Fedora board meeting minutes

IRC minutes from the November 20 Fedora Board meeting, reformatted by LWN.

[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:04:17] <mspevack>	ok, we're gonna get started
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:05:17] Join	couf has joined this channel (n=bart@fedora/couf).
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:06:41] <mether>	mspevack: calling

[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:06:58] <mspevack>	topic 1 -- art.  Leadership needs
     	    	  	     		to be defined 
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:07:06] <mspevack>	clearly the two largest leaders
     	    	  	     		have been Maureen Duffy and Diana
     	    	  	     		Fong
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:07:37] <mspevack>	there was a conversation last week
     	    	  	     		with Diana in which she offered to
     	    	  	     		put together some policy and
     	    	  	     		structure around the use of people
     	    	  	     		who are doing mockups, ideas,
     	    	  	     		etc. of the Fedora Mark. 
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:08:09] <warren>	mspevack, I recall Maureen did
     	    	  	     		quite a bit of work related to that
     	    	  	     		in the past.  was she in the
     	    	  	     		discussion? 
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:08:42] <mspevack>	What the Board wants to do is
     	    	  	     		identify one person who can be the
     	    	  	     		clear leader of the art project.
     	    	  	     		Max will talk with Maureen and
     	    	  	     		Diana both, make sure they are on
     	    	  	     		the same page, see who wants to do
     	    	  	     		what, etc. 
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:08:56] <mspevack>	also
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:09:11] <mspevack>	make sure that the Fedora art
     	    	  	     		project meets the requirements that
     	    	  	     		we have outlined on the wiki to "BE
     	    	  	     		A PROJECT" 
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:09:22] <glezos>	Note: Mairin is very active and
     	    	  	     		concerned about the proper way of
     	    	  	     		doing things. FYI, he's also a lot
     	    	  	     		into the GNOME website redesign. 
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:09:32] <skvidal>	glezos: she
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:09:37] <glezos>	sorry.
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:10:23] <mspevack>	We're going to make sure that
     	    	  	     		Maureen and Diana are both on board
     	    	  	     		-- but it's time to make one person
     	    	  	     		the "leader" but that doesn't mean
     	    	  	     		that only one person is capable of
     	    	  	     		leading. 
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:10:46] <mspevack>	So this action item is on Max, with
     	    	  	     		a goal to follow up with Diana and
     	    	  	     		Maureen 
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:12:07] <warren>	glezos, (Maureen and Mairin are
     	    	  	     		different spellings of the same
     	    	  	     		name, in case it isn't clear.) 
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:13:48] <mspevack>	moving on
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:13:53] <mspevack>	Fedora Summit
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:14:10] <mspevack>	FESCO meeting was last week
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:14:15] <mspevack>	Rex -- it was surprisingly smooth
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:14:26] <mspevack>	Rex -- biggest concern was "oh man,
     	    	  	     		now we have a bigger job to do." 
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:14:35] <mspevack>	more policy, more decisions, etc.
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:15:24] <mspevack>	Max -- what does FESCO need to
     	    	  	     		become?  Do we need to add folks?
     	    	  	     		2 or 3 red hat folks? 
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:15:33] <warren>	FESCo is excited about it, and
     	    	  	     		wants to know target dates for
     	    	  	     		things to happen and more of what
     	    	  	     		board wants FESCo's role to be.  I
     	    	  	     		told FESCo that we are waiting on
     	    	  	     		RH internal decisions, but
     	    	  	     		meanwhile there are many things
     	    	  	     		FESCo can work on to prepare. 
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:15:42] <mspevack>	JesseKeating would probably be a
     	    	  	     		good person to add, or someone
     	    	  	     		blessed by Jesse 
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:16:05] 	 * f13 looks
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:16:15] <warren>	During the FESCo, we proposed a
     	    	  	     		hybrid Red Hat assigned and
     	    	  	     		community voted membership model
     	    	  	     		for future of FESCo.  I can
     	    	  	     		elaborate on this if the board
     	    	  	     		wishes it. 
