Re: Meeting summary/minutes from today's FESCo meeting (2010-09-14)
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 12:10:16PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 11:53:51AM -0400, Brandon Lozza wrote: If I have to wait for the next release of Fedora (14 for example) to get KDE 4.5 then it's looking like the stable updates vision has made If you need the absolute latest of everything without waiting three months for the release, take a look at running Rawhide. I do on my primary desktop machine at work, and it's great. That said, I think the process for update this component to a new point release must necessarily be different from the one for replacing a core component with a completely new design. Latest design decisions for package management tools include to sign and verify packages before they are installed. Rawhide RPMs are afaik not signed, therefore using it for any non testing system that might contain sensitive data is not a good decision. Regards Till pgpzLcYBzWqvU.pgp Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Meeting summary/minutes from today's FESCo meeting (2010-09-14)
On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 22:46 -0400, Jon Masters wrote: Right. I'm not saying Jarod should issue Fedora Arrest Warrants (FAWs?) I like this. We also need black helicopters. Nils -- Nils Philippsen Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase Red Hat a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty n...@redhat.com nor Safety. -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 PGP fingerprint: C4A8 9474 5C4C ADE3 2B8F 656D 47D8 9B65 6951 3011 -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Meeting summary/minutes from today's FESCo meeting (2010-09-14)
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:31 AM, Nils Philippsen n...@redhat.com wrote: On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 22:46 -0400, Jon Masters wrote: Right. I'm not saying Jarod should issue Fedora Arrest Warrants (FAWs?) I like this. We also need black helicopters. Those are in the hangars at the secret desert compound now. John -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Meeting summary/minutes from today's FESCo meeting (2010-09-14)
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 8:31 AM, Nils Philippsen n...@redhat.com wrote: I like this. We also need black helicopters. Surely blue helicopters. -jef -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Meeting summary/minutes from today's FESCo meeting (2010-09-14)
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 18:48:03 +0200, Till Maas opensou...@till.name wrote: Latest design decisions for package management tools include to sign and verify packages before they are installed. Rawhide RPMs are afaik not signed, therefore using it for any non testing system that might contain sensitive data is not a good decision. I believe there is a proposal to sign all packages in either bohdi or koji at some point. Signing would only indicate the package was build on Fedora infrastructure, which is slightly less checking than gets done now, but is probably good enough since there is already a lot of trust going on. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Meeting summary/minutes from today's FESCo meeting (2010-09-14)
Toshio Kuratomi wrote on 15.09.2010 04:54: On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 07:02:33PM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 20:48:13 -0400 Máirín Duffy du...@fedoraproject.org wrote: Only 5 of the 9 FESCo members voted on this issue. If all 9 had voted, even with the current 3 for / 2 against vote, systemd could easily have enough votes for inclusion in F14. I have a couple of questions for you, FESCo, since I honestly don't know and maybe would feel more comfortable knowing: ok. - Has there been any consideration for formalizing the acceptable of absentee votes? no, but perhaps there should be? Just a side note: That has problems of its own, as those votes might happen before new aspects come up in the IRC discussion that normally precedes the votes in IRC meetings... - How many members must be present at a meeting for a voting decision to be considered valid? My understanding: A quorum (ie, 5 of 9). Note, in the distant past, FESCo's rule was majority of the folks present with an attempt made at unanimity by the present members by resolving (as much as possible) their differences in opinion. This was actually stated in meetings but I don't think that it made it to the wiki -- thl might know as that was during his tenure as chair. However, I don't believe this rule has been followed in a *long* time so it might just be a historical footnote to this conversation. Yes, back then we afaics tried a whole lot harder to make everyone happy. That included even non-FESCo members that tried to raise options on a particular topic on the list or in IRC meeting; we even let those non-FESCo-members share a (mostly unofficial) vote on IRC, as those votes often influenced how FESCo member voted (which IMHO was a good thing). Some of that obviously would be much harder to do these days, as FESCo has lot more to deal with and Fedora has way more contributors. But that doesn't mean part of it could be tried again. CU knurd -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Meeting summary/minutes from today's FESCo meeting (2010-09-14)
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 3:52 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote: On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 01:05:34AM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: So, we closed all blocker bugs, we worked through the vast majority of other bugs. I dealt with almost all issues raised in Bill's list, only few small issues left. While there are some bugs open, we did our homework. I was kept in the impression during the last week that these are the criteria to get systemd into F14. But what happens? Out of nowhere completely new criteria are created, and used to bring this project down. The criteria primarily flowed from Notting's discussion of systemd acceptance criteria. Was that well communicated beforehand? No. Did all of those criteria get translated into appropriate bugzilla entries? No. Should we have handled this case better? Absolutely yes. I think the main point here wasn't there are bugs #X, #Y and #Z that can't be fixed in time so we should revert but a we have a bad feeling / are nervous so lets revert ... the later isn't really a technical decision basis and can (and here it did) piss of the one working on said feature. (I know it wasn't *that* simple but that was mostly it). The acceptance criteria should have been present from day one (i.e the day the feature was accepted) not shortly before beta (which pretty much limits the time to work to met them). -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Meeting summary/minutes from today's FESCo meeting (2010-09-14)
On 14 September 2010 23:01, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote: 21:33:35 nirik The other 2 items I had were: 21:33:56 nirik application installer issues 21:33:57 nirik https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488968 21:34:04 nirik and 21:34:05 nirik BuildIdBuild infrastructure 21:34:06 nirik https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/2387 21:34:57 mclasen that needs more time, I'd say 21:35:08 nirik ok, will close out if no one has anything further... Well, that was enlightening. Do you think someone from FESCo could write something about https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488968 in the bug, and make a decision please. Until then, all gnome-packagekit, app-install and kpackagekit work will be halted. I don't want to be in the same situation as Lennart where I've done loads of work and then a few influential people in Fedora just to turn around and say no. On 15 September 2010 00:05, Lennart Poettering mzerq...@0pointer.de wrote: Everybody has a different idea of what Fedora should be, but mine is definitely not one where people with negative energy make the rules and then win by them. My sentiments exactly. Richard. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Meeting summary/minutes from today's FESCo meeting (2010-09-14)
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010, drago01 wrote: I think the main point here wasn't there are bugs #X, #Y and #Z that can't be fixed in time so we should revert but a we have a bad feeling / are nervous so lets revert ... the later isn't really a technical decision basis and can (and here it did) piss of the one working on said feature. In this case the bad feeling is justified, because there were too many problems too late in the release cycle. It isn't a matter of whether all the known bugs are fixed but whether we can be reasonably confident that there aren't any more critical bugs that haven't been reported yet or have been introduced by the latest updates. Maybe there should be some sort of stability test for core features (eg. no major changes, no more than a certain number of blocker bugs raised) after the alpha phase. The acceptance criteria should have been present from day one (i.e the day the feature was accepted) not shortly before beta (which pretty much limits the time to work to met them). I agree. I was worried when systemd appeared in F14 just before the alpha. Really we should have been much closer to where we are now at the start of the alpha phase, and systemd should have gone in soon after F13 was forked off. Michael Young -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Meeting summary/minutes from today's FESCo meeting (2010-09-14)
