| ctyler | Let's start with a roll call and brief intro from the candidates | 12:00 |
|---|---|---|
| * jds2001 hre | 12:00 | |
| * sharkcz here | 12:00 | |
| *** mdomsch has joined #fedora-townhall | 12:01 | |
| *** ChanServ sets mode: +v mdomsch | 12:01 | |
| * jwb is here | 12:01 | |
| * j-rod here | 12:01 | |
| ctyler | Is Dominik around? | 12:01 |
| * jds2001 Jon Stanley, current member running for re-election. I maintain about a dozen packages in Fedora and EPEL. | 12:01 | |
| *** ChanServ sets mode: -v mdomsch | 12:01 | |
| jds2001 | professional linux sysadmin for about 10 years give or take, going back to RH5.2 | 12:02 |
| jwb | i'm Josh Boyer. I've been using Red Hat/Fedora since RH 7.1. I've been a contributor (packagers) since around FC3, and i've argued on mailing lists for longer than that. i'm also on FESCo, and usually part of rel-eng | 12:02 |
| ctyler | j-rod, sharkcz -- 1-2 line self-introductions? | 12:03 |
| * sharkcz since March employed by RH, long time RHL, Fedora and CentOS user, maintainer of 20+ packaged, founder of Server SIG | 12:03 | |
| *** Rathann has joined #fedora-townhall | 12:03 | |
| *** ChanServ sets mode: +v Rathann | 12:03 | |
| ctyler | Rathann: 1-2 line self-introduction? | 12:03 |
| j-rod | Jarod Wilson, RH employee for 2.5 years, RHEL kernel group, current fesco member | 12:03 |
| j-rod | maintainer of some fedora packages, regular contributor to the fedora kernel | 12:04 |
| jds2001 | I also lead the bug triage efforts, do QA, and am leading the QA portion of the feature process for F11. | 12:04 |
| *** kiilerix has joined #fedora-townhall | 12:04 | |
| Rathann | Dominik Mierzejewski, sysadmin for 5+ years (at a university supercomputing centre), Packaging Committee member | 12:04 |
| ctyler | Thanks for the intros. I'm watching for questions in #fedora-townhall-public and will relay them to this channel. | 12:04 |
| Rathann | maintainer of several dozen of packages, both in Fedora and RPMFusion | 12:05 |
| ctyler | First question is from notting: | 12:05 |
| ctyler | Are you interested in volunteering to chair fesco? | 12:05 |
| jwb | yes | 12:05 |
| jds2001 | yes. | 12:05 |
| Rathann | not at this time | 12:05 |
| j-rod | yes | 12:06 |
| sharkcz | no, it is my first try for FESCo | 12:06 |
| jds2001 | bpepple needs a well-deserved break :) | 12:06 |
| ctyler | Any expansion on those answers? | 12:06 |
| jwb | what jds2001 said | 12:06 |
| jwb | it's a thankless job, and we've had great Chairs in the past | 12:06 |
| j-rod | I'd really like to do more than I do on the Fedora side, and if time permitted it, I'd be happy to try to give bpepple that break too. | 12:07 |
| jwb | continuing the trend would be a fun challenge :) | 12:07 |
| jds2001 | indeed. | 12:07 |
| ctyler | Here's Q2 from mdomsch: How do you feel about FESCo's role in overseeing the SIGs; what has worked, and what hasn't, and what will you do to improve that? | 12:07 |
| Rathann | I'm not comfortable with being the chair on my first term | 12:07 |
| j-rod | knowing my current workload though, I wouldn't pick myself as the first choice for it though | 12:07 |
| jwb | i think FESCo needs to get a bit more interactive with the SIGs | 12:07 |
| jds2001 | and we thank bpepple for his service in that role over the years. | 12:07 |
| jwb | we've been mostly hands off so far, and it's worked for some and not so much for others | 12:08 |
| j-rod | what jwb said -- as evident from our discussion on secondary arches yesterday | 12:08 |
| jwb | that's a good example | 12:08 |
| jds2001 | I think FESCo needs to be proactive, currently, it's more of a reactive body (we see something broken and go help fix it) | 12:08 |
| jwb | Spins is another where i think we should interact more than we do | 12:08 |
| Rathann | what jwb said, and also I think we should get regular reports from SIG reps and/or organize meetings with them | 12:08 |
| jwb | and i'll take the blame for not doing so already on Spins | 12:09 |
