From chris at tylers.info Sat Nov 1 02:00:36 2008 From: chris at tylers.info (Chris Tyler) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 22:00:36 -0400 Subject: Spins In-Reply-To: <1225479287.31015.20.camel@luminos.localdomain> References: <1225479287.31015.20.camel@luminos.localdomain> Message-ID: <1225504836.9561.132.camel@localhost6.localdomain6> On Fri, 2008-10-31 at 11:54 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Fri, 2008-10-31 at 13:27 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: > > > > Having said that, Sugar and OLPC are a pretty big deal. The spin has been > > approved by the board and is (or will be) an official spin. > > Small comment. The board gave the Sugar spin the approval to use the > Fedora brand. This doesn't automatically mean that it'll become a > produced and hosted spin in binary format. All it means is that the > spin KS config can live in the spin-kickstarts repo and use the Fedora > branding should somebody create the binary spin from the config. It > would still have to have a Feature proposed and approved by the spins > SIG and by releng before it would be an official spin. I agree: trademark approval does not automatically mean that the spin will be hosted and distributed by Fedora infrastructure. I can imagine that we'll eventually have a much larger number of trademark-approved spins than we'll want to host and distribute -- h&d decisions should be made by some combination of the spins SIG, releng, and infra. We need to decide terminology here: we have "official spin", "unofficial spin", and "remix" floating around. "Unofficial spin" is sometimes being used the way I think "remix" was intended to be used, meaning something that doesn't have approval to use the primary trademark. Can we settle on: - "Remix" for "not approved to use the Fedora trademark" (but eligible to use the secondary mark). I don't think these will normally be hosted by Fedora. - "Spin" for "trademark-approved", further subdivided into: -- "Unofficial spin" (trademark-approved but has not gone through the Features process, and not h&d by Fedora) -- "Offical spin" (trademark-approved and has gone through the Features processs, h&d by Fedora) ? > Honestly this feels like a board issue, which is why I asked for it to > be brought to FAB. One of the options mentioned was to have a binary > version of the spin produced by the spin owner and hosted on OLPC > resources. I'm fine with this, the only catch is that the sources for > what goes into the spin will also have to be hosted over at OLPC for the > duration of time that the binary spin is there. This shouldn't be a big > deal, but it needs to be done. Why would they have to host sources? If it's an officially-branded spin, then it consists only of Fedora packages, so why not just point back to Fedora for the source?[0] -Chris [0] Note that a student is working on a web app to grab source from CVS for any given package name-version-release and return a .src.rpm for it, plus a script to scan an ISO and create a corresponding source ISO; thanks to Matt Domsch for the ideas. In the meantime everything is at least in CVS. From jkeating at redhat.com Sat Nov 1 02:47:58 2008 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 19:47:58 -0700 Subject: Spins In-Reply-To: <1225504836.9561.132.camel@localhost6.localdomain6> References: <1225479287.31015.20.camel@luminos.localdomain> <1225504836.9561.132.camel@localhost6.localdomain6> Message-ID: <1225507678.31015.25.camel@luminos.localdomain> On Fri, 2008-10-31 at 22:00 -0400, Chris Tyler wrote: > Why would they have to host sources? If it's an officially-branded spin, > then it consists only of Fedora packages, so why not just point back to > Fedora for the source?[0] In order to point to Fedora, Fedora would have to be providing them a written offer for the sources, and they in turn would have to be passing along that written offer to the people whom obtain the binaries. Since Fedora doesn't want to be in the position of "making good" on that offer, given the extreme vagueness of how long that offer has to be valid, we won't be providing that offer. Now, OLPC could provide their own written offer, and assume that Fedora infra will be around long enough for them to make good on the offer for anybody that calls it in. That's not an unreasonable assumption, but it is one. When Fedora hosts the binaries along with the sources, we can ensure that the sources stay around at least until the binaries are no longer offered. That is the end of our responsibility. We don't want to have to wait until every potential sub-distributor stops offering the binaries. This all gets so much easier if they just provide the source in the same place/manner as the binaries. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom? is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Sat Nov 1 04:00:36 2008 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2008 09:30:36 +0530 Subject: Spins In-Reply-To: <1225507678.31015.25.camel@luminos.localdomain> References: <1225479287.31015.20.camel@luminos.localdomain> <1225504836.9561.132.camel@localhost6.localdomain6> <1225507678.31015.25.camel@luminos.localdomain> Message-ID: <490BD464.1010301@fedoraproject.org> Jesse Keating wrote: > This all gets so much easier if they just provide the source in the same > place/manner as the binaries. Livecd-creator unlike Pungi doesn't make the process of generating equivalent source ISO images very easy. If we fix that, this task would become less cumbersome. How do you manage it for spins that Fedora itself distributes? Rahul From jkeating at redhat.com Sat Nov 1 04:40:12 2008 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 21:40:12 -0700 Subject: Spins In-Reply-To: <490BD464.1010301@fedoraproject.org> References: <1225479287.31015.20.camel@luminos.localdomain> <1225504836.9561.132.camel@localhost6.localdomain6> <1225507678.31015.25.camel@luminos.localdomain> <490BD464.1010301@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <1225514412.31015.32.camel@luminos.localdomain> On Sat, 2008-11-01 at 09:30 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > Livecd-creator unlike Pungi doesn't make the process of generating > equivalent source ISO images very easy. If we fix that, this task would > become less cumbersome. How do you manage it for spins that Fedora > itself distributes? > Since Fedora itself distributes it, we can rely on the srpms that are part of the Everything tree. We treat it all as a single unit of distribution, and retire it as a single unit of distribution. I realize that it is cumbersome at the moment to discover/gather the srpms for a Live spin. Unfortunately I don't have the time right now to implement source gathering in livecd-creator. I hope to look at it after Fedora 10 goes out the door and I actually have some development time at my disposal (unless somebody beats me to it). -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom? is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From matt at domsch.com Sat Nov 1 13:41:13 2008 From: matt at domsch.com (Matt Domsch) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2008 07:41:13 -0600 Subject: Spins In-Reply-To: <490BD464.1010301@fedoraproject.org> References: <1225479287.31015.20.camel@luminos.localdomain> <1225504836.9561.132.camel@localhost6.localdomain6> <1225507678.31015.25.camel@luminos.localdomain> <490BD464.1010301@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <20081101134113.GA15316@domsch.com> On Sat, Nov 01, 2008 at 09:30:36AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Jesse Keating wrote: > > >This all gets so much easier if they just provide the source in the same > >place/manner as the binaries. > > Livecd-creator unlike Pungi doesn't make the process of generating > equivalent source ISO images very easy. If we fix that, this task would > become less cumbersome. How do you manage it for spins that Fedora > itself distributes? correspondingsource project, liveiso_srpm_list program. http://git.fedorahosted.org/git/correspondingsource.git?p=correspondingsource.git;a=blob_plain;f=liveiso_srpm_list;hb=HEAD From kanarip at kanarip.com Sat Nov 1 13:58:56 2008 From: kanarip at kanarip.com (Jeroen van Meeuwen) Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2008 14:58:56 +0100 Subject: Spins In-Reply-To: <1225504836.9561.132.camel@localhost6.localdomain6> References: <1225479287.31015.20.camel@luminos.localdomain> <1225504836.9561.132.camel@localhost6.localdomain6> Message-ID: <490C60A0.4000402@kanarip.com> Chris Tyler wrote: > On Fri, 2008-10-31 at 11:54 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote: >> On Fri, 2008-10-31 at 13:27 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: >>> Having said that, Sugar and OLPC are a pretty big deal. The spin has been >>> approved by the board and is (or will be) an official spin. >> Small comment. The board gave the Sugar spin the approval to use the >> Fedora brand. This doesn't automatically mean that it'll become a >> produced and hosted spin in binary format. All it means is that the >> spin KS config can live in the spin-kickstarts repo and use the Fedora >> branding should somebody create the binary spin from the config. It >> would still have to have a Feature proposed and approved by the spins >> SIG and by releng before it would be an official spin. > > I agree: trademark approval does not automatically mean that the spin > will be hosted and distributed by Fedora infrastructure. I can imagine > that we'll eventually have a much larger number of trademark-approved > spins than we'll want to host and distribute -- h&d decisions should be > made by some combination of the spins SIG, releng, and infra. > I share the idea of having much more trademark approved (and non-trademark approved "debranded") spin concepts in the spin-kickstarts repository, and in the spin-kickstarts package, then Fedora will ever be able to compose, A the Q, host and distribute. > We need to decide terminology here: we have "official spin", "unofficial > spin", and "remix" floating around. "Unofficial spin" is sometimes being > used the way I think "remix" was intended to be used, meaning something > that doesn't have approval to use the primary trademark. > > Can we settle on: > > - "Remix" for "not approved to use the Fedora trademark" (but eligible > to use the secondary mark). I don't think these will normally be hosted > by Fedora. > > - "Spin" for "trademark-approved", further subdivided into: > -- "Unofficial spin" (trademark-approved but has not gone through the > Features process, and not h&d by Fedora) > -- "Offical spin" (trademark-approved and has gone through the Features > processs, h&d by Fedora) > Eventually, the spin-kickstarts package will need to distinguish between (official) fedora spins, localized spins and community spins, which may be another answer to the problem of terminology, I think. In the end, they're all remixes and spins. Kind regards, Jeroen van Meeuwen -kanarip From kanarip at kanarip.com Sat Nov 1 14:02:40 2008 From: kanarip at kanarip.com (Jeroen van Meeuwen) Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2008 15:02:40 +0100 Subject: Spins In-Reply-To: <20081101134113.GA15316@domsch.com> References: <1225479287.31015.20.camel@luminos.localdomain> <1225504836.9561.132.camel@localhost6.localdomain6> <1225507678.31015.25.camel@luminos.localdomain> <490BD464.1010301@fedoraproject.org> <20081101134113.GA15316@domsch.com> Message-ID: <490C6180.5080301@kanarip.com> Matt Domsch wrote: > On Sat, Nov 01, 2008 at 09:30:36AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: >> Jesse Keating wrote: >> >>> This all gets so much easier if they just provide the source in the same >>> place/manner as the binaries. >> Livecd-creator unlike Pungi doesn't make the process of generating >> equivalent source ISO images very easy. If we fix that, this task would >> become less cumbersome. How do you manage it for spins that Fedora >> itself distributes? > > > correspondingsource project, liveiso_srpm_list program. > > http://git.fedorahosted.org/git/correspondingsource.git?p=correspondingsource.git;a=blob_plain;f=liveiso_srpm_list;hb=HEAD > And another effort made to make SRPMS available for Live Media; http://git.fedorahosted.org/git/?p=revisor;a=blob;f=revisor/base.py;h=db12163449f49f74f79fde6d6848c769b8f22ec7;hb=9927b54800703c30549113d28e730ed98a66f73c#l1067 -Jeroen From stickster at gmail.com Sat Nov 1 15:54:52 2008 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2008 11:54:52 -0400 Subject: Spins In-Reply-To: <1225504836.9561.132.camel@localhost6.localdomain6> References: <1225479287.31015.20.camel@luminos.localdomain> <1225504836.9561.132.camel@localhost6.localdomain6> Message-ID: <20081101155452.GF4446@localhost.localdomain> On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 10:00:36PM -0400, Chris Tyler wrote: > > On Fri, 2008-10-31 at 11:54 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote: > > On Fri, 2008-10-31 at 13:27 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: > > > > > > Having said that, Sugar and OLPC are a pretty big deal. The spin has been > > > approved by the board and is (or will be) an official spin. > > > > Small comment. The board gave the Sugar spin the approval to use the > > Fedora brand. This doesn't automatically mean that it'll become a > > produced and hosted spin in binary format. All it means is that the > > spin KS config can live in the spin-kickstarts repo and use the Fedora > > branding should somebody create the binary spin from the config. It > > would still have to have a Feature proposed and approved by the spins > > SIG and by releng before it would be an official spin. > > I agree: trademark approval does not automatically mean that the spin > will be hosted and distributed by Fedora infrastructure. I can imagine > that we'll eventually have a much larger number of trademark-approved > spins than we'll want to host and distribute -- h&d decisions should be > made by some combination of the spins SIG, releng, and infra. > > We need to decide terminology here: we have "official spin", "unofficial > spin", and "remix" floating around. "Unofficial spin" is sometimes being > used the way I think "remix" was intended to be used, meaning something > that doesn't have approval to use the primary trademark. > > Can we settle on: > > - "Remix" for "not approved to use the Fedora trademark" (but eligible > to use the secondary mark). I don't think these will normally be hosted > by Fedora. > > - "Spin" for "trademark-approved", further subdivided into: > -- "Unofficial spin" (trademark-approved but has not gone through the > Features process, and not h&d by Fedora) > -- "Offical spin" (trademark-approved and has gone through the Features > processs, h&d by Fedora) > > ? This seems correct to me. To reiterate, the "Remix" mark/design and term were designed to do at least three things: 1. Make it possible for anyone who was creating a derivative of Fedora to drive additional community interest in our direction, even if the derivative can't be promoted here because of its content. 2. Decouple the community's ability to make derivatives from the trademark approval process. This way, anyone can create derivatives and label them without special permission. 3. Remove the "spin" jargon from what people external to our community will see. Only a very small subset of people know the term "spin" in the context of Fedora. Many more people understand "remix" because it has almost equivalent meaning in lots of other contexts. -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mmcgrath at redhat.com Sat Nov 1 20:50:53 2008 From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2008 15:50:53 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Spins In-Reply-To: <20081101155452.GF4446@localhost.localdomain> References: <1225479287.31015.20.camel@luminos.localdomain> <1225504836.9561.132.camel@localhost6.localdomain6> <20081101155452.GF4446@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On Sat, 1 Nov 2008, Paul W. Frields wrote: > On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 10:00:36PM -0400, Chris Tyler wrote: > > > > On Fri, 2008-10-31 at 11:54 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote: > > > On Fri, 2008-10-31 at 13:27 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: > > > > > > > > Having said that, Sugar and OLPC are a pretty big deal. The spin has been > > > > approved by the board and is (or will be) an official spin. > > > > > > Small comment. The board gave the Sugar spin the approval to use the > > > Fedora brand. This doesn't automatically mean that it'll become a > > > produced and hosted spin in binary format. All it means is that the > > > spin KS config can live in the spin-kickstarts repo and use the Fedora > > > branding should somebody create the binary spin from the config. It > > > would still have to have a Feature proposed and approved by the spins > > > SIG and by releng before it would be an official spin. > > > > I agree: trademark approval does not automatically mean that the spin > > will be hosted and distributed by Fedora infrastructure. I can imagine > > that we'll eventually have a much larger number of trademark-approved > > spins than we'll want to host and distribute -- h&d decisions should be > > made by some combination of the spins SIG, releng, and infra. > > > > We need to decide terminology here: we have "official spin", "unofficial > > spin", and "remix" floating around. "Unofficial spin" is sometimes being > > used the way I think "remix" was intended to be used, meaning something > > that doesn't have approval to use the primary trademark. > > > > Can we settle on: > > > > - "Remix" for "not approved to use the Fedora trademark" (but eligible > > to use the secondary mark). I don't think these will normally be hosted > > by Fedora. > > > > - "Spin" for "trademark-approved", further subdivided into: > > -- "Unofficial spin" (trademark-approved but has not gone through the > > Features process, and not h&d by Fedora) > > -- "Offical spin" (trademark-approved and has gone through the Features > > processs, h&d by Fedora) > > > > ? > > This seems correct to me. To reiterate, the "Remix" mark/design and > term were designed to do at least three things: > > 1. Make it possible for anyone who was creating a derivative of > Fedora to drive additional community interest in our direction, even > if the derivative can't be promoted here because of its content. > > 2. Decouple the community's ability to make derivatives from the > trademark approval process. This way, anyone can create derivatives > and label them without special permission. > > 3. Remove the "spin" jargon from what people external to our > community will see. Only a very small subset of people know the term > "spin" in the context of Fedora. Many more people understand "remix" > because it has almost equivalent meaning in lots of other contexts. > So what should we do with a remix that is not approved but also not unapproved which is the current state of OLPC. Do we give hosting via our alt mirror or do we have them wait for full approval. If it is via the alt mirror. What criteria do we have for hosting on alt? I can throw some guidelines together if no one else cares / has opinions on it. -Mike From matt at domsch.com Sun Nov 2 19:29:11 2008 From: matt at domsch.com (Matt Domsch) Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2008 13:29:11 -0600 Subject: Spins In-Reply-To: References: <1225479287.31015.20.camel@luminos.localdomain> <1225504836.9561.132.camel@localhost6.localdomain6> <20081101155452.GF4446@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20081102192911.GA24762@domsch.com> On Sat, Nov 01, 2008 at 03:50:53PM -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: > On Sat, 1 Nov 2008, Paul W. Frields wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 10:00:36PM -0400, Chris Tyler wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, 2008-10-31 at 11:54 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote: > > > > On Fri, 2008-10-31 at 13:27 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Having said that, Sugar and OLPC are a pretty big deal. The spin has been > > > > > approved by the board and is (or will be) an official spin. > > > > > > > > Small comment. The board gave the Sugar spin the approval to use the > > > > Fedora brand. This doesn't automatically mean that it'll become a > > > > produced and hosted spin in binary format. All it means is that the > > > > spin KS config can live in the spin-kickstarts repo and use the Fedora > > > > branding should somebody create the binary spin from the config. It > > > > would still have to have a Feature proposed and approved by the spins > > > > SIG and by releng before it would be an official spin. > > > > > > I agree: trademark approval does not automatically mean that the spin > > > will be hosted and distributed by Fedora infrastructure. I can imagine > > > that we'll eventually have a much larger number of trademark-approved > > > spins than we'll want to host and distribute -- h&d decisions should be > > > made by some combination of the spins SIG, releng, and infra. > > > > > > We need to decide terminology here: we have "official spin", "unofficial > > > spin", and "remix" floating around. "Unofficial spin" is sometimes being > > > used the way I think "remix" was intended to be used, meaning something > > > that doesn't have approval to use the primary trademark. > > > > > > Can we settle on: > > > > > > - "Remix" for "not approved to use the Fedora trademark" (but eligible > > > to use the secondary mark). I don't think these will normally be hosted > > > by Fedora. > > > > > > - "Spin" for "trademark-approved", further subdivided into: > > > -- "Unofficial spin" (trademark-approved