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 12:27 PM, M A Young m.a.yo...@durham.ac.uk wrote: On Wed, 15 Sep 2010, drago01 wrote: I think the main point here wasn't there are bugs #X, #Y and #Z that can't be fixed in time so we should revert but a we have a bad feeling / are nervous so lets revert ... the later isn't really a technical decision basis and can (and here it did) piss of the one working on said feature. In this case the bad feeling is justified, because there were too many problems too late in the release cycle. I didn't comment on whether it was justified or not. Just that it is a bad practice to decide on subjective matters. Pointing out the too many problems and base the decision on them would be fine (and problems that are already fixed do not count). The only real issues pointed out where lack of documentation and system-config-service integration for native services. Neither that we have with upstart so not really a regression and thus warrant a reject. Anyway the point I am trying to make is that technical decisions (and that is what FESCo is for after all) should be based on *objective* rather than *subjective* matters. It isn't a matter of whether all the known bugs are fixed but whether we can be reasonably confident that there aren't any more critical bugs that haven't been reported yet or have been introduced by the latest updates. There is no way to know that ... based on this we should not add anything new because we can't be sure that they aren't any unknown critical bugs. It should be rather have we found bugs in our testing that can't be fixed in time .. yes - punt to next release; no - ship it Maybe there should be some sort of stability test for core features (eg. no major changes, no more than a certain number of blocker bugs raised) after the alpha phase. We already have that its called Feature freeze. The acceptance criteria should have been present from day one (i.e the day the feature was accepted) not shortly before beta (which pretty much limits the time to work to met them). I agree. I was worried when systemd appeared in F14 just before the alpha. Really we should have been much closer to where we are now at the start of the alpha phase, and systemd should have gone in soon after F13 was forked off. IIRC systemd wasn't even written back then. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Meeting summary/minutes from today's FESCo meeting (2010-09-14)
On 09/15/2010 04:29 PM, Michał Piotrowski wrote: It is still necessary to take into account users who think that Gnome-Shell is something like KDE4 :) In what specific way? They can just continue using GNOME Panel. GNOME Shell is also different from systemd in the sense that it affects every single user of Fedora and deserves a closer scrutiny. Ouh, but Gnome shell would affect 50% of Fedora users. We don't really have any reliable stats for DE usage. FWIW, I think GNOME Shell deserves extensive testing before made as default as well. FESCo's handling of systemd feature as a process has gaps that needs to be fixed as well. Nevertheless, I would like to thank Lennart for his extensive work on getting systemd where it is now in such a short period and Matthew Miller for playing the role of a very constructive critic and following up on bugs methodologically. I agree that SystemD should be in reasonable stable state for making it default init. Also very constructive criticism has helped this project. But I feel that: - may be too early to cut it as default init from the release - I see no problem if would have been given another month to Lennart for fixing latest critical documentation issues - problems that you point out in the email to test@ IMHO do not have any major significance You are confusing me. There aren't any critical documentation issues. My list is a specific one. What you have is a subjective feeling. Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Meeting summary/minutes from today's FESCo meeting (2010-09-14)
The only real issues pointed out where lack of documentation and system-config-service integration for native services. Neither that we have with upstart so not really a regression and thus warrant a reject. That depends on whether we want to raise the bar for features as crucial as a init system. Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Meeting summary/minutes from today's FESCo meeting (2010-09-14)
On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 01:05 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: Nice move. So, we closed all blocker bugs, we worked through the vast majority of other bugs. I dealt with almost all issues raised in Bill's list, only few small issues left. While there are some bugs open, we did our homework. I was kept in the impression during the last week that these are the criteria to get systemd into F14. But what happens? Out of nowhere completely new criteria are created, and used to bring this project down. Why do we have the blocker bugs scheme if it apparently is irrelevant for final decisions? I can't talk about how FESCo makes decisions, but I can talk about the blocker bug process. It's important to note that the blocker bug process and the feature process are separate. Blocker bugs are a QA thing and they arise out of the release criteria: we take the code that's in the repositories as of right now, build images out of it, test those, see if they comply with the release criteria, and if they don't, we file bugs which become blocker bugs (or we mark bugs filed by other testers as blocker bugs). The feature process, including the acceptance or rejection of features by FESCo, is a *separate* process, it is not part of the release validation / blocker bug process, and it's not really integrated with it. There isn't some direct relationship between having open blockers against a feature (or not) and that feature being rejected (or accepted): FESCo makes its decision on grounds which I expect are described in the feature process, somewhere, which may be wider (or narrower...) than just whether the feature causes problems with the release criteria at any moment in time. This is a really unfriendly move: I cannot win a game where the moment the game nears it ends completely new rules are created. Quite frankly, this is a recipe to piss people off, not to make people love developing for Fedora. Yes, I am very disappointed, Fedora. I don't think it helps anyone to personalize this decision or talk about it as a 'game' you have to 'win'. Whether or not you think FESCo made the right decision, I don't see any indication in the meeting logs that they treated it as a game or as some kind of personal conflict. Their job was simply to decide if it would be best for the project to accept the feature into F14, or delay it to F15. They decided (quite narrowly) that it'd be safer to delay it to F15. They didn't do anything to indicate any kind of personal animosity, they didn't say it was a bad feature or badly coded, or anything like that. They just looked at the whole situation and decided that overall it would be a bit safer to wait until F15 before going with systemd. It's also nice to not even bother to ping me for the FESCO discussion. This all reads like a page from the book How to piss people off and scare them away in 7 days. You make up new rules, and then don't bother to invite the folks mostky affected when you apply them. Oh, and next time, if you guys plan a move like that, then please do it a couple of weeks earlier, so that I can find funnier things to do then make you folks happy, since that's apparently not possible. Again it's not great to personalize this, but FWIW I agree with both points: it was a mistake not to contact you directly to see if you wanted to attend the meeting, and I definitely agree that it would have been better to take the decision earlier. FESCo's been discussing it without much urgency since last week, and that discussion always gave us (QA) the vague impression they were going to approve it, and we actually told them that it'd be quite hard to revert to upstart after Beta TC1 went out and just about impossible to do it after Beta RC1 went out, but they still decided to go ahead and require a reversion two days before the deadline for Beta RC1 to be rolled, which *really* isn't optimal and leaves us scrambling to make sure the reversion will be done well enough to not leave the RC1 DOA. It would definitely have been much better to decide this last week. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Meeting summary/minutes from today's FESCo meeting (2010-09-14)
On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 00:06 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: On 09/15/2010 12:01 AM, Jeff Spaleta wrote: On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 3:56 PM, James Laskajla...@redhat.com wrote: Much like we introduced and communicated btrfs support in F-11, should we communicate systemd as a technology preview in Fedora 14? I would agree with this. I certainly plan to run F14 with systemd in anticipation of seeing it become the default at some point. Should gnome-shell and every other feature fall under technology preview and stay like that for sometime as well before becoming the default or does this just applied to certain features maintained by certain people. . . I'm not sure if you know this, but GNOME 3 (including GNOME Shell) has also been delayed from F14 to F15. GNOME Shell won't be the default UI for F14. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Meeting summary/minutes from today's FESCo meeting (2010-09-14)
On Tue, 2010-09-14 at 20:48 -0400, Máirín Duffy wrote: Is anyone else feeling a little uncomfortable about the voting process, irregardless of its conclusion? 'regardless'. 'irregardless' would mean 'not regardless'. =) Yes, I agree, and I'd like to point up another procedural issue here. During the meeting it was generally assumed that this was just a usual 'do we approve this feature' vote, in which case the 'default' would be 'no', and the onus would be on the 'yes' side to get five votes to have the feature approved. It was essentially rejected by default - it was rejected because there weren't five people voting in favour, not because there were five people voting against. I think this is an erroneous interpretation, because this wasn't a normal 'do we approve this feature' vote. systemd had in fact already been voted on as a feature at an earlier fesco meeting and had been *provisionally accepted* - that is, it was accepted, with the proviso that if fesco was particularly worried about something, it could reverse that acceptance any time prior to beta release. Given the previous provisional acceptance of systemd, I would argue that the situation at the meeting should actually have been that *accepting* systemd would be the default case, and it should have taken five 'no' votes (or five 'yes' votes to the proposal 'do we reverse our earlier decision and reject systemd?') to reject it - it shouldn't have been rejected just because five yes votes couldn't be found on the day. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Meeting summary/minutes from today's FESCo meeting (2010-09-14)