| * jds2001 is working on that now. | 12:09 | |
| jds2001 | spins that is. | 12:09 |
| sharkcz | I agree with jwb, get reports from SIGs etc. | 12:09 |
| jwb | good | 12:09 |
| j-rod | I'll take some on secondary arches -- I'm one of the members w/the most invested in them being successful... | 12:09 |
| jwb | also | 12:09 |
| jwb | by interactive, i don't mean 'authoritative' | 12:10 |
| jwb | i just mean interactive. just wanted to clarify | 12:10 |
| Rathann | I'm interested in working with the server SIG and the desktop maintainers to smooth out any rough edges | 12:10 |
| sharkcz | I participate on s390x, so secondary arches are my second focus afther the server | 12:11 |
| j-rod | along the same lines as the secondary arches, it'd be good to get at least monthly reports from all SIGs | 12:11 |
| ctyler | Followup from mdomsch: please elaborate on secondary arch discussion and challenges faced by fesco | 12:11 |
| jwb | not so much challenges | 12:11 |
| jwb | the only thing we're lacking there is nobody has any clue as to what the status of them are | 12:11 |
| j-rod | and perhaps have specific fesco members responsible for interaction with a given subset of SIGs | 12:11 |
| jds2001 | ia64 has pretty much died off, for various reasons. (I'm not even sure why). | 12:12 |
| jwb | so the current FESCo (me) is going to poke them for reprots | 12:12 |
| jwb | er, reports | 12:12 |
| Rathann | j-rod: preferably overlapping subsets | 12:12 |
| j-rod | that'd work | 12:12 |
| jds2001 | so that's the current issue. However, we had no idea until it was mentioned yesterday. | 12:12 |
| jwb | well, for the most part | 12:12 |
| jwb | i had status on a few | 12:13 |
| jds2001 | We should be more proactive on these issues, so that we can see them coming before there's a shipwreck. | 12:13 |
| jwb | yeah | 12:13 |
| jds2001 | jwb: sorry, just speaking for myself. | 12:13 |
| j-rod | more two-way communication could help motivate the secondary arch groups to do more | 12:13 |
| j-rod | and we might be able to help with current roadblocks, etc | 12:13 |
| jwb | aside from the SIGs themselves, we need to interlock with the koji devs | 12:13 |
| jwb | since koji needs support for this | 12:13 |
| jwb | but that is being actively worked | 12:13 |
| ctyler | Next q... | 12:14 |
| ctyler | Q3, also from mdomsch: is the size and makeup of FESCo proper? How do you ensure the proper skills are present? | 12:14 |
| Rathann | I used to be involved with sparc, maybe I'll revisit it | 12:14 |
| jwb | i think the size is proper | 12:14 |
| jwb | the old FESCo with 13 members was too large | 12:14 |
| jwb | as for skill sets, well we're entirely elected | 12:15 |
| jwb | so we sort of have to be composed of people who want to be here | 12:15 |
| Rathann | too many cooks spoil the broth :) | 12:15 |
| jwb | if we are missing skills, we pull in subject experts when needed | 12:15 |
| jds2001 | and the electorate really decides what the proper skills are and that they're present. We're all packagers, we all do other stuff within Fedora. | 12:15 |
| jwb | example, ivazquez for the python 2.6 stuff | 12:15 |
| sharkcz | size is OK and skill are distributed between the nominees | 12:15 |
| jds2001 | feature owners for their features. | 12:15 |
| jds2001 | etc. | 12:16 |
| jwb | jds2001, yep | 12:16 |
| j-rod | I'm fine w/the current size, wasn't around when it was any other size | 12:16 |
| jwb | i was | 12:16 |
| jwb | it was a pain | 12:16 |
| Rathann | we can only encourage people who we think are needed to accept nominations | 12:16 |
| Rathann | after that it's up to the voters | 12:16 |
| j-rod | and I think we have a reasonable balance of skills | 12:16 |
| * jds2001 not going to be hacking on kernels, for instance :) | 12:17 | |
| jwb | that's why we have j-rod ;) | 12:17 |
| j-rod | jwb: hey, you do your fair share of that too... :) | 12:17 |
| jwb | some :) | 12:17 |
| Rathann | I think we have the right mix, too | 12:18 |