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:16:29] Quit	chabotc has left this server ("Leaving").
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:16:35] <rdieter>	warren: go ahead... elaborate away...
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:16:53] <mspevack>	greg -- the success of the FESCO
     	    	  	     		model is what has gotten us to
     	    	  	     		where we are today 
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:17:20] <mspevack>	greg -- at a high level it seems
     	    	  	     		like f13 for sure needs to be on
     	    	  	     		there 
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:17:29] <mspevack>	jesse is going to be building the
     	    	  	     		tools that we are using in the new
     	    	  	     		world of fedora 
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:17:39] <mspevack>	rahul -- eventually we'll need a
     	    	  	     		new name 
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:17:52] <mspevack>	we'll talk about that near the end
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:17:56] <warren>	FESCo remains a majority of
     	    	  	     		community voted slots (details of
     	    	  	     		that can be figured out later).
     	    	  	     		However there are a small number of
     	    	  	     		Red Hat assigned seats from major
     	    	  	     		RH engineering departments.  This
     	    	  	     		is because 1) RH seats cannot be
     	    	  	     		voted out of their own job. 2) It
     	    	  	     		is important for each major RH
     	    	  	     		engineering department to have
     	    	  	     		someone accountable for community
     	    	  	     		outreach and communication. 
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:18:11] <warren>	Yes, definitely Jesse needs to be
     	    	  	     		on FESCo. 
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:18:32] <f13>	warren: I question whether or not
     	    	  	     		we need to be on FESCo itself, or a
     	    	  	     		subcommitee that ansers to FESCo 
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:18:44] <warren>	f13, that is a possibility yes.
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:18:56] <f13>	because, frankly, I don't care
     	    	  	     		about the governance of getting new
     	    	  	     		users into the community and some
     	    	  	     		of those deals.  I care about
     	    	  	     		making product releases 
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:19:02] <mspevack>	greg -- fesco is the first place
     	    	  	     		where we institutionalized real
     	    	  	     		power for the community, and that
     	    	  	     		is what has been successful 
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:19:07] <mspevack>	f13: nod
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:19:08] <warren>	Anyhow this hybrid membership
     	    	  	     		proposal is only a strawman, we can
     	    	  	     		debate this in detail later. 
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:19:21] <f13>	so personally I envision a
     	    	  	     		subcomittee that would be like the
     	    	  	     		release cabal, they just answer to
     	    	  	     		FESCo or whatever. 
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:20:09] <warren>	I like the hybrid model, because it
     	    	  	     		makes it very clear that RH
     	    	  	     		engineering has contacts who are
     	    	  	     		accountable to maintaining
     	    	  	     		communication.  If we can find a
     	    	  	     		better way to achieve that goal,
     	    	  	     		then I would be willing to discuss
     	    	  	     		that. 
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:20:34] <warren>	Each RH engineering department
     	    	  	     		*MUST* not be insulated away from
     	    	  	     		community. 
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:20:59] <f13>	warren: I agree.  I just think that
     	    	  	     		trying to shove it all in FESCo
     	    	  	     		might make FESCo itself unweildy
     	    	  	     		and unable to accomplish anything. 
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:21:07] <mspevack>	JEREMY -- will take the action of
     	    	  	     		pulling Jesse into the FESCO'ish
     	    	  	     		fold, shielding Jesse from what he
     	    	  	     		doesn't need to deal with, and
     	    	  	     		making sure communication is
     	    	  	     		flowing. 
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:21:11] <f13>	compartmentalizing responsibility
     	    	  	     		is a good thing. 
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:21:30] <warren>	f13, I disagree that it would be a
     	    	  	     		bad thing, but anyway we can figure
     	    	  	     		out our options later. 
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:21:34] <mspevack>	Max -- what else from last week do
     	    	  	     		we need to discuss? 
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:21:48] <mspevack>	Rahul -- when do these proposals
     	    	  	     		from last week become policy? 