but has not gone through the > > > Features process, and not h&d by Fedora) > > > -- "Offical spin" (trademark-approved and has gone through the Features > > > processs, h&d by Fedora) > > > > > > ? > > > > This seems correct to me. To reiterate, the "Remix" mark/design and > > term were designed to do at least three things: > > > > 1. Make it possible for anyone who was creating a derivative of > > Fedora to drive additional community interest in our direction, even > > if the derivative can't be promoted here because of its content. > > > > 2. Decouple the community's ability to make derivatives from the > > trademark approval process. This way, anyone can create derivatives > > and label them without special permission. > > > > 3. Remove the "spin" jargon from what people external to our > > community will see. Only a very small subset of people know the term > > "spin" in the context of Fedora. Many more people understand "remix" > > because it has almost equivalent meaning in lots of other contexts. > > > > So what should we do with a remix that is not approved but also not > unapproved which is the current state of OLPC. Do we give hosting via > our alt mirror or do we have them wait for full approval. If it is via > the alt mirror. What criteria do we have for hosting on alt? I can throw > some guidelines together if no one else cares / has opinions on it. IMHO, anything hosted on Fedora infrastructure needs to follow the Request for Resources process. I have not seen such requesting hosting for posting ISOs containing Fedora 10 with the Sugar desktop. I missed something... * The Board granted trademark approval for a remix including Sugar. * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/OLPC notes a _goal_ is to have a Sugar remix. * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/OLPC/Tasks notes "Sugar spin is official" which isn't quite right. The concept has trademark approval. Sugar is an accepted F10 feature, but a "hosted Sugar remix" I believe, is not. AFAICT, a Sugar remix has not gone through the Fedora feature process, no Infrastructure resources have been requested (by RFR or ticket). If we're going to, from now on, have a Fedora Sugar release alongside the KDE and XFCE, Developer, Games, Edu-Math... remixes then Infrastructure needs for such need to be understood, documented, and approved by FI as part of the feature process. Barring this, FI does have at its discretion a limited ability to host content that isn't "official remixes", but this is a very limited resource (currently at 62% capacity before more remixes are added) which also serves Fedora Secondary Architectures and serves some roles for rel-eng too. It's not unlimited, and it's not likely to become unlimited in the near term. (donations of multi-TB SANs, rack space, power, bandwidth, are welcome and could provide additional capability). The BrOffice Spin [1] is an approved feature, and has secured its own hosting. I would expect the Sugar remix to do likewise. If FI can accommodate that hosting, fine, but that isn't guaranteed for any remix, official or not. Because these remixes are growing in number rapidly, faster than FI resources are growing, this becomes quite painful - and yes, those who are proposed earlier have a better chance of getting FI resources than those proposed later (or having missed the feature deadline completely). All this is to say, I'm not going to vote to force FI to host any specific remix, "official" or not. That's an unfunded mandate. I would hope FI could host "official" remixes before providing space for "unofficial" remixes, but first-come-first-served trumps the official/unofficial distinction. [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/BrOffice.orgSpin Thanks, Matt (who needs to go scouting for more storage if this keeps up...) From kwade at redhat.com Sun Nov 2 23:25:36 2008 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten 'quaid' Wade) Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2008 15:25:36 -0800 Subject: Spins In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1225668336.22873.15.camel@calliope.phig.org> On Fri, 2008-10-31 at 13:27 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: > This is a small but important detail. I'd like to make an exception for > OLPC and the Sugar build. I know not the reasons this build did not make > the feature freeze but they did not. When they asked for space on Fedora > People they were told no. So they kept asking around until someone > increased their space on Fedora People and I had to be the bad guy. [and] > Fedora's policies and procedures are far from > perfect, but they are there. If you don't like them change them but don't > think Infrastructure is going to route around what has been put in place. I think the Sugar spin was also the victim of bad timing, which is why I would consider requesting/recommending an _exception_ to the rule. It's OK to break rules, as long as it is known, discussed, and approved. I agree, we do not want people (un)intentionally gaming our system. My recollection of Board discussions around space and bandwidth hogs such as spins and secondary archs are pretty clear -- we were very much in favor of space/band usage being the sole discretion of Infrastructure in consultation with Release Engineering. If that is not clear, let's make it so. So, what I see here instead is that you _do_ have the final say on this, and you are asking f-a-b if "no" is a big deal from a Project perspective. I don't see that you have to ask permission. I also appreciate that you are asking for this guidance, just in case it is a big deal, etc. In pursuit of that, I've asked Greg to comment on this thread and help negotiate wherever needed. Hopefully he'll know the big deal/no big deal and so forth. - Karsten -- Karsten Wade, Community Gardener Dev Fu : http://developer.redhatmagazine.com Fedora : http://quaid.fedorapeople.org gpg key : AD0E0C41 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From mmcgrath at redhat.com Mon Nov 3 00:52:01 2008 From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath) Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2008 18:52:01 -0600 (CST) Subject: Spins In-Reply-To: <20081102192911.GA24762@domsch.com> References: <1225479287.31015.20.camel@luminos.localdomain> <1225504836.9561.132.camel@localhost6.localdomain6> <20081101155452.GF4446@localhost.localdomain> <20081102192911.GA24762@domsch.com> Message-ID: > > IMHO, anything hosted on Fedora infrastructure needs to follow the > Request for Resources process. I have not seen such requesting > hosting for posting ISOs containing Fedora 10 with the Sugar desktop. > No such thing currently exists, I'll get to work on that. > I missed something... > * The Board granted trademark approval for a remix including Sugar. > * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/OLPC notes a _goal_ is to have a > Sugar remix. > * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/OLPC/Tasks notes "Sugar spin is > official" which isn't quite right. The concept has trademark > approval. Sugar is an accepted F10 feature, but a "hosted Sugar remix" I > believe, is not. > True, it missed the deadline for this. > AFAICT, a Sugar remix has not gone through the Fedora feature process, > no Infrastructure resources have been requested (by RFR or ticket). > If we're going to, from now on, have a Fedora Sugar release alongside > the KDE and XFCE, Developer, Games, Edu-Math... remixes then > Infrastructure needs for such need to be understood, documented, and > approved by FI as part of the feature process. > I could be wrong but I don't think spins are a feature. There's a spins approval process that is independent of the feature process and I think this is because the spin itself has no additional features, just in a new combination. > Barring this, FI does have at its discretion a limited ability to host > content that isn't "official remixes", but this is a very limited > resource (currently at 62% capacity before more remixes are added) > which also serves Fedora Secondary Architectures and serves some roles > for rel-eng too. It's not unlimited, and it's not likely to become > unlimited in the near term. (donations of multi-TB SANs, rack space, > power, bandwidth, are welcome and could provide additional > capability). > Actually we do still have 2.98T not exposed to this guest that can be. > > If FI can accommodate that hosting, fine, but that isn't guaranteed > for any remix, official or not. Because these remixes are growing in > number rapidly, faster than FI resources are growing, this becomes > quite painful - and yes, those who are proposed earlier have a better > chance of getting FI resources than those proposed later (or having > missed the feature deadline completely). > > All this is to say, I'm not going to vote to force FI to host any > specific remix, "official" or not. That's an unfunded mandate. I > would hope FI could host "official" remixes before providing space for > "unofficial" remixes, but first-come-first-served trumps the > official/unofficial distinction. > > I think the confusion is a lack of policy. I want people who say "I want hosting" to be able to go to a page and know the answer to hosting without someone arbitrarily saying "this can be hosted" and "this can't". The would be sugar spin is in an odd state right now and, because the spins process takes so long, will be stuck there for many months until F11 beta. > [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/BrOffice.orgSpin > > Thanks, > Matt > (who needs to go scouting for more storage if this keeps up...) Really storage isn't the issue, policy is. (or lack thereof). I'll throw some guidelines together on Monday for approval. There is some precedent for "non fedora" stuff to be hosted on FI, like fedora hosted. In the meantime, how much of a commitment do we want to make to non-fedora stuff? -Mike From mmcgrath at redhat.com Mon Nov 3 02:03:33 2008 From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath) Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2008 20:03:33 -0600 (CST) Subject: Spins In-Reply-To: <1225668336.22873.15.camel@calliope.phig.org> References: <1225668336.22873.15.camel@calliope.phig.org> Message-ID: On Sun, 2 Nov 2008, Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote: > > On Fri, 2008-10-31 at 13:27 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: > > > Fedora's policies and procedures are far from > > perfect, but they are there. If you don't like them change them but don't > > think Infrastructure is going to route around what has been put in place. > > I think the Sugar spin was also the victim of bad timing, which is why I > would consider requesting/recommending an _exception_ to the rule. It's > OK to break rules, as long as it is known, discussed, and approved. I > agree, we do not want people (un)intentionally gaming our system. > It was in great timing for F11. > My recollection of Board discussions around space and bandwidth hogs > such as spins and secondary archs are pretty clear -- we were very much > in favor of space/band usage being the sole discretion of Infrastructure > in consultation with Release Engineering. If that is not clear, let's > make it so. > > So, what I see here instead is that you _do_ have the final say on this, > and you are asking f-a-b if "no" is a big deal from a Project > perspective. I don't see that you have to ask permission. I also > appreciate that you are asking for this guidance, just in case it is a > big deal, etc. > I guess it seems foriegn to me that the Infrastructure team would decide whether or not something like this gets hosted from a policy point of view. Imagine a more traditional organization where business partners and execs have gotten together for a new $SUPER_COOL_PRODUCT. They get to their IT department who then says "no". Not because they can't, but because they shouldn't. Afterall, what does the IT department know about $SUPER_COOL_PRODUCT? This is how I feal about the sugar spin. I don't know anything about it other then it's partially approved. I know there have been concerns in the past about keeping control of branding. The board said they can call this spin Fedora. If it gets on our alt mirror with no QA and it sucks, that's bad for Fedora. Though I guess February isn't that far away (when F11 and this spin would be built according to the normal timeline of things. But in the interest of having someone do it, we'll just start hosting stuff we think should be hosted and if someone has a problem with something we're hosting let us know. -Mike From stickster at gmail.com Mon Nov 3 12:42:18 2008 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 07:42:18 -0500 Subject: Spins In-Reply-To: References: <1225479287.31015.20.camel@luminos.localdomain> <1225504836.9561.132.camel@localhost6.localdomain6> <20081101155452.GF4446@localhost.localdomain> <20081102192911.GA24762@domsch.com> Message-ID: <20081103124218.GB3216@localhost.localdomain> On Sun, Nov 02, 2008 at 06:52:01PM -0600, Mike McGrath wrote: > > > > IMHO, anything hosted on Fedora infrastructure needs to follow the > > Request for Resources process. I have not seen such requesting > > hosting for posting ISOs containing Fedora 10 with the Sugar desktop. > > No such thing currently exists, I'll get to work on that. Having that sort of document available for potential spin owners would be good. I have no idea whether the Sugar spin owners knew they needed to make a request for hosting. [...snip...] > > AFAICT, a Sugar remix has not gone through the Fedora feature process, > > no Infrastructure resources have been requested (by RFR or ticket). > > If we're going to, from now on, have a Fedora Sugar release alongside > > the KDE and XFCE, Developer, Games, Edu-Math... remixes then > > Infrastructure needs for such need to be understood, documented, and > > approved by FI as part of the feature process. > > > > I could be wrong but I don't think spins are a feature. There's a spins > approval process that is independent of the feature process and I think > this is because the spin itself has no additional features, just in a new > combination. True that spins aren't the same as features, but they normally require a feature page for tracking. Part of the reason for this is to make sure the spin gets promotion in the feature process. [...snip...] > > If FI can accommodate that hosting, fine, but that isn't guaranteed > > for any remix, official or not. Because these remixes are growing in > > number rapidly, faster than FI resources are growing, this becomes > > quite painful - and yes, those who are proposed earlier have a better > > chance of getting FI resources than those proposed later (or having > > missed the feature deadline completely). > > > > All this is to say, I'm not going to vote to force FI to host any > > specific remix, "official" or not. That's an unfunded mandate. I > > would hope FI could host "official" remixes before providing space for > > "unofficial" remixes, but first-come-first-served trumps the > > official/unofficial distinction. > > I think the confusion is a lack of policy. I want people who say "I want > hosting" to be able to go to a page and know the answer to hosting without > someone arbitrarily saying "this can be hosted" and "this can't". The > would be sugar spin is in an odd state right now and, because the spins > process takes so long, will be stuck there for many months until F11 beta. Yes, and the Spins SIG page is not clear on how this works either, and should be. I'd ask that the Spins SIG work with you on the draft, at least by reviewing it and asking questions that will help spin owners understand what they need to do, and when, to get spins hosted. Right now the documentation I could find in the SIG basically says, "Maybe your spin will be hosted," which isn't very enlightening. I think the problem wasn't helped by having a lot of technical kinks worked out fairly late in Fedora's Sugar stack. Since we do want spins to make it to the test phases, that would have kept a Sugar spin out of the running this time around. But none of this means the spin owners can't, for example, put out information about their working kickstart file and how people can use it. > > [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/BrOffice.orgSpin > > > > Thanks, > > Matt > > (who needs to go scouting for more storage if this keeps up...) > > Really storage isn't the issue, policy is. (or lack thereof). I'll throw > some guidelines together on Monday for approval. There is some precedent > for "non fedora" stuff to be hosted on FI, like fedora hosted. In the > meantime, how much of a commitment do we want to make to non-fedora stuff? This is a good opportunity for FI to decide on a policy that gives them proper oversight over space and other hosting resources. In cases where non-Fedora materials are a benefit to the Fedora community we should allow for hosting those materials. Upstream projects are a good example. Similarly, we'd have more interest in something like the Sugar spin than, say, BrOffice.org, because it's (1) universally applicable, and (2) has significant crossover appeal for a project (OLPC) in which Fedora wants to promote participation. Perhaps those two criteria are part of a list of deciding factors for whether we extend hosting. -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From bkearney at redhat.com Mon Nov 3 13:22:43 2008 From: bkearney at redhat.com (Bryan Kearney) Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2008 08:22:43 -0500 Subject: Spins In-Reply-To: <1225514412.31015.32.camel@luminos.localdomain> References: <1225479287.31015.20.camel@luminos.localdomain> <1225504836.9561.132.camel@localhost6.localdomain6> <1225507678.31015.25.camel@luminos.localdomain> <490BD464.1010301@fedoraproject.org> <1225514412.31015.32.camel@luminos.localdomain> Message-ID: <490EFB23.6050707@redhat.com> Jesse Keating wrote: > On Sat, 2008-11-01 at 09:30 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: >> Livecd-creator unlike Pungi doesn't make the process of generating >> equivalent source ISO images very easy. If we fix that, this task would >> become less cumbersome. How do you manage it for spins that Fedora >> itself distributes? >> > > Since Fedora itself distributes it, we can rely on the srpms that are > part of the Everything tree. We treat it all as a single unit of > distribution, and retire it as a single unit of distribution. > > I realize that it is cumbersome at the moment to discover/gather the > srpms for a Live spin. Unfortunately I don't have the time right now to > implement source gathering in livecd-creator. I hope to look at it > after Fedora 10 goes out the door and I actually have some development > time at my disposal (unless somebody beats me to it). David huff has started to look at this for appliance creation with the goal of pushing it up to the livecd tools where possible. -- bk From mmcgrath at redhat.com Mon Nov 3 21:34:08 2008 From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath) Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 15:34:08 -0600 (CST) Subject: Spins In-Reply-To: <20081103124218.GB3216@localhost.localdomain> References: <1225479287.31015.20.camel@luminos.localdomain> <1225504836.9561.132.camel@localhost6.localdomain6> <20081101155452.GF4446@localhost.localdomain> <20081102192911.GA24762@domsch.com> <20081103124218.GB3216@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On Mon, 3 Nov 2008, Paul W. Frields wrote: > > True that spins aren't the same as features, but they normally require > a feature page for tracking. Part of the reason for this is to make > sure the spin gets promotion in the feature process. > I've looked at the spins sig page and I am uber confused. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Spins links to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JefSpaleta/SpinReleaseProcessProposal which really couldn't be a worse guide from a spin proposer perspective (it is the proposal for the sig itself to follow). I think: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Spins/SpinSubmissionProcess is the page the sig intends people to follow. I've also come to find out there's a whole slew of options in spins hosting, just the ks for example can get approved for hosting but never built and distributed as an official fedora spin. That page does mention a feature page requirement but doesn't really talk about timelines nor expectations. -Mike From poelstra at redhat.com Tue Nov 4 04:11:39 2008 From: poelstra at redhat.com (John Poelstra) Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2008 20:11:39 -0800 Subject: Spins In-Reply-To: References: <1225479287.31015.20.camel@luminos.localdomain> <1225504836.9561.132.camel@localhost6.localdomain6> <20081101155452.GF4446@localhost.localdomain> <20081102192911.GA24762@domsch.com> <20081103124218.GB3216@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <490FCB7B.8020104@redhat.com> Mike McGrath wrote: > On Mon, 3 Nov 2008, Paul W. Frields wrote: >> True that spins aren't the same as features, but they normally require >> a feature page for tracking. Part of the reason for this is to make >> sure the spin gets promotion in the feature process. >> > > I've looked at the spins sig page and I am uber confused. > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Spins > > links to > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JefSpaleta/SpinReleaseProcessProposal > > which really couldn't be a worse guide from a spin proposer perspective > (it is the proposal for the sig itself to follow). I think: > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Spins/SpinSubmissionProcess > > is the page the sig intends people to follow. I've also come to find out > there's a whole slew of options in spins hosting, just the ks for example > can get approved for hosting but never built and distributed as an > official fedora spin. > > That page does mention a feature page requirement but doesn't really talk > about timelines nor expectations. > > -Mike I think these are probably valid observations considering we met a month ago and haven't done a specific follow-up on what was discussed or still needs to be figured out. https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-October/msg00087.html From stickster at gmail.com Tue Nov 4 14:12:23 2008 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 09:12:23 -0500 Subject: Spins In-Reply-To: <490FCB7B.8020104@redhat.com> References: <1225479287.31015.20.camel@luminos.localdomain> <1225504836.9561.132.camel@localhost6.localdomain6> <20081101155452.GF4446@localhost.localdomain> <20081102192911.GA24762@domsch.com> <20081103124218.GB3216@localhost.localdomain> <490FCB7B.8020104@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20081104141223.GB32678@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 08:11:39PM -0800, John Poelstra wrote: > Mike McGrath wrote: >> On Mon, 3 Nov 2008, Paul W. Frields wrote: >>> >>> True that spins aren't the same as features, but they normally >>> require a feature page for tracking. Part of the reason for this >>> is to make sure the spin gets promotion in the feature process. >>> >> >> I've looked at the spins sig page and I am uber confused. >> >> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Spins >> >> links to >> >> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JefSpaleta/SpinReleaseProcessProposal >> >> which really couldn't be a worse guide from a spin proposer >> perspective (it is the proposal for the sig itself to follow). I >> think: >> >> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Spins/SpinSubmissionProcess >> >> is the page the sig intends people to follow. I've also come to >> find out there's a whole slew of options in spins hosting, just the >> ks for example can get approved for hosting but never built and >> distributed as an official fedora spin. >> >> That page does mention a feature page requirement but doesn't >> really talk about timelines nor expectations. >> >> -Mike > > I think these are probably valid observations considering we met a > month ago and haven't done a specific follow-up on what was > discussed or still needs to be figured out. > > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-October/msg00087.html This is really something that, at this point, should be well documented in the wiki and hooked from the main Spins SIG page. Having processes rely on knowledgeable individuals is not scalable, as we've found to our (unsurprised) dismay in Documentation. Having the technical guidelines documented is a great step but there's more to do to prevent spin owner frustration. Bryan Kearney went a good ways toward a more detailed document at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Bkearney/ProposedSpinProcess Are we waiting for the Spins SIG to find the next actions, and drive this to completion? Or is this hanging elsewhere? -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jspaleta at gmail.com Tue Nov 4 21:01:09 2008 From: jspaleta at gmail.com (Jeff Spaleta) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 12:01:09 -0900 Subject: LWN subscriptions.. update. Message-ID: <604aa7910811041301i394ce6acoeea034abfbf37867@mail.gmail.com> I've been sitting on this for a while and It's just slipped my mind. Okay so we started with 75 lwn subscriptions, right now we have 71 in use... with no one waiting. Now out of those 71 subscriptions... several haven't been used in 6+ months. Here's what I want to do. I want to do call out for new contributors interested in a subscription. Filling subscriptions on a first come first serve basis. If there are more than 4 people interested I want to cull the current subscribers with 6+ months of inactivity as of today's record and give those subscriptions to the new people. Culling inactive subscribers from most inactive forward. I'd like to repeat this again in about 6 months. Thoughts? -jef From jwboyer at gmail.com Tue Nov 4 21:16:01 2008 From: jwboyer at gmail.com (Josh Boyer) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 16:16:01 -0500 Subject: LWN subscriptions.. update. In-Reply-To: <604aa7910811041301i394ce6acoeea034abfbf37867@mail.gmail.com> References: <604aa7910811041301i394ce6acoeea034abfbf37867@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20081104211601.GC27793@yoda.jdub.homelinux.org> On Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 12:01:09PM -0900, Jeff Spaleta wrote: >I've been sitting on this for a while and It's just slipped my mind. > >Okay so we started with 75 lwn subscriptions, right now we have 71 in >use... with no one waiting. > >Now out of those 71 subscriptions... several haven't been used in 6+ months. > >Here's what I want to do. > >I want to do call out for new contributors interested in a >subscription. Filling subscriptions on a first come first serve >basis. > >If there are more than 4 people interested I want to cull the current >subscribers with 6+ months of inactivity as of today's record and give >those subscriptions to the new people. Culling inactive subscribers >from most inactive forward. > >I'd like to repeat this again in about 6 months. > >Thoughts? What are you using to gather "inactivity" metrics? I have a subscription account that I very rarely sign into because LWN has an RSS feed that typically gives me all the information I need. However, I do use the subscriber account if something pops up in my RSS feed that sufficiently interests me to actually start a web browswer and sign in to see the subscriber only content. Oh, and it's not a Fedora subscriber account. I'm just curious. josh From jspaleta at gmail.com Tue Nov 4 21:28:04 2008 From: jspaleta at gmail.com (Jeff Spaleta) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 12:28:04 -0900 Subject: LWN subscriptions.. update. In-Reply-To: <20081104211601.GC27793@yoda.jdub.homelinux.org> References: <604aa7910811041301i394ce6acoeea034abfbf37867@mail.gmail.com> <20081104211601.GC27793@yoda.jdub.homelinux.org> Message-ID: <604aa7910811041328o4ff99807n84cc87871428dcbe@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 12:16 PM, Josh Boyer > What are you using to gather "inactivity" metrics? last login on lwn as it gives me. > I have a subscription > account that I very rarely sign into because LWN has an RSS feed that > typically gives me all the information I need. However, I do use the > subscriber account if something pops up in my RSS feed that sufficiently > interests me to actually start a web browswer and sign in to see the > subscriber only content. How infrequent is that login? Is a 6 month window not long enough to cover that sort of thing? -jef From smooge at gmail.com Wed Nov 5 01:43:34 2008 From: smooge at gmail.com (Stephen John Smoogen) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 18:43:34 -0700 Subject: LWN subscriptions.. update. In-Reply-To: <604aa7910811041328o4ff99807n84cc87871428dcbe@mail.gmail.com> References: <604aa7910811041301i394ce6acoeea034abfbf37867@mail.gmail.com> <20081104211601.GC27793@yoda.jdub.homelinux.org> <604aa7910811041328o4ff99807n84cc87871428dcbe@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <80d7e4090811041743y356416dhf737597a4f4b8575@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 2:28 PM, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 12:16 PM, Josh Boyer >> What are you using to gather "inactivity" metrics? > > last login on lwn as it gives me. > > >> I have a subscription >> account that I very rarely sign into because LWN has an RSS feed that >> typically gives me all the information I need. However, I do use the >> subscriber account if something pops up in my RSS feed that sufficiently >> interests me to actually start a web browswer and sign in to see the >> subscriber only content. > > How infrequent is that login? Is a 6 month window not long enough to > cover that sort of thing? > I think the idea is a good one, as long we have some trust in that LWN's statistics on logins etc are good? I mean I am logged into LWN using my fedora account, but I am only asked to renew my login every 90 days or so (maybe?). Does it log the last time I used a verified cookie against the site, or when it asks me to renew my lgon? -- Stephen J Smoogen. -- BSD/GNU/Linux How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice" From mspevack at redhat.com Wed Nov 5 14:22:27 2008 From: mspevack at redhat.com (Max Spevack) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 15:22:27 +0100 (CET) Subject: LWN subscriptions.. update. In-Reply-To: <80d7e4090811041743y356416dhf737597a4f4b8575@mail.gmail.com> References: <604aa7910811041301i394ce6acoeea034abfbf37867@mail.gmail.com> <20081104211601.GC27793@yoda.jdub.homelinux.org> <604aa7910811041328o4ff99807n84cc87871428dcbe@mail.gmail.com> <80d7e4090811041743y356416dhf737597a4f4b8575@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 4 Nov 2008, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > I think the idea is a good one, as long we have some trust in that > LWN's statistics on logins etc are good? I mean I am logged into LWN > using my fedora account, but I am only asked to renew my login every > 90 days or so (maybe?). Does it log the last time I used a verified > cookie against the site, or when it asks me to renew my lgon? If you have a cookie and you visit the site, it updates your "last visited" time to reflect that. --Max From bbbush.yuan at gmail.com Thu Nov 6 13:39:32 2008 From: bbbush.yuan at gmail.com (Yuan Yijun) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 21:39:32 +0800 Subject: Request for trademark usage approval In-Reply-To: <76e72f800811060510gd67c821k95dcf1858eb73670@mail.gmail.com> References: <76e72f800811060510gd67c821k95dcf1858eb73670@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <76e72f800811060539n1bdfaf54r8064e4b82ade4941@mail.gmail.com> try again. 2008/11/6 Yuan Yijun : > Hi, > > We some fedora ambassadors are setting up a new website (currently > planned as http://{bbs,wiki,news}.fedora-zh.org ). The "bbs" site is > for user support, the "wiki" site is open to anyone who will write > fedora tutorials, and the "news" site is for translated announcements > and activities among Chinese users. > > Our copyright and license plans are posted on fedora-docs: > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-docs-list/2008-November/msg00050.html > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-docs-list/2008-November/msg00052.html > But ke4qqq in #fedora-docs told me to best request FAB for trademark > usage first. > > So would you please grant us the permission to use fedora trademark on > the website, including domain names, site names and contents? What are > the detailed requirements? > > Actually we had requested for logo usage on bbs.fedora-zh.org (the > first up and running) as well as our mailing list "fedora-activity" on > google group. I'll write to get the permission for the rest subsites. > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > -- bbbush ^_^ From bbbush.yuan at gmail.com Thu Nov 6 13:10:13 2008 From: bbbush.yuan at gmail.com (Yuan Yijun) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 21:10:13 +0800 Subject: Request for trademark usage approval Message-ID: <76e72f800811060510gd67c821k95dcf1858eb73670@mail.gmail.com> Hi, We some fedora ambassadors are setting up a new website (currently planned as http://{bbs,wiki,news}.fedora-zh.org ). The "bbs" site is for user support, the "wiki" site is open to anyone who will write fedora tutorials, and the "news" site is for translated announcements and activities among Chinese users. Our copyright and license plans are posted on fedora-docs: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-docs-list/2008-November/msg00050.html https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-docs-list/2008-November/msg00052.html But ke4qqq in #fedora-docs told me to best request FAB for trademark usage first. So would you please grant us the permission to use fedora trademark on the website, including domain names, site names and contents? What are the detailed requirements? Actually we had requested for logo usage on bbs.fedora-zh.org (the first up and running) as well as our mailing list "fedora-activity" on google group. I'll write to get the permission for the rest subsites. Thanks! -- bbbush ^_^ From poelstra at redhat.com Sat Nov 8 01:18:27 2008 From: poelstra at redhat.com (John Poelstra) Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2008 17:18:27 -0800 Subject: Fedora Board Recap 2008-NOV-04 Message-ID: <4914E8E3.4040805@redhat.com> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board/Meetings/2008-11-04 == Roll Call == Attendees: John Poelstra, Spot Callaway, Matt Domsch, Jef Spaleta, Paul Frields, Bill Nottingham, Harald Hoyer, Jesse Keating, Karsten Wade, Chris Tyler, Seth Vidal == Fedora Wide Elections == * Date and timing around upcoming "Fedora wide" elections is confirmed ** Nomination process starts now and closes on December 3rd ** Voting to take place from December 7 to 20th * all groups are good with December dates * Matt is setting up some IRC town halls so people can get to know the candidates == FUDCon F11 Update == * group hotel code is in place * everyone should visit the wiki page: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FUDCon/FUDConF11 * still working out details of facilities == Communicating Spins == * How will the "Spin" vs "Remix" trademark concepts be messaged to the community if the term "Remix" is used with the secondary mark? * Anyone can make a ''Remix'', with or without involvement with Fedora * A ''Fedora Spin'' mean alignment with and trademark approval from Fedora * Waiting for follow-up on FAB: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2008-November/msg00017.html * The Board would like a progress update and time line from FESCO stating when all of the policies and processes will be in place for Fedora 11 Spins * Would be a good idea to have a session on Spins at FUDCon in Boston From jonstanley at gmail.com Sun Nov 9 20:07:08 2008 From: jonstanley at gmail.com (Jon Stanley) Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2008 15:07:08 -0500 Subject: Spins process - technical requirements Message-ID: A little while ago, a few of us had a meeting via phone[1] discussing the spins process for F11. One of my action items from that meeting was to come up with a list of technical requirements for Spins. The Spins SIG already had some up[2], so for the most part, I didn't see a need to go reinventing the wheel. There is some overlap between my (woefully incomplete, mostly because I envision it being integrated into the existing page) draft[3] and the existing process. This is intended to start a discussion of what other technical requirements that there are beyond those which are in either of the two wiki pages. The end goal is to have something that is approved by both the Board and FESCo, and executed by the Spins SIG. [1] http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-October/msg00087.html [2] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Spins/CommunitySpinGuidelines [3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Jstanley/SpinsTechRequirements From bryan.kearney at gmail.com Mon Nov 10 13:47:42 2008 From: bryan.kearney at gmail.com (Bryan Kearney) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 08:47:42 -0500 Subject: Spins process - technical requirements In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49183B7E.3060209@gmail.com> Jon Stanley wrote: > A little while ago, a few of us had a meeting via phone[1] discussing > the spins process for F11. One of my action items from that meeting > was to come up with a list of technical requirements for Spins. The > Spins SIG already had some up[2], so for the most part, I didn't see a > need to go reinventing the wheel. There is some overlap between my > (woefully incomplete, mostly because I envision it being integrated > into the existing page) draft[3] and the existing process. > > This is intended to start a discussion of what other technical > requirements that there are beyond those which are in either of the > two wiki pages. The end goal is to have something that is approved by > both the Board and FESCo, and executed by the Spins SIG. > > [1] http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-October/msg00087.html > [2] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Spins/CommunitySpinGuidelines > [3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Jstanley/SpinsTechRequirements Here is an interesting question. We currently have, in the Spins Kickstart repo [1] those items which carry the trandemark, and those which do not. If we assume a process somewhat similar to [2] then it is highly possible for a different set of technical criteria for those spins which are to be called fedora, and those which are not. Given the new remix mark, it seems to enable anyone to host these remixes where they wish. May I suggest that we modify the repo and the spin process to say that we will only accept those spins which will carry the fedora name. This would remove the bottom process line, and would allow us to difine an easier set of technical requirements (avoiding the "if called fedora, the requirement is X if not Y). This would make it much easier for the spin SIG to gate / verfy the technical bits for trademark approval. -- bk [1] http://git.fedorahosted.org/git/spin-kickstarts.git [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Bkearney/ProposedSpinProcess From bbbush.yuan at gmail.com Mon Nov 10 15:10:12 2008 From: bbbush.yuan at gmail.com (Yuan Yijun) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 23:10:12 +0800 Subject: Request for trademark usage approval In-Reply-To: <76e72f800811060510gd67c821k95dcf1858eb73670@mail.gmail.com> References: <76e72f800811060510gd67c821k95dcf1858eb73670@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <76e72f800811100710y76f3cbc6s8009d1982bd574f3@mail.gmail.com> Would anyone please follow this up? Thank you! -- bbbush ^_^ From stickster at gmail.com Mon Nov 10 15:28:22 2008 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 10:28:22 -0500 Subject: Request for trademark usage approval In-Reply-To: <76e72f800811100710y76f3cbc6s8009d1982bd574f3@mail.gmail.com> References: <76e72f800811060510gd67c821k95dcf1858eb73670@mail.gmail.com> <76e72f800811100710y76f3cbc6s8009d1982bd574f3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20081110152822.GF31382@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 11:10:12PM +0800, Yuan Yijun wrote: > Would anyone please follow this up? Thank you! No worries, I am working on this -- I am meeting with Red Hat Legal this week and hope to soon have a trademark licensing agreement drafted for this use case. Assuming that the Board is in agreement, and once I have that, I can send it to whoever is going to sign as the owner of the new domain. You will need to have someone lined up to be that signatory. Thanks! -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From notting at redhat.com Mon Nov 10 16:07:46 2008 From: notting at redhat.com (Bill Nottingham) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 11:07:46 -0500 Subject: Spins process - technical requirements In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20081110160746.GD8850@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Jon Stanley (jonstanley at gmail.com) said: > A little while ago, a few of us had a meeting via phone[1] discussing > the spins process for F11. One of my action items from that meeting > was to come up with a list of technical requirements for Spins. The > Spins SIG already had some up[2], so for the most part, I didn't see a > need to go reinventing the wheel. There is some overlap between my > (woefully incomplete, mostly because I envision it being integrated > into the existing page) draft[3] and the existing process. > > This is intended to start a discussion of what other technical > requirements that there are beyond those which are in either of the > two wiki pages. The end goal is to have something that is approved by > both the Board and FESCo, and executed by the Spins SIG. They seem reasonable for things which are aspiring to be Fedora(tm) Spins. For those that don't want to use either of the trademarks, they're obviously not that relevant. Bill From jonstanley at gmail.com Mon Nov 10 16:46:58 2008 From: jonstanley at gmail.com (Jon Stanley) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 11:46:58 -0500 Subject: Spins process - technical requirements In-Reply-To: <20081110160746.GD8850@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> References: <20081110160746.GD8850@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 11:07 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote: > They seem reasonable for things which are aspiring to be Fedora(tm) > Spins. For those that don't want to use either of the trademarks, they're > obviously not that relevant. Brings up an excellent question. Do they apply for just the main Fedora trademark, or also the secondary mark? IMHO, we don't want to be sullying the reputation of the secondary mark because we have a sub-standard community-produced spin. Though I *believe*, however I'm not sure, that spins carrying the secondary mark would be allowed to use third-party content in their spins. Is this correct? From stickster at gmail.com Mon Nov 10 18:36:42 2008 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 13:36:42 -0500 Subject: Spins process - technical requirements In-Reply-To: References: <20081110160746.GD8850@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <20081110183642.GD13099@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 11:46:58AM -0500, Jon Stanley wrote: > On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 11:07 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote: > > > They seem reasonable for things which are aspiring to be Fedora(tm) > > Spins. For those that don't want to use either of the trademarks, they're > > obviously not that relevant. > > Brings up an excellent question. Do they apply for just the main > Fedora trademark, or also the secondary mark? IMHO, we don't want to > be sullying the reputation of the secondary mark because we have a > sub-standard community-produced spin. The "Fedora Remix" mark was invented precisely to avoid community members having to go through an approval process. I made a wiki page for easy redirection if needed: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Remix > Though I *believe*, however I'm not sure, that spins carrying the > secondary mark would be allowed to use third-party content in their > spins. Is this correct? That's correct. The new trademark guidelines lay out the use cases for the Fedora Remix mark: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/Trademark_guidelines -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From bkearney at redhat.com Tue Nov 11 14:19:05 2008 From: bkearney at redhat.com (Bryan Kearney) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 09:19:05 -0500 Subject: Spins process - technical requirements In-Reply-To: <20081110183642.GD13099@localhost.localdomain> References: <20081110160746.GD8850@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <20081110183642.GD13099@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <49199459.9060704@redhat.com> Paul W. Frields wrote: > On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 11:46:58AM -0500, Jon Stanley wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 11:07 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote: >> >>> They seem reasonable for things which are aspiring to be Fedora(tm) >>> Spins. For those that don't want to use either of the trademarks, they're >>> obviously not that relevant. >> Brings up an excellent question. Do they apply for just the main >> Fedora trademark, or also the secondary mark? IMHO, we don't want to >> be sullying the reputation of the secondary mark because we have a >> sub-standard community-produced spin. > > The "Fedora Remix" mark was invented precisely to avoid community > members having to go through an approval process. I made a wiki page > for easy redirection if needed: So.. lemme throw this out again. What do folks think about the idea that all spins in the spin-repository only carry the fedora mark. Not the remix mark. If we did this, it would be very easy for the Spin SIG to enforce the technical requirements. > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Remix > >> Though I *believe*, however I'm not sure, that spins carrying the >> secondary mark would be allowed to use third-party content in their >> spins. Is this correct? > > That's correct. The new trademark guidelines lay out the use cases > for the Fedora Remix mark: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/Trademark_guidelines > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > fedora-advisory-board mailing list > fedora-advisory-board at redhat.com > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board From bkearney at redhat.com Tue Nov 11 14:24:28 2008 From: bkearney at redhat.com (Bryan Kearney) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 09:24:28 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-spins] Spins In-Reply-To: <20081104141223.GB32678@localhost.localdomain> References: <1225479287.31015.20.camel@luminos.localdomain> <1225504836.9561.132.camel@localhost6.localdomain6> <20081101155452.GF4446@localhost.localdomain> <20081102192911.GA24762@domsch.com> <20081103124218.GB3216@localhost.localdomain> <490FCB7B.8020104@redhat.com> <20081104141223.GB32678@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <4919959C.2000800@redhat.com> Paul W. Frields wrote: > On Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 08:11:39PM -0800, John Poelstra wrote: >> Mike McGrath wrote: >>> On Mon, 3 Nov 2008, Paul W. Frields wrote: >>>> True that spins aren't the same as features, but they normally >>>> require a feature page for tracking. Part of the reason for this >>>> is to make sure the spin gets promotion in the feature process. >>>> >>> I've looked at the spins sig page and I am uber confused. >>> >>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Spins >>> >>> links to >>> >>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JefSpaleta/SpinReleaseProcessProposal >>> >>> which really couldn't be a worse guide from a spin proposer >>> perspective (it is the proposal for the sig itself to follow). I >>> think: >>> >>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Spins/SpinSubmissionProcess >>> >>> is the page the sig intends people to follow. I've also come to >>> find out there's a whole slew of options in spins hosting, just the >>> ks for example can get approved for hosting but never built and >>> distributed as an official fedora spin. >>> >>> That page does mention a feature page requirement but doesn't >>> really talk about timelines nor expectations. >>> >>> -Mike >> I think these are probably valid observations considering we met a >> month ago and haven't done a specific follow-up on what was >> discussed or still needs to be figured out. >> >> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-October/msg00087.html > > This is really something that, at this point, should be well > documented in the wiki and hooked from the main Spins SIG page. > Having processes rely on knowledgeable individuals is not scalable, as > we've found to our (unsurprised) dismay in Documentation. > > Having the technical guidelines documented is a great step but there's > more to do to prevent spin owner frustration. Bryan Kearney went a > good ways toward a more detailed document at: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Bkearney/ProposedSpinProcess > > Are we waiting for the Spins SIG to find the next actions, and drive > this to completion? Or is this hanging elsewhere? I think it just died because of $DAYJOB. Do folks want to get back together to chat? I think with the advent of the new remix mark it makes sense to discuss/amend the policy. -- bk From chris at tylers.info Tue Nov 11 14:42:37 2008 From: chris at tylers.info (Chris Tyler) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 09:42:37 -0500 Subject: Spins process - technical requirements In-Reply-To: <49199459.9060704@redhat.com> References: <20081110160746.GD8850@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <20081110183642.GD13099@localhost.localdomain> <49199459.9060704@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1226414557.13182.22.camel@localhost6.localdomain6> On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 09:19 -0500, Bryan Kearney wrote: > Paul W. Frields wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 11:46:58AM -0500, Jon Stanley wrote: > >> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 11:07 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote: > >> > >>> They seem reasonable for things which are aspiring to be Fedora(tm) > >>> Spins. For those that don't want to use either of the trademarks, they're > >>> obviously not that relevant. > >> Brings up an excellent question. Do they apply for just the main > >> Fedora trademark, or also the secondary mark? IMHO, we don't want to > >> be sullying the reputation of the secondary mark because we have a > >> sub-standard community-produced spin. > > > > The "Fedora Remix" mark was invented precisely to avoid community > > members having to go through an approval process. I made a wiki page > > for easy redirection if needed: > > So.. lemme throw this out again. What do folks think about the idea that > all spins in the spin-repository only carry the fedora mark. Not the > remix mark. If we did this, it would be very easy for the Spin SIG to > enforce the technical requirements. Sounds right. If the word "Spin" is reserved for Spin-SIG & trademark approved, then it's easy to explain what gets into the spin-repository and what doesn't. Any aspiring Spin would therefore be a Remix until it's approved, and for all remixes the technical quality and legal status (with respect to non-Fedora content) is up to the remixer. -Chris From bkearney at redhat.com Tue Nov 11 14:42:44 2008 From: bkearney at redhat.com (Bryan Kearney) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 09:42:44 -0500 Subject: Spins process - technical requirements In-Reply-To: <1226414557.13182.22.camel@localhost6.localdomain6> References: <20081110160746.GD8850@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <20081110183642.GD13099@localhost.localdomain> <49199459.9060704@redhat.com> <1226414557.13182.22.camel@localhost6.localdomain6> Message-ID: <491999E4.1050300@redhat.com> Chris Tyler wrote: > On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 09:19 -0500, Bryan Kearney wrote: >> Paul W. Frields wrote: >>> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 11:46:58AM -0500, Jon Stanley wrote: >>>> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 11:07 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote: >>>> >>>>> They seem reasonable for things which are aspiring to be Fedora(tm) >>>>> Spins. For those that don't want to use either of the trademarks, they're >>>>> obviously not that relevant. >>>> Brings up an excellent question. Do they apply for just the main >>>> Fedora trademark, or also the secondary mark? IMHO, we don't want to >>>> be sullying the reputation of the secondary mark because we have a >>>> sub-standard community-produced spin. >>> The "Fedora Remix" mark was invented precisely to avoid community >>> members having to go through an approval process. I made a wiki page >>> for easy redirection if needed: >> So.. lemme throw this out again. What do folks think about the idea that >> all spins in the spin-repository only carry the fedora mark. Not the >> remix mark. If we did this, it would be very easy for the Spin SIG to >> enforce the technical requirements. > > Sounds right. If the word "Spin" is reserved for Spin-SIG & trademark > approved, then it's easy to explain what gets into the spin-repository > and what doesn't. Any aspiring Spin would therefore be a Remix until > it's approved, and for all remixes the technical quality and legal > status (with respect to non-Fedora content) is up to the remixer. And.. if we want.. we can have a Remix-category which points to external sources of remixes. That way we are being good and promoting them, but saying that spins == trademarks. -- bk From jkeating at redhat.com Wed Nov 12 00:11:20 2008 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 16:11:20 -0800 Subject: Fedora 11 schedule proposal Message-ID: <1226448680.10458.41.camel@luminos.localdomain> We (Fedora Release Engineering) would like to propose a schedule for F11. The reason I'm bringing this to F-A-B is that it is a departure from our typical May1/Oct31 release dates. This is due to the month~ delay that Fedora 10 has had already due to the break in. Before I get to the schedule itself, I want to explain where we are coming from, and what some of the drivers for this schedule are. Fedora releases typically have a 6 month development cycle. We target specific dates for the release to give developers, end users, and upstreams a target to shoot for. Typically any slipping of a release we do, we just shorten the next release to make up for it. However a month's time is quite a lot to shrink. Especially because of the significance of F11. Fedora 11 will be extremely important to Red Hat Enterprise Linux (otherwise known as RHEL). RHEL 6 planning has looked to use Fedora 10 and Fedora 11 as releases to work out new technologies and features that are desired in RHEL 6. This includes a lot of upstream work that is being done, and targeted to land in these two releases. That planning was also planning for a full 6 month Fedora 11 cycle, and Red Hat resources were lined up to take advantage of this, by participating more in the development cycle, in the testing cycle, in bugfixing, etc... This is a good thing. However, if we were to take a month out of Fedora 11s schedule to hit that May 1 date, we would shorten the amount of time we get the RH attention, and we shorten the amount of time we give our developers to land the pre-planned features. This is not a good thing. These are not just RH developers for RH features either, it's all developers for all features. But wait, if we pad Fedora 11 by a month, what about Fedora 12? Excellent question. We (releng) feel that if we set up Fedora 11 with a full 6 month schedule, and now set up F12 to take in some of that slip and shoot for Oct 31 release of F12, all interested parties will have a lot more time to prepare for a short release. In fact, we could even focus more on polish issues in F12 than large sweeping features, but I leave that up to the developers. We just feel that we can better plan for a short release in the F12 time frame than we can in the F11 time frame, and by doing so we can get back to our May 1, Oct 31 established dates which work pretty well in the Linux ecosystem. Of course, setting an F12 schedule now would be kind of silly given that we don't know what will happen during F11 (hey, look at what happened to F10!), but we can at least have an idea of what we'd like to do in F12. Long story short, here is a simple schedule we'd like to present for F11. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/F11ProposedSchedule Note that it is pretty basic, only a few dates are called out. Also those dates are somewhat subject to change. We're mostly interested in the end date of Tuesday May 26th. The intra-schedule dates are given mostly for reference, and we'll still need to spend some time vetting them against trade shows, holidays, etc... We'll also be filling in all the other details that you typically see in a Fedora schedule, once we reach an agreed upon strategy for F11/F12. I'd like to see some conversation on this (or none if you all agree with me) and a conclusion met within the next 2 weeks, that is at or before the release of Fedora 10. Thank you for your time and thoughts. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom? is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From bpepple at fedoraproject.org Wed Nov 12 00:30:47 2008 From: bpepple at fedoraproject.org (Brian Pepple) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 19:30:47 -0500 Subject: Fedora 11 schedule proposal In-Reply-To: <1226448680.10458.41.camel@luminos.localdomain> References: <1226448680.10458.41.camel@luminos.localdomain> Message-ID: <1226449847.3255.20.camel@kennedy> On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 16:11 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote: > I'd like to see some conversation on this (or none if you all agree with > me) and a conclusion met within the next 2 weeks, that is at or before > the release of Fedora 10. Looks pretty reasonable to me. My big concern is if we slip for F11 (which given our past track record is fairly likely) we'll be reducing the F12 development cycle even more. Later, /B -- Brian Pepple https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Bpepple gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 810CC15E BD5E 6F9E 8688 E668 8F5B CBDE 326A E936 810C C15E -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From jkeating at redhat.com Wed Nov 12 00:40:02 2008 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 16:40:02 -0800 Subject: Fedora 11 schedule proposal In-Reply-To: <1226449847.3255.20.camel@kennedy> References: <1226448680.10458.41.camel@luminos.localdomain> <1226449847.3255.20.camel@kennedy> Message-ID: <1226450402.10458.44.camel@luminos.localdomain> On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 19:30 -0500, Brian Pepple wrote: > Looks pretty reasonable to me. My big concern is if we slip for F11 > (which given our past track record is fairly likely) we'll be reducing > the F12 development cycle even more. Yep, that's always a concern. That's why I wouldn't want to commit hard to any F12 dates. We would certainly re-evaluate the F12 plan once F11 is "in the can" as it were. But we can have the "if everything goes as planned" type targets. As far as avoiding slips, there are a few other schedule tweaks we're looking to make, such as moving the feature freeze a week earlier than the actual beta freeze, and staggered freezes for some core components of the OS, to give us more last minute integration time while not in a code freeze. My thought is that it'll lead to less problems /during/ the freeze, and thus shorter freezes and less slips. But that's intra-schedule stuff, I'm still interested in overall end dates. > -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom? is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From ivazqueznet at gmail.com Wed Nov 12 01:23:59 2008 From: ivazqueznet at gmail.com (Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 20:23:59 -0500 Subject: Fedora 11 schedule proposal In-Reply-To: <1226448680.10458.41.camel@luminos.localdomain> References: <1226448680.10458.41.camel@luminos.localdomain> Message-ID: <1226453039.16027.100.camel@ignacio.lan> On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 16:11 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote: > I'd like to see some conversation on this (or none if you all agree with > me) and a conclusion met within the next 2 weeks, that is at or before > the release of Fedora 10. Sounds and looks fine to me. -- Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams PLEASE don't CC me; I'm already subscribed -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From bpepple at fedoraproject.org Wed Nov 12 01:32:40 2008 From: bpepple at fedoraproject.org (Brian Pepple) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 20:32:40 -0500 Subject: Fedora 11 schedule proposal In-Reply-To: <1226450402.10458.44.camel@luminos.localdomain> References: <1226448680.10458.41.camel@luminos.localdomain> <1226449847.3255.20.camel@kennedy> <1226450402.10458.44.camel@luminos.localdomain> Message-ID: <1226453560.3255.28.camel@kennedy> On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 16:40 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 19:30 -0500, Brian Pepple wrote: > > Looks pretty reasonable to me. My big concern is if we slip for F11 > > (which given our past track record is fairly likely) we'll be reducing > > the F12 development cycle even more. > > Yep, that's always a concern. That's why I wouldn't want to commit hard > to any F12 dates. We would certainly re-evaluate the F12 plan once F11 > is "in the can" as it were. But we can have the "if everything goes as > planned" type targets. Yeah, though we should keep in mind it's a lot easier to handle a slip for the May release, than it is for the October release (due to the holiday season, which we experienced this go around). /B -- Brian Pepple https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Bpepple gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 810CC15E BD5E 6F9E 8688 E668 8F5B CBDE 326A E936 810C C15E -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From mspevack at redhat.com Wed Nov 12 09:38:54 2008 From: mspevack at redhat.com (Max Spevack) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 10:38:54 +0100 (CET) Subject: Fedora 11 schedule proposal In-Reply-To: <1226448680.10458.41.camel@luminos.localdomain> References: <1226448680.10458.41.camel@luminos.localdomain> Message-ID: On Tue, 11 Nov 2008, Jesse Keating wrote: > Thank you for your time and thoughts. I think it's a very well-reasoned argument, and I support it. --Max From stickster at gmail.com Wed Nov 12 12:52:50 2008 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 07:52:50 -0500 Subject: Fedora Board IRC meeting 1800 UTC 2008-11-18 Message-ID: <20081112125250.GA6439@localhost.localdomain> The Board is holding its monthly public meeting on Tuesday, 18 November 2008, at 1800 UTC on IRC Freenode. The public is invited to do the following: * Join #fedora-board-meeting to see the Board's conversation. This channel is read-only for non-Board members. * Join #fedora-board-public to discuss topics and post questions. This channel is read/write for everyone. The moderator will direct questions from the #fedora-board-public channel to the Board members at #fedora-board-meeting. This should limit confusion and ensure our logs are useful to everyone. We look forward to seeing you at the meeting. -- Paul W. Frields gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://paul.frields.org/ - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jwboyer at gmail.com Wed Nov 12 14:09:15 2008 From: jwboyer at gmail.com (Josh Boyer) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 09:09:15 -0500 Subject: Fedora 11 schedule proposal In-Reply-To: <1226448680.10458.41.camel@luminos.localdomain> References: <1226448680.10458.41.camel@luminos.localdomain> Message-ID: <20081112140905.GA2286@yoda.jdub.homelinux.org> On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 04:11:20PM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote: >Long story short, here is a simple schedule we'd like to present for >F11. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/F11ProposedSchedule > >Note that it is pretty basic, only a few dates are called out. Also >those dates are somewhat subject to change. We're mostly interested in >the end date of Tuesday May 26th. The intra-schedule dates are given >mostly for reference, and we'll still need to spend some time vetting >them against trade shows, holidays, etc... We'll also be filling in all >the other details that you typically see in a Fedora schedule, once we >reach an agreed upon strategy for F11/F12. > >I'd like to see some conversation on this (or none if you all agree with >me) and a conclusion met within the next 2 weeks, that is at or before >the release of Fedora 10. > >Thank you for your time and thoughts. Looks fine to me. Honestly, this seems to be just a representation of reality than anything else. Slips happen and trying to contain those by shortening the next release hasn't gone well in the past anyway. It's probably also worth pointing out that _development_ for F11 has been open for packages as long as they've had an F10 branch. That is everything as of last week. So developers can get an early jump, we just can't really test it :) josh From stickster at gmail.com Wed Nov 12 15:50:47 2008 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 10:50:47 -0500 Subject: Fedora 11 schedule proposal In-Reply-To: <1226448680.10458.41.camel@luminos.localdomain> References: <1226448680.10458.41.camel@luminos.localdomain> Message-ID: <1226505047.11145.32.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 16:11 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote: > We (Fedora Release Engineering) would like to propose a schedule for > F11. The reason I'm bringing this to F-A-B is that it is a departure > from our typical May1/Oct31 release dates. [...snip...] Well thought out, and well communicated. +1 from me. I'm interested to see, once the general dates are settled, how the intraschedule freeze dates work out in terms of adding more predictability and stability. -- Paul W. Frields gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://paul.frields.org/ - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From dimitris at glezos.com Wed Nov 12 18:36:11 2008 From: dimitris at glezos.com (Dimitris Glezos) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 20:36:11 +0200 Subject: Fedora 11 schedule proposal In-Reply-To: <1226448680.10458.41.camel@luminos.localdomain> References: <1226448680.10458.41.camel@luminos.localdomain> Message-ID: <6d4237680811121036g22114954hc69fd4f439a129b2@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 2:11 AM, Jesse Keating wrote: > We (Fedora Release Engineering) would like to propose a schedule for > F11. The reason I'm bringing this to F-A-B is that it is a departure > from our typical May1/Oct31 release dates. This is due to the month~ > delay that Fedora 10 has had already due to the break in. > > [...] > I'd like to see some conversation on this (or none if you all agree with > me) and a conclusion met within the next 2 weeks, that is at or before > the release of Fedora 10. I too agree that the proposal is well-thought and sounds reasonable. Thanks for the detailed explanation, too. -? -- Dimitris Glezos Jabber ID: glezos at jabber.org, GPG: 0xA5A04C3B http://dimitris.glezos.com/ "He who gives up functionality for ease of use loses both and deserves neither." (Anonymous) -- From katzj at redhat.com Wed Nov 12 18:46:06 2008 From: katzj at redhat.com (Jeremy Katz) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 13:46:06 -0500 Subject: Fedora 11 schedule proposal In-Reply-To: <1226449847.3255.20.camel@kennedy> References: <1226448680.10458.41.camel@luminos.localdomain> <1226449847.3255.20.camel@kennedy> Message-ID: <1226515566.12791.63.camel@aglarond.local> On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 19:30 -0500, Brian Pepple wrote: > On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 16:11 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote: > > > I'd like to see some conversation on this (or none if you all agree with > > me) and a conclusion met within the next 2 weeks, that is at or before > > the release of Fedora 10. > > Looks pretty reasonable to me. My big concern is if we slip for F11 > (which given our past track record is fairly likely) we'll be reducing > the F12 development cycle even more. This reasoning is exactly why we decided a few years ago that the dates (May Day/Halloween) were to be the target dates always. If a release slips, we realign the next one to what it should been targeted with. Yes, it means a shortened window in this case for F11, but the predictability it adds is significant and if F11 slips, the impact to F12 is lessened. Otherwise, we're really saying that the release date of release n+1 is release n's date + six months (which is what we used to do). And the problem with that is that any slips over time meaning that we end up running into major holidays for a release date and have to have a long/short cycle to reset things. Jeremy From jspaleta at gmail.com Wed Nov 12 19:03:33 2008 From: jspaleta at gmail.com (Jeff Spaleta) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 10:03:33 -0900 Subject: Fedora 11 schedule proposal In-Reply-To: <1226515566.12791.63.camel@aglarond.local> References: <1226448680.10458.41.camel@luminos.localdomain> <1226449847.3255.20.camel@kennedy> <1226515566.12791.63.camel@aglarond.local> Message-ID: <604aa7910811121103n44f5c065w21281a368a2c46db@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 9:46 AM, Jeremy Katz wrote: > Otherwise, we're really saying that the release date of release n+1 is > release n's date + six months (which is what we used to do). And the > problem with that is that any slips over time meaning that we end up > running into major holidays for a release date and have to have a > long/short cycle to reset things. Does it make sense to ask the following questions? Historically, how much do we tend to slip per release? Disregarding the month during F10 run up specifically during the infrastructure rebuild. Are we somewhat consistent with regard to slippage? Is there an average slippage? The sample size is pretty small so I admit its not a statically valid measure. What's the most we've slipped in the past, that is not the direct result of significant system downtime? Accounting for historical slippage, were does F12 release land? Mid Nov? -jef From katzj at redhat.com Wed Nov 12 19:06:51 2008 From: katzj at redhat.com (Jeremy Katz) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 14:06:51 -0500 Subject: Fedora 11 schedule proposal In-Reply-To: <1226448680.10458.41.camel@luminos.localdomain> References: <1226448680.10458.41.camel@luminos.localdomain> Message-ID: <1226516811.12791.101.camel@aglarond.local> On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 16:11 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote: > Fedora releases typically have a 6 month development cycle. We target > specific dates for the release to give developers, end users, and > upstreams a target to shoot for. Typically any slipping of a release we > do, we just shorten the next release to make up for it. However a > month's time is quite a lot to shrink. Especially because of the > significance of F11. FWIW, the past slippage of a month that we had, we made up the month over the course of 2 release cycles to help reduce the impact to each individual release. > Fedora 11 will be extremely important to Red Hat Enterprise Linux > (otherwise known as RHEL). RHEL 6 planning has looked to use Fedora 10 > and Fedora 11 as releases to work out new technologies and features that > are desired in RHEL 6. This includes a lot of upstream work that is > being done, and targeted to land in these two releases. That planning > was also planning for a full 6 month Fedora 11 cycle, and Red Hat > resources were lined up to take advantage of this, by participating more > in the development cycle, in the testing cycle, in bugfixing, etc... > This is a good thing. > > However, if we were to take a month out of Fedora 11s schedule to hit > that May 1 date, we would shorten the amount of time we get the RH > attention, and we shorten the amount of time we give our developers to > land the pre-planned features. This is not a good thing. These are not > just RH developers for RH features either, it's all developers for all > features. So, I don't fully buy this reasoning. As you said above, we target consistent dates for each release. This is to help developers (upstream and downstream) know when they need to target having things done. And given that we try to do most of the work we have in Fedora in upstream projects as opposed to in a Fedora silo, a slippage of a Fedora release fundamentally doesn't change when things would need to be upstream. So I don't see how the fact that we slipped our release due to infrastructure problems shortens the amount of time developers have. They had until May 1st before, they still have until May 1st (well, before that due to freezes; but you get the idea :) > But wait, if we pad Fedora 11 by a month, what about Fedora 12? > Excellent question. We (releng) feel that if we set up Fedora 11 with a > full 6 month schedule, and now set up F12 to take in some of that slip > and shoot for Oct 31 release of F12, all interested parties will have a > lot more time to prepare for a short release. In fact, we could even > focus more on polish issues in F12 than large sweeping features, but I > leave that up to the developers. We just feel that we can better plan > for a short release in the F12 time frame than we can in the F11 time > frame, and by doing so we can get back to our May 1, Oct 31 established > dates which work pretty well in the Linux ecosystem. Of course, setting > an F12 schedule now would be kind of silly given that we don't know what > will happen during F11 (hey, look at what happened to F10!), but we can > at least have an idea of what we'd like to do in F12. How does more time help us to prepare for a shorter release? If more time helps us prepare, why weren't people preparing already for this with Fedora 11? And as was alluded to by bpepple, we actually have a lot less freedom with a short fall/winter release due to the proximity of the holidays (which we're currently wrestling with) Also, I suspect that this problem will be even worse for a shortened Fedora 12 where many Red Hat resources are concentrating on RHEL 6. It's been a while since RHEL5, but the inability to get people's attention on things for Fedora 7 was one of the (admittedly many) reasons that it actually slipped out from the six month schedule. If we're going to do a shortened release, we should make it be the one that has the most possible attention from all stakeholders :-) > Long story short, here is a simple schedule we'd like to present for > F11. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/F11ProposedSchedule I'd personally prefer that we keep to the dates that we have said and are expected by the rest of the world. Fedora 11 has its target date of the nearest Tuesday to May 1st (May 5th if I'm reading my calendar correctly). If, instead, we strongly feel that we need a longer schedule for Fedora 11, let's look at doing it for real. What actual features are people looking to land for Fedora 11 that won't be ready in time for a May 1st release and the corresponding beginning of March or thereabouts feature freeze? From that, we can come up with what the schedule should be to accommodate those features and we accept that Fedora 11 is a feature-driven release with its schedule set based on that, rather than being calendar driven. And if we do this, we shouldn't do it in a vacuum ignoring Fedora 12's schedule -- instead, we should look at what Fedora 12 looks like and take that into account. Maybe that over the next 18 months we only have 2 releases as opposed to 3. But then we're consciously making that decision based on what we're trying to accomplish with the releases rather than just trying to make schedules look pretty on paper. Jeremy From notting at redhat.com Wed Nov 12 19:13:35 2008 From: notting at redhat.com (Bill Nottingham) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 14:13:35 -0500 Subject: Fedora 11 schedule proposal In-Reply-To: <1226516811.12791.101.camel@aglarond.local> References: <1226448680.10458.41.camel@luminos.localdomain> <1226516811.12791.101.camel@aglarond.local> Message-ID: <20081112191335.GA12495@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Jeremy Katz (katzj at redhat.com) said: > FWIW, the past slippage of a month that we had, we made up the month > over the course of 2 release cycles to help reduce the impact to each > individual release. ... > > Long story short, here is a simple schedule we'd like to present for > > F11. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/F11ProposedSchedule > > I'd personally prefer that we keep to the dates that we have said and > are expected by the rest of the world. Fedora 11 has its target date of > the nearest Tuesday to May 1st (May 5th if I'm reading my calendar > correctly). So, given that you already say we historically make up the slippage over two release cycles, you're violently objecting over.... a week? Bill From katzj at redhat.com Wed Nov 12 19:16:14 2008 From: katzj at redhat.com (Jeremy Katz) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 14:16:14 -0500 Subject: Fedora 11 schedule proposal In-Reply-To: <20081112191335.GA12495@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> References: <1226448680.10458.41.camel@luminos.localdomain> <1226516811.12791.101.camel@aglarond.local> <20081112191335.GA12495@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <1226517374.12791.107.camel@aglarond.local> On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 14:13 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Jeremy Katz (katzj at redhat.com) said: > > FWIW, the past slippage of a month that we had, we made up the month > > over the course of 2 release cycles to help reduce the impact to each > > individual release. > > ... > > > > Long story short, here is a simple schedule we'd like to present for > > > F11. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/F11ProposedSchedule > > > > I'd personally prefer that we keep to the dates that we have said and > > are expected by the rest of the world. Fedora 11 has its target date of > > the nearest Tuesday to May 1st (May 5th if I'm reading my calendar > > correctly). Er, guess this is April 28th. > So, given that you already say we historically make up the slippage > over two release cycles, you're violently objecting over.... a week? We make it up over two release cycles because we targeted to get back on track for the first one and then slip for it and then get kind of close for the second one :) Jeremy From fedora at leemhuis.info Wed Nov 12 19:21:16 2008 From: fedora at leemhuis.info (Thorsten Leemhuis) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 20:21:16 +0100 Subject: Fedora 11 schedule proposal In-Reply-To: <1226515566.12791.63.camel@aglarond.local> References: <1226448680.10458.41.camel@luminos.localdomain> <1226449847.3255.20.camel@kennedy> <1226515566.12791.63.camel@aglarond.local> Message-ID: <491B2CAC.2030109@leemhuis.info> /me wanted to reply to the proposal right after it had been posted, but didn't get around to it On 12.11.2008 19:46, Jeremy Katz wrote: > On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 19:30 -0500, Brian Pepple wrote: >> On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 16:11 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote: >> >>> I'd like to see some conversation on this (or none if you all agree with >>> me) and a conclusion met within the next 2 weeks, that is at or before >>> the release of Fedora 10. Just to make it obvious: I really dislike the idea, so it gets a strong "-1" from me. >> Looks pretty reasonable to me. My big concern is if we slip for F11 >> (which given our past track record is fairly likely) we'll be reducing >> the F12 development cycle even more. > This reasoning is exactly why we decided a few years ago that the dates > (May Day/Halloween) were to be the target dates always. It is (and iirc was) just one of the reasons (albeit likely the most important ones). > If a release > slips, we realign the next one to what it should been targeted with. > Yes, it means a shortened window in this case for F11, but the > predictability it adds is significant and if F11 slips, the impact to > F12 is lessened. > > Otherwise, we're really saying that the release date of release n+1 is > release n's date + six months (which is what we used to do). And the > problem with that is that any slips over time meaning that we end up > running into major holidays for a release date and have to have a > long/short cycle to reset things. Which made a lot of people unhappy often -- for example at the time when we skipped a gnome-release. A lot of people back then complained that Ubuntu took all the glory for (Gnome) Features that had been developed mostly by RH engineers, but first shipped in a Ubuntu release. CU knurd From notting at redhat.com Wed Nov 12 19:22:54 2008 From: notting at redhat.com (Bill Nottingham) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 14:22:54 -0500 Subject: Fedora 11 schedule proposal In-Reply-To: <1226517374.12791.107.camel@aglarond.local> References: <1226448680.10458.41.camel@luminos.localdomain> <1226516811.12791.101.camel@aglarond.local> <20081112191335.GA12495@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <1226517374.12791.107.camel@aglarond.local> Message-ID: <20081112192254.GA12723@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Jeremy Katz (katzj at redhat.com) said: > > So, given that you already say we historically make up the slippage > > over two release cycles, you're violently objecting over.... a week? > > We make it up over two release cycles because we targeted to get back on > track for the first one and then slip for it and then get kind of close > for the second one :) Sure, but I'm not sure pretending we won't slip is viable. If we do take the 'attempt to make it up over two cycles' method, then this proposed schedule is only a 1-1/2 to 2 week adjustment to that. So I don't think it's that far out of line. Bill From katzj at redhat.com Wed Nov 12 19:24:17 2008 From: katzj at redhat.com (Jeremy Katz) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 14:24:17 -0500 Subject: Fedora 11 schedule proposal In-Reply-To: <604aa7910811121103n44f5c065w21281a368a2c46db@mail.gmail.com> References: <1226448680.10458.41.camel@luminos.localdomain> <1226449847.3255.20.camel@kennedy> <1226515566.12791.63.camel@aglarond.local> <604aa7910811121103n44f5c065w21281a368a2c46db@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1226517857.12791.116.camel@aglarond.local> On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 10:03 -0900, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 9:46 AM, Jeremy Katz wrote: > > Otherwise, we're really saying that the release date of release n+1 is > > release n's date + six months (which is what we used to do). And the > > problem with that is that any slips over time meaning that we end up > > running into major holidays for a release date and have to have a > > long/short cycle to reset things. > > Does it make sense to ask the following questions? > > Historically, how much do we tend to slip per release? Disregarding > the month during F10 run up specifically during the infrastructure > rebuild. Are we somewhat consistent with regard to slippage? Is there > an average slippage? The sample size is pretty small so I admit its > not a statically valid measure. What's the most we've slipped in the > past, that is not the direct result of significant system downtime? It's not an unreasonable question to ask. It's a little harder to actually get the data since we change our schedule pages. I think John Poelstra had tried to do some data mining leading to the proposal at hand, but I'm not finding where he had stuck that off-hand. I can try to dig through some mail archives if I'm mistaken My off-the-cuff response is that recent slippage has been on the order of two to three weeks, outliers of 4-5 but most of those have had extenuating circumstances. > Accounting for historical slippage, were does F12 release land? Mid Nov? If we do two to three weeks for F11 from May 28th, then we get the middle of June. If we add that to the shortened F12 schedule (since shortening it more seems unreasonable, at least to me), it is scheduled for mid November. And any slippage putting us into the Thanksgiving/Christmas quagmire. Jeremy From katzj at redhat.com Wed Nov 12 19:25:18 2008 From: katzj at redhat.com (Jeremy Katz) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 14:25:18 -0500 Subject: Fedora 11 schedule proposal In-Reply-To: <20081112192254.GA12723@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> References: <1226448680.10458.41.camel@luminos.localdomain> <1226516811.12791.101.camel@aglarond.local> <20081112191335.GA12495@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <1226517374.12791.107.camel@aglarond.local> <20081112192254.GA12723@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <1226517918.12791.117.camel@aglarond.local> On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 14:22 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Jeremy Katz (katzj at redhat.com) said: > > > So, given that you already say we historically make up the slippage > > > over two release cycles, you're violently objecting over.... a week? > > > > We make it up over two release cycles because we targeted to get back on > > track for the first one and then slip for it and then get kind of close > > for the second one :) > > Sure, but I'm not sure pretending we won't slip is viable. If we do > take the 'attempt to make it up over two cycles' method, then this proposed > schedule is only a 1-1/2 to 2 week adjustment to that. So I don't think > it's that far out of line. Until we slip from the schedule, at which point it's more like 4-5 weeks. Jeremy From smooge at