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