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:21:54] <mspevack>	Jeremy -- it depends on the
     	    	  	     		different pieces 
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:22:05] <mspevack>	Matt -- combination of core/extras
     	    	  	     		is the biggest thing for Fedora 7
     	    	  	     		development 
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:22:21] <mspevack>	Jeremy -- I have already started
     	    	  	     		having discussions with folks in RH
     	    	  	     		engineering management.  continuing
     	    	  	     		that after this meeting 
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:22:32] <mspevack>	Jeremy -- the build system
     	    	  	     		conversations are going to be
     	    	  	     		difficult, but we knew that up
     	    	  	     		front 
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:25:42] <mspevack>	*conversation now about different
     	    	  	     		scenarios -- different possible
     	    	  	     		courses of action, depending on how
     	    	  	     		much buy-in we can get* 
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:28:59] <mspevack>	greg -- the open sourcing of better
     	    	  	     		build tools is INEVITABLE whether
     	    	  	     		we choose to open our own tools or
     	    	  	     		not.  So the work is *going* to
     	    	  	     		happen eventually.  Red Hat needs
     	    	  	     		to help make it happen, rather than
     	    	  	     		force re-implementation of the
     	    	  	     		wheel 
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:29:06] <mspevack>	jeremy -- +1
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:30:17] <mspevack>	Board (therefore Max) is ultimately
     	    	  	     		responsible for driving all this
     	    	  	     		crap 
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:30:25] <mspevack>	Jeremy/DaveZ talked about liveCD
     	    	  	     		stuff on Friday 
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:30:42] <mspevack>	mail forthcoming -- not much more
     	    	  	     		of a summary than that, other than
     	    	  	     		"positive developments" 
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:30:59] <mspevack>	and all of it will happen on the
     	    	  	     		liveCD list 
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:32:21] <mspevack>	greg is now officially a member of
     	    	  	     		the fedora board 
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:32:27] <mspevack>	unanimously
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:32:37] 	 * BobJensen claps
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:32:41] <glezos>	yay!
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:32:46] <couf>	hooray!
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:32:51] <mspevack>	Matt -- I really like the release
     	    	  	     		process idea of extending the
     	    	  	     		lifecycle of core to 13 months 
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:34:48] <mspevack>	greg -- 13 months is a reasonable
     	    	  	     		commitment -- but not sure we can
     	    	  	     		commit to more than that.  If we
     	    	  	     		get to a point where maybe we can,
     	    	  	     		it can always be revisited. 
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:35:28] <mspevack>	greg -- Legacy saw its best days in
     	    	  	     		the RHL timeframe.  For folks who
     	    	  	     		need significantly more timeframe
     	    	  	     		than Fedora is prepared to do,
     	    	  	     		CentOS continues to be compelling 
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:36:37] <f13>	matt at BU was really the only one
     	    	  	     		who needs something between CentOS
     	    	  	     		and Fedora, but understands we
     	    	  	     		can't just accomodate him 
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:36:43] <f13>	he's largely happy with the plan
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:36:51] <mspevack>	rahul -- so there's lots of details
     	    	  	     		still to be figured out.  what's
     	    	  	     		the timeframe? 
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:36:52] <warren>	EPEL (Enterprise Extras) adds a
     	    	  	     		great deal of usability for folks
     	    	  	     		who choose to use CentOS or RHEL. 
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:37:00] <mspevack>	max/jeremy -- trying to get as much
     	    	  	     		done by the end of the year as
     	    	  	     		possible 
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:38:32] <mspevack>	Fedora 7 will be a success if we
     	    	  	     		have two things 
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:38:43] <mspevack>	1) the "core/extras" merge
     	    	  	     		complete, and all the work around
     	    	  	     		that 
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:38:58] <mspevack>	2) out of those tools, the ability
     	    	  	     		to have custom liveCDs 
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:39:21] <mspevack>	BRANDING
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:40:08] <mspevack>	greg and max talked with chris
     	    	  	     		grams about some ideas of what we
     	    	  	     		can call "Fedora Universe" 
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:40:56] <mspevack>	Fedora * was one brainstorming
     	    	  	     		idea, but it's getting a bit
     	    	  	     		pooh-poohed.  Ultimately, this is a
     	    	  	     		branding opportunity that needs to
     	    	  	     		continue.  We've been saying Fedora
     	    	  	     		Universe a lot as a "code name" but
     	    	  	     		we really can't call it that. 