On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 11:27 +0100, M A Young wrote: In this case the bad feeling is justified, because there were too many problems too late in the release cycle. It isn't a matter of whether all the known bugs are fixed but whether we can be reasonably confident that there aren't any more critical bugs that haven't been reported yet or have been introduced by the latest updates. Maybe there should be some sort of stability test for core features (eg. no major changes, no more than a certain number of blocker bugs raised) after the alpha phase. This would need to be carefully handled, because all components are not equal in terms of blocker bugs. systemd shares the position of anaconda in being disproportionately subject to them, because *everyone* in the distro uses it, and bugs in it are much more likely to be showstoppers due to the role it performs. We probably had just as many blocker bugs in anaconda for F14 as we did for systemd, or more; it's just the nature of those particular beasts. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Meeting summary/minutes from today's FESCo meeting (2010-09-14)
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010, drago01 wrote: On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 12:27 PM, M A Young wrote: It isn't a matter of whether all the known bugs are fixed but whether we can be reasonably confident that there aren't any more critical bugs that haven't been reported yet or have been introduced by the latest updates. There is no way to know that ... based on this we should not add anything new because we can't be sure that they aren't any unknown critical bugs. But you can base it on what bugs were raised or still open during the alpha phase. If there were a lot of issues during the alpha phase then that is likely to continue in the beta phase. That was why I was suggesting you count all blocker bugs, not just those that are still open. It doesn't guarantee that there will or won't be be any critical bugs but it does give an objective measure of how stable and well tested the code is. Maybe there should be some sort of stability test for core features (eg. no major changes, no more than a certain number of blocker bugs raised) after the alpha phase. We already have that its called Feature freeze. I don't think that is enough, as the features can stay the same but the code used to achieve this can potentially change completely. My impression is that systemd has changed a great deal during the alpha phase even though I imagine the features it aims to provide have stayed the same. I agree. I was worried when systemd appeared in F14 just before the alpha. Really we should have been much closer to where we are now at the start of the alpha phase, and systemd should have gone in soon after F13 was forked off. IIRC systemd wasn't even written back then. And that is precisely the problem - the code isn't really stable enough yet for Fedora because it has been developed very quickly and so hasn't had a chance to stablize yet. Michael Young -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Meeting summary/minutes from today's FESCo meeting (2010-09-14)
On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 13:18 +0100, M A Young wrote: But you can base it on what bugs were raised or still open during the alpha phase. If there were a lot of issues during the alpha phase then that is likely to continue in the beta phase. That was why I was suggesting you count all blocker bugs, not just those that are still open. It doesn't guarantee that there will or won't be be any critical bugs but it does give an objective measure of how stable and well tested the code is. Not entirely: see my reply to your previous. Not all packages are equal from the point of view of 'susceptibility to blocker bugs'. anaconda wouldn't do well on a measure of 'how many blocker bugs are opened against this component in alpha' either, but it doesn't mean anaconda sucks and should be removed =) -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Meeting summary/minutes from today's FESCo meeting (2010-09-14)
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 01:18:44PM +0100, M A Young wrote: I don't think that is enough, as the features can stay the same but the code used to achieve this can potentially change completely. My impression is that systemd has changed a great deal during the alpha phase even though I imagine the features it aims to provide have stayed the same. I agree. I was worried when systemd appeared in F14 just before the alpha. Really we should have been much closer to where we are now at the start of the alpha phase, and systemd should have gone in soon after F13 was forked off. IIRC systemd wasn't even written back then. And that is precisely the problem - the code isn't really stable enough yet for Fedora because it has been developed very quickly and so hasn't had a chance to stablize yet. Really, systemd core changes during alpha were really minor. Some renaming, some unit fixes (which count mainly as configuration details), implementing feedback from -devel list and bugreports. The core of systemd wasn't rewritten. Bear in mind that first commits to systemd are from November 2009, code is almost a year old. Personally, I'm very sad because of deferring systemd to F15. It may cause slipping of SysV-free Fedora to F16, full year wait from now. And integration as session daemon in DEs even further. -- Tomasz Torcz God, root, what's the difference? xmpp: zdzich...@chrome.pl God is more forgiving. pgpwGFuJiT0R8.pgp Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Meeting summary/minutes from today's FESCo meeting (2010-09-14)
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 11:27:07 +0100, M A Young m.a.yo...@durham.ac.uk wrote: I agree. I was worried when systemd appeared in F14 just before the alpha. Really we should have been much closer to where we are now at the start of the alpha phase, and systemd should have gone in soon after F13 was forked off. This is pretty much my feeling on this too. There really isn't that much time left before final freeze and there are still some backwards compatibility quirks that need to be dealt with (by prominent documentation or elimination) or we are going to cause pain for sysadmin type users. I think things will go a lot smoother having an F15 release. And we can still get the followon improvements originbally planned for F15, as that development doesn't need to wait just because the basic support was slipped to F15. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Meeting summary/minutes from today's FESCo meeting (2010-09-14)
On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 14:27 +0200, Tomasz Torcz wrote: Personally, I'm very sad because of deferring systemd to F15. It may cause slipping of SysV-free Fedora to F16, full year wait from now. And integration as session daemon in DEs even further. There's no reason it should. Remember, F15 is open *now*, Rawhide is F15. All this work can be done right now, if there's the will to do it. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Meeting summary/minutes from today's FESCo meeting (2010-09-14)
On 09/15/2010 01:48 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Tue, 2010-09-14 at 20:48 -0400, Máirín Duffy wrote: Is anyone else feeling a little uncomfortable about the voting process, irregardless of its conclusion? 'regardless'. 'irregardless' would mean 'not regardless'. =) Yes, I agree, and I'd like to point up another procedural issue here. During the meeting it was generally assumed that this was just a usual 'do we approve this feature' vote, in which case the 'default' would be 'no', and the onus would be on the 'yes' side to get five votes to have the feature approved. It was essentially rejected by default - it was rejected because there weren't five people voting in favour, not because there were five people voting against. I think this is an erroneous interpretation, because this wasn't a normal 'do we approve this feature' vote. systemd had in fact already been voted on as a feature at an earlier fesco meeting and had been *provisionally accepted* - that is, it was accepted, with the proviso that if fesco was particularly worried about something, it could reverse that acceptance any time prior to beta release. Given the previous provisional acceptance of systemd, I would argue that the situation at the meeting should actually have been that *accepting* systemd would be the default case, and it should have taken five 'no' votes (or five 'yes' votes to the proposal 'do we reverse our earlier decision and reject systemd?') to reject it - it shouldn't have been rejected just because five yes votes couldn't be found on the day. From my point of view all this situation is clearly wrong. I understand that Lennard is pissed off, he followed the tight schedule and tried to fix as many bugs as possible to deliver working init system in time. I understand why systemd was postponed as default init system foro F15, but this discussion/decision should come much much sooner, with clear criteria for accepting/rejecting it. It should be stated at the beginning of process that systemd should be accepted when ... yada yada. In case it does not meet these criteria it should be rejected. But the terms for acceptance were IMO drastically changed at the end. Kind regards sHINOBI -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Meeting summary/minutes from today's FESCo meeting (2010-09-14)
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 04:01:03PM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: * pjones and ajax are traveling today, will not be able to attend. (nirik, 19:30:30) Sorry, I thought I had mentioned this on IRC before, but I have a conflict with the current scheduling for the next four months due to a class at the university. (I thought I could cope and get on irc this meeting, but the wireless access in the lecture theater was non-existant.) I think given this conflict, and the resulting discontent, I should probably stand aside and allow someone whose schedule can cope to be elected in my stead. (As I recall, when we determined the meeting time, this was basically the only time people were all 'available' for.) regards, Kyle -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Meeting summary/minutes from today's FESCo meeting (2010-09-14)
