server November 2013

server@lists.fedoraproject.org

28 participants
36 discussions

Invitación: Fedora Server Working Group Weekly IRC Meeting el cada semana de 11:00 a 12:00 martes del mar 5 de nov al sáb 1 de feb de 2014 (tony blair)
by Anthony Mogrovejo 04 Nov '13

04 Nov '13

Tienes una invitación para el siguiente evento. Título: Fedora Server Working Group Weekly IRC Meeting The Fedora Server Working Group will hold a public IRC meeting in #fedora-meeting-1 on Freenode each Tuesday at 1600 UTC. Cuándo: cada semana de 11:00 a 12:00 martes del mar 5 de nov al sáb 1 de feb de 2014 Lima Lugar: #fedora-meeting-1 on Freenode Calendario: tony blair Quién: * Anthony Mogrovejo- organizador * server(a)lists.fedoraproject.org - opcional Tu asistencia es opcional. Detalles del evento: https://www.google.com/calendar/event?action=VIEW&eid=NXFsMjlicnZyNXYwMzVxa… Invitación de Google Calendar: https://www.google.com/calendar/ Recibes este mensaje de cortesía en la dirección server(a)lists.fedoraproject.org de la cuenta porque eres uno de los participantes de este evento. Si deseas dejar de recibir notificaciones para este evento, recházalo. Si lo prefieres, solicita una cuenta de Google en https://www.google.com/calendar/ y controla la configuración relativa a las notificaciones de todo el calendario.

1 0

Event Invitation: Fedora Server Working Group Weekly IRC Meeting
by Stephen Gallagher 04 Nov '13

04 Nov '13

BEGIN:VCALENDAR PRODID:-//Mozilla.org/NONSGML Mozilla Calendar V1.1//EN VERSION:2.0 METHOD:REQUEST BEGIN:VEVENT LAST-MODIFIED:20131104T234343Z DTSTAMP:20131104T234343Z UID:77378eea-f3ee-42d1-9423-b7eeba700ebe SUMMARY:Fedora Server Working Group Weekly IRC Meeting STATUS:CONFIRMED ORGANIZER:mailto:sgallagh@redhat.com ATTENDEE;RSVP=TRUE;PARTSTAT=NEEDS-ACTION;ROLE=OPT-PARTICIPANT:mailto:serve r(a)lists.fedoraproject.org RRULE:FREQ=WEEKLY;UNTIL=20140201T080000Z DTSTART:20131105T160000Z DTEND:20131105T170000Z DESCRIPTION:The Fedora Server Working Group will hold a public IRC meeting in #fedora-meeting-1 on Freenode each Tuesday at 1600 UTC. LOCATION:#fedora-meeting-1 on Freenode CLASS:PUBLIC TRANSP:OPAQUE SEQUENCE:0 END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR

1 0

Usenix LISA -- next week
by Matthew Miller 04 Nov '13

04 Nov '13

Hi all. I'm going to be at Usenix LISA next week. Stop by the Fedora booth (and BoF) if you are around. I'll also be asking about use cases and needs and wants. If there's anything in particular you all would like me to ask, let me know! -- Matthew Miller ☁☁☁ Fedora Cloud Architect ☁☁☁ <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>

3 3

Stuff that should be our target going forward ?
by Simo Sorce 04 Nov '13

04 Nov '13

Ok this is just an example that hit me today, so I wonder what is the opinion here, please do not concentrate on the problem at hand but on the general problem it highlights (user experience on server). In a headless F20 if you "yum install firefox" you get a broken application when you want to run it through an ssh session (I ssh -Y in my VM). I think this is a reasonably common mode of operation, and yet installing firefox does not bring in all the dependencies it needs to actually work. The classic dependency it misses that I know about is xorg-x11-xauth, however in F20 firefox apparently also misses fonts and will show an unintelligible crash report dialog (unintelligible because there are no fonts). I think a good server experience will require that yum install firefox on a headless system installs all required packages to make it work, is this something we need to take care of going forward ? Apparently there is some dispute about who owns the bug, but I wasn't able to find out where, on #fedora-devel I was told it was in a bug that has probably been closed w/o resolving the issue ... Simo. -- Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York