gmail.com Wed Nov 12 19:39:26 2008 From: smooge at gmail.com (Stephen John Smoogen) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 12:39:26 -0700 Subject: Fedora 11 schedule proposal In-Reply-To: <604aa7910811121103n44f5c065w21281a368a2c46db@mail.gmail.com> References: <1226448680.10458.41.camel@luminos.localdomain> <1226449847.3255.20.camel@kennedy> <1226515566.12791.63.camel@aglarond.local> <604aa7910811121103n44f5c065w21281a368a2c46db@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <80d7e4090811121139x17cde19fqc35329777257b829@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 12:03 PM, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 9:46 AM, Jeremy Katz wrote: >> Otherwise, we're really saying that the release date of release n+1 is >> release n's date + six months (which is what we used to do). And the >> problem with that is that any slips over time meaning that we end up >> running into major holidays for a release date and have to have a >> long/short cycle to reset things. > > Does it make sense to ask the following questions? > > Historically, how much do we tend to slip per release? Disregarding > the month during F10 run up specifically during the infrastructure > rebuild. Are we somewhat consistent with regard to slippage? Is there > an average slippage? The sample size is pretty small so I admit its > not a statically valid measure. What's the most we've slipped in the > past, that is not the direct result of significant system downtime? > > Accounting for historical slippage, were does F12 release land? Mid Nov? > Historically, Red Hat Linux missed a internal and external ship date by 2 weeks to 1 month pretty consistently. Fedora seems about the same. Some of it was because 'stuff happens' and some of it was that a some set of people don't get serious about something until the deadline starts looming.Those people's effects have a trickle down effect which usually adds up to a slip. I think the closest RH came to an on target release was when everyone in development was told that X was the ship date and Y turned out to be what management expected. X was missed by Y was hit. -- Stephen J Smoogen. -- BSD/GNU/Linux How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice" From fedora at leemhuis.info Wed Nov 12 19:44:59 2008 From: fedora at leemhuis.info (Thorsten Leemhuis) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 20:44:59 +0100 Subject: Fedora 11 schedule proposal In-Reply-To: <1226516811.12791.101.camel@aglarond.local> References: <1226448680.10458.41.camel@luminos.localdomain> <1226516811.12791.101.camel@aglarond.local> Message-ID: <491B323B.7010205@leemhuis.info> On 12.11.2008 20:06, Jeremy Katz wrote: > On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 16:11 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote: > [...] >> Fedora 11 will be extremely important to Red Hat Enterprise Linux >> (otherwise known as RHEL). RHEL 6 planning has looked to use Fedora 10 >> and Fedora 11 as releases to work out new technologies and features that >> are desired in RHEL 6. This includes a lot of upstream work that is >> being done, and targeted to land in these two releases. That planning >> was also planning for a full 6 month Fedora 11 cycle, and Red Hat >> resources were lined up to take advantage of this, by participating more >> in the development cycle, in the testing cycle, in bugfixing, etc... >> This is a good thing. Fedora is a Red Hat sponsored project and a lot of Fedora developers are payed by Red Hat. Nevertheless: What really irritates and annoys me is that it at least *looks like* the idea to delay Fedora 11 a bit to help RHEL 6 seems to come from *within* the project. That's IMHO totally wrong way around and IMHO should not have happened. Fedora IMHO should try to more act like a independent project if Fedora wants to get taken serious; otherwise Fedora will always stay a RH pet project that is unattractive to other medium or big sized Linux companies that might want to get involved in Fedora as well. Things like that also won't help to get rid of the "Fedora is just a RHEL beta" fame most of us dislike. Note that I have *no* problem with the idea itself that RH might want us to delay F11 (apart from the fact that I belive that predictable release dates are quite important). But RH should clearly have asked the project in a kind of official way "Can you please consider a one month delay for F11 as it would suite us very well". > [...] > I'd personally prefer that we keep to the dates that we have said and > are expected by the rest of the world. Fedora 11 has its target date of > the nearest Tuesday to May 1st (May 5th if I'm reading my calendar > correctly). Strong +1 (not only to this, but to about everything Jeremy wrote in his mail) CU knurd From jkeating at redhat.com Wed Nov 12 20:00:08 2008 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 12:00:08 -0800 Subject: Fedora 11 schedule proposal In-Reply-To: <491B323B.7010205@leemhuis.info> References: <1226448680.10458.41.camel@luminos.localdomain> <1226516811.12791.101.camel@aglarond.local> <491B323B.7010205@leemhuis.info> Message-ID: <1226520009.5295.19.camel@luminos.localdomain> On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 20:44 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > Fedora is a Red Hat sponsored project and a lot of Fedora developers are > payed by Red Hat. Nevertheless: What really irritates and annoys me is > that it at least *looks like* the idea to delay Fedora 11 a bit to help > RHEL 6 seems to come from *within* the project. > > That's IMHO totally wrong way around and IMHO should not have happened. > > Fedora IMHO should try to more act like a independent project if Fedora > wants to get taken serious; otherwise Fedora will always stay a RH pet > project that is unattractive to other medium or big sized Linux > companies that might want to get involved in Fedora as well. > > Things like that also won't help to get rid of the "Fedora is just a > RHEL beta" fame most of us dislike. > > Note that I have *no* problem with the idea itself that RH might want us > to delay F11 (apart from the fact that I belive that predictable release > dates are quite important). But RH should clearly have asked the project > in a kind of official way "Can you please consider a one month delay for > F11 as it would suite us very well". That's just it. "Red Hat" isn't asking us to delay. They're asking us to pick a schedule and they'll deal. Knowing what "Red Hat" is going to do in the next year or so as RHEL 6 gets under way, I wanted to give Fedora the biggest benefit to that extra attention as possible, and to me that meant giving F11 a full 6 month cycle. After F11 is out, I can't guess when RHEL will import Fedora sources and "branch" CVS. At that time, it would be harder to get RHEL resources looking at Fedora things, and harder to get RHEL fixes done in Fedora. This is not at all Red Hat asking us to delay. Red Hat will do whatever it needs to do for RHEL, be it tracking F11 fully, or branching early, or late, or whatever. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom? is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From smooge at gmail.com Wed Nov 12 19:44:01 2008 From: smooge at gmail.com (Stephen John Smoogen) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 12:44:01 -0700 Subject: Fedora 11 schedule proposal In-Reply-To: <1226516811.12791.101.camel@aglarond.local> References: <1226448680.10458.41.camel@luminos.localdomain> <1226516811.12791.101.camel@aglarond.local> Message-ID: <80d7e4090811121144m105d0bd6m5f6534446fe07d7f@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 12:06 PM, Jeremy Katz wrote: > On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 16:11 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote: >> Fedora releases typically have a 6 month development cycle. We target >> specific dates for the release to give developers, end users, and >> upstreams a target to shoot for. Typically any slipping of a release we >> do, we just shorten the next release to make up for it. However a >> month's time is quite a lot to shrink. Especially because of the >> significance of F11. > > FWIW, the past slippage of a month that we had, we made up the month > over the course of 2 release cycles to help reduce the impact to each > individual release. > >> Fedora 11 will be extremely important to Red Hat Enterprise Linux >> (otherwise known as RHEL). RHEL 6 planning has looked to use Fedora 10 >> and Fedora 11 as releases to work out new technologies and features that >> are desired in RHEL 6. This includes a lot of upstream work that is >> being done, and targeted to land in these two releases. That planning >> was also planning for a full 6 month Fedora 11 cycle, and Red Hat >> resources were lined up to take advantage of this, by participating more >> in the development cycle, in the testing cycle, in bugfixing, etc... >> This is a good thing. >> >> However, if we were to take a month out of Fedora 11s schedule to hit >> that May 1 date, we would shorten the amount of time we get the RH >> attention, and we shorten the amount of time we give our developers to >> land the pre-planned features. This is not a good thing. These are not >> just RH developers for RH features either, it's all developers for all >> features. > > So, I don't fully buy this reasoning. As you said above, we target > consistent dates for each release. This is to help developers (upstream > and downstream) know when they need to target having things done. And > given that we try to do most of the work we have in Fedora in upstream > projects as opposed to in a Fedora silo, a slippage of a Fedora release > fundamentally doesn't change when things would need to be upstream. So > I don't see how the fact that we slipped our release due to > infrastructure problems shortens the amount of time developers have. > They had until May 1st before, they still have until May 1st (well, > before that due to freezes; but you get the idea :) I agree with Jeremy on this one. In the past, pushing out target dates usually cause more conflicts with other schedules than it helps. -- Stephen J Smoogen. -- BSD/GNU/Linux How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice" From skvidal at fedoraproject.org Wed Nov 12 20:14:59 2008 From: skvidal at fedoraproject.org (Seth Vidal) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 15:14:59 -0500 (EST) Subject: Fedora 11 schedule proposal In-Reply-To: <80d7e4090811121144m105d0bd6m5f6534446fe07d7f@mail.gmail.com> References: <1226448680.10458.41.camel@luminos.localdomain> <1226516811.12791.101.camel@aglarond.local> <80d7e4090811121144m105d0bd6m5f6534446fe07d7f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 12 Nov 2008, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > I agree with Jeremy on this one. In the past, pushing out target dates > usually cause more conflicts with other schedules than it helps. > I'm going to have to add my voice in here, too. I agree with Jeremy and Smooge. -sv From jwboyer at gmail.com Wed Nov 12 20:15:47 2008 From: jwboyer at gmail.com (Josh Boyer) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 15:15:47 -0500 Subject: Fedora 11 schedule proposal In-Reply-To: <1226520009.5295.19.camel@luminos.localdomain> References: <1226448680.10458.41.camel@luminos.localdomain> <1226516811.12791.101.camel@aglarond.local> <491B323B.7010205@leemhuis.info> <1226520009.5295.19.camel@luminos.localdomain> Message-ID: <20081112201547.GA3385@yoda.jdub.homelinux.org> On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 12:00:08PM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote: >On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 20:44 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: >> Fedora is a Red Hat sponsored project and a lot of Fedora developers are >> payed by Red Hat. Nevertheless: What really irritates and annoys me is >> that it at least *looks like* the idea to delay Fedora 11 a bit to help >> RHEL 6 seems to come from *within* the project. >> >> That's IMHO totally wrong way around and IMHO should not have happened. >> >> Fedora IMHO should try to more act like a independent project if Fedora >> wants to get taken serious; otherwise Fedora will always stay a RH pet >> project that is unattractive to other medium or big sized Linux >> companies that might want to get involved in Fedora as well. >> >> Things like that also won't help to get rid of the "Fedora is just a >> RHEL beta" fame most of us dislike. >> >> Note that I have *no* problem with the idea itself that RH might want us >> to delay F11 (apart from the fact that I belive that predictable release >> dates are quite important). But RH should clearly have asked the project >> in a kind of official way "Can you please consider a one month delay for >> F11 as it would suite us very well". > >That's just it. "Red Hat" isn't asking us to delay. They're asking us >to pick a schedule and they'll deal. Knowing what "Red Hat" is going to >do in the next year or so as RHEL 6 gets under way, I wanted to give >Fedora the biggest benefit to that extra attention as possible, and to >me that meant giving F11 a full 6 month cycle. After F11 is out, I >can't guess when RHEL will import Fedora sources and "branch" CVS. At >that time, it would be harder to get RHEL resources looking at Fedora >things, and harder to get RHEL fixes done in Fedora. Not just Red Hat resources either. There are business partners that track RHEL releases. Who knows, maybe they are willing to focus on a Fedora release in order to make sure what they care about is in good shape for RHEL. That means more people testing and using. josh From jkeating at redhat.com Wed Nov 12 20:19:19 2008 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 12:19:19 -0800 Subject: Fedora 11 schedule proposal In-Reply-To: References: <1226448680.10458.41.camel@luminos.localdomain> <1226516811.12791.101.camel@aglarond.local> <80d7e4090811121144m105d0bd6m5f6534446fe07d7f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1226521159.5295.25.camel@luminos.localdomain> On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 15:14 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote: > > On Wed, 12 Nov 2008, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > > > > I agree with Jeremy on this one. In the past, pushing out target dates > > usually cause more conflicts with other schedules than it helps. > > > > I'm going to have to add my voice in here, too. I agree with Jeremy and > Smooge. So the alternate proposal is to keep the May 1~ release date of F11? I suppose it's a schedule. How do we want to handle this then, we've got at least two alternatives, potentially more, who decides this? -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom? is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From tcallawa at redhat.com Wed Nov 12 20:21:15 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 15:21:15 -0500 Subject: Fedora 11 schedule proposal In-Reply-To: References: <1226448680.10458.41.camel@luminos.localdomain> <1226516811.12791.101.camel@aglarond.local> <80d7e4090811121144m105d0bd6m5f6534446fe07d7f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1226521275.5519.26.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 15:14 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote: > > On Wed, 12 Nov 2008, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > > > > I agree with Jeremy on this one. In the past, pushing out target dates > > usually cause more conflicts with other schedules than it helps. > > > > I'm going to have to add my voice in here, too. I agree with Jeremy and > Smooge. So, what you guys are saying is that we need a 5 month F11? That's how we hit the original "May Day" target. I'd be interested in seeing alternate schedule dates from those dissenting. ~spot From jwboyer at gmail.com Wed Nov 12 20:20:41 2008 From: jwboyer at gmail.com (Josh Boyer) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 15:20:41 -0500 Subject: Fedora 11 schedule proposal In-Reply-To: <1226521159.5295.25.camel@luminos.localdomain> References: <1226448680.10458.41.camel@luminos.localdomain> <1226516811.12791.101.camel@aglarond.local> <80d7e4090811121144m105d0bd6m5f6534446fe07d7f@mail.gmail.com> <1226521159.5295.25.camel@luminos.localdomain> Message-ID: <20081112202041.GB3385@yoda.jdub.homelinux.org> On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 12:19:19PM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote: >On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 15:14 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote: >> >> On Wed, 12 Nov 2008, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: >> >> > >> > I agree with Jeremy on this one. In the past, pushing out target dates >> > usually cause more conflicts with other schedules than it helps. >> > >> >> I'm going to have to add my voice in here, too. I agree with Jeremy and >> Smooge. > > >So the alternate proposal is to keep the May 1~ release date of F11? I >suppose it's a schedule. > >How do we want to handle this then, we've got at least two alternatives, >potentially more, who decides this? FESCo, then the Board? Or the Board can delegate to FESCo? One of the two. josh From jspaleta at gmail.com Wed Nov 12 20:51:59 2008 From: jspaleta at gmail.com (Jeff Spaleta) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 11:51:59 -0900 Subject: Fedora 11 schedule proposal In-Reply-To: <20081112202041.GB3385@yoda.jdub.homelinux.org> References: <1226448680.10458.41.camel@luminos.localdomain> <1226516811.12791.101.camel@aglarond.local> <80d7e4090811121144m105d0bd6m5f6534446fe07d7f@mail.gmail.com> <1226521159.5295.25.camel@luminos.localdomain> <20081112202041.GB3385@yoda.jdub.homelinux.org> Message-ID: <604aa7910811121251y249c0fe3laf4f69007add44da@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 11:20 AM, Josh Boyer wrote: > FESCo, then the Board? Or the Board can delegate to FESCo? One of the > two. Is this really Board fodder at all? I'm of the opinion that RelEng oversight is completely and utterly FESCo's jurisdiction. If FESCo wants to punt to the Board, okay I guess...but if FESCo can't come to a decision on this... is the Board better equipped to do it? I really really doubt we'd overrule FESCo's decision given the same public discussion as context . But if this comes down to a judgement call and people want someone to blame if the wrong decision is made... I'm more than happy to sign off on the wrong decision to give everyone else some cover. -jef"If I have to hear about this in a Board call, I'm just going to make it a point to disagree with FESCo on this, just to drag the process out so everything slips even more."spaleta From stickster at gmail.com Wed Nov 12 21:10:38 2008 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 16:10:38 -0500 Subject: Fedora 11 schedule proposal In-Reply-To: <1226517918.12791.117.camel@aglarond.local> References: <1226448680.10458.41.camel@luminos.localdomain> <1226516811.12791.101.camel@aglarond.local> <20081112191335.GA12495@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <1226517374.12791.107.camel@aglarond.local> <20081112192254.GA12723@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <1226517918.12791.117.camel@aglarond.local> Message-ID: <20081112211038.GC16011@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 02:25:18PM -0500, Jeremy Katz wrote: > On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 14:22 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote: > > Jeremy Katz (katzj at redhat.com) said: > > > > So, given that you already say we historically make up the slippage > > > > over two release cycles, you're violently objecting over.... a week? > > > > > > We make it up over two release cycles because we targeted to get back on > > > track for the first one and then slip for it and then get kind of close > > > for the second one :) > > > > Sure, but I'm not sure pretending we won't slip is viable. If we do > > take the 'attempt to make it up over two cycles' method, then this proposed > > schedule is only a 1-1/2 to 2 week adjustment to that. So I don't think > > it's that far out of line. > > Until we slip from the schedule, at which point it's more like 4-5 > weeks. I think this assertion assumes the more granular revision in freeze periods is not going to have any effect on slippage. -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mspevack at redhat.com Wed Nov 12 21:15:16 2008 From: mspevack at redhat.com (Max Spevack) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 22:15:16 +0100 (CET) Subject: Fedora 11 schedule proposal In-Reply-To: <604aa7910811121251y249c0fe3laf4f69007add44da@mail.gmail.com> References: <1226448680.10458.41.camel@luminos.localdomain> <1226516811.12791.101.camel@aglarond.local> <80d7e4090811121144m105d0bd6m5f6534446fe07d7f@mail.gmail.com> <1226521159.5295.25.camel@luminos.localdomain> <20081112202041.GB3385@yoda.jdub.homelinux.org> <604aa7910811121251y249c0fe3laf4f69007add44da@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 12 Nov 2008, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > Is this really Board fodder at all? I'm of the opinion that RelEng > oversight is completely and utterly FESCo's jurisdiction. I'm inclined to agree. > if FESCo can't come to a decision on this... is the Board better > equipped to do it? I really really doubt we'd overrule FESCo's > decision given the same public discussion as context . When a sub-committee or sub-project of Fedora can't come to a decision on something, it is the Board's mandate to see to it that the decision is still made in a timely fashion, and to provide not only the decision, but also the rationale behind it. And if the Board is deadlocked, then the FPL must make the call. That doesn't mean the Board or the FPL has to make