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 12:48:26PM +0100, Adam Williamson wrote: On Tue, 2010-09-14 at 20:48 -0400, Máirín Duffy wrote: Is anyone else feeling a little uncomfortable about the voting process, irregardless of its conclusion? 'regardless'. 'irregardless' would mean 'not regardless'. =) The OED disagrees. -- Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Meeting summary/minutes from today's FESCo meeting (2010-09-14)
On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 14:57 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 12:48:26PM +0100, Adam Williamson wrote: On Tue, 2010-09-14 at 20:48 -0400, Máirín Duffy wrote: Is anyone else feeling a little uncomfortable about the voting process, irregardless of its conclusion? 'regardless'. 'irregardless' would mean 'not regardless'. =) The OED disagrees. Not really. It lists 'irregardless' as 'colloquial', IIRC (I don't have my login handy right now, my library card is in Canada...), which is the OED equivalent of a ten-poot barge pole. :) -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Meeting summary/minutes from today's FESCo meeting (2010-09-14)
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 03:04:31PM +0100, Adam Williamson wrote: On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 14:57 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 12:48:26PM +0100, Adam Williamson wrote: 'regardless'. 'irregardless' would mean 'not regardless'. =) The OED disagrees. Not really. It lists 'irregardless' as 'colloquial', IIRC (I don't have my login handy right now, my library card is in Canada...), which is the OED equivalent of a ten-poot barge pole. :) You can argue over whether it's accepted as correct English, but it has a well-defined meaning even if that meaning is contrary to what normal word construction rules would lead you to accept. In any case, quibbling about language usage generally serves to belittle the person you're criticising - it doesn't encourage an attitude of mutual respect and does nothing to foster an atmosphere in which we can have a civilised and productive discussion. Let's be more excellent and less prescriptive? -- Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Meeting summary/minutes from today's FESCo meeting (2010-09-14)
On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 09:03 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote: On 14 September 2010 23:01, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote: 21:33:35 nirik The other 2 items I had were: 21:33:56 nirik application installer issues 21:33:57 nirik https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488968 21:34:04 nirik and 21:34:05 nirik BuildIdBuild infrastructure 21:34:06 nirik https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/2387 21:34:57 mclasen that needs more time, I'd say 21:35:08 nirik ok, will close out if no one has anything further... Well, that was enlightening. Do you think someone from FESCo could write something about https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488968 in the bug, and make a decision please. Until then, all gnome-packagekit, app-install and kpackagekit work will be halted. I don't want to be in the same situation as Lennart where I've done loads of work and then a few influential people in Fedora just to turn around and say no. Just to avoid misunderstandings here: my comment 'that needs more time' was in reference to the fact that the meeting was over 2 hours at that point and we only had a few minutes left to bring up quick topics. It was not a comment on the feature itself. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Meeting summary/minutes from today's FESCo meeting (2010-09-14)
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010, Adam Williamson wrote: On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 14:27 +0200, Tomasz Torcz wrote: Personally, I'm very sad because of deferring systemd to F15. It may cause slipping of SysV-free Fedora to F16, full year wait from now. And integration as session daemon in DEs even further. There's no reason it should. Remember, F15 is open *now*, Rawhide is F15. All this work can be done right now, if there's the will to do it. For people wanting to make big changes to F15.. Do it *now*! F15 is in its infancy. It's taking shape. If you want your feature to be a defining feature of F15. Get it in *now*. -Mike -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Meeting summary/minutes from today's FESCo meeting (2010-09-14)
Mike McGrath said the following on 09/15/2010 07:14 AM Pacific Time: On Wed, 15 Sep 2010, Adam Williamson wrote: On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 14:27 +0200, Tomasz Torcz wrote: Personally, I'm very sad because of deferring systemd to F15. It may cause slipping of SysV-free Fedora to F16, full year wait from now. And integration as session daemon in DEs even further. There's no reason it should. Remember, F15 is open *now*, Rawhide is F15. All this work can be done right now, if there's the will to do it. For people wanting to make big changes to F15.. Do it *now*! F15 is in its infancy. It's taking shape. If you want your feature to be a defining feature of F15. Get it in *now*. -Mike And we are already reviewing and accepting features for Fedora 15. The process never stops. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Policy John -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Meeting summary/minutes from today's FESCo meeting (2010-09-14)
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 07:20:30 -0700, John Poelstra poels...@redhat.com wrote: And we are already reviewing and accepting features for Fedora 15. The process never stops. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Policy Thanks for the reminder; I'll put LZMA back in for F15 and hope the kernel changes make it in by then. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Meeting summary/minutes from today's FESCo meeting (2010-09-14)
On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 09:14 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: On Wed, 15 Sep 2010, Adam Williamson wrote: On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 14:27 +0200, Tomasz Torcz wrote: Personally, I'm very sad because of deferring systemd to F15. It may cause slipping of SysV-free Fedora to F16, full year wait from now. And integration as session daemon in DEs even further. There's no reason it should. Remember, F15 is open *now*, Rawhide is F15. All this work can be done right now, if there's the will to do it. For people wanting to make big changes to F15.. Do it *now*! F15 is in its infancy. It's taking shape. If you want your feature to be a defining feature of F15. Get it in *now*. Yes. But please make those changes responsibly. We are starting to work on GNOME3 for F15 in rawhide now, and we cannot afford weeks of broken rawhide this cycle. If we all pay a little attention, we can keep rawhide continuously inhabitably. Matthias -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Meeting summary/minutes from today's FESCo meeting (2010-09-14)
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 4:25 PM, Bruno Wolff III br...@wolff.to wrote: On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 07:20:30 -0700, John Poelstra poels...@redhat.com wrote: And we are already reviewing and accepting features for Fedora 15. The process never stops. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Policy Thanks for the reminder; I'll put LZMA back in for F15 and hope the kernel changes make it in by then. That doesn't work ... someone has to be activly pushing the patches upstream .. instead of just waiting and hoping that they magically make it in. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Meeting summary/minutes from today's FESCo meeting (2010-09-14)
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 17:11:03 +0200, drago01 drag...@gmail.com wrote: That doesn't work ... someone has to be activly pushing the patches upstream .. instead of just waiting and hoping that they magically make it in. It's somewhere on Lougher's to do list. We can still be ready to take advantage of it if it gets completed without being especially active in their development. Just knowing their is a distro waiting to use the stuff when it gets upstream might (or might not) provide additional motivation for getting it done. That said, if someone is willing and able to help Lougher out, I'm all for it. But it is out of scope for my job, which I see as Fedora integration. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Meeting summary/minutes from today's FESCo meeting (2010-09-14)
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 5:15 PM, Bruno Wolff III br...@wolff.to wrote: On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 17:11:03 +0200, drago01 drag...@gmail.com wrote: That doesn't work ... someone has to be activly pushing the patches upstream .. instead of just waiting and hoping that they magically make it in. It's somewhere on Lougher's to do list. We can still be ready to take advantage of it if it gets completed without being especially active in their development. Just knowing their is a distro waiting to use the stuff when it gets upstream might (or might not) provide additional motivation for getting it done. That said, if someone is willing and able to help Lougher out, I'm all for it. But it is out of scope for my job, which I see as Fedora integration. I said _someone_ not _you_ ;) ... if Lougher is working on it fine. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Meeting summary/minutes from today's FESCo meeting (2010-09-14)
drago01 (drag...@gmail.com) said: The only real issues pointed out where lack of documentation and system-config-service integration for native services. Neither that we have with upstart so not really a regression and thus warrant a reject. system services have not been migrated to upstart. They have/had been migrated to systemd, which makes this not an apples-to-apples comparison. Bill -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Meeting summary/minutes from today's FESCo meeting (2010-09-14)
