:46 <mmaslano> let's go home 17:37:56 * abadger1999 will start work! 17:37:56 <abadger1999> ;-) 17:37:58 <mmaslano> #endmeeting

1 0

Fedora marketing meeting minutes, November 4, 2013
by Ruth Suehle 04 Nov '13

04 Nov '13

Minutes: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2013-11-04/fedora_marketing… Minutes (text): http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2013-11-04/fedora_marketing… Log: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2013-11-04/fedora_marketing…

1 0

FAmSCo meeting minutes 2013-11-04
by Jiri Eischmann 04 Nov '13

04 Nov '13

Hi, we had another regular FAmSCo meeting. 4 out of 7 members attended and the meeting lasted for 57 minutes. If you'd like to know more, read the minutes: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-2/2013-11-04/famsco.2013-11… Minutes (text): http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-2/2013-11-04/famsco.2013-11… Log: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-2/2013-11-04/famsco.2013-11… The next meeting will be on Nov 11th. Jiri

1 0

Fedora Chinese Meeting Minutes (2013-11-01)
by Alick Zhao 01 Nov '13

01 Nov '13

Hi all, The IRC meeting minutes tonight are available at the link [1]. And it looks good! Thanks everyone for attending the meeting. Thank zsun for chairing the meeting. In the meeting we talked about FUDCon bid progress, and F20 Release Party, and L10N. Please review the proposed ideas and actions. The next IRC meeting will be held on next Friday (2013-11-08). Please come and join the discussion if you can! [1]: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-zh/2013-11-01/fedora-zh.2013-11-01-… ================== #fedora-zh Meeting ================== Meeting started by zsun at 13:05:06 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-zh/2013-11-01/fedora-zh.2013-11-01-… . Meeting summary --------------- * 点名 (zsun, 13:05:23) * FUDCON APAC 2014 申办筹备 (zsun, 13:11:38) * IDEA: 不在北京的成员可以协助一些不需要在现场做的事情 (zsun, 13:33:39) * F20 Release Party (zsun, 13:36:53) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Meeting:APAC_Ambassadors_2013-10-26 (zsun, 13:41:09) * LINK: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/F20_release_events (zsun, 13:41:22) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_organize_a_Fedora_event (zsun, 13:42:56) * endle建议与shlug合作举办rel party (zsun, 13:44:08) * ACTION: RobberPhex与SHLUG沟通rel party事宜 (zsun, 13:50:50) * 中文翻译 (zsun, 13:56:19) * LINK: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/trans-zh_cn/2013-October/001658.h… (zsun, 14:01:48) Meeting ended at 14:10:51 UTC. Action Items ------------ * RobberPhex与SHLUG沟通rel party事宜 Action Items, by person ----------------------- * RobberPhex * RobberPhex与SHLUG沟通rel party事宜 * **UNASSIGNED** * (none) People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * zsun (83) * RobberPhex (20) * zodbot (14) * tonghuix (12) * endle (12) * biergaizi (11) * isyangxin (7) * BadGirl (7) * xlzyjfy (7) * gcell (4) * chenchacha (4) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 .. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

meetingminutes November 2013