| ctyler | Continuing with Q4, from again from mdomsch: what would you each like to accomplish as a FESCo member in the next year? | 12:18 |
| jwb | heh | 12:18 |
| jwb | he's reusing questions from the Board meetings | 12:18 |
| jds2001 | comes back to fesco isn't a posistion for advancing personal platforms :) | 12:18 |
| j-rod | doesn't anyone else have any questions?!? ;) | 12:19 |
| jwb | jds2001, right | 12:19 |
| jds2001 | however, i'd like to see less schedule slip, and that's entirely in fesco's control. | 12:19 |
| jwb | sort of | 12:19 |
| jds2001 | I hope that the changes we made to the schedule this time around help effect that. | 12:19 |
| jwb | we? | 12:19 |
| j-rod | I'd really like to do more on the secondary arch front | 12:19 |
| jds2001 | F10 being an obvious exception. | 12:19 |
| Rathann | during my time as fedora developer I noticed that some changes catch people by surprise, which means they're not communicated as well as they could be | 12:20 |
| Rathann | I'd like to change that | 12:20 |
| jwb | j-rod, i would to, but you don't need to be on FESCo for that | 12:20 |
| j-rod | true | 12:20 |
| jds2001 | we == fesco, obviously proposed by releng. | 12:20 |
| jwb | so if i were going to change FESCo in the next year, it would be to make it a bit more interactive | 12:20 |
| j-rod | but its related to the "fesco needs to interact w/sigs more" thing | 12:20 |
| jwb | across the board | 12:20 |
| sharkcz | I would like to see the server complement the desktop :-) | 12:20 |
| j-rod | I think jwb and I are reading the same play book... | 12:21 |
| jwb | kernel people have to stick together ;) | 12:21 |
| jds2001 | lol | 12:21 |
| *** ctyler changes topic to "FESCo Townhall meeting @ 17:00 UTC - Questions can be asked in #fedora-townhall-public" | 12:22 | |
| j-rod | (on a semi-related note, RH is hiring for a fedora secondary arch QA person in China now...) | 12:22 |
| Rathann | also I want to try and reach out to the community to get more testing of new features | 12:22 |
| Rathann | you can never have enough testing :) | 12:22 |
| jds2001 | Rathann: you're stealing from my playbook now :) | 12:23 |
| Rathann | well, those weekly package review reports gave me an idea | 12:23 |
| Rathann | we could do something similar for testers | 12:23 |
| sharkcz | jds2001: I think there were some ideas presented on the QA meeting this week | 12:24 |
| jds2001 | yeah, the age-old problem is how to get the data. | 12:24 |
| jds2001 | yeah | 12:24 |
| *** Roobarb has left #fedora-townhall | 12:24 | |
| j-rod | as a sub-group of that, I'd like to try to get a community fedora kernel qa group going | 12:24 |
| jds2001 | the QA: namespace would help | 12:24 |
| jds2001 | sharkcz: you mean the marathon QA/FESCo meeting this week :) | 12:24 |
| jds2001 | that was like 3 hours of continous fedora meetings :) | 12:25 |
| j-rod | with a focus being on testing kernels in updates-testing and beating on kernels just before release | 12:25 |
| jds2001 | j-rod: we'd love to, test plans accepted :) | 12:25 |
| jwb | 'run LTP' | 12:25 |
| sharkcz | divide to smaller areas and conquer :-) | 12:25 |
| ctyler | Q5, from (guess!) mdomsch: Describe FESCo's role in the Feature Process, how that's worked, and how you will improve it. | 12:26 |
| jwb | it's worked because poelcat makes it work | 12:26 |
| jwb | he deserves all the credit for any success it's had | 12:27 |
| j-rod | I think we've already said it was a bit broken, and have implemented some new stuff for the F11 devel cycle | 12:27 |
| jwb | but yes, there are some changes coming for F11 | 12:27 |
| jds2001 | in general, the feature process is a great tool. it works for what it's designed to do. Some shortcomings have been found, and they are iteratively workeed out. | 12:27 |
| sharkcz | the last fesco meeting presented some improvements | 12:27 |
| j-rod | "it" being fesco's role, not polecat's | 12:27 |
| jds2001 | the QA portion that I'm working on, for instance. | 12:27 |