Richard Hughes (hughsi...@gmail.com) said: On 14 September 2010 23:01, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote: 21:33:35 nirik The other 2 items I had were: 21:33:56 nirik application installer issues 21:33:57 nirik https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488968 21:34:04 nirik and 21:34:05 nirik BuildIdBuild infrastructure 21:34:06 nirik https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/2387 21:34:57 mclasen that needs more time, I'd say 21:35:08 nirik ok, will close out if no one has anything further... Well, that was enlightening. Do you think someone from FESCo could write something about https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488968 in the bug, and make a decision please. Discussion on this was postponed due to a lack of time, nothing more. Please, come to next week's meeting. Bill -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Meeting summary/minutes from today's FESCo meeting (2010-09-14)
If I have to wait for the next release of Fedora (14 for example) to get KDE 4.5 then it's looking like the stable updates vision has made Fedora incompatible with what I need. I will need to consider another distribution (OpenSUSE most likely, their GCC 4.5 also doesn't suck; LTO = enabled). After waiting 6 months for an upstream release, its a real bother to wait another 4-6 months for a Fedora release to incorporate it. Fedora used to be known for having the freshest software. F14 leaves much to be desired. I'm probably not the only one who will leave for greener pastures. On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 11:45 AM, Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com wrote: Richard Hughes (hughsi...@gmail.com) said: On 14 September 2010 23:01, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote: 21:33:35 nirik The other 2 items I had were: 21:33:56 nirik application installer issues 21:33:57 nirik https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488968 21:34:04 nirik and 21:34:05 nirik BuildIdBuild infrastructure 21:34:06 nirik https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/2387 21:34:57 mclasen that needs more time, I'd say 21:35:08 nirik ok, will close out if no one has anything further... Well, that was enlightening. Do you think someone from FESCo could write something about https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488968 in the bug, and make a decision please. Discussion on this was postponed due to a lack of time, nothing more. Please, come to next week's meeting. Bill -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Meeting summary/minutes from today's FESCo meeting (2010-09-14)
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 11:53:51AM -0400, Brandon Lozza wrote: If I have to wait for the next release of Fedora (14 for example) to get KDE 4.5 then it's looking like the stable updates vision has made If you need the absolute latest of everything without waiting three months for the release, take a look at running Rawhide. I do on my primary desktop machine at work, and it's great. That said, I think the process for update this component to a new point release must necessarily be different from the one for replacing a core component with a completely new design. -- Matthew Miller mat...@mattdm.org Senior Systems Architect -- Instructional Research Computing Services Harvard School of Engineering Applied Sciences -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Meeting summary/minutes from today's FESCo meeting (2010-09-14)
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 17:20:22 +0200, drago01 drag...@gmail.com wrote: I said _someone_ not _you_ ;) ... if Lougher is working on it fine. It's on his to do list, which isn't really the same thing. Lately he has been doing more getting the extended attributes feature cleaned up and a bit with the lzo stuff (which is in the kernel and seems to just be entering the 4.1 dev version of squashfs-tools now). -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Meeting summary/minutes from today's FESCo meeting (2010-09-14)
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 01:31:50PM +0100, Adam Williamson wrote: On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 14:27 +0200, Tomasz Torcz wrote: Personally, I'm very sad because of deferring systemd to F15. It may cause slipping of SysV-free Fedora to F16, full year wait from now. And integration as session daemon in DEs even further. There's no reason it should. Remember, F15 is open *now*, Rawhide is F15. All this work can be done right now, if there's the will to do it. Actually, iiuc, tomasz is talking about migrating sysv-init scripts to systemd unit files. There is a blocker to doing that in F15 which is that lennart, notting, and walters (that I remember) are against doing a mass migration to unit files until after systemd has been running for at least one release. This allows best practices for writing unit files to emerge and get codified in a packaging guideline. Without information on how to write unit files well, we're not going to be porting scripts over. -Toshio pgpOMDRzhK8zT.pgp Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Meeting summary/minutes from today's FESCo meeting (2010-09-14)
Thorsten Leemhuis said the following on 09/15/2010 12:09 AM Pacific Time: Toshio Kuratomi wrote on 15.09.2010 04:54: On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 07:02:33PM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 20:48:13 -0400 Máirín Duffydu...@fedoraproject.org wrote: Only 5 of the 9 FESCo members voted on this issue. If all 9 had voted, even with the current 3 for / 2 against vote, systemd could easily have enough votes for inclusion in F14. I have a couple of questions for you, FESCo, since I honestly don't know and maybe would feel more comfortable knowing: ok. - Has there been any consideration for formalizing the acceptable of absentee votes? no, but perhaps there should be? Just a side note: That has problems of its own, as those votes might happen before new aspects come up in the IRC discussion that normally precedes the votes in IRC meetings... - How many members must be present at a meeting for a voting decision to be considered valid? My understanding: A quorum (ie, 5 of 9). Note, in the distant past, FESCo's rule was majority of the folks present with an attempt made at unanimity by the present members by resolving (as much as possible) their differences in opinion. This was actually stated in meetings but I don't think that it made it to the wiki -- thl might know as that was during his tenure as chair. However, I don't believe this rule has been followed in a *long* time so it might just be a historical footnote to this conversation. Yes, back then we afaics tried a whole lot harder to make everyone happy. That included even non-FESCo members that tried to raise options on a particular topic on the list or in IRC meeting; we even let those non-FESCo-members share a (mostly unofficial) vote on IRC, as those votes often influenced how FESCo member voted (which IMHO was a good thing). Maybe I'm reading more than you intended into what you said. I don't believe it is part of FESCo's charter or any other Fedora leadership group to make everyone happy. That is an impossible job. My expectation of the leadership bodies in Fedora is that they oversee the current work and future direction of Fedora and do what is best for Fedora's success and future--even if there isn't unanimous happiness or agreement in the community. John -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Meeting summary/minutes from today's FESCo meeting (2010-09-14)
Toshio Kuratomi (a.bad...@gmail.com) said: Actually, iiuc, tomasz is talking about migrating sysv-init scripts to systemd unit files. There is a blocker to doing that in F15 which is that lennart, notting, and walters (that I remember) are against doing a mass migration to unit files until after systemd has been running for at least one release. This allows best practices for writing unit files to emerge and get codified in a packaging guideline. Without information on how to write unit files well, we're not going to be porting scripts over. My opinion is that we'd want some best practices, but that is more tied to time and testing, not a specific number of releases. Bill -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Meeting summary/minutes from today's FESCo meeting (2010-09-14)
Le mardi 14 septembre 2010 à 21:26 -0400, Máirín Duffy a écrit : On Tue, 2010-09-14 at 19:02 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: I'm happy to look for ways to make the other fesco voices heard. Any ideas? I could try making the tickets have some more descriptive subject like HEY VOTE ON THIS PLEASE BEFORE NEXT MEETING: or something. Hmm. Here's a couple ideas I could think of: - If you don't place a vote by $DATE, your vote will be assumed to be $POSITION can be scarily motivating. - Nag emails sent out by trac daily until you click on the email's yes no links to vote! (some of the ticket reminder trac hacks might work to provide this) I really don't see the point. A forced vote is not better than no vote (can easily be worse). As far as I know in most countries actual laws are passed by whoever is present in Parliament (baring very specific exceptions). If there are few people it's not a problem, it just shows the issue is either not very important, or the consensus has already been achieved. -- Nicolas Mailhot -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Meeting summary/minutes from today's FESCo meeting (2010-09-14)
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 11:53:51 -0400 Brandon Lozza wrote: If I have to wait for the next release of Fedora (14 for example) to get KDE 4.5 then it's looking like the stable updates vision has made Fedora incompatible with what I need. KDE 4.5 has not been released to updates because it has known unsolved regressions. See the tracker bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=kde-4.5 Michal -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Meeting summary/minutes from today's FESCo meeting (2010-09-14)