6 15

Is the Fedora Server one product?
by Jóhann B. Guðmundsson 01 Nov '13

01 Nov '13

Greetings you all So here's the thing throughout Fedora history there has always been the attempt to put a one label ( target users ) on the entire community and always has it failed ( understandably so ) and trying to do so here in the form of an single "PRD" for the server community will fail in the same manner since each of the existing server application or application stack exist to address a particular problem or fill in a missing space in the IT sector which means each of this exist to address *different* set of target audience thus we will never be able to . In anycase people have failed to realise this all this after all these years and still try to put one label on everything in a such a diverse community ( and in our case the server aspect of the project ) and since I suck at writing analogies or explain why that is people simply have to come to conclusion by themselves. Now what I believe what we stand for, what our true purpose is, our core, our essence, our mission statement Fedora Server WG can be summarized into this one sentence... "Fedora Server WG where we discover product solutions that work well for our users, our administrators, our developers and our project." --> T-shirt anyone <-- ;) We should be identifying which server applications work well on their own or work well with each other out of those 500+ we have ( think of them as ingredients ). Once we have done that we add a Fedora secret sauce ( what we feel they are lacking for the 21 century which for example could be that missing configuration api ) and form a PRD for that recipe and implement it. In anycase that's my view and we need to hash out if people think of "Fedora server" as single product and an PRD can be applied to it as such or multiple products. JBG

4 4

The "Membership" section of the governance charter draft
by Máirín Duffy 01 Nov '13

01 Nov '13

Hi folks, One discussion we didn't get to finish in today's meeting was the membership section of Jóhann's governance charter draft. As stated during the meeting, he felt having this cross-section of Fedora would "ensure coverage and proper release process for server product." The draft link is here, for convenience: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Johannbg/ServerWG After the meeting I went back to the Fedora.next proposal to see what it says about membership in the working groups and read this: "There will be at least one FESCo member in each to act as a liaison. There should be a liaison with the QA, rel eng, docs, marketing, and web/infrastructure groups as well although these may not be people from those teams but people tasked with facilitating dialogue between those groups and the working group instead." Jóhann's proposal seems to follow the spirit of this (adding the design team as a group needing representation; thank you for that. :) ) With that in mind I've changed my position on this matter a bit, and I would like to hear your thoughts on this proposal: - The proposal says we would continue to have nine voting members, but then talks about there being a member each to represent 7 Fedora groups and 3 additional members to represent the server community itself. I think the representation of the server community itself is too slim here, and I think the slots could overlap. - I would like to propose instead that we maintain a nine voting member roster, but require that at least five of the members be able to directly represent the server community. By this, I specifically would like to require any or all of the following requirements be met by a 'server community' representative (under which all of our current 'server community' reps and other members qualify as well): - member has worked professionally as a system administrator for a deployment of at least 10 production servers - member has been involved significantly as a contributor to an enterprise Linux distribution or enterprise management product for Linux servers. - Instead of having each of the cross-section teams across Fedora (docs, rel-eng, QA, ambassadors, infra, design, marketing) have a member of their team directly serving in the Server working group, I would like to suggest instead following the Fedora.next proposal suggestion that each of these teams have a liaison on the working group who isn't necessarily a member of the team they represent. So, for example, Stephen could be the liaison for the Fedora marketing team even though he is not a member of that team, and whenever the working group needs to interface with that team it would be Stephen's responsibility to contact them. So each team has a 'go-to' person on our working group, and our working group has a 'go-to' person for each team we'd need to interface with. To have the same person managing the relationship could simplify communications. - In order to determine who is the liaison for which of the 7 groups, for now we could go with people who are a member of the groups are the liaison and groups that do not have a member on the working group would have a member not already a liaison for another team nominated to be their liasion. When someone who is the liaison for a given Fedora team leaves the group, that group will be given the opportunity to suggest a replacement but the decision as to who to pick would ultimately be up to the remaining members of the working group. With this proposal in mind - I am still not sure how the turnover works. Do we serve until we're sick of serving, or is there a term / period we are on and then are up for re-elections? The draft does not cover this really. Anyway, let's discuss :) ~m

6 16

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

server November 2013