| jwb | and i think FESCo needs to be a bit more discerning on what fits and what is acceptable | 12:27 |
| ctyler | That raises the question of what you each see as fits/acceptable (?) | 12:28 |
| Rathann | mostly it seems to be working fine, but it needs more impact analysis and communicating the upcoming changes to the affected audience | 12:28 |
| jds2001 | jwb: I think we did a better job of that last time than in the past. | 12:28 |
| jwb | jds2001, for the most part, yes | 12:28 |
| Rathann | I see missing presto as a failure here | 12:29 |
| jwb | ctyler, complete Feature pages, quantifiable test plans, backup solutions, etc | 12:29 |
| jwb | Rathann, presto is definitely something we might look at | 12:29 |
| jwb | it's useful, but it keeps losing traction | 12:30 |
| Rathann | there have already been what, two attempts to get it included? | 12:30 |
| jds2001 | that being said, it's still a relatively new process. It's still evolving. I think test plan/spec wrnagling would have saved us at least one last minute change for F10. | 12:30 |
| Rathann | yes indeed | 12:30 |
| Rathann | I do like the contingency plans | 12:30 |
| jds2001 | so that's the quantifiable thing that I'm doing for F11. | 12:31 |
| Rathann | they're definitely essential | 12:31 |
| ctyler | Q6 from notting: What is your feeling on the length of the review queue? Good? Bad? Indifferent? How would you tackle it? | 12:31 |
| jwb | package review, or Feature? | 12:31 |
| ctyler | let's assume package | 12:32 |
| j-rod | assuming package, BAD | 12:32 |
| jwb | "normal" | 12:32 |
| j-rod | but not really sure how to tackle it | 12:32 |
| jwb | this comes up with every new FESCo | 12:32 |
| jwb | there are no magic bullets | 12:32 |
| j-rod | yeah. | 12:33 |
| jwb | the typical answers are to encourage more reviewers, solicit more sponsors, etc | 12:33 |
| j-rod | I've done some fairly thorough reviews, then not got any reply from the submitter for ages. | 12:33 |
| Rathann | there's been some talk about streamlining the review guidelines | 12:33 |
| jwb | we have some uber, er proven, reviewers out there like tibbs | 12:33 |
| Rathann | automating what's possible | 12:33 |
| j-rod | and now, like many of our more competent reviewers (not saying I am one), I just don't have that much time for review | 12:34 |
| jwb | Rathann, that might help | 12:34 |
| jds2001 | that would likely help, automation would help. | 12:34 |
| jwb | it also comes up every time | 12:34 |
| Rathann | as it is, the package review checklist is scary and long | 12:34 |
| Rathann | parts of it duplicate the packaging guidelines | 12:34 |
| jwb | it only grows longer as new guidelines are added | 12:34 |
| sharkcz | some per week statistics (new, done) can help too | 12:34 |
| jwb | sharkcz, we have those | 12:34 |
| jwb | they didn't make a huge difference | 12:35 |
| j-rod | yeah. package review is mostly thankless, unless its a package you personally want in | 12:35 |
| jwb | our answers might sound doomy-and-gloomy | 12:36 |
| Rathann | example: I wanted to package scilab but found out someone else was willing to do that so I started reviewing the necessary dependencies to help them | 12:36 |
| jwb | i think they just reflect reality | 12:36 |
| jwb | Rathann, yeah. personal interest in a package has a huge impact on reviews | 12:36 |
| Rathann | I think the completed reviews stats posted weekly do make the job more attractive | 12:37 |
| Rathann | people like to be recognized | 12:37 |
| Rathann | even if they don't admit it | 12:37 |
| j-rod | agreed | 12:37 |
| * jds2001 might try to whip something up for that. | 12:37 | |
| j-rod | cash bounties for x number of reviews completed might help... :) | 12:37 |
| jds2001 | :) | 12:38 |
| ctyler | Q7 from mdomsch: F10 shipped with virtually no blocker bugs. How can we improve QA to make this a trend? | 12:38 |
| jwb | isn't the definition of 'blocker' "you cannot ship with this bug"? | 12:38 |
| jwb | or did he generally mean 'no major bugs'? | 12:38 |