On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 22:33 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: Le mardi 14 septembre 2010 à 21:26 -0400, Máirín Duffy a écrit : On Tue, 2010-09-14 at 19:02 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: I'm happy to look for ways to make the other fesco voices heard. Any ideas? I could try making the tickets have some more descriptive subject like HEY VOTE ON THIS PLEASE BEFORE NEXT MEETING: or something. Hmm. Here's a couple ideas I could think of: - If you don't place a vote by $DATE, your vote will be assumed to be $POSITION can be scarily motivating. - Nag emails sent out by trac daily until you click on the email's yes no links to vote! (some of the ticket reminder trac hacks might work to provide this) I really don't see the point. A forced vote is not better than no vote (can easily be worse). As far as I know in most countries actual laws are passed by whoever is present in Parliament (baring very specific exceptions). If there are few people it's not a problem, it just shows the issue is either not very important, or the consensus has already been achieved. That's a good point, but I would hope that someone elected to serve on a body in Fedora would actually *want* to vote, and the measures above are just ideas meant to be motivation/reminder than forcing. Honestly, I'm not sure they are great ideas but certainly throwing something out there means more brain food to help generate an actually good idea. ~m -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Meeting summary/minutes from today's FESCo meeting (2010-09-14)
On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 18:09 -0400, Máirín Duffy wrote: On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 22:33 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: I really don't see the point. A forced vote is not better than no vote (can easily be worse). As far as I know in most countries actual laws are passed by whoever is present in Parliament (baring very specific exceptions). If there are few people it's not a problem, it just shows the issue is either not very important, or the consensus has already been achieved. As I alluded to previously, many government bodies have the power to legally compel members to turn up for a vote. The Sergeant at Arms in the US example can literally hound down a member via a Congressional arrest warrant and physically ensure they turn up to a vote, and this has been done in the past if there is lack of a voting quorum (51 in the case of the US Senate when it was last actually done). I also noted that Fedora doesn't have this kind of power, but it's not unreasonable to require that elected representatives turn up to vote on your behalf. That's a good point, but I would hope that someone elected to serve on a body in Fedora would actually *want* to vote, and the measures above are just ideas meant to be motivation/reminder than forcing. Right. I'm not saying Jarod should issue Fedora Arrest Warrants (FAWs?) for the members of FESCo (or the Board), but there should be an official means by which votes can be counted in absentia, and in some cases it may be required that everyone has to vote, and that's a good thing. btw, I think Kyle said earlier he's standing aside. So does that mean there now is a new FESCo election? Jon. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Meeting summary/minutes from today's FESCo meeting (2010-09-14)
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 9:46 PM, Jon Masters jonat...@jonmasters.org wrote: On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 18:09 -0400, Máirín Duffy wrote: That's a good point, but I would hope that someone elected to serve on a body in Fedora would actually *want* to vote, and the measures above are just ideas meant to be motivation/reminder than forcing. Right. I'm not saying Jarod should issue Fedora Arrest Warrants (FAWs?) for the members of FESCo (or the Board), but there should be an official means by which votes can be counted in absentia, and in some cases it may be required that everyone has to vote, and that's a good thing. btw, I think Kyle said earlier he's standing aside. So does that mean there now is a new FESCo election? No, FESCo has policies in place to deal with this situation described here http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FESCo_election_policy John -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Meeting summary/minutes from today's FESCo meeting (2010-09-14)
On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 21:54 -0500, inode0 wrote: On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 9:46 PM, Jon Masters jonat...@jonmasters.org wrote: btw, I think Kyle said earlier he's standing aside. So does that mean there now is a new FESCo election? No, FESCo has policies in place to deal with this situation described here http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FESCo_election_policy Ok. I failed to check to see there was a process. Shame on me. Ok, so I assume they'll discuss it in their next regular meeting. Jon. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Meeting summary/minutes from today's FESCo meeting (2010-09-14)
=== #fedora-meeting: FESCO (2010-09-14) === Meeting started by nirik at 19:30:01 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2010-09-14/fesco.2010-09-14-19.30.log.html Meeting summary --- * init process (nirik, 19:30:01) * pjones and ajax are traveling today, will not be able to attend. (nirik, 19:30:30) * Updates policy status (nirik, 19:33:02) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Kevin/Updates_Policy_Draft (nirik, 19:34:12) * ACTION: nirik (and anyone else who wishes) to work on the updates policy wiki page for next week. (nirik, 20:02:44) * ACTION: SMParrish to work on metrics (nirik, 20:02:53) * ACTION: SMParrish and mjg59 to work on ideas for kde updates in stable releases. (nirik, 20:04:09) * http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/DNSSEC_on_workstations (nirik, 20:05:55) * http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/GoldLinkerDefault (nirik, 20:10:07) * #461 F14 blessing for systemd (nirik, 20:12:29) * LINK: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_initialization_basic and http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_initialization_tools (nirik, 20:38:06) * ACTION: : will defer systemd to f15 release to give more time to fix small issues and docs and general polish. (nirik, 21:12:43) * ACTION: notting will look at what's required to flip the default in f14 (notting, 21:13:44) * #464 - Fix nss update issues (nirik, 21:15:31) * Open Floor (nirik, 21:32:28) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488968 (nirik, 21:33:57) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/2387 (nirik, 21:34:06) Meeting ended at 21:38:58 UTC. Action Items * nirik (and anyone else who wishes) to work on the updates policy wiki page for next week. * SMParrish to work on metrics * SMParrish and mjg59 to work on ideas for kde updates in stable releases. * : will defer systemd to f15 release to give more time to fix small issues and docs and general polish. * notting will look at what's required to flip the default in f14 Action Items, by person --- * mjg59 * SMParrish and mjg59 to work on ideas for kde updates in stable releases. * nirik * nirik (and anyone else who wishes) to work on the updates policy wiki page for next week. * notting * notting will look at what's required to flip the default in f14 * SMParrish * SMParrish to work on metrics * SMParrish and mjg59 to work on ideas for kde updates in stable releases. * **UNASSIGNED** * : will defer systemd to f15 release to give more time to fix small issues and docs and general polish. People Present (lines said) --- * nirik (177) * notting (61) * mjg59 (61) * mclasen (46) * SMParrish (17) * emaldona_mtv (15) * jsmith (14) * drago01 (13) * gholms (12) * zodbot (11) * fenris02 (7) * poelcat (5) * lmacken (4) * adamw (2) * jankratochvil (2) * mclasen_afk (1) * pjones (0) * ajax (0) * kylem (0) * cwickert (0) -- 19:30:01 nirik #startmeeting FESCO (2010-09-14) 19:30:01 zodbot Meeting started Tue Sep 14 19:30:01 2010 UTC. The chair is nirik. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 19:30:01 zodbot Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 19:30:01 nirik #meetingname fesco 19:30:01 nirik #chair mclasen notting nirik SMParrish kylem ajax pjones cwickert mjg59 19:30:01 nirik #topic init process 19:30:01 zodbot The meeting name has been set to 'fesco' 19:30:01 zodbot Current chairs: SMParrish ajax cwickert kylem mclasen mjg59 nirik notting pjones 19:30:30 nirik #info pjones and ajax are traveling today, will not be able to attend. 19:30:55 * mclasen present 19:31:02 notting pjones also said he'd be out next week too 19:31:04 * notting is here 19:31:05 * SMParrish here 19:31:08 * nirik nods. yep. 19:31:36 mjg59 Here 19:31:51 nirik cool. I think thats enough of us to get started... 19:32:18 nirik We have 3 updates related tickets. Should we just do them in one Updates policy status section? ;) 19:32:38 mjg59 Seems reasonable 19:33:02 nirik #topic Updates policy status 19:33:11 nirik .fesco 351 19:33:12 zodbot nirik: #351 (Create a policy for updates) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/351 19:33:16 nirik .fesco 382 19:33:17 zodbot nirik: #382 (Implementing Stable Release Vision) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/382 19:33:22 nirik .fesco 454 19:33:23 zodbot nirik: #454 (pre-release update acceptance criteria) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/454 19:33:36 nirik so, on the first one we are just waiting for autoqa. 19:33:54 nirik on the second one, I whipped up a wiki page for docs the other day: 19:34:12 nirik https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Kevin/Updates_Policy_Draft 19:34:37 nirik this is based on Ajax and notting's work for the stable
Re: Meeting summary/minutes from today's FESCo meeting (2010-09-14)
On 09/14/2010 10:01 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: * ACTION: : will defer systemd to f15 release to give more time to fix small issues and docs and general polish. (nirik, 21:12:43) What are you kidding me! Gnome-shell better be sparkling out of aunt Tilly pony eyes before we ship it..sigh JBG -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Meeting summary/minutes from today's FESCo meeting (2010-09-14)