the decision all by themselves, but the decision MUST still be made. --Max From katzj at redhat.com Wed Nov 12 21:29:10 2008 From: katzj at redhat.com (Jeremy Katz) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 16:29:10 -0500 Subject: Fedora 11 schedule proposal In-Reply-To: <20081112211038.GC16011@localhost.localdomain> References: <1226448680.10458.41.camel@luminos.localdomain> <1226516811.12791.101.camel@aglarond.local> <20081112191335.GA12495@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <1226517374.12791.107.camel@aglarond.local> <20081112192254.GA12723@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <1226517918.12791.117.camel@aglarond.local> <20081112211038.GC16011@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1226525350.12791.125.camel@aglarond.local> On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 16:10 -0500, Paul W. Frields wrote: > On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 02:25:18PM -0500, Jeremy Katz wrote: > > On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 14:22 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote: > > > Jeremy Katz (katzj at redhat.com) said: > > > > > So, given that you already say we historically make up the slippage > > > > > over two release cycles, you're violently objecting over.... a week? > > > > > > > > We make it up over two release cycles because we targeted to get back on > > > > track for the first one and then slip for it and then get kind of close > > > > for the second one :) > > > > > > Sure, but I'm not sure pretending we won't slip is viable. If we do > > > take the 'attempt to make it up over two cycles' method, then this proposed > > > schedule is only a 1-1/2 to 2 week adjustment to that. So I don't think > > > it's that far out of line. > > > > Until we slip from the schedule, at which point it's more like 4-5 > > weeks. > > I think this assertion assumes the more granular revision in freeze > periods is not going to have any effect on slippage. That's true, it does. But that's because in the land of risk management, you want to err on the side of what has happened in the past[1] as opposed to what you hope will be the outcome of a new process or change to an existing one. Jeremy [1] Well, there are tools that let you do probabilistic estimation based on optimistic estimates of the future. But you still have to take into account the past norms and outliers when doing so. From jspaleta at gmail.com Wed Nov 12 21:16:38 2008 From: jspaleta at gmail.com (Jeff Spaleta) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 12:16:38 -0900 Subject: Fedora 11 schedule proposal In-Reply-To: <20081112211038.GC16011@localhost.localdomain> References: <1226448680.10458.41.camel@luminos.localdomain> <1226516811.12791.101.camel@aglarond.local> <20081112191335.GA12495@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <1226517374.12791.107.camel@aglarond.local> <20081112192254.GA12723@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <1226517918.12791.117.camel@aglarond.local> <20081112211038.GC16011@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <604aa7910811121316x2de6f295m40e9228e503e9e1a@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 12:10 PM, Paul W. Frields wrote: > I think this assertion assumes the more granular revision in freeze > periods is not going to have any effect on slippage. Do we have anything which helps us quantify the expectation for the new processes either way? More granular freezing is the new hotness..so we don't have an expectation on performance do we? I would caution building in a benefit from the new process, and just assume for scheduling purposes its a wash. And if there is a benefit account for it in the F12 schedule by adjusting things there. -jef From bpepple at fedoraproject.org Thu Nov 13 00:01:15 2008 From: bpepple at fedoraproject.org (Brian Pepple) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 19:01:15 -0500 Subject: Fedora 11 schedule proposal In-Reply-To: <604aa7910811121251y249c0fe3laf4f69007add44da@mail.gmail.com> References: <1226448680.10458.41.camel@luminos.localdomain> <1226516811.12791.101.camel@aglarond.local> <80d7e4090811121144m105d0bd6m5f6534446fe07d7f@mail.gmail.com> <1226521159.5295.25.camel@luminos.localdomain> <20081112202041.GB3385@yoda.jdub.homelinux.org> <604aa7910811121251y249c0fe3laf4f69007add44da@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1226534475.21353.7.camel@kennedy> On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 11:51 -0900, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 11:20 AM, Josh Boyer wrote: > > FESCo, then the Board? Or the Board can delegate to FESCo? One of the > > two. > > Is this really Board fodder at all? I'm of the opinion that RelEng > oversight is completely and utterly FESCo's jurisdiction. If FESCo > wants to punt to the Board, okay I guess...but if FESCo can't come to > a decision on this... is the Board better equipped to do it? I really > really doubt we'd overrule FESCo's decision given the same public > discussion as context . No, this is a FESCo decision, just like in past releases. It would only be escalated to the Board, if for some unforeseeable reason FESCo couldn't come to a resolution. Later, /B -- Brian Pepple https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Bpepple gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 810CC15E BD5E 6F9E 8688 E668 8F5B CBDE 326A E936 810C C15E -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From stickster at gmail.com Thu Nov 13 00:36:27 2008 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 19:36:27 -0500 Subject: ERR: Board IRC meeting **1900 UTC** 2008-11-18 In-Reply-To: <20081112125250.GA6439@localhost.localdomain> References: <20081112125250.GA6439@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20081113003627.GA32412@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 07:52:50AM -0500, Paul W. Frields wrote: > The Board is holding its monthly public meeting on Tuesday, 18 November > 2008, at 1800 UTC on IRC Freenode. The public is invited to do the > following: Apologies to all, DST change fail! The meeting will occur at **1900 UTC**. That's 2:00 US-Eastern for those of you keeping score at home. Thanks for your attention and sorry about the mistake. -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From stickster at gmail.com Thu Nov 13 02:02:30 2008 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 21:02:30 -0500 Subject: Fedora 11 schedule proposal In-Reply-To: <20081112201547.GA3385@yoda.jdub.homelinux.org> References: <1226448680.10458.41.camel@luminos.localdomain> <1226516811.12791.101.camel@aglarond.local> <491B323B.7010205@leemhuis.info> <1226520009.5295.19.camel@luminos.localdomain> <20081112201547.GA3385@yoda.jdub.homelinux.org> Message-ID: <20081113020230.GB14836@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 03:15:47PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 12:00:08PM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote: > >On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 20:44 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > >> Fedora is a Red Hat sponsored project and a lot of Fedora developers are > >> payed by Red Hat. Nevertheless: What really irritates and annoys me is > >> that it at least *looks like* the idea to delay Fedora 11 a bit to help > >> RHEL 6 seems to come from *within* the project. > >> > >> That's IMHO totally wrong way around and IMHO should not have happened. > >> > >> Fedora IMHO should try to more act like a independent project if Fedora > >> wants to get taken serious; otherwise Fedora will always stay a RH pet > >> project that is unattractive to other medium or big sized Linux > >> companies that might want to get involved in Fedora as well. > >> > >> Things like that also won't help to get rid of the "Fedora is just a > >> RHEL beta" fame most of us dislike. > >> > >> Note that I have *no* problem with the idea itself that RH might want us > >> to delay F11 (apart from the fact that I belive that predictable release > >> dates are quite important). But RH should clearly have asked the project > >> in a kind of official way "Can you please consider a one month delay for > >> F11 as it would suite us very well". > > > >That's just it. "Red Hat" isn't asking us to delay. They're asking us > >to pick a schedule and they'll deal. Knowing what "Red Hat" is going to > >do in the next year or so as RHEL 6 gets under way, I wanted to give > >Fedora the biggest benefit to that extra attention as possible, and to > >me that meant giving F11 a full 6 month cycle. After F11 is out, I > >can't guess when RHEL will import Fedora sources and "branch" CVS. At > >that time, it would be harder to get RHEL resources looking at Fedora > >things, and harder to get RHEL fixes done in Fedora. > > Not just Red Hat resources either. There are business partners that > track RHEL releases. Who knows, maybe they are willing to focus on > a Fedora release in order to make sure what they care about is in good > shape for RHEL. That means more people testing and using. Red Hat Engineering has been working on a set of features for Fedora 10 and 11 that will be substantially important for future Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) products. These ambitious efforts span multiple releases, and include code development, debugging, testing, and so on. In a few cases having two entire six-month release cycles is going to be crucial. Fedora's roughly six-month release calendar provides some reasonably good expectations for timing in that regard. Our time-based releases allow Red Hat teams to coordinate with Fedora and the upstream communities where they participate, to ensure these features are worthwhile not just when they're completed for RHEL, but along the way in Fedora as well. Naturally there are cases where the upstream roadmap spans several Fedora releases as well, and must be taken into account. I don't feel some of the proposal's detractors are giving due consideration to the effects of the intrusion earlier this summer, which had a substantial effect on that work. In the context of where much of our community does so much important work, delays were unfortunate, but we overcame them without too much struggle. Certainly the infrastructure effort didn't just jump back into place; I gratefully acknowledge it required a lot of work to rebuild. In large part work like packaging, ambassadors, translation, art, and many other efforts were able to continue relatively unabated once our infrastructure was back in place. Recall, though, that Red Hat engineering teams across the board spend a significant amount of their time developing in (and on) Fedora. In terms of the larger-scale software engineering efforts at Red Hat, making Fedora inflexible on its release date would essentially cut those lost weeks out of Red Hat's development time. Now I have yet to meet anyone in Red Hat, in Engineering or elsewhere, who doesn't realize that the Fedora community is its own vital organism, and that we set schedules like any other upstream. Red Hat continues to be a participant in this community and not a dictatorial force. So although it's completely within Fedora's purview to not budge, I feel our schedule can and should take into account its effects on the whole community. We aren't being asked for an "indefinite stay" for Fedora 11, but rather a very clear target date. Jesse brought this proposal to the community in everyone's mutual interest, and was very open about the importance and impact of the Fedora schedule on RHEL. Perhaps there is confusion because he happens to be part of release engineering, which usually develops and publishes the Fedora schedule, as well as a Red Hat employee. But Red Hat managers did not internally dictate this schedule. Jesse put a proposal on the table the same way we ask of anyone in the community who wants a deviation from a process we feel works well. The cost to Fedora for these few weeks is relatively minimal, and retains the spirit of our project as an advocate of free software advancement, and as a partner, not a subordinate, in Red Hat's engineering initiatives. -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Thu Nov 13 11:54:39 2008 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 17:24:39 +0530 Subject: Fedora trademark guidelines: More comments Message-ID: <491C157F.5040002@fedoraproject.org> Hi http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/TrademarkGuidelines "Spins using the Fedora Trademarks or the Secondary Mark may be subject to additional requirements imposed by the Fedora Board or its designees or delegates." This sentence is quite confusing to me. Why would spins using the secondary mark? I thought the secondary mark is not regulated by the Fedora Board at all anyway. It is not clear from a reading of the guidelines that Spins = Official variants Remixes = Community variants Rahul From poelstra at redhat.com Thu Nov 13 17:11:29 2008 From: poelstra at redhat.com (John Poelstra) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 09:11:29 -0800 Subject: Fedora 11 schedule proposal In-Reply-To: <1226516811.12791.101.camel@aglarond.local> References: <1226448680.10458.41.camel@luminos.localdomain> <1226516811.12791.101.camel@aglarond.local> Message-ID: <491C5FC1.5000406@redhat.com> Jeremy Katz wrote: > On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 16:11 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote: >> Fedora releases typically have a 6 month development cycle. We target >> specific dates for the release to give developers, end users, and >> upstreams a target to shoot for. Typically any slipping of a release we >> do, we just shorten the next release to make up for it. However a >> month's time is quite a lot to shrink. Especially because of the >> significance of F11. > > FWIW, the past slippage of a month that we had, we made up the month > over the course of 2 release cycles to help reduce the impact to each > individual release. > I think the schedules and processes have matured a lot from the release before Fedora 8 and I'm not sure they are as valid for comparison now. * Fedora 8 slipped overall by approximately one week. We still set a ~5/1 GA date for F9 * Fedora 9 slipped two weeks total. We set an F10 GA date of ~ Oct 31. * So far Fedora 10 has slipped by four weeks. After the infrastructure incident we slipped by three weeks. Another week was added when we missed the beta freeze. John From poelstra at redhat.com Thu Nov 13 20:44:40 2008 From: poelstra at redhat.com (John Poelstra) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 12:44:40 -0800 Subject: Final Release Planning Meeting Message-ID: <491C91B8.10204@redhat.com> Sending this mail out to representatives from each of the key Fedora teams to have a short meeting on Wednesday, November 19, 2008 at 18:00 UTC (1 PM EST), to make sure we are all aligned for the F10 Final Release scheduled for the following Tuesday, November 25, 2008 Please coordinate within your team if the leader has changed or if someone is attending in your place. Then please let me know. I plan to send telephone conference details directly to the following people on Monday. Spot Callaway -- Fedora Engineering manager M?ir?n Duffy -- Art Dimitris Gelzos -- Translation Paul Frields -- Fedora Project Leader Jesse Keating -- Release Engineering Mike McGrath -- Infrastructure Bill Nottingham -- Development/FESCo John Poelstra -- Organizer Jonathan Roberts -- Marketing Max Spevack -- Ambassadors Karsten Wade -- Documentation Will Woods -- Quality Assurance Ricky Zhou -- Websites I will send another reminder next Tuesday along with the conferencing information. John From kwade at redhat.com Thu Nov 13 21:47:16 2008 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten 'quaid' Wade) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 13:47:16 -0800 Subject: Fedora 11 schedule proposal In-Reply-To: <20081112201547.GA3385@yoda.jdub.homelinux.org> References: <1226448680.10458.41.camel@luminos.localdomain> <1226516811.12791.101.camel@aglarond.local> <491B323B.7010205@leemhuis.info> <1226520009.5295.19.camel@luminos.localdomain> <20081112201547.GA3385@yoda.jdub.homelinux.org> Message-ID: <20081113214716.GO17992@calliope.phig.org> On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 03:15:47PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > > Not just Red Hat resources either. There are business partners that > track RHEL releases. Who knows, maybe they are willing to focus on > a Fedora release in order to make sure what they care about is in good > shape for RHEL. That means more people testing and using. We have had significant pick-up in interest in Fedora from various software vendors (ISVs). I am pushing them to use F11 as the sync clock for getting their packages in to Fedora following a feature lifecycle. Knowing the trouble many of them are having ("Can anyone say 'packaging common Java libraries"?), I'm reckoning that the more time they have, the better. Unlike RHEL engineering, these ISVs do not get to pick when Fedora is branched for RHEL 6. - Karsten -- Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Community Gardener http://quaid.fedorapeople.org AD0E0C41 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From stickster at gmail.com Thu Nov 13 23:16:47 2008 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 18:16:47 -0500 Subject: Fedora trademark guidelines: More comments In-Reply-To: <491C157F.5040002@fedoraproject.org> References: <491C157F.5040002@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <20081113231647.GB23413@localhost.localdomain> B1;1704;0cOn Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 05:24:39PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Hi > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/TrademarkGuidelines > > "Spins using the Fedora Trademarks or the Secondary Mark may be subject > to additional requirements imposed by the Fedora Board or its designees > or delegates." > > This sentence is quite confusing to me. Why would spins using the > secondary mark? I thought the secondary mark is not regulated by the > Fedora Board at all anyway. > > It is not clear from a reading of the guidelines that > > Spins = Official variants > Remixes = Community variants I will be making some additional adjustments at the suggestion of RH Legal, after talking to them on Tuesday about some last-minute concerns they had. The sentence in question, for example, is scheduled for demolition. I'll also be clarifying the definitions as part of this work. I'll make a big announcement once the editing's all done. -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From poelstra at redhat.com Fri Nov 14 06:28:44 2008 From: poelstra at redhat.com (John Poelstra) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 22:28:44 -0800 Subject: Fedora Board Recap 2008-NOV-11 Message-ID: <491D1A9C.8040108@redhat.com> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board/Meetings/2008-11-11 == Roll Call == Attendees: John Poelstra, Paul Frields, Matt Domsch, Jesse Keating, Jef Spaleta, Karsten Wade, Mike McGrath, Seth Vidal, Bill Nottingham, Spot Callaway, Harald Hoyer, and Chris Tyler == Follow-up to Previous Business == === Spins Process === * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board/Meetings/2008-11-04#Communicating_Spins * https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2008-November/msg00026.html * Discussion is continuing led by Jon Stanley == New Business == === Personal Trademark Usage === * A community member approached the board to brand non-software goods and sell them for personal gain * Paul continuing discussion on this topic with legal counsel * Would like to create FAQ around trademark usage that will hopefully answer questions like this * '''RESOLUTION''': the board denies trademark usage to individuals for non-software goods for personal benefit === Extending Updates for EOL Releases === * Background: ** https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SteeringComittee/Meeting-20081015#Keeping_Infrastructure_Open_for_EOL_Proposal ** https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pertusus/Draft_keeping_infra_open_for_EOL ** https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SteeringComittee/Meeting-20081015 ** http://bpepple.fedorapeople.org/fesco/FESCo-2008-10-15.html * Mike McGrath reported that resource are available (CVS, disk space, builders) for maintaining package for more releases ** A year or more out storage space will become a concern ** Requests do come to mirror manager for EOL releases *** Graph of requests for Fedora 7 packages from January to October 2008: http://mmcgrath.fedorapeople.org/f7hits.html * The following observations were made during board discussion: ** Resource needs are unclear in existing proposals *** how many builds are anticipated? *** how will builds be distributed? *** where will bugs be tracked? *** how long will the trial period be to measure resource usage ** It is unclear who the technical leader and implementer of the proposal will be ** Concerns about granting Fedora resources and space to a project that will not use the Fedora Brand ** Concerns around the haphazardness of package updates and what determines when updates are issued *** No set requirements or policies around when package updates will be issued--appears to be completely at the will of an interested maintainer *** What about security updates? *** Is there a community of people to do the updates? How is this different than the unsuccessful Fedora Legacy project? ** If the core issue being raised by this proposal is extending the length of time Fedora releases are support, that issue should be explored separately * '''RESOLUTION''': The board: ** Is very unclear if there is real user demand or actual use that