| jds2001 | do exactly what we did for F10. Have manic focus on blockers throughout the cycle. | 12:39 |
| j-rod | yeah, I thought we didn't ship if a bug was a blocker... some bugs just get demoted... | 12:39 |
| sharkcz | maybe some blockers were not discovered :-) | 12:39 |
| jds2001 | jwb: there's always stuff left on FXBlocker :P | 12:39 |
| jwb | then it wasn't really a blocker ;) | 12:39 |
| jwb | anyway, semantics aside | 12:39 |
| jds2001 | yeah, both of those things too | 12:39 |
| Rathann | like I said earlier: one thing is to get more testing | 12:39 |
| j-rod | general answer is more QA though, indeed | 12:39 |
| jwb | it comes from an increase focus on QA. the updated Feature process is going to hopefully help with that | 12:39 |
| Rathann | the other: get upstream developers involved | 12:39 |
| Rathann | (if they aren't already) | 12:40 |
| sharkcz | not only more testing, but precise testing | 12:40 |
| j-rod | which (tying back into my desire for a fedora community kernel qa crew) starts with the kernel | 12:40 |
| jwb | getting people to do test installs in kvm guests, etc can help too | 12:40 |
| Rathann | jwb: not everyone can run kvm though, so I'm planning to (help) package virtualbox in rpmfusion | 12:40 |
| j-rod | I don't actually know for sure, but I imagine the bulk of critical release blockers are typically in the kernel | 12:40 |
| jwb | Rathann, sure. virtualization technology should hopefully help us in general | 12:41 |
| jwb | j-rod, or anaconda | 12:41 |
| jds2001 | likely, and a lot of it is probably testing with specific hardware | 12:41 |
| j-rod | jwb: that was my #2 | 12:41 |
| Rathann | and mine :) | 12:41 |
| sharkcz | j-rod: and in anaconda & co | 12:41 |
| Rathann | some bugs are only fixable if you have access to the real hardware | 12:41 |
| ctyler | (mdomsch stirs the pot a bit: feature testing is good, what about regression testing?) | 12:41 |
| jds2001 | a lot of what we get is hardware X doesn't work, and we can't possibly acquire all this hardwaqre | 12:41 |
| Rathann | so maybe try and arrange for specific hardware donations if some developer needs it? | 12:42 |
| jwb | regression testing how? | 12:42 |
| sharkcz | but we can make a database where the hw is available | 12:42 |
| Rathann | a wiki page with donation requests/wishlist might be worth considering | 12:42 |
| j-rod | I've got a few things on the regression testing front for the kernel... | 12:42 |
| jwb | you could have someone looking for the magic REGRESSION keyword in bugzilla, tracking that, ettc | 12:43 |
| j-rod | there's a whole battery of stuff we run internally on rhel kernels | 12:43 |
| jwb | i don't see how that is much different from overall QA though | 12:43 |
| sharkcz | or just say - my machine with this hw can be available for testing | 12:43 |
| jds2001 | j-rod: is that stuff public? | 12:43 |
| jds2001 | we'd love to do teh same on fedora kernels :) | 12:43 |
| jwb | j-rod, some of the problem with that is the duration of time it takes to run it | 12:43 |
| j-rod | I'd rather like to get as much of it running w/a stable of fedora machines | 12:44 |
| j-rod | jds2001: at least a good portion of it could be | 12:44 |
| jwb | if you're doing a new kernel every day and the tests take more than a day to complete, you're not really going to catch up | 12:44 |
| jwb | but it's probably something that should be done after Beta Freeze or at some other semi-quiescent point | 12:44 |
| Rathann | I know of at least one project whose developers have a donations wishlist page and the donations do happen | 12:44 |
| j-rod | nightly quicker sanity checks, weekly longer tests, maybe | 12:45 |
| ctyler | Q8 based on an observation by bpepple: the questions in this townhall have come from people who are/have been FESCo members. How can FESCo more completely engage with the larger Fedora community? | 12:46 |
| jwb | the SIG interaction is part of that | 12:46 |
| jds2001 | and also maybe something on FWN | 12:46 |
