-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Let's try to set an agenda for this week's Server WG meeting. Please respond to this thread and I'll send out the formal agenda on Monday.
Last week, we had two topics that were deferred, pending input from FESCo: * Server Lifecycle Proposal (sgallagh) * Updates and Testing Proposal (nirik)
Additionally, I regret to report that Jóhann B. Guðmundsson has chosen to vacate his voting seat on the Server Working Group. Pursuant to our governance charter[1], it is now incumbent upon the remaining working group members to elect a new peer. We are, therefore, now soliciting volunteers.
* Select a new member of the Working Group.
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Server/Governance_Charter
On 11/22/2013 11:16 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
Let's try to set an agenda for this week's Server WG meeting. Please respond to this thread and I'll send out the formal agenda on Monday.
Last week, we had two topics that were deferred, pending input from FESCo:
- Server Lifecycle Proposal (sgallagh)
- Updates and Testing Proposal (nirik)
Could we bring up personas again now that we have the start of a draft document? Or do you think wait another week for more list activity?
(draft is https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Server/Personas)
~m
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 11/22/2013 11:21 AM, Máirín Duffy wrote:
On 11/22/2013 11:16 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
Let's try to set an agenda for this week's Server WG meeting. Please respond to this thread and I'll send out the formal agenda on Monday.
Last week, we had two topics that were deferred, pending input from FESCo: * Server Lifecycle Proposal (sgallagh) * Updates and Testing Proposal (nirik)
Could we bring up personas again now that we have the start of a draft document? Or do you think wait another week for more list activity?
We can put it on the agenda. Worst case is we elect to defer it a week.
On 11/22/2013 11:16 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
Additionally, I regret to report that Jóhann B. Guðmundsson has chosen to vacate his voting seat on the Server Working Group. Pursuant to our governance charter[1], it is now incumbent upon the remaining working group members to elect a new peer. We are, therefore, now soliciting volunteers.
Would it be reasonable to draw from the past nominations?
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora.next/WG_Nominations#Fedora_Server_Work...
~m
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 11/22/2013 11:27 AM, Máirín Duffy wrote:
On 11/22/2013 11:16 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
Additionally, I regret to report that Jóhann B. Guðmundsson has chosen to vacate his voting seat on the Server Working Group. Pursuant to our governance charter[1], it is now incumbent upon the remaining working group members to elect a new peer. We are, therefore, now soliciting volunteers.
Would it be reasonable to draw from the past nominations?
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora.next/WG_Nominations#Fedora_Server_Work...
I'd
reach out to each of those people, but we need to make sure they are still willing first.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512
On Fri, 22 Nov 2013 11:16:25 -0500 Stephen Gallagher sgallagh@redhat.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Let's try to set an agenda for this week's Server WG meeting. Please respond to this thread and I'll send out the formal agenda on Monday.
Last week, we had two topics that were deferred, pending input from FESCo:
- Server Lifecycle Proposal (sgallagh)
- Updates and Testing Proposal (nirik)
I think we might want to defer these again and focus on the personas and working up what roles/application stacks we want to support.
kevin
Maybe this fits into the server lifecycle agenda item, but I'm interested in support for migrations to new servers, including OS version bumps in the process. Administrators often favor long lifecycles because this process is usually tedious and error-prone. The more we make this part of normal operations, the more we make super-long lifecycles unnecessary.
It's probably ambitious for a first release, but it would be amazing to have good tools for vacuuming over services, containers, and VMs. The latter two already have tooling, but it would be super cool to abstract it into a general utility for migrations. It could enumerate migration-enabled resources. Integration with RPM verification could list configuration that's not possible to automatically migrate.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 11/24/2013 06:34 PM, David Timothy Strauss wrote:
Maybe this fits into the server lifecycle agenda item, but I'm interested in support for migrations to new servers, including OS version bumps in the process. Administrators often favor long lifecycles because this process is usually tedious and error-prone. The more we make this part of normal operations, the more we make super-long lifecycles unnecessary.
It's probably ambitious for a first release, but it would be amazing to have good tools for vacuuming over services, containers, and VMs. The latter two already have tooling, but it would be super cool to abstract it into a general utility for migrations. It could enumerate migration-enabled resources. Integration with RPM verification could list configuration that's not possible to automatically migrate.
Would you mind starting a new thread on this topic? I'm not sure the meeting is a good place to have an initial discussion about it. Let's take it to the list for a week first.
server@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
David Timothy Strauss -
Kevin Fenzi -
Máirín Duffy -
Stephen Gallagher