warrants providing resources for this effort ** Is not willing to put Fedora resources and funds behind a pilot project that does not include the Fedora brand and whose viability, based on the current proposal, appears doubtful ** Encourages the supporters of this proposal to demonstrate the technical viability of this proposal by setting up a self-hosted instance outside of Fedora and engaging a group of interested people to show it can work and generates enough interest and demand. This is how things usually start in Fedora. For example, Fedora Extras when it began. === IRC Meetings === * Missed first Tuesday of November ** Next IRC meeting is on 2008-11-18 (next week) ** Resume regular IRC meeting schedule with first Tuesday of December: 2008-12-02 * Paul Frields will send out announcements == Next Meeting == * Date: 2008-10-07 * Time: 19:00 UTC * Location: irc.freenode.net ** Public channel to ask questions: #fedora-board-public ** Moderated channel for board answers: #fedora-board-meetings ** Board to only join moderated channel so as to focus discussion there From kwade at redhat.com Fri Nov 14 18:13:02 2008 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten 'quaid' Wade) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 10:13:02 -0800 Subject: Fedora 11 schedule proposal In-Reply-To: <20081113214716.GO17992@calliope.phig.org> References: <1226448680.10458.41.camel@luminos.localdomain> <1226516811.12791.101.camel@aglarond.local> <491B323B.7010205@leemhuis.info> <1226520009.5295.19.camel@luminos.localdomain> <20081112201547.GA3385@yoda.jdub.homelinux.org> <20081113214716.GO17992@calliope.phig.org> Message-ID: <20081114181301.GD25534@calliope.phig.org> On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 01:47:16PM -0800, Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote: > > Unlike RHEL engineering, these ISVs do not get to pick when Fedora is > branched for RHEL 6. I had a short sidebar where I revealed a bit more of my thinking, and I thought it would help if I shared it back here. ## BEGIN My thinking is fairly simple. FWIW, I'm still contemplating, having come to the thread a day late; I don't have a full opinion, but was just speaking to a partner viewpoint that matters to Fedora (v. RHEL partners.) Six months is a proven clock to run against. However, we "always slip a few weeks" and we also have discovered some of the reasons why in our scheduling. I _know_ from this round of scheduling about 10 more reasons why Docs misses certain L10n deadlines, and we are going to have those improved for F11. It is a reasonable expectation that we can set a six month schedule and actually keep it. I know there is no proof here, but it really isn't viable to continue with the expectation that we always slip. That is even more of a fallacy than making an occasional bump like this. The ISVs wouldn't really care about a longer window, but they are going to feel a shorter window. I can beat the six month drum much better than the May Day/Halloween drum, in terms of explaining to them why we follow that proven clock. OK, let me see if I can distill some concrete from that: * Our original premise is "six months is the right rhythm", then we attached that to a fixed calendar for various conveniences. There is more value in the original premise than in the conveniences that followed from it. In this case, the goal is to _not_ change what is concretely working. * We better enable new contributors who have not already begun on F11; that is, the people who are stuck in the here-and-now and haven't begun to plan roadmaps and activate them in to rawhide. Anyway, still thinking ... ## END In follow-up, it's clear we pick our calendar-tie for good and not arbitrary reasons, but I maintain that it is the six-month rythym that is primary, with "sync to upstreams and downstreams" as secondary. I also don't see how the change in schedule this time negatively affects the reasons we picked May/Oct. In other words, it's not like we are going to miss the GNOME and KDE releases. :) - Karsten -- Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Community Gardener http://quaid.fedorapeople.org AD0E0C41 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Tue Nov 18 18:42:37 2008 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 00:12:37 +0530 Subject: Fedora Board IRC meetings Message-ID: <49230C9D.9050402@fedoraproject.org> Hi, Can someone post the IRC logs and meeting summaries? Rahul From poelstra at redhat.com Wed Nov 19 17:42:28 2008 From: poelstra at redhat.com (John Poelstra) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 09:42:28 -0800 Subject: Fedora IRC Board Meeting Recap 2008-11-18 Message-ID: <49245004.2030108@redhat.com> Recap and full IRC transcript found here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board/Meetings/2008-11-18 * Public IRC Meeting == Topics Discussed == * With the announcement of a Fedora Server special interest group (SIG), Will Fedora have a server release? * What about a searchable Fedora knowledge base? * What progress is being made on the Fedora 11 and Fedora 12 schedule discussion? * What about creating a history of past release schedules? == IRC Transcript == From kevin at tummy.com Wed Nov 19 17:55:22 2008 From: kevin at tummy.com (Kevin Fenzi) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 10:55:22 -0700 Subject: Fedora IRC Board Meeting Recap 2008-11-18 In-Reply-To: <49245004.2030108@redhat.com> References: <49245004.2030108@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20081119105522.7fb7f629@ohm.scrye.com> On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 09:42:28 -0800 poelstra at redhat.com (John Poelstra) wrote: > Recap and full IRC transcript found here: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board/Meetings/2008-11-18 > > * Public IRC Meeting > > == Topics Discussed == > * With the announcement of a Fedora Server special interest group > (SIG), Will Fedora have a server release? > * What about a searchable Fedora knowledge base? > * What progress is being made on the Fedora 11 and Fedora 12 schedule > discussion? > * What about creating a history of past release schedules? > > == IRC Transcript == Thanks for posting that. 2 minor requests: 1. Could we also log and post the log from the public channel? Sometimes it's nice to be able to read the question from the questioner and/or more background from it. 2. Before the IRC board meetings start, would it be possible to notify folks in the #fedora-devel, #fedora and #fedora-meeting channels that it's about to start? Thanks for posting the logs! kevin -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: not available URL: From poelstra at redhat.com Wed Nov 19 20:02:15 2008 From: poelstra at redhat.com (John Poelstra) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 12:02:15 -0800 Subject: Fedora 10 GA Release Planning Meeting Message-ID: <492470C7.6060909@redhat.com> 2008-11-19 Invitees: Spot Callaway -- Fedora Engineering manager (present) M?ir?n Duffy -- Art (covered by Ricky) Dimitris Glezos -- Translation (regrets) Paul Frields -- Fedora Project Leader (present) Jesse Keating -- Release Engineering (present) Mike McGrath -- Infrastructure (present) Bill Nottingham -- Development/FESCo (present) John Poelstra -- Organizer (present) Jonathan Roberts -- Marketing Max Spevack -- Ambassadors (covered by Karsten) Karsten Wade -- Documentation (present) Will Woods -- Quality Assurance (present) Ricky Zhou -- Websites (present) Things that we want to do better based on experience of Preview Release --typo in mirror manager link --do a manual click through of web pages --Matt Domsch handled processes before, but he was unavailable --process is documented now so others will know what to do --better coordination of release day announcement Mike McGrath --ready to go --https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/report/9 Karsten (representing Documentation and Ambassadors) --would it be possible to get bits to ambassadors early for release parties? --release notes final package went in --translation of top 20 languages are more than 75% done --most translation for any release date --every team should be reviewing the release notes to make sure everything is there that should be --can get changes into zero-day update so there is still a little time Will Woods --RC is on the way and focused on install testing and collecting things to put on common bugs page --flip the release note flag for individual bugs if you believe a release note should be added Jesse Keating --liveimages are available on alt.fedoraproject.org --starting mash process and hope to have bits up --please review list of tickets to make sure nothing has been missed https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/query?status=new&status=assigned&status=reopened&milestone=Fedora+10+Final Bill Nottingham --blocker list is clean --we cannot say for sure at this point that we will not slip, but overall things look okay Ricky Zhou (representing Web and Art) --translations coming in a little slowly, but hopefully will be done in time --banners coming along --would love help testing website updates http://publictest15.fedoraproject.org/fedora Spot Callaway --doing hands-on live installs on in Westford on a variety of machines From poelstra at redhat.com Wed Nov 19 20:22:04 2008 From: poelstra at redhat.com (John Poelstra) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 12:22:04 -0800 Subject: Fedora IRC Board Meeting Recap 2008-11-18 In-Reply-To: <20081119105522.7fb7f629@ohm.scrye.com> References: <49245004.2030108@redhat.com> <20081119105522.7fb7f629@ohm.scrye.com> Message-ID: <4924756C.7060304@redhat.com> Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 09:42:28 -0800 > poelstra at redhat.com (John Poelstra) wrote: > >> Recap and full IRC transcript found here: >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board/Meetings/2008-11-18 >> >> * Public IRC Meeting >> >> == Topics Discussed == >> * With the announcement of a Fedora Server special interest group >> (SIG), Will Fedora have a server release? >> * What about a searchable Fedora knowledge base? >> * What progress is being made on the Fedora 11 and Fedora 12 schedule >> discussion? >> * What about creating a history of past release schedules? >> >> == IRC Transcript == > > Thanks for posting that. > > 2 minor requests: > > 1. Could we also log and post the log from the public channel? > Sometimes it's nice to be able to read the question from the questioner > and/or more background from it. If someone has a log from yesterday (preferably irsii) and can send it to me, I'll post it. > 2. Before the IRC board meetings start, would it be possible to notify > folks in the #fedora-devel, #fedora and #fedora-meeting channels that > it's about to start? Great idea > Thanks for posting the logs! > You're welcome. John From stickster at gmail.com Thu Nov 20 04:06:05 2008 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 23:06:05 -0500 Subject: Fedora IRC Board Meeting Recap 2008-11-18 In-Reply-To: <4924756C.7060304@redhat.com> References: <49245004.2030108@redhat.com> <20081119105522.7fb7f629@ohm.scrye.com> <4924756C.7060304@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20081120040605.GD25653@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 12:22:04PM -0800, John Poelstra wrote: > Kevin Fenzi wrote: >> Thanks for posting that. >> >> 2 minor requests: >> >> 1. Could we also log and post the log from the public channel? >> Sometimes it's nice to be able to read the question from the questioner >> and/or more background from it. > > If someone has a log from yesterday (preferably irsii) and can send it > to me, I'll post it. > >> 2. Before the IRC board meetings start, would it be possible to notify >> folks in the #fedora-devel, #fedora and #fedora-meeting channels that >> it's about to start? > > Great idea I usually do this, and completely failed to do so this time. I apologize! -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From kwade at redhat.com Thu Nov 20 16:13:27 2008 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten 'quaid' Wade) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 08:13:27 -0800 Subject: Fedora 10 GA Release Planning Meeting In-Reply-To: <492470C7.6060909@redhat.com> References: <492470C7.6060909@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20081120161326.GB15093@calliope.phig.org> On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 12:02:15PM -0800, John Poelstra wrote: > --would it be possible to get bits to ambassadors early for release parties? BTW, the response to this is the consisent response we have had over the years. We work really hard to bring everything together on one day for maximum impact. We don't want to subvert that without serious reason. On occasion a person must get access to the bits in advance. For example, a group planning a release party for the day of the release is going to be where the bandwidth is slow, unreliable, and expensive. By having the bits with them, they greatly improve the experience (or even make it possible). It should be noted that anyone can get the actual bits that make up the GA release by drawing from rawhide, or using the Preview and updating to rawhide. So, there are ways for people to take care of themselves without requesting a break of release policy. - Karsten -- Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Community Gardener http://quaid.fedorapeople.org AD0E0C41 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From kwade at redhat.com Thu Nov 20 16:31:49 2008 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten 'quaid' Wade) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 08:31:49 -0800 Subject: Fedora IRC Board Meeting Recap 2008-11-18 In-Reply-To: <4924756C.7060304@redhat.com> References: <49245004.2030108@redhat.com> <20081119105522.7fb7f629@ohm.scrye.com> <4924756C.7060304@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20081120163148.GC15093@calliope.phig.org> On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 12:22:04PM -0800, John Poelstra wrote: > > If someone has a log from yesterday (preferably irsii) and can send it to > me, I'll post it. Just as easy to convert it and post it on the wiki, so ... https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Meeting:Board_Public_IRC_log_20081118 ... and it gives me a chance to enforce page naming scheme. Since we don't need IRC logs in the common search space, I don't think you need to make a redirect from a nested location; a link from a notes page should be enough. - Karsten -- Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Community Gardener http://quaid.fedorapeople.org AD0E0C41 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mspevack at redhat.com Fri Nov 21 07:02:42 2008 From: mspevack at redhat.com (Max Spevack) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 08:02:42 +0100 (CET) Subject: Fedora 10 GA Release Planning Meeting In-Reply-To: <20081120161326.GB15093@calliope.phig.org> References: <492470C7.6060909@redhat.com> <20081120161326.GB15093@calliope.phig.org> Message-ID: On Thu, 20 Nov 2008, Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote: > We don't want to subvert that without serious reason. For example, the long-standing precedent of getting the gold ISO to the CD production company the moment it is finalized, so that we have actual Fedora CDs that we can get to our Ambassadors ASAP. In the case of Fedora 10 and North America, the CD mass-production is being handled by Clint Savage, and the bill has been pre-payed to ensure that it went into our Q3 budget and the moment the company gets the gold bits and the F10 disc and sleeve artwork, they will begin production. --Max From stickster at gmail.com Fri Nov 21 13:00:20 2008 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 08:00:20 -0500 Subject: Fedora 10 GA Release Planning Meeting In-Reply-To: References: <492470C7.6060909@redhat.com> <20081120161326.GB15093@calliope.phig.org> Message-ID: <1227272420.4332.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Fri, 2008-11-21 at 08:02 +0100, Max Spevack wrote: > On Thu, 20 Nov 2008, Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote: > > > We don't want to subvert that without serious reason. > > For example, the long-standing precedent of getting the gold ISO to the > CD production company the moment it is finalized, so that we have actual > Fedora CDs that we can get to our Ambassadors ASAP. In the case of > Fedora 10 and North America, the CD mass-production is being handled by > Clint Savage, and the bill has been pre-payed to ensure that it went > into our Q3 budget and the moment the company gets the gold bits and the > F10 disc and sleeve artwork, they will begin production. All of the media art should be in place thanks to folks on the Artwork team: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Artwork/MediaArt/F10 -- Paul W. Frields gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://paul.frields.org/ - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From frankly3d at fedoraproject.org Sun Nov 23 16:01:51 2008 From: frankly3d at fedoraproject.org (Frank Murphy) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 16:01:51 +0000 Subject: Info labels freemedia? Message-ID: <49297E6F.5000802@fedoraproject.org> Hi, Wondering what the fab position in getting some labels made locally, for my discs sent out as part of the freemedia program. Nothing fanciful, info purposes only eg. ------------------------------------------------------- Fedora Free Media Program http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Distribution/FreeMedia ------------------------------------------------------- Which could be stuck on the address face of the package\envelope. The legal notice from here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Artwork/CDArt could be applied\printed to media as supplied from art-group art. Frank -- gpg id EB547226 Revoked Forgot Password :( aMSN: Frankly3D http://www.frankly3d.com From stickster at gmail.com Sun Nov 23 21:34:45 2008 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 16:34:45 -0500 Subject: Info labels freemedia? In-Reply-To: <49297E6F.5000802@fedoraproject.org> References: <49297E6F.5000802@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <20081123213445.GE32042@salma.internal.frields.org> On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 04:01:51PM +0000, Frank Murphy wrote: > Hi, > > Wondering what the fab position in getting some labels made locally, > for my discs sent out as part of the freemedia program. > Nothing fanciful, info purposes only eg. > > Fedora Free Media Program > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Distribution/FreeMedia > > Which could be stuck on the address face of the package\envelope. > > The legal notice from here: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Artwork/CDArt > > could be applied\printed to media as > supplied from art-group art. We have a set of art you can use to label Fedora discs, no issue at all: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Artwork/MediaArt -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From matt at domsch.com Mon Nov 24 17:16:32 2008 From: matt at domsch.com (Matt Domsch) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 11:16:32 -0600 Subject: Election Town Halls Message-ID: <20081124171632.GA3725@domsch.com> When setting up the upcoming elections, based on participant requests, I announced we would have some IRC Town Halls, for each of the groups being elected, between Thursday December 4 and Saturday December 6. I'd like to propose each group have at least one, and if the group so wishes, two, such town halls. If two, schedule them at somewhat opposite times of day to allow greatest community participation in at least one. Schedule: non-overlapping, first-come-first-serve by the groups. I've put up a placeholder schedule for the Board town halls, subject to revision based on availability of the nominees. Committee chairs: please discuss with your nominees the best times they are available, and schedule on the wiki page [1] accordingly. Moderators: consider this a call for moderators. If you would like to moderate one or more sessions, please contact me directly. Moderators will take questions from the -public IRC channel, ask them in the -townhall channel, and try to keep the conversations on topic. I've set up two IRC rooms on FreeNode: #fedora-townhall - moderator and those running for election may speak, anyone else can read. #fedora-townhall-public - anyone can speak. Questions asked here may be presented by the moderator in #fedora-townhall. Comments? (all current nominees have been bcc'd) Thanks, Matt [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Elections From stickster at gmail.com Thu Nov 27 18:39:11 2008 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul Frields) Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2008 13:39:11 -0500 Subject: Fedora Board IRC meeting 1900 UTC 2008-12-02 Message-ID: The Board is holding its monthly public meeting on Tuesday, 2 December 2008, at 1900 UTC on IRC Freenode. The Board has settled on a schedule that puts these public IRC meetings on the first Tuesday of each month. Therefore, the next following public meeting will be on 6 January 2008. For these meetings, the public is invited to do the following: * Join #fedora-board-meeting to see the Board's conversation. This channel is read-only for non-Board members. * Join #fedora-board-public to discuss topics and post questions. This channel is read/write for everyone. The moderator will direct questions from the #fedora-board-public channel to the Board members at #fedora-board-meeting. This should limit confusion and ensure our logs are useful to everyone. We look forward to seeing you at the meeting. Paul