| *** jaroslav has joined #fedora-townhall | 12:46 | |
| Rathann | FESCo meeting minutes are useful to read too | 12:47 |
| jds2001 | right, they go to f-devel, which a lot of folks might not subscribe to | 12:47 |
| jds2001 | in the larger fedora community | 12:47 |
| sharkcz | and they should into f-d-announce | 12:47 |
| jwb | it depends | 12:48 |
| jds2001 | sharkcz: that's against the charter of f-d-a | 12:48 |
| jwb | why does the art team care what FESCo does? | 12:48 |
| jwb | (that was an example) | 12:48 |
| jds2001 | they don't, but they might like to be informed from time to time. | 12:48 |
| jwb | FESCo is packager and developer oriented | 12:48 |
| sharkcz | jds2001: ? | 12:49 |
| jwb | so engaging with the broader community isn't bad, but the topics we discuss likely might not be of too much interest | 12:49 |
| * jds2001 sees no harm in having a fesco beat on FWN | 12:49 | |
| jds2001 | right. | 12:49 |
| Rathann | it might be worth reminding people that FESCo is there from time to time | 12:50 |
| * jds2001 might even write it, depending on deadlines. | 12:50 | |
| j-rod | I like the FWN idea | 12:50 |
| Rathann | well, semi-regularly, provided anything interesting did happen | 12:50 |
| ctyler | Q9 from quaid: earlier this year FESCo and the Board had discussions to (re)set FESCo's charter/area of influence; do candidates feel FESCo is covering what it is supposed to be covering? Should it have oversight over more of Fedora production or less? | 12:52 |
| *** ubertibbs has joined #fedora-townhall | 12:52 | |
| jwb | i think the reset has helped a bit | 12:52 |
| jwb | there are a few things we should do better at that we've discussed already (Features, communication, interactivity) | 12:53 |
| * ctyler notes that the observers in #fedora-townhall-meeting aren't noticing much difference between the candidate's answers on these questions | 12:53 | |
| jwb | but i don't think we need entirely more oversight | 12:53 |
| Rathann | I believe the technical matters are well covered | 12:53 |
| * ctyler meant #fedora-townhall-public | 12:53 | |
| jwb | our SIGs and developers do a really good job at getting releases out the door | 12:53 |
| Rathann | yes, our job should be just letting people work efficiently | 12:53 |
| jwb | i only have one 'release time' thing i'd like to change | 12:54 |
| j-rod | hm... just to give observers something different... I think we should have more control over everything. All your base are belong to us. | 12:54 |
| j-rod | (ok, not really) | 12:54 |
| Rathann | hehe | 12:54 |
| jwb | and that is to get the glibc people to do their upstream release _before_ final freeze, not after | 12:54 |
| Rathann | well, I for one am not a RH employee | 12:54 |
| Rathann | I'm told that matters to some people | 12:54 |
| jwb | it shouldn't | 12:54 |
| * jds2001 is not either, but don't see how it matters. | 12:54 | |
| Rathann | I don't think it should either | 12:55 |
| j-rod | there's a faction that thinks RH employees have a secret hidden agenda | 12:55 |
| jds2001 | world domination? :) | 12:55 |
| Rathann | sshhh | 12:55 |
| j-rod | are you thinking what I'm thinking, pinky? | 12:55 |
| ctyler | (quaid wonders if the answers to the last question boil down to "not too hot, not too cold, but just right?") | 12:56 |
| jds2001 | i think so. | 12:56 |
| j-rod | I'm not aware of anything we're not covering that we should be | 12:56 |
| j-rod | main thing is improving the interactivity | 12:56 |
| Rathann | and communication | 12:57 |
| sharkcz | improve communication | 12:57 |
| jwb | which doesn't really have anything to do with oversight of the release :) | 12:57 |
| jwb | ctyler, in response to the 'similar answers' comment | 12:57 |
| jwb | these questions aren't controversial enough :) | 12:58 |
| jds2001 | are we covering things that we shouldn't be? I don't think so. | 12:58 |
| jwb | give us something polarizing! | 12:58 |
| j-rod | lets talk about flash and libcurl or something! | 12:58 |