On Tue, 14.09.10 16:01, Kevin Fenzi (ke...@scrye.com) wrote: * #461 F14 blessing for systemd (nirik, 20:12:29) * LINK: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_initialization_basic and http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_initialization_tools (nirik, 20:38:06) * ACTION: : will defer systemd to f15 release to give more time to fix small issues and docs and general polish. (nirik, 21:12:43) * ACTION: notting will look at what's required to flip the default in f14 (notting, 21:13:44) Nice move. So, we closed all blocker bugs, we worked through the vast majority of other bugs. I dealt with almost all issues raised in Bill's list, only few small issues left. While there are some bugs open, we did our homework. I was kept in the impression during the last week that these are the criteria to get systemd into F14. But what happens? Out of nowhere completely new criteria are created, and used to bring this project down. Why do we have the blocker bugs scheme if it apparently is irrelevant for final decisions? This is a really unfriendly move: I cannot win a game where the moment the game nears it ends completely new rules are created. Quite frankly, this is a recipe to piss people off, not to make people love developing for Fedora. Yes, I am very disappointed, Fedora. It's also nice to not even bother to ping me for the FESCO discussion. This all reads like a page from the book How to piss people off and scare them away in 7 days. You make up new rules, and then don't bother to invite the folks mostky affected when you apply them. Oh, and next time, if you guys plan a move like that, then please do it a couple of weeks earlier, so that I can find funnier things to do then make you folks happy, since that's apparently not possible. Everybody has a different idea of what Fedora should be, but mine is definitely not one where people with negative energy make the rules and then win by them. There's something seriously wrong with the Fedora development process, folks. And with you, FESCO. You excelled in erratic behaviour, not in steering engineering. Lennart (Well, and I guess this will create a flamefest, but I won't reply to the thread.) -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Meeting summary/minutes from today's FESCo meeting (2010-09-14)
On Tue, 2010-09-14 at 16:01 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: * #461 F14 blessing for systemd (nirik, 20:12:29) * LINK: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_initialization_basic and http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_initialization_tools (nirik, 20:38:06) * ACTION: : will defer systemd to f15 release to give more time to fix small issues and docs and general polish. (nirik, 21:12:43) * ACTION: notting will look at what's required to flip the default in f14 (notting, 21:13:44) Am I mistaken in thinking that this is largely a messaging issue for Fedora 14? What I mean is, the exciting work Lennart has done will be available at release. Based on the test day results, it will likely be operational. However, we may not have all the bells and whistles (documentation and more complex use cases) at release, and therefore it will not be the default init system. Much like we introduced and communicated btrfs support in F-11, should we communicate systemd as a technology preview in Fedora 14? Thanks, James signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Meeting summary/minutes from today's FESCo meeting (2010-09-14)
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 3:56 PM, James Laska jla...@redhat.com wrote: Much like we introduced and communicated btrfs support in F-11, should we communicate systemd as a technology preview in Fedora 14? I would agree with this. I certainly plan to run F14 with systemd in anticipation of seeing it become the default at some point. -jef -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Meeting summary/minutes from today's FESCo meeting (2010-09-14)
On 09/15/2010 12:01 AM, Jeff Spaleta wrote: On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 3:56 PM, James Laskajla...@redhat.com wrote: Much like we introduced and communicated btrfs support in F-11, should we communicate systemd as a technology preview in Fedora 14? I would agree with this. I certainly plan to run F14 with systemd in anticipation of seeing it become the default at some point. Should gnome-shell and every other feature fall under technology preview and stay like that for sometime as well before becoming the default or does this just applied to certain features maintained by certain people. . . JBG -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Meeting summary/minutes from today's FESCo meeting (2010-09-14)
2010/9/15 Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com: Should gnome-shell (..) becoming the default I hope that there will be the option to disable this default and return to classical gnome desktop. Regards, Michal -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Meeting summary/minutes from today's FESCo meeting (2010-09-14)
2010/9/14 Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com: Should gnome-shell and every other feature fall under technology preview and stay like that for sometime as well before becoming the default or does this just applied to certain features maintained by certain people. . . I'm making lemonade out of lemons here. I'm not stating an agreement or disagreement with the decision to punt. What I am saying is that I am personally going to be using systemd in an anticipation of and to what extent my usage can, hasten it becoming the default. And again.. without stating whether or not I agree or disagree with this decision.. I will say its precedent setting. For good or ill, the decision to punt this feature is going to be held up as a measuring stick in future feature discussions.. most assuredly. -jef -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Meeting summary/minutes from today's FESCo meeting (2010-09-14)
Am Dienstag, den 14.09.2010, 16:01 -0600 schrieb Kevin Fenzi: Meeting summary --- * init process (nirik, 19:30:01) * pjones and ajax are traveling today, will not be able to attend. (nirik, 19:30:30) So am I, sorry i didn't make note earlier. I will be back next Tuesday and should be able to attend the meeting. Regards, Christoph -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Meeting summary/minutes from today's FESCo meeting (2010-09-14)
Hi FESCo members, On Tue, 2010-09-14 at 16:01 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: === #fedora-meeting: FESCO (2010-09-14) === Meeting started by nirik at 19:30:01 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2010-09-14/fesco.2010-09-14-19.30.log.html Meeting summary --- * init process (nirik, 19:30:01) * pjones and ajax are traveling today, will not be able to attend. (nirik, 19:30:30) Only 5 of the 9 FESCo members voted on this issue. If all 9 had voted, even with the current 3 for / 2 against vote, systemd could easily have enough votes for inclusion in F14. I have a couple of questions for you, FESCo, since I honestly don't know and maybe would feel more comfortable knowing: - Has there been any consideration for formalizing the acceptable of absentee votes? - How many members must be present at a meeting for a voting decision to be considered valid? - Is it possible to collect the votes of the folks who were not present? Let me make one thing clear: if FESCo decides that this is the best decision in the interest of Fedora, I trust you all completely to make the right call. I am just coming away with the feeling that this is a little closer to a dice roll - depending on who how many showed up - than I feel is really fair given the magnitude of the issue. This decision while pending has come up as a topic time and time again in Board meetings community QA so it seems a major issue for a lot of folks in Fedora. Therefore, I feel it should be something FESCo is quite sure about. Again, either way the decision goes - fine. It would be nice to hear from the FESCo members not present on how they feel about the decision, though. Is anyone else feeling a little uncomfortable about the voting process, irregardless of its conclusion? ~m -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Meeting summary/minutes from today's FESCo meeting (2010-09-14)
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 01:05:34 +0200 Lennart Poettering mzerq...@0pointer.de wrote: On Tue, 14.09.10 16:01, Kevin Fenzi (ke...@scrye.com) wrote: * #461 F14 blessing for systemd (nirik, 20:12:29) * LINK: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_initialization_basic and http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_initialization_tools (nirik, 20:38:06) * ACTION: : will defer systemd to f15 release to give more time to fix small issues and docs and general polish. (nirik, 21:12:43) * ACTION: notting will look at what's required to flip the default in f14 (notting, 21:13:44) Nice move. ...snip... Lennart (Well, and I guess this will create a flamefest, but I won't reply to the thread.) I hope you still read it. I have some advice for you, which of course you're welcome to take or leave: Please don't take everything personally. This is not about you as a person. I think systemd is cool and needed, and I think you have been doing a fine job fixing bugs and issues. As a whole, fesco decided to wait to make it default until next release. There should not be any angst here, everyone wins: - Users get a more polished/documented/ready thing. - You don't have to spend crazy hours working on blockers before releases in a hurry, you can perhaps also spend some time on pulseaudio this cycle too? Anyhow, please don't take things personally please? lets all just work to make a better fedora. kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Meeting summary/minutes from today's FESCo meeting (2010-09-14)