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:41:13] <mspevack>	max -- so, who will own all this?
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:41:15] <mspevack>	greg is the owner
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:42:08] <f13>	Feodra Pangaea
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:42:54] Join	ahalsey has joined this channel
     	    	  	     		(i=ahalsey@dhcp113094.qlc.hawaii.edu). 
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:44:35] <mspevack>	still need an RPM announcement
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:44:46] <mspevack>	max will ping bill
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:44:56] <mspevack>	since we want to put that action
     	    	  	     		item to bed 
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:45:02] <mspevack>	rahul -- are there any issues with
     	    	  	     		MONO? 
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:45:28] <mspevack>	greg -- we've had no word from
     	    	  	     		legal on any problems with Mono.
     	    	  	     		Unless we hear that, then there's
     	    	  	     		no reason to pull it out of the
     	    	  	     		distribution. 
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:45:57] <warren>	Mono seems to be a big question
     	    	  	     		from community, even if it turns
     	    	  	     		out that due to OIN nothing changes
     	    	  	     		from our stance, we must make an
     	    	  	     		official statement. 
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:46:36] <mspevack>	warren: that's right.  Nothing
     	    	  	     		changes.  But what we've not seen
     	    	  	     		is a statement from OIN itself!!! 
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:46:40] <mspevack>	matt -- that is what we need to see
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:47:06] <f13>	mspevack: I think Paul nasrat is
     	    	  	     		the holdup on the RPM
     	    	  	     		announcement. 
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:47:07] <warren>	mspevack, good point.
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:47:48] <f13>	mspevack: We also should get
     	    	  	     		something from upstream Gnome and
     	    	  	     		if they have made any decisions
     	    	  	     		about mono being part of core Gnome
     	    	  	     		apps 
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:49:42] <warren>	f13, +1
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:50:00] <mspevack>	*various Mono discussion*
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:50:24] <mspevack>	seth -- we can get a list of
     	    	  	     		everything that depends on mono 
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:50:55] <f13>	we already somewhat have that for
     	    	  	     		Core 
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:51:13] <mspevack>	seth -- muses on the depth of mono
     	    	  	     		dependencies within the distro 
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:51:19] <mspevack>	jeremy -- it's more complicated
     	    	  	     		than you think! 
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:52:19] <mspevack>	greg -- use the GPL of java to work
     	    	  	     		toward community-driven
     	    	  	     		replacements of mono applications? 
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:53:03] <f13>	mspevack: will take too much time
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:53:09] <warren>	GPL java and community replacement
     	    	  	     		is still highly theoretical at this
     	    	  	     		point. 
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:53:13] <mspevack>	seth -- the deper mono integrates
     	    	  	     		with gnome, the more complicated it
     	    	  	     		will get to extract it *if* there
     	    	  	     		was ever a desire to 
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:53:17] <warren>	As well as beyond March 2007.
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:53:32] <mspevack>	warren, f13: nod.  just recording
     	    	  	     		what greg stated 
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:54:13] <mspevack>	bottom line -- mspevack needs to
     	    	  	     		push to get some *real* statements
     	    	  	     		made about mono and communicate
     	    	  	     		them out 
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:54:15] <warren>	Sorry, I'm trying to limit my
     	    	  	     		chiming in only when I feel there
     	    	  	     		is some key point missing from
     	    	  	     		IRC. 
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:57:08] <mspevack>	we're going to move to weekly Board
     	    	  	     		meetings for the forseeable future 
[Mon Nov 20 2006] [12:57:13] <mspevack>	going to hash all that out on list

---

to post comments