| Rathann | we shall not bow to corporate overlords! freedom for all! | 12:59 |
| Rathann | ;) | 12:59 |
| sharkcz | j-rod: you mean e.g. NM? | 12:59 |
| j-rod | sharkcz: new mexico, or network manager? (and what about it?) :) | 12:59 |
| ctyler | Q10 -- final question: provenpackager group is significantly larger than was originally proposed. Is this a problem? | 13:00 |
| * j-rod was referring to the whole dust up over flash needing some old curl so | 13:00 | |
| jwb | i think it needs a revisit | 13:00 |
| jwb | there has been enough outcry about it and there are valid concerns | 13:01 |
| * jds2001 too, but how to do it? | 13:01 | |
| Rathann | I think we don't really know if it is a problem or not, but I believe it might be: a lot of unproven people have been given commit access to most packages | 13:01 |
| ctyler | (full disclosure: jwb had input into question in -public) | 13:01 |
| jwb | in practice, it hasn't bitten us at all. but perception of it, and the usefulness of it, has been called into question | 13:01 |
| j-rod | not a particularly big fan of how the group was initially populated either | 13:02 |
| jwb | jds2001, there are a couple ways. we could have a voluntary culling to start with | 13:02 |
| j-rod | I mean, sure, it needed a seed | 13:02 |
| *** glezos has left #fedora-townhall | 13:02 | |
| Rathann | jwb: it hasn't bitten us yet | 13:02 |
| Rathann | I hope it never will but you never know | 13:02 |
| jwb | if that doesn't prove useful, we can reseed to what was originally proposed which was sponsors | 13:02 |
| jwb | Rathann, true | 13:02 |
| jwb | that's my opinion anyway :) | 13:03 |
| jds2001 | we do need more communication about "why would I approve someone here?" | 13:03 |
| Rathann | maybe I'm a bit paranoid | 13:03 |
| * jds2001 has a hard stop in just a few | 13:05 | |
| ctyler | We've been talking for about an hour, and I thank you all. Let's finish up with a 1-2 line comment about something unique about your POV, or what you will bring to the position. | 13:05 |
| jds2001 | gotta go to physical therapy for my bad shoulder so I can beat jwb in paintball at fudcon :) | 13:05 |
| jwb | :) | 13:05 |
| jwb | i will bring more email | 13:06 |
| *** EvilBob has joined #fedora-townhall | 13:06 | |
| jwb | lots more email | 13:06 |
| Rathann | I like both desktop and server parts of Fedora and I want to make them grow without disturbing each other. | 13:06 |
| j-rod | I'm a kernel guy in the RHEL group, trying to help make Fedora better | 13:07 |
| jwb | more seriously, i think that's a hard thing to answer. i'll do my best to make sure FESCo is an enabler and not a hurdle is about all i can say | 13:07 |
| sharkcz | I want to add more focus for the non-desktop usage | 13:07 |
| Rathann | Also my pet-peeve are the multimedia, which is a difficult topic. I want to improve things here as much as I can. | 13:08 |
| * jds2001 is the token QA guy :) | 13:08 | |
| ctyler | Thank you all for joining the townhall! | 13:08 |
| ctyler | </meeting> | 13:08 |
| Rathann | Thanks for all the questions | 13:08 |
| jwb | thanks for moderating ctyler | 13:08 |
| j-rod | and thank you to ctyler for moderating | 13:08 |
| jwb | and thanks for the questions | 13:09 |
| jds2001 | thx for moderating ctyler :) | 13:09 |
| j-rod | thanks to everyone for listening to us babble. :) | 13:09 |
| *** ChanServ sets mode: +v mdomsch | 13:09 | |
| Rathann | and thanks for moderating | 13:09 |
| *** notting has left #fedora-townhall | 13:09 | |
| * ctyler reminds everyone to vote | 13:09 | |
| mdomsch | To everyone - I'm soliciting feedback on this Town Hall process - what worked, what didn't work - was it helpful to you in determining how you would vote? | 13:09 |
| * sharkcz thanks too :-) | 13:09 | |
| * j-rod can feel the love | 13:09 | |
| mdomsch | feedback to fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com (public), or to me in private | 13:09 |
| Rathann | will do | 13:09 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!