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 20:48:13 -0400 Máirín Duffy du...@fedoraproject.org wrote: Hi FESCo members, ...snip... Only 5 of the 9 FESCo members voted on this issue. If all 9 had voted, even with the current 3 for / 2 against vote, systemd could easily have enough votes for inclusion in F14. I have a couple of questions for you, FESCo, since I honestly don't know and maybe would feel more comfortable knowing: ok. - Has there been any consideration for formalizing the acceptable of absentee votes? no, but perhaps there should be? - How many members must be present at a meeting for a voting decision to be considered valid? My understanding: A quorum (ie, 5 of 9). - Is it possible to collect the votes of the folks who were not present? yes. And I filed a ticket last week to do so: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/461 I'm pretty bummed that only 3 fesco members bothered to vote there. Let me make one thing clear: if FESCo decides that this is the best decision in the interest of Fedora, I trust you all completely to make the right call. I am just coming away with the feeling that this is a little closer to a dice roll - depending on who how many showed up - than I feel is really fair given the magnitude of the issue. This decision while pending has come up as a topic time and time again in Board meetings community QA so it seems a major issue for a lot of folks in Fedora. Therefore, I feel it should be something FESCo is quite sure about. I'm happy to look for ways to make the other fesco voices heard. Any ideas? I could try making the tickets have some more descriptive subject like HEY VOTE ON THIS PLEASE BEFORE NEXT MEETING: or something. Again, either way the decision goes - fine. It would be nice to hear from the FESCo members not present on how they feel about the decision, though. I'd love to too. Is anyone else feeling a little uncomfortable about the voting process, irregardless of its conclusion? Sure. I wish it was more clear cut too. kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Meeting summary/minutes from today's FESCo meeting (2010-09-14)
On Tue, 2010-09-14 at 19:02 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: I'm happy to look for ways to make the other fesco voices heard. Any ideas? I could try making the tickets have some more descriptive subject like HEY VOTE ON THIS PLEASE BEFORE NEXT MEETING: or something. Hmm. Here's a couple ideas I could think of: - If you don't place a vote by $DATE, your vote will be assumed to be $POSITION can be scarily motivating. - Nag emails sent out by trac daily until you click on the email's yes no links to vote! (some of the ticket reminder trac hacks might work to provide this) ~m -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Meeting summary/minutes from today's FESCo meeting (2010-09-14)
On Tue, 2010-09-14 at 18:57 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: I hope you still read it. I have some advice for you, which of course you're welcome to take or leave: Please don't take everything personally. I don't see how Lennart is taking anything personally here. He is merely expressing his frustration about the fact that he worked his butt off for weeks, only to see the goalposts moved at the last minute. A very understandable reaction, if you ask me. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Meeting summary/minutes from today's FESCo meeting (2010-09-14)
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 21:26:41 -0400, Máirín Duffy du...@fedoraproject.org wrote: Hmm. Here's a couple ideas I could think of: - If you don't place a vote by $DATE, your vote will be assumed to be $POSITION can be scarily motivating. - Nag emails sent out by trac daily until you click on the email's yes no links to vote! (some of the ticket reminder trac hacks might work to provide this) Maybe we should track voting records and make them available publicly so that at election time people can see if and how people pvoted on issues. I would expect that people would be reluctant to keep people in FESCO who miss a lot of votes. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Meeting summary/minutes from today's FESCo meeting (2010-09-14)
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 01:05:34AM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: So, we closed all blocker bugs, we worked through the vast majority of other bugs. I dealt with almost all issues raised in Bill's list, only few small issues left. While there are some bugs open, we did our homework. I was kept in the impression during the last week that these are the criteria to get systemd into F14. But what happens? Out of nowhere completely new criteria are created, and used to bring this project down. The criteria primarily flowed from Notting's discussion of systemd acceptance criteria. Was that well communicated beforehand? No. Did all of those criteria get translated into appropriate bugzilla entries? No. Should we have handled this case better? Absolutely yes. With hindsight it was entirely inappropriate of us to make this decision without attempting to involve you in the discussion. I'm genuinely sorry about that. But since this is the situation that we're in now, I think what we're left with is the opportunity to identify what went wrong with our process and how to avoid this kind of thing in future. Systemd was a relatively unusual feature, in that it's core functionality that impacts every spin, it exposes aspects of its functionality in multiple areas and it didn't exist during our previous release cycle. It's not obvious in advance what criteria we should be using for determining whether this kind of feature is acceptable or not. The right time for doing so would probably have been at the initial feature acceptance stage, and in future I'd like to suggest that for features of a similar scale to systemd we ensure that that's done. It makes the feature acceptance process significantly more difficult and longer, but it's time that will almost certainly otherwise be spent in mailing list discussion of the same thing. Having it presented in a structured manner beforehand is proably a net reduction in difficulty. As an aside, it's also obvious that the degree of scruitiny placed on systemd is grossly disproportionate to features in previous releases. I can see why this is frustrating, but I think it's a necessary part of the development of the distribution. NetworkManager was a disruptive piece of core infrastructure that didn't initially provide feature parity with the nfrastructure it replaced, but NetworkManager was necessary to make Fedora a usable desktop operating system in a large number of use cases. In contrast, we're now at the point where we *have* most of the infrastructure to provide a usable desktop operating system. I think it's entirely justified that our tolerance for churn has diminished, and I think being a little more conservative with new features is entirely in line with modifying our udpate policy to ensure that users have a more consistent experience. This is a really unfriendly move: I cannot win a game where the moment the game nears it ends completely new rules are created. Quite frankly, this is a recipe to piss people off, not to make people love developing for Fedora. Yes, I am very disappointed, Fedora. It's also nice to not even bother to ping me for the FESCO discussion. This all reads like a page from the book How to piss people off and scare them away in 7 days. You make up new rules, and then don't bother to invite the folks mostky affected when you apply them. Oh, and next time, if you guys plan a move like that, then please do it a couple of weeks earlier, so that I can find funnier things to do then make you folks happy, since that's apparently not possible. I absolutely agree with your criticism. We should do better, and I hope that in future we will. -- Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Meeting summary/minutes from today's FESCo meeting (2010-09-14)
2010/9/14 Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com: On 09/15/2010 12:01 AM, Jeff Spaleta wrote: On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 3:56 PM, James Laskajla...@redhat.com wrote: Much like we introduced and communicated btrfs support in F-11, should we communicate systemd as a technology preview in Fedora 14? I would agree with this. I certainly plan to run F14 with systemd in anticipation of seeing it become the default at some point. Should gnome-shell and every other feature fall under technology preview and stay like that for sometime as well before becoming the default Yes, and please compile out support for spacial gnome while you're at it. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Meeting summary/minutes from today's FESCo meeting (2010-09-14)
Máirín Duffy (du...@fedoraproject.org) said: Only 5 of the 9 FESCo members voted on this issue. If all 9 had voted, even with the current 3 for / 2 against vote, systemd could easily have enough votes for inclusion in F14. I have a couple of questions for you, FESCo, since I honestly don't know and maybe would feel more comfortable knowing: - Has there been any consideration for formalizing the acceptable of absentee votes? We have accepted absentee votes either sent to the FESCo list or noted in the ticket before the meeting; in fact, noting votes in meeting item tickets is the de-facto method of participating for members who can't make it. - How many members must be present at a meeting for a voting decision to be considered valid? 5 out of 9 is considered quorum for the meeting, and 5 out of 9 is also required for decisions. - Is it possible to collect the votes of the folks who were not present? We could poll them. But the ticket has been open for ~1 week for them to note their opinion; none of the not-present FESCo members have commented to this point. Again, either way the decision goes - fine. It would be nice to hear from the FESCo members not present on how they feel about the decision, though. Is anyone else feeling a little uncomfortable about the voting process, irregardless of its conclusion? I said as much during the meeting. Bill -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Meeting summary/minutes from today's FESCo meeting (2010-09-14)
On 09/15/2010 05:50 AM, Michał Piotrowski wrote: 2010/9/15 Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com: Should gnome-shell (..) becoming the default I hope that there will be the option to disable this default and return to classical gnome desktop Yes. GNOME Panel will be available as a fallback for the foreseeable future even if GNOME Shell is included. That has been the plan from the start based on the fact that not all drivers/hardware support the features GNOME Shell needs. GNOME Shell is also different from systemd in the sense that it affects every single user of Fedora and deserves a closer scrutiny. FWIW, I think GNOME Shell deserves extensive testing before made as default as well. FESCo's handling of systemd feature as a process has gaps that needs to be fixed as well. Nevertheless, I would like to thank Lennart for his extensive work on getting systemd where it is now in such a short period and Matthew Miller for playing the role of a very constructive critic and following up on bugs methodologically. Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
